Round Two: God vs. Darwin

[Lolic]

Originally Posted by maddog

How does the growth of this Flagelum and its 40 components demonstrates that "Macro Evolution" (whatever that is) is inadequate to explain it. Break it down for me, I think I missed something. No, as stated you do have as of the last post enough for me to see this as credible. So no, it does not test it, etc.... More details... Maddog

Hi Maddog,

Even if one assumes the 10 pieces came from other pre-existing structures, there are still 30 other structures that had to soddenly appear, all at the same time, to make a complete flagellum than has a functional advantage.

if they did not appear all at the same time, the flagellum does not work, has no functional advantage, and would not be selected by the definition of natural selection.

Micro evolution is like darwin's finches. change within a species. accepted theory.

macro evolution is much larger. believing that all life could possibly come from the primortal goo or from one species. That one thing or species evolved into all the species.

Examples of micro (which is accepted) are often used to try and show that macro evolution is true. This is what ID disagrees with, at least in my view.

I have made someone else an offer to view my VHS copy of "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life". A great video and gives good information in this area. Perhaps after this if you are interested I can send it your way. If you like this area, I think you would find it fascinating.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Even if one assumes the 10 pieces came from other pre-existing structures, there are still 30 other structures that had to soddenly appear, all at the same time, to make a complete flagellum than has a functional advantage.

No they didn't have to "suddenly appear." One of the things about random mutation is that all sorts of useless appendages and physical elements can be developed overtime. The fallacy of these type of arguments is that:

Originally Posted by Lolic

has no functional advantage, and would not be selected by the definition of natural selection.

...does NOT mean that these "useless appendages" will disappear immediately because they have no advantage. Humans don't have a tail any more, but your Cocyx serves no useful purpose, yet it has not been eliminated because its "useless." Moreover, some of these mutations are initially useful for one purpose, and then become useful for something else. "Light sensitivity" is a useful feature: the beginnings of "eyes" may well have started with simple chemical reactions to light, which managed to provide an advantage in finding food.

Cheers,
Buffy

[mother engine]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Humans don't have a tail any more, but your Cocyx serves no useful purpose, yet it has not been eliminated because its "useless."
Cheers,
Buffy

at least as far as any one can determine. just thought i would pop in to remind you that this is a theory not a known fact. maybe i am being a stickler but i just couldn't help myself.

[TeleMad]

Lolic: Hemoglobin - a scientific look into the improbability of the random formation …

And who said hemoglobing formed de novo randomly? Not scientists.

And you might want to consider this...

"There is also another protein, called myoglobin, that is very similar to hemoglobin except that is has only one protein chain, not four, and therefore binds only one oxygen. The question is, if we assume that we already have an oxygen-binding protein like myoglobin, can we infer intelligent design from the function of hemoglobin? The case for design is weak. The starting point, myoglobin, already can bind oxygen. The behavior of hemoglobin can be achieved by a rather simple modification of the behavior of myoglobin, and the individual proteins of hemoglobin strongly resemble those of myoglobin. So although hemoglobin can be thought of as a system of interacting parts, the interaction does nothing much that is clearly beyond the individual components of the system. Given the starting point of myoglobin, I would say that hemoglobin shows the same evidence for design as does the man in the moon: intriguing, but far from convincing." (Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, Free Press, 1996, p207)

I’m surprised you aren’t familiar with that, seeing how you continually preach about IC – the topic of Behe’s book, and the term being coined in Behe’s book.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Lolic

"Absurd" has a mathematical definition in physics: any probability less than 1 in 10 to the 50th is, by definition, absurd.

But the probability that the molecules of N2 and O2 in the room you are in would have the exact arrangement they do right at this moment has a probability smaller than 10^-50 ... yet it occurred.

Dont' forget that...

1) Demski's has a second condition: that the complexity must be SPECIFIED. Demski's explicitly states that events of extremely small probability occur all the time: his claim is that SPECIFIED events of small probability do not occur by chance.

2) Dembski rejects Borel's universal probability bound of 10^-50, using 10^-150 instead.

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Here's to science...For signs of ID, one can study the bacterial flagellum. There are 40 parts to this molecular machine, only 10 of which are similar to other existing structures. This leaves 30 pieces comprised of proteins ...

If the above information does not make sence, than a little study into "irreducable complexity" and "specified complexity" will probably help a great deal.

Been there ... done that :-)

Now, exactly what 30 parts do you claim are found only in the bacterial flagellum and are also not similar to any other existing structures?

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by TeleMad

But the probability that the molecules of N2 and O2 in the room you are in would have the exact arrangement they do right at this moment has a probability smaller than 10^-50 ... yet it occurred.

It doesn't make sense to use probability for existing occurrances. The probability that I exist in the universe is 1. The probability that another me exists is absurd.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by mother engine

at least as far as any one can determine. just thought i would pop in to remind you that this is a theory not a known fact. maybe i am being a stickler but i just couldn't help myself.

Tee hee! Got a useful purpose for the Cockyx to propose? If its got no use then the ID view says that it would be selected away immediately, yet it appears in every Homo and Australopithecus fossil going back a couple million years....

Cheers,
Buffy

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by lindagarrette

It doesn't make sense to use probability for existing occurrances. The probability that I exist in the universe is 1. The probability that another me exists is absurd.

So if someone wins the state lottery 100 times in a row, no one should question that, since the fact that it occured means the probability is 1?????

[TeleMad]

Originally Posted by Lolic

Question for evolutionists, I have a heart and lungs and a circulatory system. How did these evolve?

Not that you were posting here back then, but I already addressed this matter somewhat back 07/18/2004, here http://www.hypography.com/sciencefor...p?t=548&page=2 &pp=10&highlight=chambered
(URL split to prevent page from becoming too wide)

Telemad: One problem is that some look at a complex organ like the four-chambered human heart in isolation. There are many types of hearts out there in the animal world. Some have 3 1/2 chambers, some have 3 chambers, some have 2 chambers, some have a single chamber, and some are just muscular blood vessels that pump. It is not that difficult to form a plausible chain of such hearts leading from a simple muscular blood vessel up to a four-chambered human heart.

Some snippets from my zoology class notes...


**********************************************
Arthropods have an open circulatory system. ... The heart is either compact or tubular and consists of 1 or more chambers arranged in a linear fashion.
**********************************************


**********************************************
Gill-breathing fish have a two-chambered heart that is located just posterior to the gills.
**********************************************


**********************************************
Amphibians do not have scales. ... Adults have a three-chambered heart: immatures have a two-chambered heart.
**********************************************


**********************************************
Alligators and crocodiles have a four-chambered heart. Snakes, turtles, and lizards have a three-and-one-half-chambered heart.
**********************************************

<spacer>

Lolic:
- I couldn't live with half developed organs,

I'm not sure, but you just might be able to survive with only two chambers of your heart functioning: the atria are not terribly important.

Besides, evolution doesn't say that the first humans had half a heart, then humans evolved another chamber, then another.

Lolic:
- half developed organs have no functional advantage,

Well, some organisms can live with "half" a human heart, "Gill-breathing fish have a two-chambered heart that is located just posterior to the gills.".

Now, I bet those organisms that have a two-chambered heart would be worse off if the lost function of one of them. If so - and it seems a fairly safe bet - then "half a human heart" would have a selective advantage.