The case against ID....

[pchang]

IDers start at the end of the story and try to go backwards. The vast majority of paths result in the ending making no sense. Therefore, the story must have been designed with the end already determined.

This is a completely flawed approach. You start at the beginning and see where you end up, not the other way around.

[Whaleboy]

Uh, no.

ID advocates bring in the concept of irreduceable complexity...that is the complex, highly-tuned systems couldn't/wouldn't have evolved in to the state that they are now since those preceeding steps would create a system that does not fulfill today's purpose.

It's a bollocks idea for two reasons

Firstly that biological systems can evolve for one reasons, and find application in another

Secondly, ID advocates assume that a given system requires perfection (for the sake of argument, development as of today = perfection), but fail to account for the fact that a primitive, imperfect system could also work, whereupon its evolution becomes more plausible.

After all, consider the example of the eye

[SpencerH]

IMO, the inherent problem with ID is simply that it is based on an unprovable premise. That being the case, it is not science, and should not be taught as science.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by SpencerH
IMO, the inherent problem with ID is simply that it is based on an unprovable premise. That being the case, it is not science, and should not be taught as science.

I would disagree--in theory, it is provable. The problem is that it isn't disprovable, so it can be asserted forever without needing to provide any proof. That is not science.

[Odin]

The BS floated around by Behe statting that the cell is irreducible is absolute rubish. the complextiy of cells can easily be explained by gene duplication, and in the case of eukaryotes, symbiosis.

Another problem with ID assumes that modern creatures are perfectly designed, they aren't. The vertebrate retina is wired "backwards", that is, that the nerves and blood vessles are in the way of the incoming light. Also, the pefect biped would not be getting slipped disks.

[Kuciwalker]

Hopefully we'll get rid of this crap for good once we achieve abiogenesis of cells in the laboratory.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by civman2000

I would disagree--in theory, it is provable. The problem is that it isn't disprovable, so it can be asserted forever without needing to provide any proof. That is not science.

Yes, that's better language.

[Robert]

Your premises are flawed. You seem to imagine the cell is like some sort of clock, in which a single differently-shaped cog will prevent the operation of the entire system, unless all the cogs change shape at once.

Well, let me re-prhase: "if any of the key elements would be missing......"

A clock could have a different shape as well, and if one of the arms would be broken down it would still work. And if one of the wake up bells would be removed the clock would be still functioning.

But I did indeed ommit the word 'key'. My fault.

Nobody is suggesting that something equivalent to a modern prokaryote cell arose "randomly".

Well, if there's no designer, it MUST have arosen randomly.

Every theory of abiogenesis supposed a number of intermediates between simple organic molecules and the prokaryote cell, each of which will have been subject to selection.

Of course these intermediates are supposed.
The question is not if these intermediates could exist. The question is if these intermediates could evolute from one into another.

The basic error of the irreducible complexity argument is the implicit assumption that systems can only evolve by the addition of parts.

Well, a deleted or mutated part must have been added once. At least through duplication.

This isn't true - they can also, and frequently do, evolve by modifying or deleting parts.

Which makes no difference to the problem, how comes intermediate A to intermediate B (which has more added parts) to intermediate C (which has some altered and deleted parts from B)

it's not necessary that the new system actually works from the get go.

I can see that. But the new system must fall in place at a certain moment and start working. If it replaces an old part, that part must be removed at the same moment.
Not to mention that the new part must cooperate with the other parts as well.

Cyber: You've also failed to consider the possiblity that structures that were once needed in cells have become redundant and no longer exist within the cell walls. After all, humans have tissue that we dont use (tail bone & appendix).

I do not fail to see that.

Krazyhorse: I haven't even read your question, son.

I know. You have the preposition that all that's been said against evolution from amoebe to man is wrong anyway.

In fact you're a evoluionistic fundamentalist.
You don't even want to talk about it or read other opinions.

My guess is that it's based on a false hypothesis, most likely a flawed analogy.

My guess is that you guess too much.

pchang: IDers start at the end of the story and try to go backwards.

Well, that's how Darwin started as well.
What's wrong with that?

ID advocates bring in the concept of irreduceable complexity...that is the complex, highly-tuned systems couldn't/wouldn't have evolved in to the state that they are now since those preceeding steps would create a system that does not fulfill today's purpose.

No, ID doesn't advocate that lesser structures cannot exist. It advocates that it's impossible to gradually evolve from a more simple structure into a more complex structure if more key elements of the more complex structure harm the entire structure if they aren't implemented all at once and would be wiped out by natural selection.

Firstly that biological systems can evolve for one reasons, and find application in another

But if several systems have evolved in seperated processes for different reasons and will start to work for one reason in one combined project, all systems must fall in part at once.

5 different systems evolving from 5 different systems could happen gradually.
All falling in place in a system in which all parts couldn't work without each other cannot happen gradually.

Secondly, ID advocates assume that a given system requires perfection (for the sake of argument, development as of today = perfection)

I do not.
Today is not perfection.
In fact I'm sure humans were more capable of hearing in the past. We were better protected against the sun and cancer shows that our cells do not that perfect.

Where did you got that idea?

but fail to account for the fact that a primitive, imperfect system could also work, whereupon its evolution becomes more plausible.

There's a different between a primitive bad working system (Because there are too many parts or some parts aren't working perfect) and a system that's not working at all (Because a key system isn't available or defected)

SpencerH: IMO, the inherent problem with ID is simply that it is based on an unprovable premise.

We cannot scientific prove that a designer designed us years ago, since we weren't there.
Neither can we scientific prove that [just an example] a fish evolved into land animal, since we weren't there.

Of course we can make good assumptions though.
But in the end, if there's one sadistic god who created everything in such a way that we would think that everything became what it was through evolution, science is wrong in the end. Even if it obeyd the laws of science perfectly. Of course that's no reason to stop with scientific research. On this earth we need to use the abilities we have. We cannot reach outside our own dimension. Though science needs to be more humble for that reason.

A lot of things cannot be proven. That counts for all sides of the debate. Even in the end if any god comes to earth and performs all kinds of miracles and appears to be god for 100%, and he claims that he created our universe, we can't be sure. Maybe this god is lying.

(for that reason my believe isn't focussed on the past. I'm focussed on the future. I believe God establishes my future. I don't need to believe any past for that)

Even if we create a time machine and go back and see any designer design our universe or we see any fish evolve in a whale (just a silly example) we can still not be sure. We can't be sure if this past is our past. If we're not in some parallel past or dimenions.

We simply can never be 100% sure.
I don't blame anybody for that. But please stop blaming IDers or whomever for it either.

Are we looking for the truth or are we looking for something that's scientific provable?

That being the case, it is not science, and should not be taught as science.

The question is: what is the value of science if it only operates within it's own rules? If only people who study it are classified to be scientist?

That's no different then the roman catholic church in the middle ages. You can only become a priest if you study at the christian colleges and swear to the bible.
And if you go against the bible, you will be labeled to be a false priest an dyou will be burned in pieces.

The last thing fortunately doesn't happen anymore (praise to scienctists over priests in here) but there's no difference. Of course we know more then in the middle ages. But perhaps we know less about the unscientific sprital world (which may be as real as our world, though just not accessable through science)

In the end it all comes back to the circle reasoning:
Science is true because it obeys to the laws of science.
If these laws are inperfect (ie. because the spirital world can't be grabed by these laws) science is nothing in the end. (if we talk about the origin of live)

I would disagree--in theory, it is provable.

No, it's not provable.
Even if we can make it logically that a designer is needed for the cell, that doesn't mean there is a designer. Perhaps there are spiritual processes we can't observe that play a part in evolution (while not being designers)

We can never prove it like you guys can never prove it.
We weren't there and we can't be sure that we can observe all processes.

All we can do is debate within the borders of our knowledge and our capacity to logical reasoning. (which is small enough to most, which makes most people just follow the mass. either if that's the roman catholic church, their local guru or scientists)

Something else regarding to unprovable unscientific things:
Something isn't scientific proven unless:
- it is observed
- it is tested

So, our first origins can never scientific been proven, since:
- we cannot observe something coming out of nothing since if we are observing it isn't *nothing* (we are something)

- if something has always been, we cannot observe this since we weren't always there to observe it.

That means in the end that our existence is unscientific anyway. If even our existance is already unscientific, why does the rest have to be scientific? Apparantly there are things going on that are beyond the reach of science.

Kuciwalker: Hopefully we'll get rid of this crap for good once we achieve abiogenesis of cells in the laboratory.

apparantly you're more interested in getting rid of something that you concider to be crap then in finding the truth. A good scientist would say: I don't believe it, but as soon as we can prove it we know it for sure and perhaps I'm wrong.

That shows again that you first chose your point of view (I need no designer) and then pick the theory that fits your end result best. (I'm not different btw)

Anyway, I didn't got any reasonable answer yet.
If it's too hard, just go back to the mousetrap example.
It's been used by both IDers and antiIDers.

Apparantly the analogy was good enough for antiIDers to use it. Why do you now I countered it suddenly claim that the analogy is worthless?

Does that mean that any analogy is only worthfull if it supports your opion?

[Sandman]

Could you name some of these key elements of the cell, and specifically explain why they couldn't have evolved independently?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The question is: what is the value of science if it only operates within it's own rules? If only people who study it are classified to be scientist?

What alternative do you propose to the scientific method?

[Theben]

The question is: what is the value of science if it only operates within it's own rules? If only people who study it are classified to be scientist?

Except that anyone can study science.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The cell has a complex construction in which the entire construction wouldn't function anymore if one part would be removed.

That is not the case.

You are probably thinking about the eukaryotes. There are more primitive lifeforms out there, such as bacteria, with a much less complex cell structure.

As for "irreducible complexity," Whaleboy's version is correct. That is, according to Michael Behe.

[Sava]

biology is stupid

[Kuciwalker]

Irreducible complexity pwned

[GePap]

The case against ID is very good indeed. Thanks for pointing that out Cybershy.



But you have to love a suposition trying to pass itself off as a theory, when it hasn;t even met the basic requirements for a hypothesis.