The case against ID....

[Jon Miller]

well, they sometimes do.. it just isn't generally Christian

I had one person I was next to on a plane ride talk to me about the energies in people and objects for the entire ride (once he discovered that I was studying physics)

JM

[Az]

The idea that light comes in quantised packets called photons with energy hbar * omega

Oh dear.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The idea that light comes in quantised packets called photons with energy hbar * omega

It's not disproven. To discover why this person who sent the spam to me thought it was disproven would involve me having to read their crap

I read one of those pages once. Was kinda amusing. To the writer, it was perfectly clear that if one has to chose between ditching conservation of energy or accept photons, the former is the route to take.

[Robert]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I also don't argue with:

Flat Earthers
UFO nuts
People who send me spam claiming "photon hypothesis disproven"

Well, fortunately I'm not arguing, I'm just asking a question. I'm sorry to hear that you're all incapable to answer the question.

[TheStinger]

Ok I don't know- but just becasue I don't know doesn't mean God did it.

[Last Conformist]

I'm not entirely sure what your question is. You seem to wonder about different systems "falling into place" to create a composite system. Can you give a concrete example of the kind of issue your thinking of?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
@Urban Ranger: you didn't read my post at all, did you?

I read your post, Robert.

It appears to be based on Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" thing. Instead of using a mousetrap you use the name "Apolyton." The gist is the same however. You were saying that "Apolyton" could not be evolved by having simpler strings of characters because these simpler strings are nonsense. Much like Behe's example of a mouse trap.

As Sandman pointed out that is a horrendously bad example. For starters you are comparing apples and oranges. I know that "Apolyton" means "ultimate" in Greek, but most Polytubbies don't know that, and the name of this site (or any other website) could be "Apol" and that label works just as well.

I used the eye as a counterexample, because Behe asserted that the eye couldn't have been evolved - of course, Behe failed to consult existing literature.

However as an entertaining thought you can break the name "Apolyton" into three parts: a, poly, and ton. Each of these are meaningful in English (poly is a prefix). So "Apolyton" can be created by concatenating these three parts, each has an existing role.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I'm not entirely sure what your question is. You seem to wonder about different systems "falling into place" to create a composite system. Can you give a concrete example of the kind of issue your thinking of?

It's about the cell. The structure of the cell.
The cell consists of several components. Evolution works gradually. So an organism didn't came into existance at once, but gradually evolved from single component to multiple compoments. One by one the components were added or altered (mutated)

So is the case with the cell. (The 'cell' is a very complex system. This is acknowledged by both nonIDers and IDers) (I don't think I need to explain what IDers and nonIDers are)

IDers claimed that the cell couldn't have evolved gradually since the cell doesn't function when one of the components is missing.

IDers gave the example of the mousetrap.
They say that the mousetrap wouldn't function when one of the components is missing.
The mousetrap consists of 5 key elements:
1. spring
2. hammer
3. hold down bar
4. platform
5. catch

IDers claim that the mousetrap wouldn't work if one of these elements is missing. That would mean that all these 5 components must have came into existance at once. So, they claim, a mousetrap must have been designed and can't come into existance through gradual evolution.

This appears to be a good analogy, though antiIDers have made counter arguments, and in particular the mousetrap theory has been countered by John H. McDonald:

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/IntelligentDesign/mousetrap.htm

In here he explains how the analogy used by Behe (a IDer) could be simplified, and thus can't be used as a analogy against the possibility of the gradually evolved cell.

In fact he makes it clear that a mousetrap with only one component could still more or less function as a mousetrap. And how a mousetrap with 2, 3 or 4 compoments could work as well. In fact he shows that way that a mousetrap as we know it could have gradually evolved from 1 to 5 components. (see the link for his explanation)

The cell is of course far more complex then a mousetrap, but let's stick to this analogy for simplicity reasons.
I have a question about this 1-5 elements evolving mousetrap and I can't find the answer anywhere.
All sites claim this is the final answer in the ID-creationist debate.

Well, if it is the final answer, why do I still have questions?
I can see how a 1-element mousetrap could work.
I can see how a 2-elements mousetrap could work.

I'll ignore the fact that the cheese factually is a part of a mousetrap and for that reason is the 6th element. (which makes the mousetrap at least a 2 elements constructure in which both elements can't exist without each other so that gradually evolution already isn't possible for this reason)
But like I said: I'll ignore this since this is only a question that applies to the analogy and doesn't nessecarily have to apply to the real cell.

My question:
From Mousetrap-1 (1 piece) to Mousetrap-2 we need more then only one mutation.
The addition of the platform doesn't do the trick.
A platform and a spring together aren't a mousetrap yet.
The spring needs to be attached in a specific way to the platform. And if you watch to John H. McDonald's pictures you can see that the Spring in Mousetrap-1 is totally different then the Spring in Mousetrap-2

Thus the evolution from mousetrap-1 to mousetrap-2 isn't a one-step evolution. It's a 4-step evolution:
- we need a platform
- we need the spring to be attached to the platform
- we need the spring to be bended in a different position
- the cheese needs to be attached in a different way to the string

One could argue that the platform could have evolved in a different process and is aleady in existance, in that case the first step can be ignored. That still leaves us with a 3 step evolution process that for that reason can't have gradually evolved.

If we take this to the next step.
From Mousetrap-2 (2 pieces) to Mousetrap-3:
(in fact I can't believe how any mouse would be trapped at all with the 1 or 2 pieces mousetrap, thus how natural selection would have let the mousetrap survive, but let's stick to the gradually evolved thing right now and leave the natural selection part out of it)

From mousetrap2 to mousetrap3 we need:
- a hammer
- The hammer to be connected to the platform
- the hammer to be connected to the spring
- the cheese to be disconnected from the spring
- the cheese to be connected to the hammer
- the spring to be bended in a different way

That's a 6-step evolution.
One could argue that the hammer could have evolved in a seperated evolution process and is already available.
That leaves us with a 5-step evolution process from a 2-pieces mousetrap to a 3-pieces mousetrap.

Well, I don't think I need to explain my question until mousetrap 5.
Not to mention the fact that the cell is far more complex then the mousetrap of course.

The mousetrap cannot have evolved gradually.
Of course the pieces could have evolved in seperated processes and used to have different uses in the past.
But the fact that one could create a 1-piece mousetrap and a 2-piece mousetrap and a.... 5 piece mousetrap doesn't mean that the one-piece mousetrap can gradually evolve into a 5 piece mousetrap.

Well, I'm only CyberShy, I do not know anything, so I'm sure scientists have a solution for this.
In fact as long as I live I have seen that reasonable people with different opinions always come up with new arguments. And I'm looking forward to the next argument these reasonsable people come.

So far there aren't much reasonable people at Poly though

CyberShy

[Robert]

Urban Ranger, if you would have read my message you would have read that I included the non-ID argument against Behe's mousetrap. (I used another analogy indeed)

I just wanted to include the entire discussion up to the latest non-ID answer (which closed down much ID mouths)

This answer leaves me with new questions.
I have tried to voice these questions in my last post.

Thanks for your reasonable answer!
I hope you can understand my question and answer it (and counter is, since I have to admit that my question is more then just an ignorant answer, I hope I have a piont of course Prove me wrong dude 8))

[Last Conformist]

Well, fact is, nobody knows how the first cell arose. I'm pretty sure, however, that constructing unorthodox mousetraps won't get us closer to the answer.

I could offer some speculation about how cells may first have arisen, but, again, if you really want to learn about this stuff I recommend finding a more authoritative source.

[Robert]

We don't need to know how the first cell evolved to answer the question how the current cell gradually evolved from *any* former incarnation of the cell.

We don't need the mousetrap analogy indeed.
I tried that in my first post.

[Skanky Burns]

I know that Doom 3 wasn't all that great, but there is no need for a thread complaining against the entire company.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by CyberShy
We don't need to know how the first cell evolved to answer the question how the current cell gradually evolved from *any* former incarnation of the cell.

Your point?

[Robert]

Your point?

The cell is too complex to have possiblity be evolved at random.

And please, all that want to respond to simple one-liner posts like this: read my larger post above.

[loinburger]

According to this dapper gentleman, one possible explanation for the complexity of "the cell" is that the first cells were developed in an asexual orgy. Likewise, these fine chaps contend that once you've got a cell membrane then the rest of the structures naturally fall into place.