No, I wanted to see this.Wall-dog wrote:Sorry - you are right that Dembski focuses primarily on the math. That's kind of what I thought you wanted to see.
"there is hard math behind my contention that some things are better explained by intelligence than by chance."
None of these are experiments why post them here? Also why does a flagellum have to be motor like? Can't a motor be flagellum like? Everything has to operate under the same principals, the laws which govern mechanical action in this universe.Wall-dog wrote:But try the book Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. I don't have a copy of the book on hand to quote from but here is from a review at http://www.idurc.org/archive/stearnssedu.htm.
by demonstrating that they are inherently motor-like and that a designer must have helped assemble them in some way.
*sigh* Publications are not experiments, infact these are philosophical ideas, not science.
You cannot go from his paper to this figure! lolWall-dog wrote:Actually, what he has shown a mathmatical equation with which others, such as Behe, determine the probability of different things happening by something other than intelligence. According to Behe the probability of the mechanisms in a single celled organism being produced naturally is roughly the same as the chance of a tornado going through a junkyard and throwing together a fully functional Boeing 747.Specified complexity is a result of an iterative process interacting with an environment. This is how evolution works. And this is how man's technology has developed. What he has not shown is that specified complexity is a result of intelligence not only iterative processes which have been subjected to specific rules.
Again you're only proving that birds make nests, not that an intelligence created the bird! How many times do you have to repeat this error in logic?Wall-dog wrote:Mankind is a part of nature. We are also the most intelligent creatures on the planet. It is only natural that I would look to man-made creations to demonstrate intelligence in design and assembly in real-world scenarios. If I wanted to go to a lower level I might use a bird building a nest.You have shown how man made inventions are designed, you are only making analogies. You have not demonstrated how nature is designed by an intelligence. This is done through experimentation with nature.
It's an analogy not an experiment!Wall-dog wrote:I prefer to use empirical evidence from people with more credentials than me. Sometimes I pull them from memory but if you look closely you'll see the mousetrap above coming from a microbiologist.Now if you could show me yours again maybe we can compare.
Don't humble yourself, there is no need. Let's just have a constructive conversation.Wall-dog wrote:I'm just a cheesy little computer programmer. I wouldn't pretend to be able to go toe-to-toe with you without support from experts.
You focus on the design aspect even when it has nothing to do with the argument???Wall-dog wrote:Actually, my argument would be that the airplane clearly shows signs of having been designed by intelligence.No to move beyond a hypothesis you need to experimentally show the mechanisms in work in nature.
You're arguments so far have amounted to the following.
I have an aeroplane and it flies using gasoline as fuel.
So all things which fly use gasoline.
Again an airplane being designed doesn't mean a bird is designed.
Just like an airplane using gasoline to fly doesn't mean a bird uses gasoline to fly.
Shouldn't you focus on the fact that they both have wings which provide lift?
Comparisons don't make it an actuality. I can compare the sun to a furnace, but that doesn't mean God is throwing coals into the sun.Wall-dog wrote:I'll grant that, however, in his book, Darwin's Black Box, Behe compares the single living cell to a factory, complete with...So how does removing a component of an organism result in the proof of IC? It should only prove that in order to stay alive the cell needed that component.
How can it it artificial??...artificial languages and their decoding systems
A very rough analogy indeed!Wall-dog wrote:, memory banks for information storage and retrieval,
Most of the parts self assemble!Wall-dog wrote:elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components,
Then how do we get mutations!?!Wall-dog wrote:error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilied for quality control,
Again comparing it one way should allow us to compare the other way.Wall-dog wrote:assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction and a capacity not equaled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours.
As in machines are like natural cells. They are a result of evolution.
What's does all this mean?Wall-dog wrote:Behe incidentally named his book based on the idea that the cell was a 'black box' to Darwin...
could divide, it could move around - but they didn't know how it did anything." The assumption scientists made at the time was that as they learned more about the cell they would marvel at its simplicity.
I understand this but how does disproving evolution by this method, finding IC, prove ID? Also how does this disprove the mechanisms of evolution which have since the time of Darwins book been confirmed experimentally! lolWall-dog wrote:Darwin in his "Origin of Species" said the following:If it could be demonstrated thta any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Also does the discovery of an IC mechanism leave open the posibility that sometime in the future a pathway can be found?
And if this is so isn't IC just a description for a limitation of knowledge?
Let's try this.Wall-dog wrote:IC is based on the following (again from Behe):
It must maintain function because, according to Behe, "natural selection chooses systems that are already working."A system or device is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the components, the system would no longer function. An irreducibly complex system is highly unlikely to be built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because the system has to be fully present in order for it to function.
Do you know how the super sonic jets of today were developed? Can you trace the steps it took in its development?
Why? On what basis? What is the alternative mechanism, and what is the method by which it operates?Wall-dog wrote:As for indirect routes, Behe says:
You can't absolutely rule out all theoretical possibilities of a gradual, circuitous route, but the more complex the interacting system, the far less likely an indirect route can account for it.
Actually the flagellum, blood clotting mechanism and others have been addresses. And although we don't know the exact path it took to get to its current form, the fact that there are possible pathways negates the irreducible complexity of these systems does it not?Wall-dog wrote:And as we discover more and more of these irreducibly complex biological systems, we can be more and more confident we've met Darwin's criterion of failure.
Here's the catch! Given that all possibilities are allowed! Meaning that if I have 100 children in this school what are the chances that one will raise their hand in class?Wall-dog wrote:This is where Dembski comes in. Dembski's math predicts, based on such principals, just how unlikely it is for an indirect gradual, circuitous route to produce something.
1 in 100.
However in real life this is a boys gym class, and there are only 42 boys in this school. So the real chance is one in 42.
And some of them are sick, so it's one in 40.
And some of them don't take gym so it's one in 31.
And some of them...
Of course we are using various excuses, however in nature the laws of nature themselves preclude certain "possibilities". Thats why the math is great, but the experiment is greater!
Are we talking about odds, or science? How does this show that ID is a science? Is ID just a fancy probability class?Wall-dog wrote:You see, ID does not require IC. But the closer to IC something is, the worse the odds are for Darwinian processes.
The evolution of a mouse trap.Wall-dog wrote:Behe uses the mousetrap for illustration. I think it is also a great example on a forum such as this one because most of us are not actually scientists. He has other, better examples though.
Yes they are.Wall-dog wrote:Simple, right?Cilia are whiplike hairs on the surface of cells. .. But cilia have another function: if the cell is mobile, the cilia can row it through a fluid. Sperm cells would be an example; they're propelled forward by the rowing action of cilia.
That's what scientists used to think when they examined cilia under a light microscope. They just looked like little hairs. But now that we have electron microscopes, we've found that cilia are, in fact, quite complicated molecular machines.
lol Sorry your mixing up your hairs.Wall-dog wrote:Think about it: most hairs don't beat back and forth.
Again you're basing this on you're personal inability to see how it could have arisen. Don't you see you're looking for things which seem complex and defy explanation and the go ahah! that's irreducibly complex.Wall-dog wrote:What enables cilia to do this? Well, it turns out a cilium is made up of about two hundred protein parts. There are nine pairs of microtubules, which are long, thin, flexible rods, which encircle two single microtubles....sliding motion began. If it weren't for the motor protein, it wouldn't move at all. If it weren't for the rods, there would be nothing to move. So like the mousetrap, the cilium is irreducibly complex.
That's not science. A scientist would go aha, how did it form? What proteins are involved? How does it work? etc...
This will require a discussion of the function and structure of the cilium first. We could start a new thread on this if you wou like.Wall-dog wrote:And he even says whey Darwinian processes can't account for it:
You only get the motion of the cilium when you've got everything together. None of the individual parts can do the trick by themselves. You need them all in place. For evolution to account for that, you would have to imagine how this could develop gradually - but nobody has been able to do that.
If the shape is correct they will come together spontaneously.Wall-dog wrote:As for the notion that the pieces of the cilium had other functions before they adopted their current function:
Creating the cilium inside the cell woudl be counter-productive; it would need to extend from the cell. The necessary components would have to come together at the right place at the right time, even assuming they were all pre-existing in the cell.
That's not what is happening!! The shape of lee will prevent anyone from attaching to him than you. Plus there will be multiple copies of both you and lee!. How dare they take advantage of the lay persons lack of knowledge on molecular biology!Wall-dog wrote:Possible? Dembski's math again (illustrated by Behe - speaking to Lee Strobel for one of Lee Strobel's books - The Case for a Creator):
It's extraordinarily improbable. Let me illustrate it for you. Say there are ten thousand proteins in a cell. Now, imagine you live in a town of ten thousand people, and everyone goes to teh county fair at the same time. Just for fun, everyone is wearing blindfolds and is not allowed to speak. There are two other people named Lee, and your job is to link hands with them. What are the odds that you could go grab two people at random and create a link of Lees? Pretty slim.
This analogy is utter nonsence. A protein does not operate this way. Once sequenced it self assembles and interacts with other proteins floating around in the cell.Wall-dog wrote:In fact, it gets worse. In the cell, the mutation rate is extremely low. In our analogy, that would mean you could only change partners at the county fair one time a year. So you link wiht two other people - sorry, they're not the other Lees. Next year, you link wiht two other people. Sorry, no Lees again. How long would it take you to link with the other Lees? A very, very long time - and the same is true in the cell. It would take an enormous amount of time - a prohibitive amount of time - even to get three proteins together.
It is either torn apart, reshaped, bonded, or ecpelled from the cell. If there is a mutation to a protein, it will behave differently because it has a different shape. One change can lead to surprising new feature because of the way proteins can interact. For instance a change to a protein which behaves as an enzyme would cause it to no longer be able to operate in the way it did. Thus leading other proteins to never form because they are a result of enzymatic action and not directly created from DNA. We can start a new thread on proteins if you want.
How is this so? If proteins went to the fair only once a year maybe! They cannot hold hands with any arbitrary protein they will not interact with just anyone! lolWall-dog wrote:To make it even more difficult, a recent study in Science magazine found that half the proteins in a simple yeast cell don't functoin alone, but they function as complexes of half dozen proteins or more. Up to fifty proteins are stuck together like cogs in a machine. Of the other fifty percent, most are in complexes of three or four. Very few work as single, Lone Ranger proteins. So this is a huge problem not only in cilia but in other cells too.
No, you get yes to complexity and specificity when you get no to the other subsets.Wall-dog wrote:Sorry - I hit submit too early!!
Dembski's math also shows that these systems could have been constructed by inteligence. So you get no to the other subsets, but yes to intelligence.
Read his thesis again. There is nothing showing that specified complexity is a result of intelligence.
And going back to the original theme of this conversation, did you forget that you're task was to show how ID is a scientific theory? You seem to have back tracked and are now resorting to critics of evolution's perceived short commings, and popular publications concerning philosophical ideas. To even taking a mathmathical proof and trying to stretch the implication's beyong what is logical.