The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Panrich

1234 pages of debate and I would lay a hefty wager that not one mind on either side has been changed.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

If you don't accept the Christian God, atleast become a pantheist then. Abiogenesis is on par with the most far fetched science fiction movie ever produced. It is beyond insane. Do you hold this belief too mono? If you do, then you may as well say that it's only a matter of time before your car is going to sprout a pair of wings and fly away!!!

It's really not that far fetched. It was achieved in a lab a few months ago

man of faith wrote: »

In Ken Miller's messed up mind, he believes somehow that he wiped the floor with Behe and his flagellum.

The bacterial flagellum motor was declared to be irreducibly complex and the scientists came back with a bacteria which has a functional component that is missing 40 of the 50 parts of the motor. In what way has he not wiped the floor with him?

man of faith wrote: »

What's his take on the Giraffe neck and the human eye?

this giraffe neck is pretty much the same as ours except stretched, for example they have the same number of bones in their neck. It also has a nerve in it that in us is a few centimetres long but in giraffes goes all the way down their neck and all the way back up, it's about 6 feet long. The nerve works the same in both of our necks but an intelligent designer would be able to spot the huge inefficiency in the giraffe and redesign it.

As for evolution of the eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

man of faith wrote: »

All Miller seems to be doing is taking the autonomous responses of an organism to survive and exist and labelling it 'evolution'. I will even concede that microevolution in some cases seems plausible, but when you maintain the belief of a creator like Miller does and apply your support of evolution to macroevolution, you are not giving your Creator any credit. Why wouldn't God just create each species individually? It serves no purpose. Not to mention that not one fossill showing macroevoltionary change has been found out of the thousands and thousands of fossils recovered. Don't get me started on the pig's tooth!! LOL

Ummm, millions of fossils have been found showing macro evolution, for example the ones mentioned in the video, five intermediary fossils between land mammals and dolphins and whales. They can even see the inner ear gradually changing from one optimised for the land to one optimised for the sea

man of faith wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me at all that Ken Miller is a catholic. In my opinion, catholics are nearly as deceived as atheists. According to catholics, same sex marriage is perfectly acceptable. Show me where in the Bible it says we should pray to Mary?

I don't think "catholics" are for same sex marriage much tbh.......

monosharp

J C wrote: »

monosharp

:pac:J:(:PC:p:rolleyes:

..NO ...I always lke to closely examine alternative points of view.

Good. when are you going to start ?

I was referring to Materialist explantions of 'origins' ...NONE of the Judeo-Christian religions believe in such an explanation...could I remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."

Oh so NOW evolution and Abiogenesis are different ?

At least we're getting somewhere JC, you might learn yet.

Of course what I said was evolution, not abiogenesis.

...NONE of the Judeo-Christian reliogions believe in such a Materialistic explanation...could I remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."

Evolution is accepted by;

wikipedia wrote:

..major Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church and some mainline Protestant denominations; some Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_Sunday

wikipedia wrote:

Many Christian denominations support or accept theistic evolution. For example, on 12 February 2006, the 197th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth was commemorated by "Evolution Sunday" where the message that followers of Christ do not have to choose between biblical stories of creation and evolution was taught in classes and sermons at many Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and community churches.

wikipedia on Anglican Church wrote:

Specifically on the subject of creation/evolution, Anglicans view "Big Bang cosmology" as being "in tune with both the concepts of creation out of nothing and continuous creation."

wikipedia wrote:

The Ahmadiyya Movement is perhaps the only denomination in Islam that actively promotes evolutionary theory.

Wikipedia on Judaism wrote:

In general, three of the four major denominations of Judaism (Reconstructionist, Reform, and Conservative) accept theistic evolution.

All from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Ken Miller the Catholic yeah ?
...NONE of the Judeo-Christian reliogions believe in such an explanation...could I remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth."

...the 'origins issue' is FUNDAMENTALLY a faith matter......NONE of the Judeo-Christian reliogions believe in a Materialistic explanation of 'origions'

So have you decided to stop attacking evolution and just concentrate on Abiogenesis then ?

... could I again remind you that the Apostles Creed begins 'I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth."[/COLOR]

You can and I will tell you. F-A-I-L.

There is nothing wrong with believing in Evolution or Abiogenesis and also believing that the judeo-Christian god or any god for that matter started the whole process.

...the Christian Faith has NEVER held such a doctine!!!!

I didn't say the christian faith.

...the ONLY acceptabe version of Evolution is the MATERIALIST one ... and its OBJECTIVE is to discount any deity ... BECAUSE the definition of 'science' that they are also extending to the scientific evaluation of the 'origins issue' is ..."the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us". This is despite the fact that there is overwhelming forensic evidence for the involvement of an intelligence in the 'origins' of life ... and NO unambiguous evidence for Materialistic processes, even being capable of doing so!!!

There isn't a single shred of scientific evidence supporting intelligence in the origins of life. The vast majority of religious people worldwide laugh at Creationists and laugh at Intelligent Designers because its so obvious these people are so desperate to cling to what they THINK is their religion they will do absolutely anything, say absolutely anything and lie about absolutely anything.

Heres a Catholic priest discussing the subject, why not listen to what he has to say, how he accepts evolution and Abiogenesis and keeps his faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

(and yes I know your not a catholic)

...it ISN'T religion v science ... it is the Materialistic RELIGION v the Christian (and other) FAITHS!!!!

Evolution merely describes part of nature. The fact that that part of nature is important to many people does not make evolution a religion. Consider some attributes of religion and how evolution compares:
Religions explain ultimate reality. Evolution stops with the development of life (it does not even include the origins of life).

Religions almost always include reverence for and/or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Evolution does not.

Religions have a social structure built around their beliefs. Although science as a whole has a social structure, no such structure is particular to evolutionary biologists, and one does not have to participate in that structure to be a scientist.

Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Evolution does not.

Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in evolutionary studies.

Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.

How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as evolution. If evolution is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.

...well then could I suggest that your 'science' stay out of the 'origins' issue altogether then ... because it is FUNDAMENTALLY a FAITH issue

Talking about Evolution is not not talking about the origins of life.
Talking about Abiogenesis is talking about how life COULD have began.

... and there is overwhelming forensic evidence for the involvement of an intelligence in the 'origins' of life ... and NO unambiguous evidence for Materialistic processes, even being capable of doing so!!!

And you haven't produced a single solitary piece of that evidence. Creationists and ID'ers have produced nothing but childish nonsense which everyone including most theists laugh at. There is NO evidence for intelligence in the origins of life.

...and if you want to have your science examine the 'origins issue' then you are going to have to accept alternative hypotheses than your quite unbelievable one, that 'Muck pulled itself up by its own bootstraps using purely materialistic processes to become Man'!!!!!

Oh look, you don't understand evolution, you don't understand abiogenesis and you expect me and the scientific community to accept your religious nonsense as an alternative to a scientific hypothesis ?

..if they do as you say they OBVIOUSLY ARE Materialists, even if they don't admit it to themselves

Oh you better phone the pope.

Better yet, you should go into the Christian main forum and tell them that most of them are materialists.

...if this is the case, WHY is scientific research into ID (which is research into the hypothesis that God started the process) being actively suppressed ...

Its not been suppressed, its been exposed for the nonsense it is.

Every scientific aspect of ID has been debunked thoroughly by scientists, no scientific paper about ID has ever even been submitted for peer review nevermind pass it.

note it is not being merely challenged (which is legitimate) ...it is being BANNED or suppressed (which is illegitimate)!!!

No, its been disproven as the rubbish it is the same way geocentricism has been disproven as rubbish.

...once again, if this is the case, WHY is scientific research into ID (which is research into the hypothesis that God started the process) being actively suppressed ... note it is not being merely challenged (which is legitimate) ...it is being BANNED or suppressed (which is illegitimate)!!!

Its not been suppressed. Go and do some research. Unfortunately gods are supernatural hence you cannot find any evidence for itwhich is why creationism and ID is complete nonsense.

...ID is silent on who/what the intelligent input was ... but it HAS established that an intelligent input occurred!!!

ID is religious nonsense which has been laughed out of the scientific and legal systems time and time again.

...and indeed one could not consider ANYBODY who kills another Human Being because they hold a different Faith Position to be a Christian ...where in the New Testament does Jesus authorise such behaviour?

Jesus doesn't, but your god does in the OT and thousands of christians have in his name over history.

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

If you don't accept the Christian God, atleast become a pantheist then.

I don't want or need any religion thank you very much.

If I do ever have a little religion in my life its usually buddhism, a buddhist monk performed my wedding ceremony.

Abiogenesis is on par with the most far fetched science fiction movie ever produced.

Funny how theres a lot of evidence and tests you can do in the lab to back up many aspects of it.

By the way, I'd put money on it that you don't understand what it is anyways. What do you 'think' it means ? And which theory specifically do you think is the most 'insane' ?

It is beyond insane. Do you hold this belief too mono? If you do, then you may as well say that it's only a matter of time before your car is going to sprout a pair of wings and fly away!!!

I could if I was a creationist and hadn't got a slice of intelligence to my name.

In Ken Miller's messed up mind, he believes somehow that he wiped the floor with Behe and his flagellum.

In the Scientific world, in the legal world and in the opinions of the majority of religious people he wiped the floor with Behes argument.

What's his take on the Giraffe neck and the human eye?

What has that got to do with irreducible nonsense or intelligent design ?

I will even concede that microevolution in some cases seems plausible, but when you maintain the belief of a creator like Miller does and apply your support of evolution to macroevolution, you are not giving your Creator any credit.

Why not ? He could have started it all.

Why wouldn't God just create each species individually?

Because it would be a waste of his time ? Because hes god and he can do what the hell he wants ? Because hes a supernatural being and we can't understand his 'ways' ?

Creationism/Intelligent Design is ridiculous from a religious side as well as a scientific side. You are in fact demoting your deity, not promoting him.

It serves no purpose.

How would you know ? Create many lifeforms recently ?

Who are you to judge what god did or didn't do ?

Not to mention that not one fossill showing macroevoltionary change has been found out of the thousands and thousands of fossils recovered.

Whats your biological qualification in again ? Because 99% of scientists call what your doing right now lies and nonsense.

Doesn't surprise me at all that Ken Miller is a catholic. In my opinion, catholics are nearly as deceived as atheists. According to catholics, same sex marriage is perfectly acceptable. Show me where in the Bible it says we should pray to Mary?

:pac:

I never professed to know more about biological science than these experts, but I'll tell you what I do profess to know more about - common sense and God and His Word that are absolute truth!!!

It doesn't change the fact creationism and intelligent design are nonsense or that the vast majority of religious people accept evolution.

Whats your explanation for that ? They're deceived ?

DigiGal

The tags in this thread are better than the thread itself lol

monosharp

So JC will you please answer my question, are you an Intelligent Design supporter or not ?

God designed flagellum to allow bacteria to kill us ? Well .... maybe there is something to this intelligent design after all.

God designed bacteria to kill us because he loves us. Cheers god.

man of faith

monosharp wrote: »

I don't want or need any religion thank you very much.

If I do ever have a little religion in my life its usually buddhism, a buddhist monk performed my wedding ceremony.



Funny how theres a lot of evidence and tests you can do in the lab to back up many aspects of it.

Alleged back up of many aspects, but not proof. Two totally different things

By the way, I'd put money on it that you don't understand what it is anyways. What do you 'think' it means ? And which theory specifically do you think is the most 'insane' ?

Abiogenenisis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. The definition was enough for me to make the obvious deduction of the absurdity of such a theory. Hence my comment about the car sprouting a pair of wings and flying away? To be honest, I haven't studied it and doubt that I ever will.


I could if I was a creationist and hadn't got a slice of intelligence to my name.



In the Scientific world, in the legal world and in the opinions of the majority of religious people he wiped the floor with Behes argument.

Lets revisit the little mouse trap debunk for a second. How does reducing one or several elements and turning it into a device to launch a projectile wipe the floor with Behe. Let's keep it in perspective. Miller has now given the trap an entirely different function. If you gave the flagellum a totally different function, that doesn't exactly help the E Coli bacteria. He needs to propel himself through his microscopic world for survival, unless you are suggesting he catapult himself like a grasshopper! The flagellum has to remain a miniature outboard motor at all times, if not then the E Coli doesn't survive. Miller is just using the deception of altered perception, almost like casting a grey cloud over the whole thing to trick us into believing something away from the fact that the purpose is for transportation. It's only expected that atheists will cling to the alleged refutation as absolute.
From what I can gather, any book ie 'Darwins Black Box' is obviously not going to go far among the secular scientific community. Seeing as they are all hard line evolutionists, they are not exactly going to promote something that challenges the very foundation of their beliefs. Maybe this is why Behe appealed to the public, and not the mainstream scientific community with the peer review test. He knew full well that all you hardliners where going to criticise him with the most intense scrutiny and somehow twist and turn it around to his demise. He was like a lamb to the slaughter. His awesome discovery will not be silenced, despite what you and Miller try and say. He knew that his whole career would be at risk for daring to buck the system. I wonder if the publisher is still in business and hasn't been ostracised by the secular scientific community. Reminds me of the song 'The Wall' by Pink Floyd. And all of you atheists form the brickwork of this corrupt, one sided system at the very foundations.

What has that got to do with irreducible nonsense or intelligent design ?

Too long to explain, here's your link: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2557

and the human eye

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_02.html


Why not ? He could have started it all.



Because it would be a waste of his time ? Because hes god and he can do what the hell he wants ? Because hes a supernatural being and we can't understand his 'ways' ?

Creationism/Intelligent Design is ridiculous from a religious side as well as a scientific side. You are in fact demoting your deity, not promoting him.

You miss my point. Remember I don't believe in evolution like Miller and I do believe that God created each species individually. I have chosen to accept this as absolute truth. Even if I put my beliefs in God aside, evolution still remains unproven to me and millions of others all throughout the world. As much as you disagree with me, I am entitled to my opinion, the same way as you are entitled to yours. This is because of my faith in the Genesis account of the Bible. This makes a whole lot more sense to me.
As it has already been agreed upon - evolution does not disprove God. But if you want a Christian to believe in evolution, we have to call certain parts of God's word lies - and I will never be prepared to do that. That would be denouncing my faith. That does not mean that I won't view your arguments objectionally and unbiasedly. It just means that I will never agree with them.


How would you know ? Create many lifeforms recently ?

Who are you to judge what god did or didn't do ?

Just common sense

Whats your biological qualification in again ? Because 99% of scientists call what your doing right now lies and nonsense.



:pac:

Fossils based on the interpretation of those who believe in the theory of evolution, but they are highly debateable and by no means proven. Even if the authorities and the secular scientific world say so, that doesn't change me or Creationists and Christians one iota. You challenge my basic human rights.

A biological qualification is not necessary, just freedom of thought and speach. I don't abide by the dictatorship of modern science and the corrupt world system. Its people like me that the system wants to silence and supress. It's people like me that stand up and say that I refuse to be spoon fed and told what I must believe. I'm another human being just like you, and I'm definitely not stupid. I am able to think and decipher information for myself thanks very much.

It doesn't change the fact creationism and intelligent design are nonsense or that the vast majority of religious people accept evolution.

Whats your explanation for that ? They're deceived ?

Remeber thats only in your opinion mono. You know our communication has taken a big slide downhill. I think we would of gotten a lot further if we didn't sling the insults, regardless of how much we disagree. Nothing is ever achieved by such argument. It just breeds more and more animosity. Peace

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

In Ken Miller's ...What's his take on the Giraffe neck and the human eye?

His excellent explanation of the eye!


JC, I'm still awaiting an explanation on this...

Giraffe Evolution [contains animal blood and guts]
Note : Recommend entire documentary

Nova's eye evolution (Ken Miller again)
*Can't find video (it was there last week!), will update ASAP*

R Dawkins, Growing up in the universe.
The Eye
Note : Entire Series comes highly recommended.

Francis Collins has also done an excellent explanation of the eye, I just can't find it right now:o

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

If you don't accept the Christian God, atleast become a pantheist then. Abiogenesis is on par with the most far fetched science fiction movie ever produced. It is beyond insane. Do you hold this belief too mono? If you do, then you may as well say that it's only a matter of time before your car is going to sprout a pair of wings and fly away!!!

2 things

1) the complex chemical reactions that allow abiogensis have been observed and studied, and computer simulations have got these reactions to a point where they look very like very basic life. So it is far from "science fiction". Abiogensis is perfectly in line with the chemical laws of nature

2), why would God create a universe that can't produce life naturally only to then come along and instantly produce life with supernatural magic?

That makes little sense. If you believe God created the universe it makes sense that he would create a universe that can in turn create life (which is what the evidence supports). Otherwise he is doing things twice. It is like me building my mother a house with no front door in it and then getting a sledge hammer and bashing in one of the walls.

Your intelligent designer doesn't seem particularly "intelligent"

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...that is fine ... but then you are not entitled to claim scientific validity for your beliefs UNLESS you allow the scientific evaluation of all other competing 'origins' explanations

Hmmm, guess we need to start teaching all these then.

man of faith

monosharp wrote: »

So JC will you please answer my question, are you an Intelligent Design supporter or not ?

God designed flagellum to allow bacteria to kill us ? Well .... maybe there is something to this intelligent design after all.

God designed bacteria to kill us because he loves us. Cheers god.

I'm sorry, but in no way does this refute irreducibly complexity to me. Just because it kills people is hardly a valid example of a contradictory God and cannot be considered a refutation on the grounds of science. If we do have to sidetrack from the issue, then I will add that if you read the Bible starting from Genesis, it actually tells us that all these little nasties came about as a result of the curse - the fall of man. It says it in Gen 2:17. So getting back to the main issue at hand which is our scientific cross examinations of the facts - refutation on the grounds of anything other than pure science alone is breaking the rules, if ever I've heard it. Classic example of deviation from the real issue. An attempt to elude us down some other path to avert our attention from the real issue at hand.

Now getting back to Miller's taking away of 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, I didn't hear his theory of what the function of the flagellum now is. The reason for that is that he couldn't give us one as it would be pure speculation. Hence he still hasn't overcome the major hurdle here. The taking away of parts has now changed the function to which he has no way of knowing what the hell it is, because he simply does not have the tools to perform the necessary surgical experiment at such a microscopic molecular level. AND REMEMBER THAT UNLESS THE FLAGELLUM MAINTAINS THE SAME FUNCTION (TO PROPEL THE BACTERIA), THEN HIS ALLEGED DEBUNKING OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS ABSOLUTELY FLAWED BECAUSE WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION IT DOESN'T SURVIVE.

man of faith

monosharp wrote: »

So JC will you please answer my question, are you an Intelligent Design supporter or not ?

God designed flagellum to allow bacteria to kill us ? Well .... maybe there is something to this intelligent design after all.

God designed bacteria to kill us because he loves us. Cheers god.

monosharp wrote: »

So JC will you please answer my question, are you an Intelligent Design supporter or not ?

God designed flagellum to allow bacteria to kill us ? Well .... maybe there is something to this intelligent design after all.

God designed bacteria to kill us because he loves us. Cheers god.

I'm sorry, but in no way does this refute irreducibly complexity to me. Just because it kills people is hardly a valid example of a contradictory God and cannot be considered a refutation on the grounds of science. If we do have to sidetrack from the issue, then I will add that if you read the Bible starting from Genesis, it actually tells us that all these little nasties came about as a result of the curse - the fall of man. It says it in Gen 2:17. So getting back to the main issue at hand which is our scientific cross examinations of the facts - refutation on the grounds of anything other than pure science alone is breaking the rules, if ever I've heard it. Classic example of deviation from the real issue. An attempt to elude us down some other path to avert our attention from the real issue at hand.

Now getting back to Miller's taking away of 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, I didn't hear his theory of what the function of the flagellum now is. The reason for that is that he couldn't give us one as it would be pure speculation. Hence he still hasn't overcome the major hurdle here. The taking away of parts has now changed the function to which he has no way of knowing what the hell it is, because he simply does not have the tools to perform the necessary surgical experiment at such a microscopic molecular level. AND REMEMBER THAT UNLESS THE FLAGELLUM MAINTAINS THE SAME FUNCTION (TO PROPEL THE BACTERIA), THEN HIS ALLEGED DEBUNKING OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS ABSOLUTELY FLAWED BECAUSE WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION IT DOESN'T SURVIVE.

Morbert

man of faith wrote: »

I'm sorry, but in no way does this refute irreducibly complexity to me. Just because it kills people is hardly a valid example of a contradictory God and cannot be considered a refutation on the grounds of science. If we do have to sidetrack from the issue, then I will add that if you read the Bible starting from Genesis, it actually tells us that all these little nasties came about as a result of the curse - the fall of man. It says it in Gen 2:17. So getting back to the main issue at hand which is our scientific cross examinations of the facts - refutation on the grounds of anything other than pure science alone is breaking the rules, if ever I've heard it. Classic example of deviation from the real issue. An attempt to elude us down some other path to avert our attention from the real issue at hand.

Now getting back to Miller's taking away of 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, I didn't hear his theory of what the function of the flagellum now is. The reason for that is that he couldn't give us one as it would be pure speculation. Hence he still hasn't overcome the major hurdle here. The taking away of parts has now changed the function to which he has no way of knowing what the hell it is, because he simply does not have the tools to perform the necessary surgical experiment at such a microscopic molecular level. AND REMEMBER THAT UNLESS THE FLAGELLUM MAINTAINS THE SAME FUNCTION (TO PROPEL THE BACTERIA), THEN HIS ALLEGED DEBUNKING OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS ABSOLUTELY FLAWED BECAUSE WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION IT DOESN'T SURVIVE.

You have it backwards. It is the assertion that function changes cannot occur that is speculation, as plausible function changes have been proposed for various biological systems.

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/full/nrmicro1493.html

If "irreducible" complexity cannot be shown to be independent of function, then it cannot be used as an argument against evolution.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Now getting back to Miller's taking away of 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, I didn't hear his theory of what the function of the flagellum now is. The reason for that is that he couldn't give us one as it would be pure speculation.

What the hell are you talking about? It wasn't speculation, he gave an actual example of an existing functional component that is made up of 10 of the 50 parts of the flagellum motor. It's called the type 3 secretory system and in functions as a molecular syringe. It's at about 44 minutes in the video

man of faith wrote: »

AND REMEMBER THAT UNLESS THE FLAGELLUM MAINTAINS THE SAME FUNCTION (TO PROPEL THE BACTERIA), THEN HIS ALLEGED DEBUNKING OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS ABSOLUTELY FLAWED BECAUSE WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION IT DOESN'T SURVIVE.

Why does it have to have the same function? There is a massive difference between a different function and no function. No function would disprove evolution but a different function does nothing of the sort

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? It wasn't speculation, he gave an actual example of an existing functional component that is made up of 10 of the 50 parts of the flagellum motor. It's called the type 3 secretory system and in functions as a molecular syringe. It's at about 44 minutes in the video

Why does it have to have the same function? There is a massive difference between a different function and no function. No function would disprove evolution but a different function does nothing of the sort

Well I didn't bother making mention of the TTSS because it alone can't be a motor. Even if it's function is a molecular syringe, that's not relevant to the issue of a flagellum not being able to function as a motor with even one dysfunctional part. So explain to me then how the E Coli came to evolve and survive with reduced complexity? It is impossible to answer that question with anything other than a theory, aswell as unlikely to the extreme. Maybe you might say it just stayed still for a million or so years, but we know that its survival in this case would be nothing short of miraculous.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Well I didn't bother making mention of the TTSS because it alone can't be a motor. Even if it's function is a molecular syringe, that's not relevant to the issue of a flagellum not being able to function as a motor with even one dysfunctional part.

Now you've changed the definition from not being able to function to not being able to function as a motor. No one ever said it had to function as a motor exactly as it is today, just that simpler components of the motor can perform a function. The simpler parts evolve performing their various functions and then newer simpler parts get added on and the overall function changes over time and it gradually becomes a motor. That's how evolution works. You can see it here with the evolution of the eye:

It doesn't function exactly as it is today but it gradually becomes more and more efficient as each new part gets added. But at each point along the line the eye performs a function.

man of faith wrote: »

So explain to me then how the E Coli came to evolve and survive with reduced complexity? It is impossible to answer that question with anything other than a theory, aswell as unlikely to the extreme. Maybe you might say it just stayed still for a million or so years, but we know that its survival in this case would be nothing short of miraculous.

I'm not following. In what way is e-coli irreducibly complex?

Also, remember that to refute irreducible complexity we don't even have to show a single piece of physical evidence. The claim, for example with the eye, is that its complexity is impossible to reduce, ie if any component is removed the eye stops functioning completely. All we have to do is show that it's possible for an eye to function with a component removed, such as has been done in the above diagram. We don't have to unequivocally prove that it did happen that way, just that it can have happened that way and irreducible complexity is refuted. The fact that we have many examples of eyes like the ones in the diagram, such as the nautilus who has a pin hole like in diagram C above is just a bonus

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now you've changed the definition from not being able to function to not being able to function as a motor. No one ever said it had to function as a motor exactly as it is today, just that simpler components of the motor can perform a function. The simpler parts evolve performing their various functions and then newer simpler parts get added on and the overall function changes over time and it gradually becomes a motor. That's how evolution works. You can see it here with the evolution of the eye:

It doesn't function exactly as it is today but it gradually becomes more and more efficient as each new part gets added. But at each point along the line the eye performs a function.


I'm not following. In what way is e-coli irreducibly complex?

Also, remember that to refute irreducible complexity we don't even have to show a single piece of physical evidence. The claim, for example with the eye, is that its complexity is impossible to reduce, ie if any component is removed the eye stops functioning completely. All we have to do is show that it's possible for an eye to function with a component removed, such as has been done in the above diagram. We don't have to unequivocally prove that it did happen that way, just that it can have happened that way and irreducible complexity is refuted. The fact that we have many examples of eyes like the ones in the diagram, such as the nautilus who has a pin hole like in diagram C above is just a bonus

Will respond again soon sam, late for me and I'm going to bed. Cheers

Sam Vimes

man of faith, I'm going to try to explain how evolution overcomes probability using a maths analogy and the eye.

Imagine you're in a competition and in order to win you have to roll ten 6's in a row. Very unlikely I'm sure you'll agree. (1/6)^10=1.65e-8

But now imagine that at each stage you are allowed throw the dice as many times as you like and when you eventually get a 6 you move on, eventually getting ten 6's. You've probably thrown the dice a thousand times at this stage but it doesn't matter because you eventually got ten 6's.

That's how evolution beats probability. Millions and millions of babies are born, some with mutations that are helpful for the environment like a light sensitive patch and a lot that are very bad like deformities and diseases. The few that have beneficial mutations survive longer, reproduce more and pass on this variation to its offspring. If the mutation is good enough this new type will completely replace the old ones that don't have that mutation. To go back to our analogy, the organism has now rolled a 6 after millions of attempts and moved onto the next stage.

From this new stage millions more mutations happen and eventually one is born that has the photo sensitive cells in a concave area meaning it can sense the direction of light and no one else can. It survives longer, reproduces more and eventually this mutation takes over the population. We've rolled two 6's now.

And so on and so on and so on until we get humans. Not all mutations completely take over a population of course which is why we have different kinds of people and different dogs etc but over the course of millions and billions of years, nature kills off the many many bad mutations and keeps the few good ones.

Et voila

J C

monosharp
So JC will you please answer my question, are you an Intelligent Design supporter or not ? ... yes

God designed flagellum to allow bacteria to kill us ? Well .... maybe there is something to this intelligent design after all.

God designed bacteria to kill us because he loves us. Cheers god. ...originally ALL Bcteria were good ... but then came the fall and death ... and some bacteria became pathogenic ... but even today many bacteria are in symbiotic relationships with us and STILL are 'good'!!!!

wolfsbane

darjeeling wrote: »

I'm not in the least surprised by the extraordinary level of fundamental disagreement over science amongst creationists.

You claim these sorts of disagreements are common in evolutionary science too. Well, they aren't - I can tell you that creationism is in a different league. But you tell me, how many leading evolutionary scientists have you heard saying that the evidence for Biblical young earth creationism is compelling? That it is scientifically valid? That the only reason they reject it is out of faith? None, I bet. But - in mirror image - that's the compliment that Wood pays to evolution in the blog post I linked, and in others too, such as this demolition of the creationist ribosome paper trumpeted by JC here.

The leaders of the 'creation science' movement are a highly disparate group of people who are in the main more interested in a peculiar form of Christian apologetics than they are in science, and whose starting assumptions for understanding the physical world are completely at odds with reality. For every honest researcher like Wood, you've a ludicrous Hovind or Ham! It comes as no surprise at all, then, that there are plenty of creationists who continually come up with ad hoc, just-so-story explanations for everything in nature, and in doing so contradict both each other and themselves.

.

We have in the Wood's case a more extreme case of creationists differing. But he is not denying YEC creationism. For evolutionists, the dispute over punctuated equilibrium was rather heated - though Gould was not denying evolution.

Certainly, nearly all evolutionists (I recall one or two being careful on the issue) give no ground to creationism as being even mistakenly scientific. Yet creationists are happy to acknowledge evolution is a mistaken scientific argument.

Why the difference? I suggest a few factors; bigotry against the God of the Bible, fear of the establishment, assumption that the great majority must be right.

Of course creationism is open to all sorts to claim it. Hovind is not part of the creationist movement I give any credibility to. I'm sure anyone can also set themselves up as defenders of evolution, and make an ass of themselves. In fact, I linked on such not long back. But I do not dismiss the evolutionary case on the activities of such eccentrics.

J C

man of faith wrote: »

I'm sorry, but in no way does this refute irreducibly complexity to me. Just because it kills people is hardly a valid example of a contradictory God and cannot be considered a refutation on the grounds of science. If we do have to sidetrack from the issue, then I will add that if you read the Bible starting from Genesis, it actually tells us that all these little nasties came about as a result of the curse - the fall of man. It says it in Gen 2:17. So getting back to the main issue at hand which is our scientific cross examinations of the facts - refutation on the grounds of anything other than pure science alone is breaking the rules, if ever I've heard it. Classic example of deviation from the real issue. An attempt to elude us down some other path to avert our attention from the real issue at hand.

Now getting back to Miller's taking away of 40 of the 50 parts of the flagellum, I didn't hear his theory of what the function of the flagellum now is. The reason for that is that he couldn't give us one as it would be pure speculation. Hence he still hasn't overcome the major hurdle here. The taking away of parts has now changed the function to which he has no way of knowing what the hell it is, because he simply does not have the tools to perform the necessary surgical experiment at such a microscopic molecular level. AND REMEMBER THAT UNLESS THE FLAGELLUM MAINTAINS THE SAME FUNCTION (TO PROPEL THE BACTERIA), THEN HIS ALLEGED DEBUNKING OF IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY IS ABSOLUTELY FLAWED BECAUSE WITHOUT TRANSPORTATION IT DOESN'T SURVIVE.

...the supposed precursor of the flagellar motor is some kind of hypodermic needle I think!!!!
...and how that could EVER become a proton driven flagellar motor literally boggles the mind!!!
..all I will say is don't ask an evolutionist for any advice in a hardware shop...if you go in looking for a tap, your are highly likely to come out with a bicycle!!!!

...anyway I'm off to Bella Roma ... and I will re-join the thread upon my return ... I might even drag myself away from a very hectic schedule to look in on the thread occasionally ... and straighten out some of the more outrageous Evolutionists 'flights of fancy' .... like the idea that all you want to make an eye is an old bean can and a piece of string ... or is that an ear!!! :)

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

Wolfsbane, I am not going to bother to answer this question until you define what is acceptable to you as a 'non-fruit fly'.

If its 'visibly not recognisable as fruit flies' then you have to define that because thats not scientific and is completely up to the individual.

Also 'genetically recognisable as fruit flies', again you need to define this. How much difference does there need to be ?

Your trying to make me use your terms when I don't know what your terms are.

And you also realise that Evolution takes a very long time to change organisms.

Since you are the scientist, you tell me when and how any of the Drosophila melanogaster became non-Drosophila melanogaster.

Here is a bit on some mutations - do you say the mutants are no longer Drosophila melanogaster?

Behavioral genetics and neuroscience

In 1971, Ron Konopka and Seymour Benzer published "Clock mutants of Drosophila melanogaster", a paper describing the first mutations that affected an animal's behavior. Wild-type flies show an activity rhythm with a frequency of about a day (24 hours). They found mutants with faster and slower rhythms as well as broken rhythms - flies that move and rest in random spurts. Work over the following 30 years has shown that these mutations (and others like them) affect a group of genes and their products that comprise a biochemical or biological clock. This clock is found in a wide range of fly cells, but the clock-bearing cells that control activity are several dozen neurons in the fly's central brain.
Since then, Benzer and others have used behavioral screens to isolate genes involved in vision, olfaction, audition, learning/memory, courtship, pain and other processes, such as longevity.
The first learning and memory mutants (dunce, rutabaga etc) were isolated by William "Chip" Quinn while in Benzer's lab, and were eventually shown to encode components of an intracellular signaling pathway involving cyclic AMP, protein kinase A and a transcription factor known as CREB. These molecules were shown to be also involved in synaptic plasticity in Aplysia and mammals.
Male flies sing to the females during courtship using their wing to generate sound, and some of the genetics of sexual behavior have been characterized. In particular, the fruitless gene has several different splice forms, and male flies expressing female splice forms have female-like behavior and vice-versa.
Furthermore, Drosophila has been used in neuropharmacological research, including studies of cocaine and alcohol consumption.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster

To me, they are just Drosophila melanogaster with disabilities.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since you are the scientist, you tell me when and how any of the Drosophila melanogaster became non-Drosophila melanogaster.

Doesn't Creationist rapid speciation require that not only did Drosophila melanogaster evolve from another species, but that this happened thousand of times since the Ark?

At least try and be consistent. Are you saying that Drosophila melangoster is a "kind" and that it cannot evolve otherwise?

If so then where did the 1,500 species of Drosophila come from? Were they were all on the Ark?

And, to actually answer your question, there have been cases where Drosophila melanogaster has been observed to evolved into a different species, such as

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/147/3/1191
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17108081
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

Well I presume you are referring to functional complexity defined by ID proponents like Dembski et al. This "specified complexity" is irrelevant to evolution.

There may be a relevant definition of functional complexity. If there is, then it certainly has nothing to do with the Creationist/ID definition.

But do you understand that it is the increase in molecular information that makes evolution not only possible, but supported by molecular biologists and information theorists.

This is an example of why I don't take dismissals and accusations of lying against creationist scientists seriously. Each time I follow-up on the accusations, the rock-solid assertions disappear in a flurry of 'snow'.

I was assured that there were many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" and the top creationists know this, they have been presented with the evidence.

Now you assure me there are none, because it is irrelevant to evolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
Put simply wolfsbane, that's because you are expecting rebuttals to questions asked by people who do not understand evolution. Someone trying to defend gravity will not be able to provide evidence of proteins spontaneously forming either but that's because no one has ever claimed that gravity causes proteins to spontaneously form and neither have any evolutionists.

I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute but the top creationists could not but be lying, We know of many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" and the top creationists know this, they have been presented with the evidence. They just keep saying they haven't so they can convince people like yourself.
OK, Sam and Wicknight, humour me on the lying issue. Show me the many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" which my linked article denied.
The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity. Probabilistic considerations would seem to preclude this in any case, or at least make it an exceedingly rare event, far too rare to salvage evolution even over the assumed multibillion year time span.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

To me, they are just Drosophila melanogaster with disabilities.

That is like saying a cat is just a dog with sharper teeth :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

OK, Sam and Wicknight, humour me on the lying issue. Show me the many "mutations giving such an increase in functional complexity" which my linked article denied.
The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which do not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. Hence, in order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.

We do not know of a single mutation giving such an increase in functional complexity.

Sorry, missed this.

It is easy to answer. Point mutations can add functional genetic information. It is such a well known form of mutation in all areas of genetics that the author is either completely ignorant of the topic he is discussion or lying. I gather it is the latter, though I guess the former is just as bad.

What I mean by add genetic information is that it can happen during a mutation that a gene is copied twice, creating a completely new set of genetic information, that is placed in a new position on the genome, thus providing new protein codes that do new things (thus producing new functionality).

This is so well understood the only conclusion is that the Creationist is purposefully lying, just like when Creationists lie about there been no intermediate forms in the fossil record.

And really you should know better Wolfsbane because all this has been discussed many times on this forum, Robin went it to great detail with this topic a few years ago, a discussion you participated in. And as Morbert points out, you are probably just going to come up with some wacky definition of "functional" to try and worm out of having to accept that this has happened, as you have done many times before. The Creationist definition of Complex Specified Information basically says it has to be intelligently designed, and then they demand that biologists show how evolution can produce such a thing, claiming victory when they can't :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Doesn't Creationist rapid speciation require that not only did Drosophila melanogaster evolve from another species, but that this happened thousand of times since the Ark?

At least try and be consistent. Are you saying that Drosophila melangoster is a "kind" and that it cannot evolve otherwise?

If so then where did the 1,500 species of Drosophila come from? Were they were all on the Ark?

And, to actually answer your question, there have been cases where Drosophila melanogaster has been observed to evolved into a different species, such as

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/147/3/1191
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17108081
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Thank you for pointing out my jump in logic.

In my quest to find macroevolution, I used a species where I should have used a family perhaps, and I do hold that speciation is real.

But my point is to find ANY observed example of the change that indicates large scale evolution, the sort that is supposed to change an ape into a man or a member of the Drosophilidae into something else.

From your links I see that what constitutes even a species is fluid. But if we take loss of ability to interbreed, does that mean the insect is no longer a member of the family? Anyway, I see nothing to support your sort of evolution in the links, only speciation.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To me, they are just Drosophila melanogaster with disabilities.
That is like saying a cat is just a dog with sharper teeth

Now a cat evolving into a dog would certainly prove evolution, even to JC and me.

Interesting that you should think the article referred to such a radical change. Here's the title of the article [emphasis mine]:
Incipient Speciation by Sexual Isolation in Drosophila melanogaster: Extensive Genetic Divergence Without Reinforcement

Here's what the scientist said:
The collection of Drosophila melanogaster from Zimbabwe and nearby regions (the Z-type) yield females who would not mate with the cosmopolitan D. melanogaster males (the M-type). To dissect the genetic basis of this sexual isolation, we constructed 16 whole-chromosome substitution lines between two standard Z-and M-lines. The results were as follows: (1) All substitution lines appear normal in viability and fertility in both sexes, indicating no strong postmating isolation. (2) The genes for the behaviors are mapped to all three major chromosomes with the same ranking and comparable magnitude of effects for both sexes: III > II >> X >/= 0 (III, II and X designate the effects of the three chromosomes). The results suggest less evolution on the X than on autosomes at loci of sexual behavior. (3) The genes for ``Z-maleness'' are many and somewhat redundant. Whole-chromosome effects for Z-maleness appear nearly additive and show little dominance. (4) In contrast, ``Z-femaleness'' has less redundancy as partial genotypes never exhibit full phenotypic effects. Epistatic interactions and incomplete dominance can sometimes be detected. (5) The extensive genetic divergence underlying sexual isolation has evolved in the absence of detectable reduction in hybrid fitnesses. Sexual selection has apparently been a driving force of multiple facets of speciation at the nascent stage without reinforcement.

If that is proof of goo-to-you evolution, then I see why you as so convinced. :pac:

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Now a cat evolving into a dog would certainly prove evolution.

No, it wouldn't. Quite the opposite of what the model states. You still don't know this?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you for pointing out my jump in logic.

In my quest to find macroevolution, I used a species where I should have used a family perhaps, and I do hold that speciation is real.

But my point is to find ANY observed example of the change that indicates large scale evolution, the sort that is supposed to change an ape into a man or a member of the Drosophilidae into something else.

But this is your fundamental flaw. "large scale evolution" is not a single mutation turning a cat into a dog.

It is exactly the sort of mutations you happily accept happen, over hundreds of thousand of years.

I know you don't accept that the universe is older than 6,000 years, but if you did can you not see how the rapid speciation that you happily accept takes place and turns zebras into donkeys in decades, would after millions of years produce species that are hugely different to the species that are around today.

Do you seriously think that the build up of mutations that you believe can turn this



into this



in a few decades is not going to make massive changes if given a hundred thousand years to work with.

This is the part I genuinely can't understand and must conclude you are deliberately being obtuse. You happily accept that mutations can cause dramatic changes to life forms in a period of time that even the must vocal evolutionary biologist would balk at, but then you totally reject the idea that if you extend the time frame from decades to millions of year nothing much more will happen

It is completely illogical.

wolfsbane wrote: »

From your links I see that what constitutes even a species is fluid.

Yes, species is a human classification, so is family. Biologically speaking all living organisms are intermediate stages from their parents to their children. Humans try and classify them based on common properties, this is some what arbitrary.

Which is why it doesn't make much sense to say that a fly is still a fly, not a "non-fly", since what is or is not a "fly" is just what a human decides is or is not a flaw. Saying that organism X is a fly and organism Y is a fly does not mean that organism Y hasn't evolved from organism X.

Creationists use this to their advantage by simply refining as the same type of organism any examples of evolution, just like you are doing. It is the argument that nothing has evolved enough to convince you, which is pretty easy when what is "enough" is defined by you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if we take loss of ability to interbreed, does that mean the insect is no longer a member of the family?

No, family is a very wide grouping, the charactistics required to group organisms into families are far more general than species.

You are not going to see a species evolve outside of a family, because that requires that the species keeps evolving but everything else in the family stays static, which would never happen.

You would have to keep all the other members of family static and then watch this one organism evolve for hundreds if not thousands of years, which would never happen. As evolutionary mutations build up in a species and species turn into other species the entire family will change, and thus the definition of the family you were using a thousand years ago is no longer valid.

This highlights the nonsense of Creationists asking to see something evolve across a Family or Order classification, because the classification is defined by what properties all the other organisms have at the time, not when you starting watching the species evolve.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Anyway, I see nothing to support your sort of evolution in the links, only speciation.

There is no "sort of evolution" apart from the form that produces speciation. That is all the evolution there is. Muck to man is speciation over billions of years.

Again, look at the zebra and the horse and now imagine that the process that did in what you believe was centuries, if not decades, that this continued for 2 or 3 million years.

Look at what the accumulation of changes can do in a short period of time, and now imagine that process is repeated hundreds of thousands of times.

You think all the accumulations of mutational changes, that build up to produce a new species in a short period of time, will over a longer period of time produce something that in any way resembles a horse today?

Of course not, with so many accumulated changes in 3 millions years you aren't going to have anything close to what you started with. You will have millions of changes to the horse producing something that is nothing like a horse.

But it is all still the same process, a process that you are happy to accept happens in nature and produces these changes.