Evidence for theistic evolution

[Audie]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

That something does function that way now does not necessarily mean it originated that way.
Old married couples can be like that!

Its good sport to seek irreducible complexity. Its premature to announce it.

[Audie]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ok, that's what Behe defines as an "irreducibly complex" system.
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the idea myself.

Have you read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box?

Ever notice how creationists will concentrate on certain authors / scientists
who preach to the choir, and dismiss the larger number who dont?

[RickD]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ok, that's what Behe defines as an "irreducibly complex" system.
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the idea myself.

Have you read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box?

Ever notice how creationists will concentrate on certain authors / scientists
who preach to the choir, and dismiss the larger number who dont?

Ever notice how Audie avoids answering questions, by asking questions of her own?

Dang it!!!! I told Audie that I'd cut back on the sarcasm. Eternal universe, please forgive me.

[Kurieuo]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ok, that's what Behe defines as an "irreducibly complex" system.
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the idea myself.

Have you read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box?

Ever notice how creationists will concentrate on certain authors / scientists
who preach to the choir, and dismiss the larger number who dont?

Are you talking about Proinsias? He after all introduced Behe. And you liked his post.
I'm simply trying to understand what the issues are.

[Kurieuo]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

That something does function that way now does not necessarily mean it originated that way.
Old married couples can be like that!

Its good sport to seek irreducible complexity. Its premature to announce it.

Sure. If something was truly designed biologically-speaking, then what do you think would be appropriate signs to look for?
(I'm here also testing one of RickD's hypothesis)

[RickD]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

That something does function that way now does not necessarily mean it originated that way.
Old married couples can be like that!

Its good sport to seek irreducible complexity. Its premature to announce it.

Sure. If something was truly designed biologically-speaking, then what do you think would be appropriate signs to look for?
(I'm here also testing one of RickD's hypothesis)

Hypothesis? Me? You must have me confused with someone who is educated enough to discuss science, right Audie?

[Kurieuo]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

That something does function that way now does not necessarily mean it originated that way.
Old married couples can be like that!

Its good sport to seek irreducible complexity. Its premature to announce it.

Sure. If something was truly designed biologically-speaking, then what do you think would be appropriate signs to look for?
(I'm here also testing one of RickD's hypothesis)

Hypothesis? Me? You must have me confused with someone who is educated enough to discuss science, right Audie?

Oh, sorry. Forgot.

This is like us:

Blind unscientific Christians.

blind-leading-blind.jpg (15.24 KiB) Viewed 2460 times

And this is like Audie:

Audie doing her science-fu (hope you don't mind me posting your photo ;))

women-in-science1.jpg (12.49 KiB) Viewed 2460 times

[RickD]

Actually,

That's pretty accurate. Except we don't have our hands out, feeling where we are going. Because we have faith. And Audie, you're smart and pretty!

[Audie]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ok, that's what Behe defines as an "irreducibly complex" system.
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the idea myself.

Have you read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box?

Ever notice how creationists will concentrate on certain authors / scientists
who preach to the choir, and dismiss the larger number who dont?

Ever notice how Audie avoids answering questions, by asking questions of her own?

Dang it!!!! I told Audie that I'd cut back on the sarcasm. Eternal universe, please forgive me.

We'd make such pals, adrift on a lifeboat or marooned on an island, dont you think?

No, I didnt read it, if that is the q I am to answer.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
We'd make such pals, adrift on a lifeboat or marooned on an island, dont you think?

If you are referring to me, then yes. If I were marooned on an island, I'd need a pal who could cook and clean up after me.

[Kurieuo]

Audie wrote:
We'd make such pals, adrift on a lifeboat or marooned on an island, dont you think?

If you are referring to me, then yes. If I were marooned on an island, I'd need a pal who could cook and clean up after me.

Hey, we'd make such pals too then Rick!

[Audie]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

That something does function that way now does not necessarily mean it originated that way.
Old married couples can be like that!

Its good sport to seek irreducible complexity. Its premature to announce it.

Sure. If something was truly designed biologically-speaking, then what do you think would be appropriate signs to look for?
(I'm here also testing one of RickD's hypothesis)

I dont know, that is a pretty deep question, I think.

It is hard enough for archaeologists sometimes, to figure out if some object is man made or of natural origin, whether or how it was used for a tool.

There may be some general principle for detecting "design". We can find specifics of course. That flying saucer looks designed, so does the car. But
a generalization, a "law' if you like, for design in biological or other systems, I dunno!

What do you think?

What one sees in biological systems tends to be rather obviously the opposite of "front end" design. Use of reptile jaw bones for pieces of the mammalian inner ear is just weird. I mean, some Designer might say, well, I've chosen to have this many bones in a some skulls, lets see where else I can put them and what all they might be good for.

I dont think a serious study of anatomy would lead one to think it was an optimal design from scratch.

[Audie]

K, if you read this, I remember you mentioning about ID being hijacked into very poor presentation in its infancy. I believe you hinted that people, including me, may have the wrong idea about it. So can you recommend me a book which shows ID in its true form, as you see it.

Thank you.

I'm not sure what you're looking for exactly?

Watch the Unlocking the Mystery of Life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzj8iXiVDT8

Anything at the Discovery Institute would be legit.
It is perhaps best to see ID as a movement closely tied to its founders.

Interestingly the biochemist professor, Michael Behe accepts most of evolutionary theory,
and so it's interesting that an attack was made on him in this thread another similar thread.

Shows the true colour of the debate is philosophical and not science.

Shows that those who think about or talk about philosophy will think or talk about it, and I suppose, debate in those terms. And, betimes, see philosophy where it isnt.


Accepting most of evolutionary theory....

You cant, you know, say you accept general relativity but you just dont accept black holes. Its a package.

ToE is like that too.

Now, if someone can show that it fails to meet a prediction, or that the data somewhere does not match the theory (those two are probably the same thing)
then, there is some fatal flaw in the theory.

If someone can come up with a different theory that is fully congruent with the
data and is successful with predictions that will be of great interest. Two incompatible theories that are equally matched to observation. I dont believe that has happened.

PC is of course, a hypothesis, like yec or oec. I dont believe that any of those are remotely adequate to explain data, and that such predcitions as there might be fail.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
If someone can come up with a different theory that is fully congruent with the
data and is successful with predictions that will be of great interest. Two incompatible theories that are equally matched to observation. I dont believe that has happened.

It has. It's in the book I offered to send you for free. You know, the one you don't want to read? Remember?

[Proinsias]

Is there something wrong with trying to identify on the biological cellular level a "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"?

Not that I'm aware of.

Ok, that's what Behe defines as an "irreducibly complex" system.
I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the idea myself.

Have you read Behe's book Darwin's Black Box?

I've not read Darwin's Black Box but I have read quite a few articles by Behe and made it a least part way through many a youtube clip, I've been familiar with his ideas for quite a while. The above quote is pretty inoffensive, I can see the logic. If you remove an integral part of the system the system ceases to function as expected. It's the marriage of the above quote with the phrase 'irreducible complexity' that is unwarranted in my opinion. That things stop working as they were when we take them apart isn't controversial, claiming it as scientific proof of an unspecified intelligent agent(s) seeding/manipulating living systems worthy of being included in science textbooks is where he ends up disagreeing with myself, his employers and the courts.

What does holding up in court have to do with it? All evolutionists did was put big pile of so-called evidence for evolution on the table,too bad nobody could go through it and point out the lack of real evidence life evolves.

Too bad indeed, Behe gave it his best on two occasions. I mentioned courts as the legal system is an entity which, aside from science, also deals with evidence based claims.