Again, WRONG!Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language and does not belong in science curriculum.
Oh, I don't know, prove ID wrong? Prove that irreducibly complex machines can evolve randomly (as you cannot call on natural selection or any mechanism)What kind of evidence would it take to change the mind of someone who believes in intelligent design?
Who knows, maybe you should, uh, read what irreducibly complex means?How complex is too complex for evolution to explain? Is there anything that is not too complex for evolution to explain?
Note: that article is datelined 11 Nov 2005. Here is one from 18 Nov 2005 http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:MmIC ... omer&hl=enThinker wrote:Pope weighs in on creation controversy
Intelligent-design advocates hail Benedict's criticism of 'scientific' atheism
The evidence would have to encompass all possible IC structures to do that.I think that if someone came onto this forum and gave you evidence that random mutations can produce an "irreducibly complex" system, you would still argue it. Therefore I disagree and say it would take more than that to convince ID proponents like you of this.
If such evidence existed...I think that if someone came onto this forum and gave you evidence that random mutations can produce an "irreducibly complex" system, you would still argue it.
Natural selection cannot be a mechanism in this arena. Assuming natural selection is a mechanism of any regard, saying it can help create irreducibly complex systems begs the questions-it cannot help produce an irreducibly complex system because the system only becomes selectable once it starts to function.Also, what is the problem with natural selection being a driving force on irreducibly complex systems? I would think this could drive IC to occur more rapidly.
Natural selection only causes features in a population to oscillate, not to go off in one direction (the finches, for example).We know that natural selection occurs in most sexually reproducing organisms, so why is it left out of the assumptions associated with irreducible complexity? And don't say there is no evidence for natural selection, because then I have to waste more time providing evidence to you that you won't read anyway.
Well, you wouldn't read it...Also, why don't YOU tell us what irreducibly complex systems are, citing evidence and examples of this idea. You're gonna have to engage and argue a cause instead of just bashing other people's ideas that are not congruent with your own.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Darwin's Black Box, page 39.
As I said, it begs the question. Natural selection can only select something that is presently working, not something that may in the future work.What I am saying is: why couldn't natural selection be a driving force outside of a system becoming "IC"?
Then experiment. Science is not the modern way of telling folktales (hopefully).However, the locus of these genes on a specific chromosome may be linked to a gene for skin pigmentation or a gene for a system within the body becoming "IC". Therefore, the irreducibly complex system is not being directly selected for, but since it is associated by location to genes that are being selected, the system could be driven towards complexity.
False. The moths did not rest on the trees naturally. Only when they were released at the wrong time of day did they ever rest on trunks of trees (why don't know) and they only found one moth naturally resting on the trunk. As with other recent stuff, Icons of Evolution talks about this. When lichen on the trees did come back, where was not a positive correlation with return of white moths and reduction of black moths.It is not true that naturally selected features only oscillate... although that is usually what we can observe. Before the industrial revolution, the wildtype of a specific moth species in western European countries (I think England) were white with black speckles on their wings and the mutant was black. When the industrial revolution hit, white moths were drastically selected against because birds could see them against trees and houses covered in soot; the black ones proliferated their genes into subsequent generations because they went relatively unseen by birds. This occurrence directly selected for black moths to survive.
Where are you getting this stuff? The truth is the frequency of black moths to spotted moths did change as the polution levels went up and then reduced again. However Moths only rest on the trunk of trees during the day about 25% of the time and the ones found in the pictures are actually glued to the tree. This doesn't mean it was faked, but sadly the experimenter was misguided. This study is inconclusive because corelation is not enough evidence to show relation. We do not know why the levels of the darker form of the moth increased. It may not be due to predation at all.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:False. The moths did not rest on the trees naturally. Only when they were released at the wrong time of day did they ever rest on trunks of trees (why don't know) and they only found one moth naturally resting on the trunk.It is not true that naturally selected features only oscillate... although that is usually what we can observe. Before the industrial revolution, the wildtype of a specific moth species in western European countries (I think England) were white with black speckles on their wings and the mutant was black. When the industrial revolution hit, white moths were drastically selected against because birds could see them against trees and houses covered in soot; the black ones proliferated their genes into subsequent generations because they went relatively unseen by birds. This occurrence directly selected for black moths to survive.
Hmm, focusing on lichens? Why?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:As with other recent stuff, Icons of Evolution talks about this. When lichen on the trees did come back, where was not a positive correlation with return of white moths and reduction of black moths.
My source is Icons of Evolution, once again.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Where are you getting this stuff? The truth is the frequency of black moths to spotted moths did change as the polution levels went up and then reduced again. However Moths only rest on the trunk of trees during the day about 25% of the time and the ones found in the pictures are actually glued to the tree. This doesn't mean it was faked, but sadly the experimenter was misguided. This study is inconclusive because corelation is not enough evidence to show relation. We do not know why the levels of the darker form of the moth increased. It may not be due to predation at all.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:False. The moths did not rest on the trees naturally. Only when they were released at the wrong time of day did they ever rest on trunks of trees (why don't know) and they only found one moth naturally resting on the trunk.It is not true that naturally selected features only oscillate... although that is usually what we can observe. Before the industrial revolution, the wildtype of a specific moth species in western European countries (I think England) were white with black speckles on their wings and the mutant was black. When the industrial revolution hit, white moths were drastically selected against because birds could see them against trees and houses covered in soot; the black ones proliferated their genes into subsequent generations because they went relatively unseen by birds. This occurrence directly selected for black moths to survive.Hmm, focusing on lichens? Why?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:As with other recent stuff, Icons of Evolution talks about this. When lichen on the trees did come back, where was not a positive correlation with return of white moths and reduction of black moths.
False...basic sexual selection strategies are clear proof of this.AttentionKmartShoppers wrote:Natural selection only causes features in a population to oscillate, not to go off in one direction (the finches, for example).