The case against ID....

[Kidlicious]

That can't be true. Asexual orgies are much more complex than one would imagine.

[Lemmy]

I go to the beach and pick up a single grain of sand, which one will i pick? There are billions of billions of grains on the beach, the chance of me picking up a particular grain is infinitely small. One might say it is impossible that i pick up that particular grain.
But the same reasoning can then be applied to every other grain on the beach. Does that mean that it is impossible for me to pick up a single grain of sand from the beach?

We don't know how many paths there are to evolve into a cell, we can theorize about it and maybe come up with some chance of it happening....but as long as the chance is greater than 0 you can't say it's impossible.
If you want to say that evolution into a cell is impossible, you need come up with some reasoning and show that the chance of evolving into a cell equals 0, and not 10^-42 or whatever small number still greater than 0.

I think you're making 2 incorrect assumptions:
1. Every mutation has to be usefull on its own in order to survive and be combined with other mutations to make something usefull.
2. If a chance of something happening is small enough but still greater than 0, then that something is impossible to happen.

[Robert]

I think you're making 2 incorrect assumptions:
1. Every mutation has to be usefull on its own in order to survive and be combined with other mutations to make something usefull.
3. If a chance of something happening is small enough but still greater than 0, then that something is impossible to happen.

Ok, you totally miss my point.
Oh, and you have too much faith in the law of the large numbers.

Now go to the beach, 1 out of every 1000 grains of sand is yellow, all others are brown.
Now you have to pick up 100 grains while you are blindfolded. All 100 must be yellow.

If you fail to pick up 100 yellow ones and 0 brown ones you succeed. If not, drop them all and try it again.
Is that impossible? Nope, the change you do it right is greater then 0. Though earth must exist for over billions times billions of years for this, so in fact the change is 0.

The discussion on this stopic is how many yellow grains of sand you need to pick up while you are blindfolded.
If the IDers are right you need to pick up about 1000 grains of yellow sand.

If the antiIDers are right you need to pick up 1000 grains of sand one by one and you can check after you picked it up afterwards and drop if it's brown and try again.

[Sandman]

I'm digging the way you're adapting your language to make 'ID' sound like a credible scientific theory rather than evidence-free metaphysics.

Don't focus on the analogy. Focus on the issue and use the analogy to explain it.

Sounds like you're focusing on that absurd mousetrap analogy, pal.

I don't know how you can claim that there's no word at all if one letter is deleted from 'Apolyton'. There's loads of perfectly useable words there.

Similarly, I don't know how you can claim that cells fall to bits whenever there's a mutation, and only a simultaneous combination of mutations makes sense.

[Sava]

show me one shred of evidence in support of ID...

if not, stfu

[MikeH]

You know that quote from The Usual Suspects "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist"?

That's what I always think when ID comes up, it's amazing the level of marketing that has gone into ID recently that has people thinking that it's a valid scientific theory and that Evolution is somehow debatable.

I get the feeling that these days if people sell it correctly they could get people to doubt that the planet is a sphere that moves round the Sun or that gravity holds us to the Earth's surface.

[Lemmy]

If you fail to pick up 100 yellow ones and 0 brown ones you succeed. If not, drop them all and try it again.
Is that impossible? Nope, the change you do it right is greater then 0. Though earth must exist for over billions times billions of years for this, so in fact the change is 0.

Alright...i'll modify 2:
If a chance of something happening at any point in time is small enough but still greater than 0, then that something is impossible to happen over a short period of time
It's still an incorrect assumption.

But it if it were correct, you could apply induction and prove that this something will never happen, not even over billions times billions of years....which is what i said orignally.

[Robert]

Sava: I'm asking evolutionists for evidence in support of a gradually evolved cell. I'm not saying "ID is the answer"

but I'm sure you don't know anything about the entire issue. You just talk in one liners while you know nothing.

I'm digging the way you're adapting your language to make 'ID' sound like a credible scientific theory rather than evidence-free metaphysics.

My analogy is just a way to make the discussion less abstract. My first post has little analogy and more abstract reasoning but I got amper serious replies on it. Then Last Conformist (who was the only serious responder so far) asked me to explain some more what I meant.

Then I used the analogy that's been used by both IDers and nonIDers to just explain my question.

Sounds like you're focusing on that absurd mousetrap analogy, pal.

I'm focussing on the cell.
The cell has a complex construction in which the entire construction wouldn't function anymore if one part would be removed.
That assumes that the cell couldn't have evolved gradually. Though scientists have countered that some elements of the cell have evolved in seperated processes and became a part of the cell later. Or perhaps some elements had less important purposes in the cell earlier and adapted to their current (important) purpose later. Now my question to nonIDers is: even if it's not nessecary that all elements of the cell have evolved (mutated) in the same process, how comes that all those elements started to perform their current tasks at once?

You see, that's a question that is totally seperated from the analogy. In fact I raised this question earlier in the thread and came with the analogy later. Now be a man and admit that your post made no sence in reply to mine.

Can please anybody who has no clue about this subject shut up instead of all those childish one liners.
I don't claim I know that much of the topic, I just have my question to people who do have knowledge.

Urban Ranger, you know what I'm talking about, don't you?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's why no one talks to you anymore.

...

Despite the , that wasn't funny or even amusing. It would only be funny if it had a semblance of truth, but to say that in response to someone like KH is just bizarre and inane.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


...

Despite the , that wasn't funny or even amusing. It would only be funny if it had a semblance of truth, but to say that in response to someone like KH is just bizarre and inane.

Actually it's sad, but not as sad as little preteens who have to follow grown men around on the internet making stupid comments to try to upset them.

[Sandman]

Now my question to scientists is: even if it's not nessecary that all elements of the cell have evolved (mutated) in the same process, how comes that all those elements started to perform their current tasks at once?

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.

This is manifestly not the case with cells. Within a single organism, with a single set of genes, the properties of the cells can change enormously. Even one-celled organisms can alter their cells; amoebae can change shape, bacteria can transform into spores. Cells are more flexible than you give them credit for.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by CyberShy


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

I can't help but notice this has nothing to do with the statement it allegedly is the point of.

Nobody is suggesting that something equivalent to a modern prokaryote cell arose "randomly". Every theory of abiogenesis (unless you, unreasonably, wants to treat creationism as a theory) supposed a number of intermediates between simple organic molecules and the prokaryote cell, each of which will have been subject to selection.

[Last Conformist]

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

As Sandman noted, this simply isn't true. Moreover, if it were true, it would not mean that cells could not have evolved.

The basic error of the irreducible complexity argument is the implicit assumption that systems can only evolve by the addition of parts. This isn't true - they can also, and frequently do, evolve by modifying or deleting parts. A cell can replace a system with a novel one by first duplicating the old one, then change only one copy into the new one, and then ditch the old one - it's not necessary that the new system actually works from the get go.

[Theben]

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).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by CyberShy


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.

I haven't even read your question, son.

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