Religon VS Science

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"That's not a trait, it's a lack of a trait."

Frankly arguing with you is futile because as stated people having credentials and being an authority on a subject means nothing to you.

And did you read what I said after it, Can you read what I said after it?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne

I remember I said that and one of the other mebers disagree with me, anyway this doesn't explain how simple organisms became complex ones since all mutations have been shown to do is eliminate or misplace traits. and lack of melanin is not a survival trait.

Looks likke you missed the spot, try following people next time.

"Since all mutations have been shown to do is eliminate or misplace traits."

Do you actually have any accredited institutional education on any of the subjects you proclaim knowledge on?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Since all mutations have been shown to do is eliminate or misplace traits."

Do you actually have any accredited institutional education on any of the subjects you proclaim knowledge on?

Institution, if mutations were shown to generate function and trait than someone would have posted it by now, use common sense.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Institution, if mutations were shown to generate function and trait than someone would have posted it by now, use common sense.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your misunderstanding of what constitutes a trait isn't common sense.

Considering I admitted I made a mistake what's yor point?

You just implyed Iwas wrong because my view contradicts the accepted one, If thats' your argument than I suggest you stick to making beautiful sigs and not debating.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Considering I admitted I made a mistake what's yor point?

You just implyed Iwas wrong because my view contradicts the accepted one, If thats' your argument than I suggest you stick to making beautiful sigs and not debating.

Myoglobin, hemoglobin derived from gene duplication. Whole genome duplication, followed by deletions and a resultant capacity for anaerobic fermentation in yeast. Many modern fruits resultant of polyploidy.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You're wrong, because all your doing is trying to redefine a definition. Even using your false definition you're still wrong.

Myoglobin, hemoglobin derived from gene duplication. Whole genome duplication, followed by deletions and a resultant capacity for anaerobic fermentation in yeast.

All I'm doing is trying to redefine, definitons. you mean on one post where I admitt I'm wrong?

If you wanna debate me pm, or I'll bump the evolution vs intelligent design thread. the choice is yours but out of respect for the thread starter I can't turn this into another debate.

EDIT: Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these mechanisms create nothing new.

Though they can result in speciation, but yeah nothing new about having extra pairs of the same traits.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
EDIT: Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these mechanisms create nothing new.

Myoglobin and hemoglobin are structurally and functionally distinct proteins that have arisen via gene duplication.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Institution, if mutations were shown to generate function and trait than someone would have posted it by now, use common sense.

First of all....if a test is 99% correct, and you randomly change an answer...is it likely to hurt or help your score?

Living things have been around for a long time...there is a long history of developing successful living systems. It has been a long time since there has been a major selection pressure (on the catastrophic level).

Mutations almost never do things that you would automatically percieve as helpful..like growing a third arm. Helpful mutations are simple things like improving enzyme kinetics by slightly improving the structure of the active site.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Nice quote, problem is I didn't use only CSI as evidence. CSI combined with Irreducible complexity equals evidence for signs of intelligence.
A good example of CSI are finger prints.

I asked you to explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, i.e. to explain how Intelligent Design is observable, testable replicatable, falsifiable, and to explain the predictions it makes about the natural world and its phenomena.

You replied that Intelligent Design is observable in natural objects that exhibit "Complex Specified Information." You explained that Intelligent Design is testable, replicatable, and falsifiable in that one could examine the parts of a natural object that exhibits "Complex Specified Information," and determine if they are "Irreducibly Complex." You concluded that Intelligent Design predicts that natural objects that exhibit "Complex Specified Information" and whose parts are "Irreducibly Complex," are Intelligently Designed.

I replied that the terms "Complex Specified Information," and "Irreducible Complexity," are arbitrary, subjective, and tautological; the concepts "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity," have not been demonstrated to exist; and instances of "Compex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" are simply people imposing patterns where patterns do not exist.

In other words, trying to build a valid scientific theory on these concepts is the equivalent of trying to build a house on a sand foundation. Sorry, try again.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I asked you to explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, i.e. to explain how Intelligent Design is observable, testable replicatable, falsifiable, and to explain the predictions it makes about the natural world and its phenomena.

You replied that Intelligent Design is observable in natural objects that exhibit "Complex Specified Information." You explained that Intelligent Design is testable, replicatable, and falsifiable in that one could examine the parts of a natural object that exhibits "Complex Specified Information," and determine if they are "Irreducibly Complex." You concluded that Intelligent Design predicts that natural objects that exhibit "Complex Specified Information" and whose parts are "Irreducibly Complex," are Intelligently Designed.

I replied that the terms "Complex Specified Information," and "Irreducible Complexity," are arbitrary, subjective, and tautological; the concepts "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity," have not been demonstrated to exist; and instances of "Compex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" are simply people imposing patterns where patterns do not exist.

In other words, trying to build a valid scientific theory on these concepts is the equivalent of trying to build a house on a sand foundation. Sorry, try again.

How is this diiferent from the tautology of Homology in evolution?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How is this diiferent from the tautology of Homology in evolution?

Attempting to redirect my argument does not detract from your inability to successfully argue yours.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Attempting to redirect my argument does not detract from your inability to successfully argue yours.

I'm just giving you an example of selective bias that you seem to support yourself in and irreducible complexity combined with specified information, is proof of intelligence.

This is the dumbest thing I read from your quote.

I replied that the terms "Complex Specified Information," and "Irreducible Complexity," are arbitrary, subjective, and tautological; the concepts "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity," have not been demonstrated to exist; and instances of "Compex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" are simply people imposing patterns where patterns do not exist.

Irreducible complexity exsist in machines and in biological systems, yet dawkins say's it doesn't exsist? do you even know what it means?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I'm just giving you an example of selective bias that you seem to support yourself in...

...In an attempt to redirect my argument to detract from your inability to successfully argue yours.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
This is the dumbest thing I read from your quote.

Irreducible complexity exsist in machines and in biological systems, yet dawkins say's it doesn't exsist? do you even know what it means?

Behe defines "Irreducible Complexity" on page 39 of Darwin's Black Box as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

However, whether a system qualifies as "Irreducibly Complex" depends on how one defines the system:

One may say that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs "walking systems," but what are the parts? If one divides a leg into three parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. However, if one considers each bone a part, then several parts may be removed, and still have a functional walking system.

In this way, "Irreducible Complexity" is an arbitrary, subjective, and tautological imposition of patterns where none exist.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
...In an attempt to redirect my argument to detract from your inability to successfully argue yours.

Which has relevance to this discussion, and proof of how hypocritical flukist are.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Behe defines "Irreducible Complexity" on page 39 of Darwin's Black Box as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

However, whether a system qualifies as "Irreducibly Complex" depends on how one defines the system:

One may say that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs "walking systems," but what are the parts? If one divides a leg into three parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. However, if one considers each bone a part, then several parts may be removed, and still have a functional walking system.

In this way, "Irreducible Complexity" is an arbitrary, subjective, and tautological imposition of patterns where none exist.

Definitons for system

-a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole; "a vast system of production and distribution and consumption keep the country going"
-instrumentality that combines interrelated interacting artifacts designed to work as a coherent entity; "he bought a new stereo system"; "the system consists of a motor and a small computer"
-a complex of methods or rules governing behavior; "they have to operate under a system they oppose"; "that language has a complex system for indicating gender"
-a procedure or process for obtaining an objective; "they had to devise a system that did not depend on cooperation"
-a group of physiologically or anatomically related organs or parts; "the body has a system of organs for digestion"
arrangement: an organized structure for arranging or classifying; "he changed the arrangement of the topics"; "the facts were familiar but it was in the organization of them that he was original"; "he tried to understand their system of classification"
(physical chemistry) a sample of matter in which substances in different phases are in equilibrium; "in a static system oil cannot be replaced by water on a surface"; "a system generating hydrogen peroxide"
the living body considered as made up of interdependent components forming a unified whole; "exercise helped him get the alcohol out of his system"
organization: an ordered manner; orderliness by virtue of being methodical and well organized; "his compulsive organization was not an endearing quality"; "we can't do it unless we establish some system around here"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

You can TRY to redefine it, but a system is a group of independent, interrelated parts. Irreducible complexity holds "If one part of this system is removed then the whole system falls apart. The leg individual is not a system,yet you choose to use it as an example. circulatory, respritory, and nervous system all have fit the definition, thus can be defined as irreducibly complex. your example is errenous because the leg alone is not a system.

Any complex machine has subsystems. If you remove a red blood cell, you work fine. If you remove 5 pints of them...you dont. If you chop off a leg...the system still survives.

Your defintion is not complete. There is a difference between irreducible complexity and REDUCTIONISM (which is the main belief held by scientists).

Originally posted by Wikipedia
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY - Irreducible complexity is the controversial idea that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete", predecessors, usually based on the idea that a structure's constituent parts would be useless prior to their current state.

An "irreducibly complex" system is defined as one that could not function if it were any simpler, and therefore could not possibly have been formed by successive additions to a precursor system with the same functionality. The concept is generally used as an argument for the intelligent design of life, and as a counterargument used by creationists against the theory of evolution.

I don't know any biologist who holds this view.

Originally posted by Wikipedia
REDUCTIONSIM - Reductionism in philosophy is the theory that asserts that the nature of complex things can always be reduced to (explained by) simpler or more fundamental things. This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.

This view is the cornerstone of modern science.

Originally posted by Alliance
Any complex machine has subsystems. If you remove a red blood cell, you work fine. If you remove 5 pints of them...you dont. If you chop off a leg...the system still survives.

A Single "red blood cell is not a sub-system", neither is a leg. Nice try in attempting to redefine a word. A system is defined as independent , interrelated parts. a leg is not part of a system in the sense you defined it, rather it is dependent on several systems which are independent of it.

Nice attempt at a "Straw Man Argument"

Originally posted by Alliance

Your defintion is not complete. There is a difference between irreducible complexity and REDUCTIONISM (which is the main belief held by scientists).

I dunno how many times I have to tell you, just because it is accepted by a majority doesn't mean it's correct.

You're insane. Irreducible complexity is NOT a philosphy that is credible.

A cell is a system. It fits your characteristic which you have arbitrarily defined. You have no logic and your views make no sense.

The majority is not always correct, but in this instance, you have given me NO reason to believe why you are correct.

Originally posted by Alliance
You're insane. Irreducible complexity is NOT a philosphy that is credible.

Based on your opinion.

Originally posted by Alliance

A cell is a system. It fits your characteristic which you have arbitrarily defined. You have no logic and your views make no sense.

And your nit picking as usual because you Lack Debating skills, You chose to name a leg as an example, what system does a leg contribute to? and than you name a single blood as an example of a system.

Originally posted by Alliance

A cell is a system. It fits your characteristic which you have arbitrarily defined.

I already gave the definition, when I said remove it means eliminate the role from system. if you eliminate 1 cell the rest will take their place in the system thus it still has a role. but, if you eliminate the blood cells completely (Which is what I said) then the system falls apart.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And your nit picking as usual because you [B]Lack Debating skills, You chose to name a leg as an example, what system does a leg contribute to? [/B]

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I dunno how many times I have to tell you, just because it is accepted by a majority doesn't mean it's correct.

Originally posted by Alliance
The majority is not always correct, but in this instance, you have given me NO reason to believe why you are correct.