Intelligence Inquiry

[xianghua]

"Macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution". A lot of little changes add up to a big change. It's the same mechanism.

no its not. for instance: as we already discussed, if a system need at least several parts we cant evolve it by small steps. so small steps will not help in that case.

 

[pitabread]

no its not. for instance: as we already discussed, if a system need at least several parts we cant evolve it by small steps.

Sure it can, since there is nothing precluding the individual parts from arising independently. This is especially the case when one considers that individual parts can serve multiple functions in biology.

In fact, the origin of complexity appears as though it may less be about things arising to form a complex system so much as already existing components losing functionality until they become strictly necessary for what system they are supporting.

 

[pitabread]

Anything you say Alex Jones. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take conspiracy mongering seriously.

Agreed. These attempts at blaming external forces for the failure of ID to catch on as science always preclude examining ID* itself for that failure.

I guess it's just easier to blame everything else.

(* Though I also get the feeling that a lot of creationists arguing for ID aren't particularly familiar with ID literature to begin with.)

 

[xianghua]

It is a real calculation. Hand-waving it away doesn't change that.

if its base on assumption then its not. since we dont know how much time we need to evolve that system. so we cant realy know if evolution had enough time to evolve it.

So we already know a probable evolutionary origin for those.

again no. since we dont know how many mutations we need for the first step (and actually any step).

 

[xianghua]

Sure it can, since there is nothing precluding the individual parts from arising independently. This is especially the case when one considers that individual parts can serve multiple functions in biology.

first: these individual parts are a part of other complex system. so you just push back the question to another system.

2) even these shared parts arent identical. so we need more mutations to make them match the new system.

3) even if they were identical, we need to calculate what is the chance to mix several parts to form a new complex system. and there is no such calculation.

so no- evolution has no real explanation even to a single organ. its not a good sign to a theory.

 

[inquiring mind]

"Macroevolution" is just a lot of "microevolution". A lot of little changes add up to a big change. It's the same mechanism.

Sorry, I don't agree with that.

 

[inquiring mind]

Agreed. These attempts at blaming external forces for the failure of ID to catch on as science always preclude examining ID* itself for that failure.

I guess it's just easier to blame everything else.

(* Though I also get the feeling that a lot of creationists arguing for ID aren't particularly familiar with ID literature to begin with.)

Post #200, ditto for you.

 

[inquiring mind]

Scrutinizing the ToE doesn't validate ID though.

Validating ID is not what I'm concerned about.

 

[Yttrium]

Sorry, I don't agree with that.

I assume you mean that you think that there is some barrier in the DNA that prevents a lot of small changes from adding up to a big change. We have yet to discover such a barrier.

 

[pitabread]

Validating ID is not what I'm concerned about.

I know. That's the problem.

 

[pitabread]

if its base on assumption then its not. since we dont know how much time we need to evolve that system. so we cant realy know if evolution had enough time to evolve it.

All scientific modeling involves assumptions. If you're objecting to this paper based on the fact their model contains assumptions, then you're not just objecting to this paper; you're effectively objecting to the way modeling is done.

If we already had complete information, there would be no need for a model in the first place. We'd already know everything. Science however, does not have complete information.

again no. since we dont know how many mutations we need for the first step (and actually any step).

The paper I discussed I mentioned on opsins discussed the particular molecular mechanisms for the evolution of opsins. From what I recall it was only a couple of mutations.

 

[pitabread]

first: these individual parts are a part of other complex system. so you just push back the question to another system.

If you're talking about the specific origin of a specific system, then the evolution of the other system is irrelevant. All that matters is the starting point of that system in question.

If you think we can't learn anything unless we know everything then you're just engaging in a pointless rhetorical argument. Obviously we can know some things even if we don't necessarily know everything.

And everything we know so far about biology points to evolutionary origins for species.

2) even these shared parts arent identical. so we need more mutations to make them match the new system.

That doesn't matter. Things do not have to be "identical" in order to still function. In fact, many proteins can have relative degrees of function based on how they are formed. Biology isn't strictly binary.

3) even if they were identical, we need to calculate what is the chance to mix several parts to form a new complex system. and there is no such calculation.

Probability calculations aren't relevant here. Post-hoc probabilities of something that has already happened is always equal to 1.

so no- evolution has no real explanation even to a single organ. its not a good sign to a theory.

Except for the fact that evolution is the explanation for the origin of organs. And it does quite well in that regard.

Your complaints about evolution are unfounded.

 

[inquiring mind]

I assume you mean that you think that there is some barrier in the DNA that prevents a lot of small changes from adding up to a big change. We have yet to discover such a barrier.

And yet to discover a big change, outside the hypothetical.

 

[pitabread]

Post #200, ditto for you.

I don't know what post #200 is supposed to mean.

 

[pitabread]

No problem... evolutionists will beat that to death.

You started a thread complaining about why ID is not taught as a legit alternative to evolution, but apparently have no interest in whether ID is actually valid as an alternative.

If you don't see that as a problem, I dunno what to tell ya.

It does reinforce my view though that most creationists seem to know as little of ID (per Behe, Dembski, etc) as they do of evolution.

 

[inquiring mind]

You started a thread complaining about why ID is not taught as a legit alternative to evolution, but apparently have no interest in whether ID is actually valid as an alternative.

There would be plenty of interest and scrutiny, much more than evolution ever encountered.

 

[pitabread]

There would be plenty of interest and scrutiny, much more than evolution ever encountered.

I'm not sure how that is a response to what I wrote.

What do mean by "interest and scrutiny"? Interest and scrutiny in what?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There would be plenty of interest and scrutiny, much more than evolution ever encountered.

Why would there? Since Intelligent Design is, in it's most basic and simplest sense, "God did it! The Bible says it!"

 

[inquiring mind]

Sure. That's par for the course in any area of science that is attempting to overturn an existing scientific theory.

That said, if there really was an alternative to evolution that was legitimately superior in explanatory power, it would ultimately be accepted. Especially from those in industry with the highest vested interest in understanding of biology.

Sure it would.

 

[Yttrium]

And yet to discover a big change, outside the hypothetical.

Although we haven't demonstrated a large enough change to your personal satisfaction, the change is theorized to happen with mechanisms that can be demonstrated.