15-08-2005 16:56									#31
	Support Apolyton

That can't be true. Asexual orgies are much more complex than one would imagine.

	15-08-2005 17:38									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I go to the beach and pick up a single grain of sand, which one will i pick? There are billions of billions of grains on the beach, the chance of me picking up a particular grain is infinitely small. One might say it is impossible that i pick up that particular grain.
But the same reasoning can then be applied to every other grain on the beach. Does that mean that it is impossible for me to pick up a single grain of sand from the beach?

We don't know how many paths there are to evolve into a cell, we can theorize about it and maybe come up with some chance of it happening....but as long as the chance is greater than 0 you can't say it's impossible.
If you want to say that evolution into a cell is impossible, you need come up with some reasoning and show that the chance of evolving into a cell equals 0, and not 10^-42 or whatever small number still greater than 0.

I think you're making 2 incorrect assumptions:
1. Every mutation has to be usefull on its own in order to survive and be combined with other mutations to make something usefull.
2. If a chance of something happening is small enough but still greater than 0, then that something is impossible to happen.

Last edited by Lemmy on 15-08-2005 at 20:45

	15-08-2005 18:28									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I think you're making 2 incorrect assumptions: 1. Every mutation has to be usefull on its own in order to survive and be combined with other mutations to make something usefull. 3. If a chance of something happening is small enough but still greater than 0, then that something is impossible to happen.

Ok, you totally miss my point.
Oh, and you have too much faith in the law of the large numbers.

Now go to the beach, 1 out of every 1000 grains of sand is yellow, all others are brown.
Now you have to pick up 100 grains while you are blindfolded. All 100 must be yellow.

If you fail to pick up 100 yellow ones and 0 brown ones you succeed. If not, drop them all and try it again.
Is that impossible? Nope, the change you do it right is greater then 0. Though earth must exist for over billions times billions of years for this, so in fact the change is 0.

The discussion on this stopic is how many yellow grains of sand you need to pick up while you are blindfolded.
If the IDers are right you need to pick up about 1000 grains of yellow sand.

If the antiIDers are right you need to pick up 1000 grains of sand one by one and you can check after you picked it up afterwards and drop if it's brown and try again.

	15-08-2005 18:51									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'm digging the way you're adapting your language to make 'ID' sound like a credible scientific theory rather than evidence-free metaphysics.

quote: Don't focus on the analogy. Focus on the issue and use the analogy to explain it.

Sounds like you're focusing on that absurd mousetrap analogy, pal.

I don't know how you can claim that there's no word at all if one letter is deleted from 'Apolyton'. There's loads of perfectly useable words there.

Similarly, I don't know how you can claim that cells fall to bits whenever there's a mutation, and only a simultaneous combination of mutations makes sense.

	15-08-2005 19:02									#35
	Increase the size of your Attachments

show me one shred of evidence in support of ID...

if not, stfu

	15-08-2005 20:38									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You know that quote from The Usual Suspects "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist"?

That's what I always think when ID comes up, it's amazing the level of marketing that has gone into ID recently that has people thinking that it's a valid scientific theory and that Evolution is somehow debatable.

I get the feeling that these days if people sell it correctly they could get people to doubt that the planet is a sphere that moves round the Sun or that gravity holds us to the Earth's surface.

	15-08-2005 20:45									#37
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: If you fail to pick up 100 yellow ones and 0 brown ones you succeed. If not, drop them all and try it again. Is that impossible? Nope, the change you do it right is greater then 0. Though earth must exist for over billions times billions of years for this, so in fact the change is 0.

Alright...i'll modify 2:
If a chance of something happening at any point in time is small enough but still greater than 0, then that something is impossible to happen over a short period of time
It's still an incorrect assumption.

But it if it were correct, you could apply induction and prove that this something will never happen, not even over billions times billions of years....which is what i said orignally.

	15-08-2005 20:51									#38
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Sava: I'm asking evolutionists for evidence in support of a gradually evolved cell. I'm not saying "ID is the answer"

but I'm sure you don't know anything about the entire issue. You just talk in one liners while you know nothing.

quote: I'm digging the way you're adapting your language to make 'ID' sound like a credible scientific theory rather than evidence-free metaphysics.

My analogy is just a way to make the discussion less abstract. My first post has little analogy and more abstract reasoning but I got amper serious replies on it. Then Last Conformist (who was the only serious responder so far) asked me to explain some more what I meant.

Then I used the analogy that's been used by both IDers and nonIDers to just explain my question.

quote: Sounds like you're focusing on that absurd mousetrap analogy, pal.

I'm focussing on the cell.
The cell has a complex construction in which the entire construction wouldn't function anymore if one part would be removed.
That assumes that the cell couldn't have evolved gradually. Though scientists have countered that some elements of the cell have evolved in seperated processes and became a part of the cell later. Or perhaps some elements had less important purposes in the cell earlier and adapted to their current (important) purpose later. Now my question to nonIDers is: even if it's not nessecary that all elements of the cell have evolved (mutated) in the same process, how comes that all those elements started to perform their current tasks at once?

You see, that's a question that is totally seperated from the analogy. In fact I raised this question earlier in the thread and came with the analogy later. Now be a man and admit that your post made no sence in reply to mine.

Can please anybody who has no clue about this subject shut up instead of all those childish one liners.
I don't claim I know that much of the topic, I just have my question to people who do have knowledge.

Urban Ranger, you know what I'm talking about, don't you?

	15-08-2005 20:55									#39
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious That's why no one talks to you anymore.

...

Despite the , that wasn't funny or even amusing. It would only be funny if it had a semblance of truth, but to say that in response to someone like KH is just bizarre and inane.

	15-08-2005 21:10									#40
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker ... Despite the , that wasn't funny or even amusing. It would only be funny if it had a semblance of truth, but to say that in response to someone like KH is just bizarre and inane.

Actually it's sad, but not as sad as little preteens who have to follow grown men around on the internet making stupid comments to try to upset them.

	15-08-2005 21:17									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Now my question to scientists is: even if it's not nessecary that all elements of the cell have evolved (mutated) in the same process, how comes that all those elements started to perform their current tasks at once?

Your premises are flawed. You seem to imagine the cell is like some sort of clock, in which a single differently-shaped cog will prevent the operation of the entire system, unless all the cogs change shape at once.

This is manifestly not the case with cells. Within a single organism, with a single set of genes, the properties of the cells can change enormously. Even one-celled organisms can alter their cells; amoebae can change shape, bacteria can transform into spores. Cells are more flexible than you give them credit for.

	15-08-2005 21:24									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy The cell is too complex to have possiblity be evolved at random.

I can't help but notice this has nothing to do with the statement it allegedly is the point of.

Nobody is suggesting that something equivalent to a modern prokaryote cell arose "randomly". Every theory of abiogenesis (unless you, unreasonably, wants to treat creationism as a theory) supposed a number of intermediates between simple organic molecules and the prokaryote cell, each of which will have been subject to selection.

	15-08-2005 21:35									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: The cell has a complex construction in which the entire construction wouldn't function anymore if one part would be removed.

As Sandman noted, this simply isn't true. Moreover, if it were true, it would not mean that cells could not have evolved.

The basic error of the irreducible complexity argument is the implicit assumption that systems can only evolve by the addition of parts. This isn't true - they can also, and frequently do, evolve by modifying or deleting parts. A cell can replace a system with a novel one by first duplicating the old one, then change only one copy into the new one, and then ditch the old one - it's not necessary that the new system actually works from the get go.

	15-08-2005 22:04									#44
	Support Apolyton

Cyber: You've also failed to consider the possiblity that structures that were once needed in cells have become redundant and no longer exist within the cell walls. After all, humans have tissue that we dont use (tail bone & appendix).

	15-08-2005 22:05									#45
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Well, fortunately I'm not arguing, I'm just asking a question. I'm sorry to hear that you're all incapable to answer the question.

I haven't even read your question, son.

My guess is that it's based on a false hypothesis, most likely a flawed analogy.

	15-08-2005 22:18									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

IDers start at the end of the story and try to go backwards. The vast majority of paths result in the ending making no sense. Therefore, the story must have been designed with the end already determined.

This is a completely flawed approach. You start at the beginning and see where you end up, not the other way around.

	15-08-2005 22:30									#47
	Uh, no. Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

ID advocates bring in the concept of irreduceable complexity...that is the complex, highly-tuned systems couldn't/wouldn't have evolved in to the state that they are now since those preceeding steps would create a system that does not fulfill today's purpose.

It's a bollocks idea for two reasons

Firstly that biological systems can evolve for one reasons, and find application in another

Secondly, ID advocates assume that a given system requires perfection (for the sake of argument, development as of today = perfection), but fail to account for the fact that a primitive, imperfect system could also work, whereupon its evolution becomes more plausible.

After all, consider the example of the eye

	15-08-2005 23:46									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

IMO, the inherent problem with ID is simply that it is based on an unprovable premise. That being the case, it is not science, and should not be taught as science.

	16-08-2005 00:00									#49
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH IMO, the inherent problem with ID is simply that it is based on an unprovable premise. That being the case, it is not science, and should not be taught as science.

I would disagree--in theory, it is provable. The problem is that it isn't disprovable, so it can be asserted forever without needing to provide any proof. That is not science.

	16-08-2005 00:41									#50
	Got spare money?

The BS floated around by Behe statting that the cell is irreducible is absolute rubish. the complextiy of cells can easily be explained by gene duplication, and in the case of eukaryotes, symbiosis.

Another problem with ID assumes that modern creatures are perfectly designed, they aren't. The vertebrate retina is wired "backwards", that is, that the nerves and blood vessles are in the way of the incoming light. Also, the pefect biped would not be getting slipped disks.

	16-08-2005 00:42									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Hopefully we'll get rid of this crap for good once we achieve abiogenesis of cells in the laboratory.

	16-08-2005 00:46									#52
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 I would disagree--in theory, it is provable. The problem is that it isn't disprovable, so it can be asserted forever without needing to provide any proof. That is not science.

Yes, that's better language.

	16-08-2005 01:42									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Your premises are flawed. You seem to imagine the cell is like some sort of clock, in which a single differently-shaped cog will prevent the operation of the entire system, unless all the cogs change shape at once.

Well, let me re-prhase: "if any of the key elements would be missing......"

A clock could have a different shape as well, and if one of the arms would be broken down it would still work. And if one of the wake up bells would be removed the clock would be still functioning.

But I did indeed ommit the word 'key'. My fault.

quote: Nobody is suggesting that something equivalent to a modern prokaryote cell arose "randomly".

Well, if there's no designer, it MUST have arosen randomly.

quote: Every theory of abiogenesis supposed a number of intermediates between simple organic molecules and the prokaryote cell, each of which will have been subject to selection.

Of course these intermediates are supposed.
The question is not if these intermediates could exist. The question is if these intermediates could evolute from one into another.

quote: The basic error of the irreducible complexity argument is the implicit assumption that systems can only evolve by the addition of parts.

Well, a deleted or mutated part must have been added once. At least through duplication.

quote: This isn't true - they can also, and frequently do, evolve by modifying or deleting parts.

Which makes no difference to the problem, how comes intermediate A to intermediate B (which has more added parts) to intermediate C (which has some altered and deleted parts from B)

quote: it's not necessary that the new system actually works from the get go.

I can see that. But the new system must fall in place at a certain moment and start working. If it replaces an old part, that part must be removed at the same moment.
Not to mention that the new part must cooperate with the other parts as well.

quote: Cyber: You've also failed to consider the possiblity that structures that were once needed in cells have become redundant and no longer exist within the cell walls. After all, humans have tissue that we dont use (tail bone & appendix).

I do not fail to see that.

quote: Krazyhorse: I haven't even read your question, son.

I know. You have the preposition that all that's been said against evolution from amoebe to man is wrong anyway.

In fact you're a evoluionistic fundamentalist.
You don't even want to talk about it or read other opinions.

quote: My guess is that it's based on a false hypothesis, most likely a flawed analogy.

My guess is that you guess too much.

quote: pchang: IDers start at the end of the story and try to go backwards.

Well, that's how Darwin started as well.
What's wrong with that?

quote: ID advocates bring in the concept of irreduceable complexity...that is the complex, highly-tuned systems couldn't/wouldn't have evolved in to the state that they are now since those preceeding steps would create a system that does not fulfill today's purpose.

No, ID doesn't advocate that lesser structures cannot exist. It advocates that it's impossible to gradually evolve from a more simple structure into a more complex structure if more key elements of the more complex structure harm the entire structure if they aren't implemented all at once and would be wiped out by natural selection.

quote: Firstly that biological systems can evolve for one reasons, and find application in another

But if several systems have evolved in seperated processes for different reasons and will start to work for one reason in one combined project, all systems must fall in part at once.

5 different systems evolving from 5 different systems could happen gradually.
All falling in place in a system in which all parts couldn't work without each other cannot happen gradually.

quote: Secondly, ID advocates assume that a given system requires perfection (for the sake of argument, development as of today = perfection)

I do not.
Today is not perfection.
In fact I'm sure humans were more capable of hearing in the past. We were better protected against the sun and cancer shows that our cells do not that perfect.

Where did you got that idea?

quote: but fail to account for the fact that a primitive, imperfect system could also work, whereupon its evolution becomes more plausible.

There's a different between a primitive bad working system (Because there are too many parts or some parts aren't working perfect) and a system that's not working at all (Because a key system isn't available or defected)

quote: SpencerH: IMO, the inherent problem with ID is simply that it is based on an unprovable premise.

We cannot scientific prove that a designer designed us years ago, since we weren't there.
Neither can we scientific prove that [just an example] a fish evolved into land animal, since we weren't there.

Of course we can make good assumptions though.
But in the end, if there's one sadistic god who created everything in such a way that we would think that everything became what it was through evolution, science is wrong in the end. Even if it obeyd the laws of science perfectly. Of course that's no reason to stop with scientific research. On this earth we need to use the abilities we have. We cannot reach outside our own dimension. Though science needs to be more humble for that reason.

A lot of things cannot be proven. That counts for all sides of the debate. Even in the end if any god comes to earth and performs all kinds of miracles and appears to be god for 100%, and he claims that he created our universe, we can't be sure. Maybe this god is lying.

(for that reason my believe isn't focussed on the past. I'm focussed on the future. I believe God establishes my future. I don't need to believe any past for that)

Even if we create a time machine and go back and see any designer design our universe or we see any fish evolve in a whale (just a silly example) we can still not be sure. We can't be sure if this past is our past. If we're not in some parallel past or dimenions.

We simply can never be 100% sure.
I don't blame anybody for that. But please stop blaming IDers or whomever for it either.

Are we looking for the truth or are we looking for something that's scientific provable?

quote: That being the case, it is not science, and should not be taught as science.

The question is: what is the value of science if it only operates within it's own rules? If only people who study it are classified to be scientist?

That's no different then the roman catholic church in the middle ages. You can only become a priest if you study at the christian colleges and swear to the bible.
And if you go against the bible, you will be labeled to be a false priest an dyou will be burned in pieces.

The last thing fortunately doesn't happen anymore (praise to scienctists over priests in here) but there's no difference. Of course we know more then in the middle ages. But perhaps we know less about the unscientific sprital world (which may be as real as our world, though just not accessable through science)

In the end it all comes back to the circle reasoning:
Science is true because it obeys to the laws of science.
If these laws are inperfect (ie. because the spirital world can't be grabed by these laws) science is nothing in the end. (if we talk about the origin of live)

quote: I would disagree--in theory, it is provable.

No, it's not provable.
Even if we can make it logically that a designer is needed for the cell, that doesn't mean there is a designer. Perhaps there are spiritual processes we can't observe that play a part in evolution (while not being designers)

We can never prove it like you guys can never prove it.
We weren't there and we can't be sure that we can observe all processes.

All we can do is debate within the borders of our knowledge and our capacity to logical reasoning. (which is small enough to most, which makes most people just follow the mass. either if that's the roman catholic church, their local guru or scientists)

Something else regarding to unprovable unscientific things:
Something isn't scientific proven unless:
- it is observed
- it is tested

So, our first origins can never scientific been proven, since:
- we cannot observe something coming out of nothing since if we are observing it isn't *nothing* (we are something)

- if something has always been, we cannot observe this since we weren't always there to observe it.

That means in the end that our existence is unscientific anyway. If even our existance is already unscientific, why does the rest have to be scientific? Apparantly there are things going on that are beyond the reach of science.

quote: Kuciwalker: Hopefully we'll get rid of this crap for good once we achieve abiogenesis of cells in the laboratory.

apparantly you're more interested in getting rid of something that you concider to be crap then in finding the truth. A good scientist would say: I don't believe it, but as soon as we can prove it we know it for sure and perhaps I'm wrong.

That shows again that you first chose your point of view (I need no designer) and then pick the theory that fits your end result best. (I'm not different btw)

Anyway, I didn't got any reasonable answer yet.
If it's too hard, just go back to the mousetrap example.
It's been used by both IDers and antiIDers.

Apparantly the analogy was good enough for antiIDers to use it. Why do you now I countered it suddenly claim that the analogy is worthless?

Does that mean that any analogy is only worthfull if it supports your opion?

	16-08-2005 01:57									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Could you name some of these key elements of the cell, and specifically explain why they couldn't have evolved independently?

Last edited by Sandman on 16-08-2005 at 20:45

	16-08-2005 02:17									#55
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy The question is: what is the value of science if it only operates within it's own rules? If only people who study it are classified to be scientist?

What alternative do you propose to the scientific method?

	16-08-2005 02:57									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The question is: what is the value of science if it only operates within it's own rules? If only people who study it are classified to be scientist?

Except that anyone can study science.

	16-08-2005 07:16									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy The cell has a complex construction in which the entire construction wouldn't function anymore if one part would be removed.

That is not the case.

You are probably thinking about the eukaryotes. There are more primitive lifeforms out there, such as bacteria, with a much less complex cell structure.

As for "irreducible complexity," Whaleboy's version is correct. That is, according to Michael Behe.

	16-08-2005 07:17									#58
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

biology is stupid

	16-08-2005 07:29									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Irreducible complexity pwned

	16-08-2005 07:31									#60
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

The case against ID is very good indeed. Thanks for pointing that out Cybershy.



But you have to love a suposition trying to pass itself off as a theory, when it hasn;t even met the basic requirements for a hypothesis.