Antony Flew

[Mordecai]

The truth is, even with all of our theories and lab experiments showing organic materials coming from inorganic material (similar to the Miller-Urey hypothesis)

Yeah, they tell us pretty much nothing and to say "all those organic materials coming from inorganic..." is an overstatement. I mean, who cares if amino acids can be produced naturally? That tells us basically nothing.

P.S. Do you have a degree in biology? Not that it matters, but it is always nice to know where the other person is coming from.

No, but I have an IQ comparable to scientists and am well read.

Evolution merely describes a consequence of replicators. Whether those replicators are genes or memes, or even universes, does not matter.

Actually, the question is, do Darwinian processes explain what we see in the fossil record. The answer is, they don't. It's the wrong explanation.

By the way, CFR that crystals are truly self-replicating molecules. I think they can produce inconsistent self-replication of information, but I don't think the molecules themselves do self-replicate. I also don't think the replication is a real replication but only a partial replication.

In other words, I don't think this is true:

You made a bold statement- I showed you how it was wrong....

Lastly, feel free to talk to me like I'm a biology major. Shouldn't be a problem.

[Mordecai]

Here's a nice presentation by Sternberg to help illustrate the problems with Darwinism: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263733/darwinism_vs_whale_evolution_part_1_richard_sternberg_p/

Part 2: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263746/neo_darwinism_vs_whale_evolution_part_2_richard_sternberg/

Keep in mind that Durett and Schmidt failed on a few levels to "fix" the "problems" in Behe's work, so in reality, Behe's original numbers are correct, not Durett and Schmidt's numbers. What's worse is that if you were to add a third coordinated mutation to this problem, the issue gets compounded exponentially. Of course, a third one is still absurdly generous. I'll have to find part 3 at some point, as it appears Meyer was going to give us an estimate of some kind on that, which would have been cool. Realistically, I imagine thousands upon thousands of changes to the genetic code would be required to arrive at so many radical innovations in whale evolution. That, unless all the information was already present but dormant. That'd be interesting.

[Eldwynn]

Here's a nice presentation by Sternberg to help illustrate the problems with Darwinism: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263733/darwinism_vs_whale_evolution_part_1_richard_sternberg_p/

Part 2: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5263746/neo_darwinism_vs_whale_evolution_part_2_richard_sternberg/

Keep in mind that Durett and Schmidt failed on a few levels to "fix" the "problems" in Behe's work, so in reality, Behe's original numbers are correct, not Durett and Schmidt's numbers. What's worse is that if you were to add a third coordinated mutation to this problem, the issue gets compounded exponentially. Of course, a third one is still absurdly generous. I'll have to find part 3 at some point, as it appears Meyer was going to give us an estimate of some kind on that, which would have been cool. Realistically, I imagine thousands upon thousands of changes to the genetic code would be required to arrive at so many radical innovations in whale evolution. That, unless all the information was already present but dormant. That'd be interesting.

Is the argument just that a lot of proteins (or mutations in general) require each other to do their job, and if isolated, they would not do anything? This means that protein cascades are irreducibly complex, which means that god did it? (ok im teasing with the last part).

Is that the basic argument? I can't really view the video, because of time, and I am almost never at a computer with sound anymore (tend to post at school).

I think the flaw in this reasoning is rather obvious. Darwinists would never say that "yes, we are saying all these must have happened at once". Selection must be cumulative- not from random chance. Either the proteins/mutations are NOT useless by themselves, or there were other factors present in the cell that are no longer there. A lot like how the keystone in an arch works (I know archs are of course designed... don't be a douche). There was scaffolding present to support the arch until the keystone was placed, and then the scaffolding was removed. In the cell, the scaffolding is no longer around.

There's two very basic ways to deal with most problems of irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, I wasn't around 3 billion years ago to observe what exactly happened. That doesn't mean we have to toss out all the evidence for evolution though.

If there is ever someone saying that evolution isn't possible because of some large probability- then they are misunderstanding evolution. Things of irreducible complexity could never exist- and don't. We are just looking at the end product (the eye for example). Nature didn't have an end product "in mind", it just works off what is already there.

If you could demonstrate that this is not the case- that large complex biological machineries just spring up overnight in your lab- then we would have a serious problem. Maybe that's what the intelligent design movement should try and do...

More specifically to whales. Whales didn't actually change all that much from their land dwelling ancestors. There's really nothing unique that a whale does that its terrestrial ancestors did not do- other than live in water. In fact, whales still retain the same inner ear bone of their most common LIVING ancestor.

[Eldwynn]

Y

By the way, CFR that crystals are truly self-replicating molecules. I think they can produce inconsistent self-replication of information, but I don't think the molecules themselves do self-replicate. I also don't think the replication is a real replication but only a partial replication.

It depends on what you mean by this. Do you mean that crystals simply give birth to new crystals out of nowhere? Of course that is nonsense. However, crystals pass on their form to crystal "offspring". I already cited the evidence for this, but here are the references more specifically:

The life puzzle: on crystals and organisms and on the possibility of a crystal as an ancestor, A. G. Cairns-Smith, Oliver and Boyd, 1971.

Genetic Takeover - and the mineral origins of life, A. G. Cairns-Smith, Cambridge University Press, 1982.

Seven Clues to the Origin of Life, A. G. Cairns-Smith, Cambridge University Press, 1985.

[Mordecai]

More specifically to whales. Whales didn't actually change all that much from their land dwelling ancestors. There's really nothing unique that a whale does that its terrestrial ancestors did not do- other than live in water. In fact, whales still retain the same inner ear bone of their most common LIVING ancestor.

You REALLY didn't watch the video and thought you could respond adequately? The presentation is from Richard Sternberg who is not an advocate of ID. He is the former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian. He has two PhD's, one in evolutionary biology. You REALLY need to watch this video and listen carefully to what they're saying. Sternberg uses the most modern science of population dynamics; he uses Darwinists' own science against them throughout the presentation, particularly a response by Durett and Schmidt intended to counter Behe's Edge of Evolution.

Durett and Schmidt (2008) don't dispute the facts of the problem, because they are indisputable facts. They do their best to respond, but you can go online to see Behe's response to them and see that they made errors that were far too generous. They admitted as much in their debate with Behe, in fact. Edge of Evolution is really the killer, but if you want to debate with a devout Darwinist, you have to use their scientists. Otherwise, it's a conspiracy. That's what Sternberg does.

At the end of part 2, Stephen Meyer begins his presentation on how genetic changes must occur, how you can't switch out one gene for another, like a boutonniere and expect to get results. The genetic code has a grammar and requires coordination (or irreducibility). It's all interdependent, like the English language. That means, to write out new code for something relatively simple, you have to use "words" and "grammar" to produce functionality. Meyer was going to illustrate that you wouldn't just require two points of coordinated mutations. You'd need a myriad. That's ignoring the apparent irreducibility of the heat exchange system in Sternberg's presentation from an engineering standpoint. In other words, Darwinism is like a bicyclist trying to pull an aircraft carrier. It can't handle the load.

Also, what I meant when I said there was no true self-replicator was that there is nothing that can replicate in a way that could even come close to doing the job of what scientists imagine could result in the first life, outside of something with RNA or DNA. I also said, "There is no self-replicating molecule," specifically, and as I said, I don't think crystals represent a self-replicating molecule. They just replicate information (and do so badly). By the way, the RNA world hypothesis creates more problems than it solves, so really, the first self-replicator would make more sense if it was DNA based, not RNA based. No zircon crystal could come close to filling that role. The idea is more based on metaphor than reality, because crystals don't accurately transfer information, a required trait to prevent the loss of all information in a short period of time.

Anything resembling life that lost information as fast as crystals do wouldn't last a day, much less would it evolve a genetic code. It's wishful thinking.

Cairns-Smith's work appears to have been neglected in modern times. Most books on the origin of life cite his work in their first chapter - point out the lack of any evidence supporting it - and then continue to other matters.

http://originoflife.net/crystals/index.html

J. Maynard Smith's give the theory a cursory treatment in The Major Transitions in Evolution. He says: Heredity has not been convincingly demonstrated.

http://originoflife.net/criticism/

That's what I mean by, "It's more of a metaphor." It sounds cool on paper, but it's not scientifically supportable for a number of reasons. One of the reasons being is that it doesn't self-replicate well enough to do the type of job theoretically required. All the important information would be lost and lost very quickly, from an evolutionary standpoint.

[Eldwynn]

You REALLY didn't watch the video and thought you could respond adequately? The presentation is from Richard Sternberg who is not an advocate of ID. He is the former editor for a scientific journal associated with the Smithsonian. He has two PhD's, one in evolutionary biology. You REALLY need to watch this video and listen carefully to what they're saying. Sternberg uses the most modern science of population dynamics; he uses Darwinists' own science against them throughout the presentation, particularly a response by Durett and Schmidt intended to counter Behe's Edge of Evolution.

Durett and Schmidt (2008) don't dispute the facts of the problem, because they are indisputable facts. They do their best to respond, but you can go online to see Behe's response to them and see that they made errors that were far too generous. They admitted as much in their debate with Behe, in fact. Edge of Evolution is really the killer, but if you want to debate with a devout Darwinist, you have to use their scientists. Otherwise, it's a conspiracy. That's what Sternberg does.

At the end of part 2, Stephen Meyer begins his presentation on how genetic changes must occur, how you can't switch out one gene for another, like a boutonniere and expect to get results. The genetic code has a grammar and requires coordination (or irreducibility). It's all interdependent, like the English language. That means, to write out new code for something relatively simple, you have to use "words" and "grammar" to produce functionality. Meyer was going to illustrate that you wouldn't just require two points of coordinated mutations. You'd need a myriad. That's ignoring the apparent irreducibility of the heat exchange system in Sternberg's presentation from an engineering standpoint. In other words, Darwinism is like a bicyclist trying to pull an aircraft carrier. It can't handle the load.

I watched it. It was rather interesting- but i will admit, I am not familiar with advanced population genetics. I felt that Sternberg's numbers were a little bit made up/ arbitrary, but I get the point. I will have to poke around and read up on the subject.

However, this hardly is a "blow" to Darwinism, we still have plenty of other evidence- especially molecular evidence, to show that Whales DO have a common land ancestor. Furthermore, this isn't a shred of evidence FOR Intelligent design either (I don't know if you want it to be).

Unless you use the logic:

We can't think of any way that X evolved naturally.

Therefore X was designed.

X used to be an eye, a wing etc. and now it's simply the evolution of DNA. I wouldn't put too much faith in a gap of scientific understanding.

[Mordecai]

I watched it. It was rather interesting- but i will admit, I am not familiar with advanced population genetics. I felt that Sternberg's numbers were a little bit made up/ arbitrary, but I get the point. I will have to poke around and read up on the subject.

You felt they were made up? Clearly, they must be made up, if you felt it.

However, this hardly is a "blow" to Darwinism, we still have plenty of other evidence- especially molecular evidence, to show that Whales DO have a common land ancestor.

How does this support the alleged Darwinian mechanisms of the change? If you listened carefully, you'd realize this has nothing to do with anything at all. It's not just a blow to Darwinism. It's a nail in its coffin. There wasn't enough time for Darwinian processes to do much of anything at all, in the short time alloted of a mere 2-3 million years, much less produce, for example the heat exchange system.

Furthermore, this isn't a shred of evidence FOR Intelligent design either (I don't know if you want it to be). Unless you use the logic:

We can't think of any way that X evolved naturally.

Therefore X was designed.

If I had a nickel for every "educated" person who incorrectly describes ID, I'd have.... well... maybe 4 or 5 bucks. Anyway, wrong. Try again. You might start with actually reading from the source, instead of just assuming your 2nd hand sources are being honest or just not spreading rumors from dishonest sources.

The line of reasoning is as follows, if Meyer is an authority on anything in ID:

*The only observed cause of the existence of a certain amount of complex (or unlikely), specified (or functional, if you prefer) information is intelligence.

*No other cause is plausible, after being given a thorough exploration of multiple proposed hypotheses.

*Therefore, when an amount, beyond what we'd expect given the limits of time and resources in the universe, of complex, specified information is observed, the best scientific explanation is intelligent design.

Of course, it's even more objective to say we just don't know for sure.

[Stargazer]

1. Behe has been answered to the satisfaction of most biological scientists and philosophers.

I've read much of Behe's "Black Box" book, and was interested to see an evolutionist argument against the irreducibility complexity of the flaggelum. A YouTube link to such an answer was posted here, in fact. So I watched the video, which was an address of a well-recognized biological scientist (don't remember his name). When he got done with his anti-flaggelum argument I found myself strangely unconvinced. The reason for this lack of conviction was the fact that the scientist had proclaimed victory after having gotten only part-way through the irreducible complexity argument. I was hoping to find out how the bacterium had gotten a complete flagellum planted in the spot where there was formerly a pore. He didn't say how this happened, or what the poor bacterium was going to do with its Type III Secretory System plugged up by a pilus that wasn't yet a functioning flagellum. Didn't it need the secretory system? Or were only a few of the secretory pores plugged by a pilus? These questions weren't answered, though I have lately found a more complete explanation, here:

This is fine as far as it goes, but I am left wondering if, though the original function of the organelle is not preserved as the flagellum evolves, and supposedly it doesn't "need" to be preserved, I had thought that evolution produced functional elements that were of some value to the organism, and that without the function that the organism would find it more difficult to survive, otherwise why would the original thing have evolved in the first place? In the video above, the Type III Secretory System starts out as a simple pore allowing all kinds of things to pass through, and gradually it gets more and more selective through the addition of new protein structures, enhancing its functionality. Presumably, greater survivability preserves the good mutations, and causes bad ones to not be preserved. So, now that we have a highly functional and efficient organelle that secretes things, presumably this function is essential to the organism, or else why is it even doing it, or preserving it?

And then BLAM it starts destroying the functionality of the organelle by plugging the pore with a pilus. That doesn't yet serve much in the way of a motility function, and now can't secrete anything to save its life. What Darwinian principle preserves this non-functional secretory system? Suddenly the organism doesn't need it? After presumably hundreds of thousands of years of developing it to a highly functional state?

This makes no sense.

The only way it makes sense is if the motility function of the flagellum suddenly arrives in place of the Type III Secretory System and at the same time makes the Secretory System unnecessary. Now, this is of course not the classic Darwinian gradual piece-meal change, but something that evolutionary biologists used to be very uncomfortable with, and that's a SALTATION. Or, in other words, a LEAP.

What I found interesting the series of sci fi novels about Darwin's Radio, where the author posits a giant saltation in human evolution, in the very distant past, and a new one occurring in the here and now.

The problem with the SALTATION, is that there is no rational comfortable-to-atheism mechanism for this. The ID person would jump right in and say "Here is the hand of God", with the atheist-biologist trying to wave this away.

But note that even with a saltation, God stays quite carefully out of the limelight, allowing us to freely choose whether the mechanism is simply not understood, or that God was involved.

I don't have a problem. I am perfectly happy if the evolutionary biologist wants to wave away divine saltations, but allow me the option of seeing the possibility. I see that part of the whole issue is the atheist hanging on to the random-chance evolution argument as scientific argument against God, so as to make more atheists. And leading lots of people who respect authority down the garden path to disbelief. Unjustifiably.

[Mordecai]

I've read much of Behe's "Black Box" book...

DNA evidence is much stronger. Edge of Evolution is based on the strongest possible evidence there is. I think it makes Black Box seem pretty weak in comparison. (I never finished readin Black Box, because I had decided early on, that DNA evidence was much more compelling). Besides, a flagellum is much less complex than the irreducibly complex cilia.

[Mordecai]

Just to tag on an after thought on the ID debate: http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/they-said-it-why-did-two-materialist-atheists-write-a-book-against-darwinism/

Apparently, What Darwin Got Wrong was written by atheists/materialists. The evidence is finally starting to pressure these guys into accepting reality. Major paradigm shifts take time. I admire the ability to adapt to evidence and accept what is obvious, that Darwinism doesn't work as the explanation for the diversity of species. It's more of a side-note, it seems.