 |
| |
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
I've been following the discussion about ID lately.
Simplified the discussion goes like this:
IDer: the cell is to complex to have become what it is through random mutations.
NoDesigner: There's no complexity that can't come through random mutation if there's natural selection and a lot of time.
IDer: Perhaps that counts for single mutations, though the cell is that complex that the entire functionality will be totally gone if one of the parts would be missing.
NoDesigner: All parts could have mutated through different evolution paths where in the end all paths 'come together' and result in the cell as we currently know it.
IDer: But if one of the parts of the cell, as we currently know it, would be different, there wouldn't be a cell at all. So all different parts of the cell must have mutated at the same new incarnation of the cell because all individual mutations wouldn't make sence without the whole.
NoDesigner: Different parts of the cell could have alternative functionalities before they started to do what they currently do. So all single mutations weren't useless since they got a job that did improve the 'old' structure eventhough they didn't do the job they're currently doing and which is totally dependant to the other processes and structures in our current cell.
ie. the current word is: apolyton. Take any of the letters away, and there's no word at all and the entire structure of letters is worthless.
Though take away the y and make the words:
pal
toon
both words make sence, and as soon the 'y' has mutated (ie. from the 'u' which makes sence as a single word agani) all letters can start to form apolyton (not as if that's a good english word though  )
ok, so far I understand the reasoning.
Mostly there the discussion ends. (I'm already impressed if the discussion comes that far since most of the time the AntiDesigners start to flame and insult much earlier in the debate and don't start to reason at all but just refuse to counter any ID-argument, but sometimes a more reasonable AntiIDer comes that far, which is really respected by me : ! You go guys!
Now comes my question:
CyberShy: What makes all parts fall in the right position at the right time? Isn't the change for such a thing not really really small? If not impossible?
I can see how all parts could evoluve apart from each other. But 'falling into the right position' appears to be something that must happen at the same time again.
Perhaps they don't need to mutate at the same incarnation, but they do need to start to perform their needed functionality as a 'joint venture' though.
What makes 'toon' and 'pal' suddenly start to form 'apolyton' together with 'y'?
Even if all functionalities / parts of the cell could mutate at random in seperated processes, the change that all processes would be combined at the perfect right time still appear to be as impossible to me as all processes to mutate at the same incarnation.
Please shine some light for me on this subject!
Oh, and please keep the childish "IDers are pseudo scientists" or "IDers are retarted" or "Creationists are stupid" or "CyberShy you must be a total ignorant stupid monkey" one liners out of here.
I think it's time for rational modern people to stop yelling at the person who comes with the question / theory and start to counter the theories / arguments themselves.
Really, believe me. That yelling is really not better then the roman catholic church did at Galileo in the middle ages: "We refuse to you listen to your arguments, the sun orbits the earth because the bible says so and if think not you're a heathen and we will burn you and cut your head off"
Thanks for rational responses in advance though 
CyberShy
Ps. please no cut and paste answers, I've typed out my question as well
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
This analogy is hideously flawed, but if I said 'polyton', 'apolyto' or 'apolytn', the word would still be comprehensible. |
Don't focus on the analogy. Focus on the issue and use the analogy to explain it.
quote:
Heuij: I only have one-liners about "Intelligent" Design, sorry... |
That's no problem, most people have no intelligent responses to serious issues like evolution and ID anyway, you're just another person who loves it to be a part of the mass
quote:
Last Conformist: If you want a serious explanation of these issues, I'd suggest you look at the literature instead of asking at a forum stuffed with crackpots.
Failing that, learn the joys of Usenet and post your questions at talk.origins. |
I know, just want to see if we can get to a good old poly discussion, like we used to have in the old days before everything overhere became totally black/white and people like Urban Ranger knew how to come with arguments.
In fact I thought people like Urban Ranger actually would be able to answer my question. To bad I'm wrong, perhaps my expections are too heigh.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
well, they sometimes do.. it just isn't generally Christian
I had one person I was next to on a plane ride talk to me about the energies in people and objects for the entire ride (once he discovered that I was studying physics)
JM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Last Conformist
I'm not entirely sure what your question is. You seem to wonder about different systems "falling into place" to create a composite system. Can you give a concrete example of the kind of issue your thinking of? |
It's about the cell. The structure of the cell.
The cell consists of several components. Evolution works gradually. So an organism didn't came into existance at once, but gradually evolved from single component to multiple compoments. One by one the components were added or altered (mutated)
So is the case with the cell. (The 'cell' is a very complex system. This is acknowledged by both nonIDers and IDers) (I don't think I need to explain what IDers and nonIDers are)
IDers claimed that the cell couldn't have evolved gradually since the cell doesn't function when one of the components is missing.
IDers gave the example of the mousetrap.
They say that the mousetrap wouldn't function when one of the components is missing.
The mousetrap consists of 5 key elements:
1. spring
2. hammer
3. hold down bar
4. platform
5. catch
IDers claim that the mousetrap wouldn't work if one of these elements is missing. That would mean that all these 5 components must have came into existance at once. So, they claim, a mousetrap must have been designed and can't come into existance through gradual evolution.
This appears to be a good analogy, though antiIDers have made counter arguments, and in particular the mousetrap theory has been countered by John H. McDonald:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Intel...n/mousetrap.htm
In here he explains how the analogy used by Behe (a IDer) could be simplified, and thus can't be used as a analogy against the possibility of the gradually evolved cell.
In fact he makes it clear that a mousetrap with only one component could still more or less function as a mousetrap. And how a mousetrap with 2, 3 or 4 compoments could work as well. In fact he shows that way that a mousetrap as we know it could have gradually evolved from 1 to 5 components. (see the link for his explanation)
The cell is of course far more complex then a mousetrap, but let's stick to this analogy for simplicity reasons.
I have a question about this 1-5 elements evolving mousetrap and I can't find the answer anywhere.
All sites claim this is the final answer in the ID-creationist debate.
Well, if it is the final answer, why do I still have questions?
I can see how a 1-element mousetrap could work.
I can see how a 2-elements mousetrap could work.
I'll ignore the fact that the cheese factually is a part of a mousetrap and for that reason is the 6th element. (which makes the mousetrap at least a 2 elements constructure in which both elements can't exist without each other so that gradually evolution already isn't possible for this reason)
But like I said: I'll ignore this since this is only a question that applies to the analogy and doesn't nessecarily have to apply to the real cell.
My question:
From Mousetrap-1 (1 piece) to Mousetrap-2 we need more then only one mutation.
The addition of the platform doesn't do the trick.
A platform and a spring together aren't a mousetrap yet.
The spring needs to be attached in a specific way to the platform. And if you watch to John H. McDonald's pictures you can see that the Spring in Mousetrap-1 is totally different then the Spring in Mousetrap-2
Thus the evolution from mousetrap-1 to mousetrap-2 isn't a one-step evolution. It's a 4-step evolution:
- we need a platform
- we need the spring to be attached to the platform
- we need the spring to be bended in a different position
- the cheese needs to be attached in a different way to the string
One could argue that the platform could have evolved in a different process and is aleady in existance, in that case the first step can be ignored. That still leaves us with a 3 step evolution process that for that reason can't have gradually evolved.
If we take this to the next step.
From Mousetrap-2 (2 pieces) to Mousetrap-3:
(in fact I can't believe how any mouse would be trapped at all with the 1 or 2 pieces mousetrap, thus how natural selection would have let the mousetrap survive, but let's stick to the gradually evolved thing right now and leave the natural selection part out of it)
From mousetrap2 to mousetrap3 we need:
- a hammer
- The hammer to be connected to the platform
- the hammer to be connected to the spring
- the cheese to be disconnected from the spring
- the cheese to be connected to the hammer
- the spring to be bended in a different way
That's a 6-step evolution.
One could argue that the hammer could have evolved in a seperated evolution process and is already available.
That leaves us with a 5-step evolution process from a 2-pieces mousetrap to a 3-pieces mousetrap.
Well, I don't think I need to explain my question until mousetrap 5.
Not to mention the fact that the cell is far more complex then the mousetrap of course.
The mousetrap cannot have evolved gradually.
Of course the pieces could have evolved in seperated processes and used to have different uses in the past.
But the fact that one could create a 1-piece mousetrap and a 2-piece mousetrap and a.... 5 piece mousetrap doesn't mean that the one-piece mousetrap can gradually evolve into a 5 piece mousetrap.
Well, I'm only CyberShy, I do not know anything, so I'm sure scientists have a solution for this.
In fact as long as I live I have seen that reasonable people with different opinions always come up with new arguments. And I'm looking forward to the next argument these reasonsable people come.
So far there aren't much reasonable people at Poly though 
CyberShy
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005 11:48
|