Question for evolutionists

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  That's what we just covered, Souljah. One of the easiest ways to get such an IC system is to have a third piece that was there originally, but was no longer necessary.

In my "blood clotting" example, Y and Z wouldn't work without each other, and the animal would die from a simple wound.

  But it could evolve easily because of X.

 

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
  That's what we just covered, Souljah. One of the easiest ways to get such an IC system is to have a third piece that was there originally, but was no longer necessary.

In my "blood clotting" example, Y and Z wouldn't work without each other, and the animal would die from a simple wound.

  But it could evolve easily because of X.

 

Ok, so if I understand correctly, two apparently separate systems can exist because a third system allowed them to co-exist at one time, but this third system was no longer needed, so it went away over time.

Lanakila · Jun 26, 2002

Soljah thats what evolutionists believe, but I am reading Behe's book right now, and that seems impossible to me and to him. Molecular biology is technical and I recommend Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box.

Jerry Smith · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by Lanakila
Soljah thats what evolutionists believe, but I am reading Behe's book right now, and that seems impossible to me and to him. Molecular biology is technical and I recommend Behe's book: Darwin's Black Box.

Lanakila and Souljah,

I agree that molecular biology is technical. I recommend that if you wish to evaluate claims that are based on molecular biological systems, you learn as much as you can about it. Behe's book is convincing to laymen, but it is not convincing to biologists in general. Behe is an evolutionist, but he is also a "creationist-of-the-gaps". The IC of Behe is an attempt to open a Gap into which a magic-style Creator can be inserted. He does a poor job of it: as evidenced by the fact that he hasn't submitted any papers on IC to referreed journals: he takes them straight to the lay public in book form first.

 

Edited to add: the little Creator of the gaps is not, in my opinion, what most people who believe in Creation are after anyway.

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  Lankila: Then why is it that so many systems Behe called IC in his book (blood clotting cascade comes immediatly to mind) have had papers written detailing evolutionary paths?

  If Behe was correct, why are so many of IC systems evolved? Behe's book is somewhat notorious for his poor research. IC does boil down, ultimately, to "I don't see how this could have evolved". Behe couples this with claims that no research has been done on these matters. A claim that can only be supported by poor research.

 

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

What if system 'A' would kill the creature, if it didn't have 'B,' but yet, 'B' would kill the creature without 'A'

You all are saying there would have been a 'C' somewhere that bridged the gaps, and allowed A and B to develop separately, and then 'C' went away?

LiveFreeOrDie · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
What if system 'A' would kill the creature, if it didn't have 'B,' but yet, 'B' would kill the creature without 'A' 

Is there a real world set of systems for which this is true?  If not, what is the point of this hypothetical exercise?

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Is there a real world set of systems for which this is true?  If not, what is the point of this hypothetical exercise?

Yeah, refer to my original post.  And this is not a debate, I am trying to understand the viewpoint of evolutionists, not put up with counter-productive comments.

Thanks

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  You listed no such system in your first post. In any case, I have pointed out a common mechanism for producing IC systems.

Jerry Smith · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah
What if system 'A' would kill the creature, if it didn't have 'B,' but yet, 'B' would kill the creature without 'A'

You all are saying there would have been a 'C' somewhere that bridged the gaps, and allowed A and B to develop separately, and then 'C' went away?

Such a scenario is conceivable, but I don't know off-hand if there are any instances of this in nature. There might even be a C, D, E, F, & G - depending on what kind of system is under consideration and how long it has been since the system began to develop.

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
  You listed no such system in your first post. In any case, I have pointed out a common mechanism for producing IC systems.

I said I couldn't recall the list of creatures.  What I didn't say, but meant to point out, is that the mechanisms rely on each other, because without both, either would be fatal.

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  And he was asking you to name one. Please do.

 

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
  And he was asking you to name one. Please do.

 

Ok, so you want to debate?  I wanted to ask a question. 

Jerry Smith · Jun 26, 2002

s0uljah, are you content with the answers I have given you?

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
s0uljah, are you content with the answers I have given you?

Not really, but I appreciate the answers.

I want to know how a fatal 'A' system could develop independently of a 'B' system, in which 'B' relies on 'A' for its entire purpose.

Maybe that was already explained, but I dont get it.

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  We've answered this as best we can without details. You asked how an IC system could evolve, we pointed out a way.

  What more do you want? Do you want us to address a specific example? If not, then what are you looking for?

   As for your "fatal A" and "fatal B", before we start looking, does such a thing exist? After all, why waste time on something that's never evolved?

 

Jerry Smith · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by s0uljah

Not really, but I appreciate the answers.

I want to know how a fatal 'A' system could develop independently of a 'B' system, in which 'B' relies on 'A' for its entire purpose.

Maybe that was already explained, but I dont get it.

The only answer for this case would be that A was non-fatal to begin with, but was functional for some reason. A became "fatal-without-B" after A evolved. I hope that helps.

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

Originally posted by Morat
  We've answered this as best we can without details. You asked how an IC system could evolve, we pointed out a way.

  What more do you want? Do you want us to address a specific example? If not, then what are you looking for?

 

I don't think I am talking about IC, since I didn't even know what that was before you mentioned it.

I am talking about two simple systems.

'A' is fatal if not accompanied by 'B'

'B' has no purpose to exist other than to help 'A'

Its a timing problem, that I am confused about.  Its as if 'A' and 'B' had to both develop at the same time.

Morat · Jun 26, 2002

  That is an IC system. Jerry pointed out a way up above. There's several ways to get there.

   Bear in mind that, with evolution, "current purpose" does not have to be (and often isn't) original purpose.

 

Chris†opher Paul · Jun 26, 2002

Ok, well, thanks for your views. I don't agree with them, but thats ok.

Later!

Question for evolutionists

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Not responsible for the changes here.

Fish out of water

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Science Officer

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

Fish out of water

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Fish out of water

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

Fish out of water

Based on a True Story

Untitled One

Based on a True Story

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency