- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by frogstompMatthew 25 can't save you either. ONLY Christ can save. In order for Christ to save you you need faith in HIS WORD AND HIS SALVATION.
It's a shame that you fight the words of Christ with your egoistic ravings , better wise up kiddo. Paul can't save you.
If you read the words enough maybe you will understand them.
How do you expect Christ to save you if you doubt his word? You need faith to believe Matthew 25 in the first place.
Originally posted by bbarrI find myself breaking a silence of some six months to enter this perennial debate. I do so not because I think that I will be able to “convert” some died-in-the-wool, card-carrying evolutionist, but merely to encourage some of the creationists who are in danger of being over-awed by superficially “sound” arguments and the intimidating status of some prominent respectable scientists.
If you are interested in a rebuttal of Behe and Dembski, check out this week's New Yorker. There is an excellent response in there from a professor of biology. The article is titled "Devolution".
I am grateful to BBarr for pointing out Shanks and Joplin’s article “Mousetraps and Men” in the New Yorker.
(http://www.etsu.edu/philos/FACULTY/NIALL/Mousetraps.and.Men.htm)
I read it with interest and am amazed at the fundamental errors of both logic and reason that the two scientists make. It is really an example of: “There’s none so blind……..”
The article is written in a conversational style, frequently making humorous, snide side-swipes at Behe’s silly ideas. However, it contains just enough learned scientific content to attempt to fool the unwary reader into thinking that they know what they are talking about. This is far from the truth.
In summary, the authors’ argument can be divided into three issues:
(a) The “Evolution” of mechanical artefacts, (b) Biological Redundancy and, finally, (c) his requirement for creationists to explain the “how” of creation. Because of the length of my reply (sorry!) I will put it into separate posts.
(to be continued)
PART 2: A Review of N Shanks and K H Joplin’s article “Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry.”
The Evolution of Mechanical Artifacts and its comparison with Biological Systems
Shanks and Joplin’s main argument is that since current, known artefacts have not been designed in their final state, but have “evolved” over a long time from earlier, more primitive mechanisms, so also biological systems must have evolved over time from simpler models.
For example, here is a quote: Jet engines, it goes without saying, did not descend in a simple linear fashion from water wheels. Rather these artefacts emerge through processes involving horizontal transfers of modules from other, evolving (!!!), technological lineages .
Another one: Devices that kill mice by hitting them have a long and interesting technological evolutionary history
Notice how he surreptitiously slips in the words “evolve” and “evolutionary” to create a mental link between mechanical and biological “evolution”?! Sneaky!!
Now, it doesn’t require a biologist or biochemist to be able to tell that there is a fundamental difference between these two processes. The former (mechanical “evolution” ) takes place with the constant and intense input of one or more intelligences. The process is directed by applied brains that seek a desired outcome. Biological evolution, by contrast, is supposed to be “unsteered” but governed by random mutations followed by natural selection, with no intended final outcome in mind. It is the physical and demonstrable impossibility of this process, which is claimed by creationists such as Behe.
The authors’ final “Conclusion” that: ” Descent with modification is as important in the origin of artefacts as it is in the origin of species. is thus fatally flawed.
(Part 3 of 4 to follow)
PART 3: A Review of N Shanks and K H Joplin’s article “Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry.”
Biochemical Complexity and Redundancy
In Section 8 the authors refer to: “Natural evolutionary processes (that) give rise to the redundant complexity we observe in biochemical systems.”
Redundancy is pointed to as a proof that the evolutionary processes took place along several different pathways, of which only one was finally found to be either required or beneficial.
Again, this argument is flawed on at least two levels. Firstly, we do not yet fully understand what is redundant and what is not, and secondly, even if something can be proven to be redundant, it may merely be the clever “belt-and-braces” item inserted by a competent designer, as is not at all uncommon in practice.
The authors admit their lack of knowledge in their saying, Removal of a given variant of hexokinase does not disrupt glycolysis, though it may have an effect on the efficiency with which a function is achieved. Speculation is not knowledge!
The fact is that many previously thought “redundant” items (like, e.g. the appendix) have after time been found to have a specific function after all. It may well be that what we believe now to be a “redundant” pathway, is in fact merely something that we have yet to find out about. An argument against ID it certainly is NOT!!
His Genetic Knockout (Section 6) merely (unintentionally?!) underlines that scientists do not yet know the full function of a particular gene. Quote: “One example concerns the gene p53, originally identified as a tumor suppression gene, but which has subsequently been found to be involved in a number of fundamental cell processes” Unquote
To imply that removing a gene is (Quote): “a bit like removing the spring, trigger or platform from Behe's mousetrap” (Unquote), is misleading at best, since we know absolutely everything that there is to know about the function of the mousetrap spring!! However, we are still constantly learning about the intricacies and marvels of the human body!
Here is a wonderful example of Shanks and Joplin’s fallacious arguments. Comparing mechanical artefacts with living processes they state: (Quote) ” The trouble here is that naturalistic, evolutionary processes give rise to similar biochemical redundancies. And evolutionary processes do so without appeals to supernatural biochemical designers of unknown identity, using unknown materials and methods. “ They are begging the question! What they are, in fact, saying is: BECAUSE we know that evolution has occurred without a supernatural designer, we can thus PROVE that evolution has occurred without a supernatural designer !!
(to be concluded&hellip😉
PART 4: A Review of N Shanks and K H Joplin’s article “Of Mousetraps and Men: Behe on Biochemistry.”
The “HOW” of creation
Finally, there are several snide remarks about the need for creationists to explain the methodology of the original Designer’s modus operandi. For example, the authors state (Quote) “Until these issues are addressed, biochemistry's mysteries will not be solved through the invocation of supernatural design, because until they are dealt with, the appeal to supernatural design will be effectively no different from the claim that it all happened by magic. If ever there was an explanatory black box, this is it!” (Unquote)
Again, there is a fundamental error of logic here. Any Designer of mankind (and anything else) must, by definition, be several dimensions higher than his creation. If mankind could describe how this creation, in DETAIL, took place, then that would make man the creator.
Simply put, the TOE vs Creation argument resolves itself into the well-known paradigm: there are only two possible explanations of origins: either it came about all by itself, or, alternatively, by an intelligent designer.
All that is required for the second alternative to be adopted, is for the former to be discredited and discounted. This has convincingly been done by Behe and others. There is therefore NO need for a creationist to stipulate exactly how, for example, nutrinos were formed ex nihilo! Nor how the original DNA cell was actually put together, (since random chance clearly is demonstrably mathematically impossible.) If we find out one day by means of the scientific process (which we might!) then that will be a bonus.
Until evolutionists come to grips with the simple fact that no complex model, alive or dead, has yet been shown to have come about all by itself, and that that process is in fact theoretically impossible, there is no point in “learned” arguments! In the final analysis, the TOE requires much more blind faith than Behe’s postulation of ID!
As always, in peace……
CJ
The article is written in a conversational style, frequently making humorous, snide side-swipes at Behe’s silly ideas
At least you admit they are silly.
In summary, the authors’ argument can be divided into three issues:
(a) The “Evolution” of mechanical artefacts, (b) Biological Redundancy and, finally, (c) his requirement for creationists to explain the “how” of creation.
Yes it can be divided into these 3 issues if you miss out the more damning issues against ID. For example I notice you avoid defending Behes concept of Irreducible Complexity which Shanks and Joplins attacked.
Shanks and Joplin’s main argument is that since current, known artefacts have not been designed in their final state, but have “evolved” over a long time from earlier, more primitive mechanisms, so also biological systems must have evolved over time from simpler models.
No that is nothing like the argument they make. Their entire article is against Behe's use of a mousetrap as an analogy. They are not making a case for evolution at all. They are debunking Behe's analogy. In this instance they are arguing that our knowledge that human artifacts are intelligently designed is not evidence that biological systems are intelligently designed.
Redundancy is pointed to as a proof that the evolutionary processes took place along several different pathways
No it isn't. They are not trying to prove evolution, and in this case they aren't even trying to disprove Intelligent Design. Here they are attacking Behe's use of a mousetrap analogy again.
To imply that removing a gene is (Quote): “a bit like removing the spring, trigger or platform from Behe's mousetrap” (Unquote), is misleading at best, since we know absolutely everything that there is to know about the function of the mousetrap spring!! However, we are still constantly learning about the intricacies and marvels of the human body!
yes well done you are realising the problems with comparing parts of human artifacts with parts of biological systems. Now tell Behe that.
Here is a wonderful example of Shanks and Joplin’s fallacious arguments. Comparing mechanical artefacts with living processes they state: (Quote) ” The trouble here is that naturalistic, evolutionary processes give rise to similar biochemical redundancies. And evolutionary processes do so without appeals to supernatural biochemical designers of unknown identity, using unknown materials and methods. “ They are begging the question! What they are, in fact, saying is: BECAUSE we know that evolution has occurred without a supernatural designer, we can thus PROVE that evolution has occurred without a supernatural designer !!
They are pointing out such observed phenomenon as gene duplication. Yes the duplicates are redundant (they weren't there before). So evolution does produce redundancy.
Simply put, the TOE vs Creation argument resolves itself into the well-known paradigm: there are only two possible explanations of origins: either it came about all by itself, or, alternatively, by an intelligent designer.
Or 200 mortal and fallible intelligent designers that each created seperate animals out of the same materials...I can think of a few more possible explainations too.
There is therefore NO need for a creationist to stipulate exactly how, for example, nutrinos were formed ex nihilo! Nor how the original DNA cell was actually put together, (since random chance clearly is demonstrably mathematically impossible.)
That actually isn't true - noone knows the probability.
Nor how the original DNA cell was actually put together, (since random chance clearly is demonstrably mathematically impossible.)
I think CalJust needs to read my post here, and then provide for us what dj2 obviously cannot.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22073&page=4
Construct the probabilities please CJ, if it is demonstrable.
Originally posted by telerionThere is even odds against "creation" taking into account the probability of each scientificly proven bit of data about God.
[b]Nor how the original DNA cell was actually put together, (since random chance clearly is demonstrably mathematically impossible.)
I think CalJust needs to read my post here, and then provide for us what dj2 obviously cannot.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22073&page=4
Construct the probabilities please CJ, if it is demonstrable.[/b]
C/0 is kinda huge , aint it?
The probability for the existance of the chemicals that make up life are all unity as is it is with the processes.
btw it's very unlikely that the events in an evolutionary process are mutually exclusive.
The idea that the energy level that set off the reactions was constant , is simply wrong. add to that the also erroneous idea that the distribution of the chemicals never varied and you see where the "creationist" get there huge number from.
So , I like you am waiting to see their data.
Hi PotatoError
you miss out the more damning issues against ID. For example I notice you avoid defending Behes concept of Irreducible Complexity which Shanks and Joplins attacked.
Their entire article is against Behe's use of a mousetrap as an analogy. They are not making a case for evolution at all
They are debunking Behe's analogy. In this instance they are arguing that our knowledge that human artifacts are intelligently designed is not evidence that biological systems are intelligently designed.
It is quite clear to me that you have understood neither the case of ID, nor the key issues of Shanks and Joplin’s argument against it, nor my own argument!
Behe never used the argument you put into his mouth in the quote above. It would certainly be totally silly to argue that just because a mousetrap is designed, the human body must also have been designed. That is NOT the case ID puts forward! That would be like saying just because George painted my house, he must also have painted yours!
Behe argues that you cannot arrive at a mousetrap by incremental, minor changes where each previous stage was a fully functional entity. This argument is so obvious that it leaves me speechless (well, not quite, as this post is proof!).
What S & J have set out to do (and achieved) in their article, was to show – at great length – that mechanical artefacts are indeed developed over a period of time from various previous stages and prior prototypes. Yes, they do not occur from (Quote) an explosion in a scrapyard (unquote).
(In parentheses, that frivolous reference to a scrap yard is quite amusing. Creationists have in the past used this analogy to ridicule the evolutionary process which suggests pure chance! Now S & J are suggesting that creationists propose that such a random event formed the visible universe, or at least mousetraps! The shoe is on the other foot, please!)
To underline my contention that S & J have totally missed the boat, here is another quote from their extensive main argument in section 3 of their paper, as well as their summarised conclusion:
Moreover, Behe's argument cavalierly ignores common facts about the human design process, which, like biological evolution itself, involves descent with modification. The intelligent human design of artifacts is frequently a historical process resulting from the generation of variation on existing technological themes along with selective retention of specific variants for further elaboration. Human engineers have long known that the problem-solving process is a historical, tinkering, trial-and-error process.
Behe's mousetrap is in fact a technological hybrid, descended with modification from earlier traps in a complex, historical evolutionary process. While the mousetrap is intelligently designed, it didn't appear by a magical, ahistorical process of special creation, the details of which are forever hidden from public view!
My response is: So what?? Of course all this is true and obvious! It has certainly never been disputed, and is also not the main issue at stake! Behe’s argument is stated (correctly) at the beginning of S&J’s paper, but then totally ignored! This is what Behe said:
By irreducibly complex I mean 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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system.
Let’s take the jet engine. For simplicity’s sake let us merely look at two postulated pre-cursors of the jet engine: the water wheel and the propeller driven IC engine.
It may certainly have been true that a designer took the old prop aero engine, looked at the water wheel and said: Ahah! and then went on to design a functional jet engine. However, the key point is that he designed a fully functional jet engine in its entirety, with previous knowledge and experience as inputs. What did NOT happen is that the eventual product was arrived at by incremental changes, where each prior stage was a fully functioning apparatus.
Actually, let us look at this example a little deeper. If my memory of history serves me well, then Pratt and Whitney, who designed the jet engine, had many failures on their road to success. I remember seeing a movie where their whole lab complex went up in flames because the engine exploded! They tinkered with it for months, trying this and trying that until finally it worked. That is the nature of the beast! My point is that until it was perfected, none of the precursors worked sufficiently to reproduce themselves, ready for the next incremental mutation (if you will forgive my biological analogy).
Whatever else Shanks and Joplin’s article is, it certainly is NOT a proof that Behe’s use of the mousetrap analogy is fallacious. There is NO fundamental difference between biological or mechanical functional systems as far as Irreducible Complexity is concerned. Neither could be (in Behe’s words) produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, whether these improvements are attributed to a human designer or to natural evolution.
Nor is this article a refutation of Irreducible Complexity, which is IMHO a fundamental and credible concept.
All that they (and PotatoError) have convincingly demonstrated is that they either do not, or do not want to, understand this simple concept.
In peace
CJ
EDIT: Some really funny numbers crept in here (&8217???) and I can't seem to get them out. Wrote this in MSWord and imported. Some code of one kind or another. Sorry!
Originally posted by telerionI think CalJust needs to read my post here, and then provide for us what dj2 obviously cannot. Construct the probabilities please CJ, if it is demonstrable.
Hi Telerion, sorry I missed your other post, but here goes:
I am indebted for this to Dwain L Ford, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at Andrews University, USA.
Chemical evolution, based on random activity of molecules, fails to adequately account for the origin of the proteins required for even the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium . This bacteria has one chromosome, a cell membrane, but lacks a cell wall and has the smallest genome of any self-replicating organism. It has 470 genes, which contain an average of 1040 nucleotide base pairs (bp). This implies that the average size protein coded for by these genes contains about 347 amino acids.
The probability of forming, by a random assembly method, one such average size protein molecule containing the amino acid residues in a required sequence is 1 in 10^451.
If the earth were made of pure Carbon it would contain only about 10^50 carbon atoms, but more than 10^451 carbon atoms would be needed in order to make enough amino acids to form the proteins to achieve the probability of producing one protein molecule with the prescribed sequence.
In other words, it would require an amount of carbon about 10^401 times the size of the earth to achieve the probability of forming one required protein molecule with the specifications above!
Realising that the probability of producing proteins by a random assembly method is impossibly small, some have proposed that DNA was formed by chemical evolution first and then it was used to direct the synthesis of the protein. This trades one problem for another. The random assembly of a gene containing 1040 bp to code for a specific protein would be likely to require as much or more carbon than it would to make the protein directly by a random assembly process.
With a problem this great in forming one gene, imagine the problem of forming the 470 specific genes found in the one chromosome containing 580 070 bp in M. genitalium!
If this argument is not conclusive enough, how about this one by John P Marcus, Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland.
Consider a smaller than average protein of just 100 amino acid residues. IF all the necessary left-handed amino acids were actually available, and IF the interfering compounds, including right-handed amino acids, were somehow eliminated, and IF our pool of amino acids were somehow able to join individual amino acids together into protein chains faster than the proteins normally fall apart, then the chances of this random 100 amino-acid protein having the correct sequence would be 1 in 20^100 possible sequence combinations; 20 available amino acids raised to the power of the number of residues in the protein. This is 1.268 x 10^130.
Let us try to put this number into perspective:
The earth has a mass of around 5.97x10^27 grams. If the entire mass of the earth were converted to amino acids, there would be in the order of 3.27 x 10^49 amino acid molecules available. If all of these molecules were converted into 100-residue proteins, there would be 3.27 x 10^47 proteins. A division of the number of possibilities calculated above by the number of proteins available on our hypothetical globe shows that the chances of having just one correct sequence in that entire globe of 100-mer proteins is 1 in 3.88 X 10^82!!
Even if each of these 3.27 X 10^47 100-mer proteins could be rearranged many times over into different sequences during the time span of the earth, the chances that one correct sequence would be produced are still not close to being realistic.
Consider that there are only 1.45 x 10^17 seconds in the mythical evolutionary age of the earth. It can then be calculated that each and every 100-mer protein in that hypothetical earth would need to rearrange itself an average of 2.67 X 10^65 times per second in order to try all combinations!! If you think that that is physically possible, my answer is: Pull the other one, it’s got bells on!
(Both of these excerpts have been adapted from “In Six Days”, published by New Holland Publishers, Australia. A good resource for creationists!)
In closing, the cavalier attitude which evolutionists adopt towards this incredible problem, is demonstrated in Stephen Hawking’s famous “A Brief History of Time”, where he says on page 92: ”It is thought that they (i.e. primitive life forms, CJ) developed in the oceans, possibly as a result of chance combinations of atoms into large structures, called macromolecules, which were capable of assembling other atoms in the ocean into similar structures. They would thus have reproduced themselves and multiplied..
A brilliant physicist he may be, but apparently a statistician he ain’t!
Nuff said,
CJ
I'm going through this carefully. I still haven't seen anything on how these probabilities are constructed. You've just pasted the rantings of a creationist in which he gives his probability. How did he construct them? That is what I am asking. You say it is easily demonstrable. I'd like to see it. I'm also checking over the his math and their implications.
Also would you mind putting quotes or something around the sections that you've copied from other sites? I'm having a hard time figuring out which parts are your arguments and which parts belong to some one else. Thanks.
One other thing. The article/article(s?) that you pasted assume that these molecules (present ones, not earlier forms) arose from random chance (unfortunately, no reference to the set of possible draws from which the calculation is achieved, but you're working on that I assume). Is it correct that you think abiogenesis stipulates that these materials are the product of randomness (please give a definition of which random process this would be as there are many).
Originally posted by telerionthey miss that outcomes of chemical reactions are not random ,,only the porportional distribution is subject to chance ,,however that blows the LARGE number probability out of the picture because the events are not mutually exclusive since in each energy level applied many compounds are formed from they same distribution of chemicals (if they can form ,,they will) and the actual distribution and evergy levels vere both variable.
I'm going through this carefully. I still haven't seen anything on how these probabilities are constructed. You've just pasted the rantings of a creationist in which he gives his probability. How did he construct them? That is what I am asking. You say it is easily demonstrable. I'd like to see it. I'm also checking over the his math and their i ...[text shortened]... me figuring out which parts are your arguments and which parts belong to some one else. Thanks.
also DNA is not the only self-replicating compound there's RNA and also PNA
The sets of Variables (Energy ,Distribution,T) acting on the processes far exceed the Large number they post since neither E or D are integers and Time at subatomic levels is not the same as the Time they use. if indeed time actually exists there.