Evolution and Intelligent Design

[TheOwner]

@airframe: Two instances of hostility throughout all recorded history hardly make for a compelling case to blanket label all religions as hostile, even if we take it at face value that both of those instances are solely caused by religion (which I really don't buy for a moment). And I could just as easily cite cases of atheistic institutions that caused wide-scale persecution and wars.

Simply put, yes, you do need to back that up. Possibly on a different thread since it's off-topic for this one.

Two instances througout all recorded history? I'm sure you can think more yourself. Jihads, maybe? I'm not going to even try to list all instances.  Yes, some might have happened even without religions, but often hostilities have been driven by religious beliefs.

No not all religions are hostile, but we're really talking about christianity when discussing about ID.


@TheOwner: So you think not all things in the bible sound right? Sounds like you are picking which bibllical rules to follow and which not, and deciding it by yourself.

Like I said before I'm undecided whether I believe in God or not but I've always looked to the bible for moral advice.  The things that don't sound right to me is stuff such as... Each spring all must take (portion I don't remember exact) of all they have earned and burn it as an offering to the God of (I think it was Isaac by that they mean God)..... I don't find that right.  I think we should take a portion of what we get and give it to the less fortunate but I find that to be a waste.

[ratcharmer]

@airframe: Let's move this discussion to Artois' new thread "Are Religions Dangerous". It'll be more on topic there.

It'll be a while before I can  follow though and post there. My wife is abducting me.

[BluePriest]

Not tonight, but sometime soon Im going to create threads for each specific point, that way we can stay on subject. I prefer when talking about evolution to stay on one subject at a time, instead of touching on them individually. Its easy to breeze over one subject and not have to completely clarify it. This subject is starting to talk more about ID which I was waiting for it to get to eventually.

@TheOwner, would you mind if certain thing you comment on I try to clarify in pms, that way it doesnt take the discussion off topic.

[TheOwner]

Okay will do but I thought this was a very open topic and we never really got off topic.  If you want to create multiple topics though go ahead.

[BluePriest]

Okay will do but I thought this was a very open topic and we never really got off topic.  If you want to create multiple topics though go ahead.

No I think we did a good job of keeping it on topic as well, I just like being able to focus on each topic. its hard (on both sides) to stay on topic enough. Perhaps I will hold off on that for now. As of right now, I want to go to irreducible complexity just for a moment.

I want to go first to the metaphor of a mousetrap. Often considered irreducibly complex, and often times not. Is this irreducibly complex. I am going to take the stance that it is and see if someone can prove otherwise.

Here are the parts

(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base
(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse

(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged

(4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied

(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged (there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

You can use co-option, or any other method you prefer, however, you must show that it is NOT irreducibly complex.

This is more of a test than anything. And a little amusement for me. This is one of those things that I feel have been oversimplified.

[TheOwner]

K posts the links to the topics when your done.

[Innominate]

Okay will do but I thought this was a very open topic and we never really got off topic.  If you want to create multiple topics though go ahead.

No I think we did a good job of keeping it on topic as well, I just like being able to focus on each topic. its hard (on both sides) to stay on topic enough. Perhaps I will hold off on that for now. As of right now, I want to go to irreducible complexity just for a moment.

I want to go first to the metaphor of a mousetrap. Often considered irreducibly complex, and often times not. Is this irreducibly complex. I am going to take the stance that it is and see if someone can prove otherwise.

Here are the parts

(1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base
(2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse

(3) a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged

(4) a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied

(5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged (there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)

You can use co-option, or any other method you prefer, however, you must show that it is NOT irreducibly complex.

This is more of a test than anything. And a little amusement for me. This is one of those things that I feel have been oversimplified.

I don't think a mouse trap is irreducibly complex, as there are many far simpler traps which perform the same function (for example a stick holding a rock up against a tree) or a different function (launching spit balls, as the biologist Kenneth Miller identified, along with others)*, but whether it is or not is totally irrelevant: the mouse trap was made by humans and not by an iterative flawed reproductive process with selection. So far not a single example of biological irreducible complexity has been found. The eye, the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, the blood coagulation response, etc., have all been found to have simpler analogues.

*A website that refutes the notion that the mousetrap is irreducibly complex is found here (http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html).

[BluePriest]

Already saw the site. It does a horrible Job. it fails going from the first to 2nd step. The thing this site tries to ignore is HOW it GETS to that point.  Remember, each point you move it, since we are talking about evolution, it will be there for an extended length of time. This has to be gradual successive steps. You cant magically "add a coil" to the trap. Adding a coil requires the entire trap to move in one way or another. During that time, you will remove or at least reduce the functionality of the trap.

[Chemist]

Already saw the site. It does a horrible Job. it fails going from the first to 2nd step. The thing this site tries to ignore is HOW it GETS to that point.  Remember, each point you move it, since we are talking about evolution, it will be there for an extended length of time. This has to be gradual successive steps. You cant magically "add a coil" to the trap. Adding a coil requires the entire trap to move in one way or another. During that time, you will remove or at least reduce the functionality of the trap.

A house is an organism and a mousetrap is its organ. When the first house evolves a stage 1 mousetrap it annoys the mice visiting the house, so they prefer visiting other houses. This offers an advantage to the house, so the "stage 1 mousetrap genes" spread through the house population. A random mutation causes one new house to be born with a mutation in its mousetrap genes that produces a stage 2 mousetrap. This one provides an advantage over the stage 1 trap, and the whole story repeats itself.  (Of course there had been several less succesful mutations of the mousetrap genes before this one, but since those got filtered out of the population for being harmful we ignore those here.)

[Innominate]

Already saw the site. It does a horrible Job. it fails going from the first to 2nd step. The thing this site tries to ignore is HOW it GETS to that point.  Remember, each point you move it, since we are talking about evolution, it will be there for an extended length of time. This has to be gradual successive steps. You cant magically "add a coil" to the trap. Adding a coil requires the entire trap to move in one way or another. During that time, you will remove or at least reduce the functionality of the trap.

Adding a coil is a simple step. If you turn off a gene in fruitflies they grow eyes all over their bodies (including their knees); I think it's plausible that a single 'gene' could put a coil in a piece of wire.

[BluePriest]

Adding a coil is a simple step. If you turn off a gene in fruitflies they grow eyes all over their bodies (including their knees); I think it's plausible that a single 'gene' could put a coil in a piece of wire.

A house is an organism and a mousetrap is its organ. When the first house evolves a stage 1 mousetrap it annoys the mice visiting the house, so they prefer visiting other houses. This offers an advantage to the house, so the "stage 1 mousetrap genes" spread through the house population. A random mutation causes one new house to be born with a mutation in its mousetrap genes that produces a stage 2 mousetrap. This one provides an advantage over the stage 1 trap, and the whole story repeats itself.  (Of course there had been several less succesful mutations of the mousetrap genes before this one, but since those got filtered out of the population for being harmful we ignore those here.)

Both of these are why I dont have any confidence in evolution. Mutations. Mutations are evolutionists "god". Any time something cant be explained, it is said that it is simply a mutation.  Innominate, for clarification, are you saying the coil is added, or it just coils what is already there?

[Chemist]

Both of these are why I dont have any confidence in evolution. Mutations. Mutations are evolutionists "god". Any time something cant be explained, it is said that it is simply a mutation.  Innominate, for clarification, are you saying the coil is added, or it just coils what is already there?

Mutations are an important part of how evolution works. They're not a god since we have solid (or should I say insurmountable) evidence for their existence, which is more than can be said for any god of any religion (those require faith because there is no evidence for them being real). If the answer to every thing you don't understand about evolution happens to be "it's done by a mutation" then that simply means that you don't understand the role of mutations in evolution. Which shouldn't be the case since I've already explained mutations to you... but I guess I'll do it again.

It's simple. Imagine the DNA as a building plan by which the body is built. The features of every child depend on the features of its parents. For each part (gene) of their own building plan there's a 50% percent chance that they copy it from their father and a 50% chance they copy it from their mother. But the copying mechanism is imperfect and makes copying errors. A mistranscription from the original plans is called a mutation and leaves the child with a gene that neither of its parents had; a new gene, quite possibly even one that no one else in the world has. The child's body is built as the child's DNA dictates, where depending on which gene mutated and how it might cause the child to be smarter or taller than either parent, or might cause the child to be born with a tail or without any skin (documented conditions).

Also, I'm quite certain Innominate means a coil to what is already there, but (lest you misunderstand this part for the second time) the change is a change to the DNA; a change to the instructions used to build the mousetrap. The transcribed version says that the mousetrap should be built with the upper part of the wire coiled - instead of smooth like it said in the original. So the parent built the mousetrap using instructions for version 1 and the child built it using instructions for version 2. Neither of them removed the mousetrap once it was built.