Posted on 10/17/2005 4:57:21 PM PDT by curiosity
Either survival-enhancing mutations are the result of random processes or there is some (self?) organizing principle at work. (And I accept that biochemical reactions can, in some cases be self-ordering.)
However, the example used (the flagellum) is not merely an assembly of components, but an assembly of sub-assemblies.
Simply adding one more component to a successful sub-assembly (with, as postulated, a totally different function) is hardly likely to constitute a more-survivable assembly.
Unless each of the subassemblies constitutes a survival-enhancing trait in and of itself, the likelihood of arriving at the final assembly is remote. And, even then, there must be a demonstrated path via which the subassemblies could merge into a higher-complexity (more survivable) assembly with a distinctly different function.
Simply showing that removal of a sub-assembly can leave a survivable construct does not, to me, show a path to higher-level assemblies. In order to have "natural selection" at work, the higher level assemblies must be shown to be possible -- and the intervening component-at-a-time sub-assemblies-in-development must be shown to be survivable in and of themselves.
Let's just say that I don't find that component of Miller's argument to be convincing...
Let's just say that I don't find that component of Miller's argument to be convincing...
Let's just say you weren't able to follow the argument and his explanation went right over your head.
That's hardly untestable. Rather, it is a very common occurrance. Any scientist working with living cells (bacterial, yeast, animal) knows that they can and do mutate randomly and frequently, and usually interfere with the experimental plan by doing so.
Thanks for the ping!
Lurking Bump.
However, I think he's sidestepping other philosophical questions, like the nature of science itself. As I understand it, logical systems can be structured to be either open or closed to God, not to mention any other would-be intelligences, and I'd wager the same can be said for the philosophical schools of natural science. The unspoken political question is, of course: who decides the authoritative school of thought?
Eugenics, for instance, was once considered scientific, and now it's banished to the pseudoscientific dungeon. Indeed, the law under question in the Scopes trial was written in part to counter Social Darwinist indoctrination.
But of course, I'm not the one cross-examining the witness.
It doesn't have to be likely. It just has to have a non-negligible probability. If you have two sub-assemblies that provide a selectable advantage, it's not a big leap to have them put together. All you need is a recombination of genes, which happen all the time, and then natural selection does the rest
Either survival-enhancing mutations are the result of random processes or there is some (self?) organizing principle at work. (And I accept that biochemical reactions can, in some cases be self-ordering.)
However, the example used (the flagellum) is not merely an assembly of components, but an assembly of sub-assemblies.
Simply adding one more component to a successful sub-assembly (with, as postulated, a totally different function) is hardly likely to constitute a more-survivable assembly.
Unless each of the subassemblies constitutes a survival-enhancing trait in and of itself, the likelihood of arriving at the final assembly is remote. And, even then, there must be a demonstrated path via which the subassemblies could merge into a higher-complexity (more survivable) assembly with a distinctly different function.
Simply showing that removal of a sub-assembly can leave a survivable construct does not, to me, show a path to higher-level assemblies. In order to have "natural selection" at work, the higher level assemblies must be shown to be possible -- and the intervening component-at-a-time sub-assemblies-in-development must be shown to be survivable in and of themselves.
Let's just say that I don't find that component of Miller's argument to be convincing...
Follow the argument. He was not trying to show a path to higher-level assemblies. He was demonstrating the fallacy of 'irreducible complexity'. Nothing more, nothing less.
YEC INTREP
Thus I presume you accept the doctrine of descent with modification from common ancestors; and we shall argue as to the mechanism of speciation (design, or random variation with natural selection). I would argue that the mutations are essentially random in nature: in the mid 20th century Fisher, Wright and Haldane worked out the mathematics and statistics of mutations and population genetics. Now we know the actual biochemical mechanisms of mutations. And they do happen at random. (Of course, selection tends to remove deleterious mutations, and favors beneficial ones; but most mutations are neutral.)
My own belief is that God created life; he intended for us to be here. And you may be right -- who can tell whether a random mutation was intended by God. But I believe God mainly did allow random mutations to create life. That is, he created a system of life that creates itself. Perhaps that is a more elegant and beautiful arrangement than for God to have simply created by fiat the various forms of life. It certainly is an arrangement more consistent with the scientific evidence.
True enough. I'd submit that the current system dominating the natural sciences, logical positivism, is neither open nor closed to God. It simply does not address the question of His existence.
Well said!
Not true at all. The big bang and the rate of expansion thereafter, set the constants known as the weak force, the strong force, electromagnetism which are the forces that hold all atoms and therfore all matter together. If the strong, weak, electromagnetism forces were not what they are no matter larger than subatomic particles could occur. Therefore no life or anything else would exist.
Miller said some supporters of natural selection have contributed to the hostility between science and religion by claiming “that science alone can lead us to truth.
“This is a philosophical statement, not a scientific one,” he said. “It is not testable, and it has no more standing than faith-based assertions about nature.”
It's refreshing to see a statement like this from the camp that's generally viewed as materialist.
Thank you so much for your testimony and for sharing your insights and views!!!
The point I'm getting at is: IDers claim irreducible complexity is the surest argument for design. I say that it's the greatest argument against design there is. Our brains may still be evolving, but they still run by the same fundamental algorithims which evolved during the period we were living in the savannah, and we're not that much intelligent than our ancestors of a million years back were. The supposed complexities of our modern technology emerged not spontaneously from individual minds, but required years of accumulated knowledge-and one of the reasons I am a conservative is that I believe that any true "progress" (and progress is a word which the left is quickly perverting, hence the quotation signs) is dependent on the preservation of the tradititions which have led us to these heights. There is no way you can convince me that any one "designer" is capable of knowing how to create life, in all its myriad forms and ways, much less the entire universe, unless you are willing to give up your notions of a single omnipotent and omniscient being. And don't give me any of this "lord works in mysterious ways" hocus-pocus. Science is based not just that which is already known, but that which is potentialy knowable, and by maintaing that your beliefs deny such potential, you are admitting that they do not belong in the classroom, much less serious scientific discussion.
For further info on the field of evolutionary epistemology, I recommend Evolutionary Epistemology, Rationality and the Sociology of Knowledge, edited by Gerard Radnitsky and W.W. Bartley (the latter a Hoover Institution fellow until his death). It includes pieces by Sir Karl Popper, who is actually regarded as the founder of the field, and it's probably a more important, but less famous contribution to philosophy than his notion of falsification. I was also surprised to learn that F.A. Hayek wrote one of the earliest tracts in evolutionary psychology, The Sensory Order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.