How much actual evidence is there against Evolution (Macro)
- AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
- BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
Simplistic?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.
Really?
With what basis can you claim that the eye shows Irreducible Complexity?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
- AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Simplistic?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.
Really?
With what basis can you claim that the eye shows Irreducible Complexity?
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
- BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
- AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.
Thought this was interesting-not a rebuttal to anything you've said-just interesting.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ad&id=1061
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
- BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
- AttentionKMartShoppers
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2163
- Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Location: Austin, Texas
- Contact:
So, in the hypothetical evolution of the eye, we assume that irreducibly complex systems are already in place. Shouldn't you have to explain those too? Evolution is supposed to explain everything. And some claim it does.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin
-Winston Churchill
An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.
You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
- BGoodForGoodSake
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 2127
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
- Christian: No
- Location: Washington D.C.
Yes we assume the system is in place given the fact that three different series of eyes exist in nature which all use the same visual pathway. You're the one who assumes it is irreducibly complex.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So, in the hypothetical evolution of the eye, we assume that irreducibly complex systems are already in place.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.
How can a science explain everything at the level of specificity you seem to be demanding? That's forensics, an (application of scientific theories and technology in investigation), not science itself, the (process of developing theories). For instance in physics we have the atomic theory and countless tables and charts of physical properties. We don't need a general theory for how a specific combination of semiconductors and other materials create transistors. The theory of Evolution contains explanations of the processes involved. We can only speculate on past occurances.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Shouldn't you have to explain those too? Evolution is supposed to explain everything.
Going back to irreducible complexity, are you saying that there is no way for the visual pathway to have formed peicemeal? Think about phototropism and it's relation to vision.
What you are doing is a series of why's which can go on ad infinitum.
Why is it bright outside?
Because the Sun's out.
Why?
Because it's day time.
Why?
Because it's not night time...
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson