Originally posted by chithappens
Why does anyone even answer Ushomefree?
I find that while I agree with pretty much nothing he says, as ID advocates go he's more informed than most (i.e. he spends more time looking for articles to copy/paste into here). I have yet to encounter someone in real life who isn't intimidated by my ability to defend evolution (regardelss of which side they fall on) and, ironically, I have ushome and a select few others to thank for it.
Also, ushome, if you actually have a pair, please go back to the last page and check out both my response, as well as the others (inamilist and 1-2 others). Then respond. Because your usual procedure at this point is to disappear for a couple days from this thread, then pop up with another pasted argument on another topic once it's fairly safe that no one will remember those arguments, nor bother to bring them up again.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ask a stupid person, get a stupid answer. I think that's how the saying goes right?
Lulz. Guess so. I kinda like being the persistent bulldog to his arguments though. He tends to get on ever more speculative rolls unless we keep him in check. Others (yourself among them) have done it just as well (and better a lot of the time), but I don't think anyone's engaged him as often or as lengthily as I have. Stupid of me, I suppose, but like I said it's amusing and honestly good practice for real life debates.
Originally posted by chithappensBecause we're on a mission from god? 馃槙
Why does anyone even answer Ushomefree?
Actually it is pleasant to converse with someone that even knows the scriptures when many don't. He is worthy.......*let me bow down*
Okay, up again........
I still haven't been convinced. 馃摉
DigiMark007-
Honestly, why do you undermine points being made in my posts? You ignore important aspects regarding statements of mine, and then focus on segments that you feel comfortable with and force them to reach different conclusions; this is not cool. For instance, in one of your posts, you criticized me for using the Bible in "taking the position of authority" to support a scientific view. This is simply not true; in dealing with science--if Scripture is presented--it is applied to compliment science. It is not the core and/or foundation of my argument.
You mention that you disagree with virtually everything that I post. Okay! But why?! You talk big when it comes to science--being scientific--but you have nothing to provide. In lieu of my previous posts on this thread (and others), all you have done is mock me and attempt to discredit information provided as pseudoscience, amongst other things. It is pathetic. If clarification is needed on a post of mine simply ask; I will elaborate. Do not get ahead of yourself. It makes you look ignorant--to me--and my point is lost and/or distorted. We are not communicating.
Members of the forum do not like me! And credence to anything I post is almost impossible, as if I am making things up as I go along. Amazing! I even got slack for taking a couple days to understand a few things that a member posted on the forum. Simply amazing (ha ha ha)! Members of the forum have bias views regarding information that I present, not to mention myself! I am not asking for special treatment and/or sympathy. I simply ask for integrity amongst members of the forum--including yourself--and fairness. Members of the forum--including myself--at times, take this forum too seriously. Truth and new ideas are nothing to hide from; things change! I remain on this forum because I take nothing personal; in addition, I enjoy debating and/or discussing religious views, not to mention aspects of religion that correlate to the scientific record.
With all in mind, may we please hit the "reset button," and move on? I have a post that I wish to present; but I need all members of the forum--including you DigiMark007--to understand my ambitions and motives. When it comes to Intelligent Design--which many of you know nothing about, based upon your replies--I ain't here to preach the Bible. If all parties agree--especially you DigiMark007--we can move on.
Agreed? May I present my next post?!
Watch!
The Evolution of An Eye: Part-One
YouTube video
The Evolution of An Eye: Part-Two
YouTube video
Richard Dawkins: The Making of An Eye
YouTube video
Seeing is Believing: An excerpt from "Darwin's Black Box," authored by Michael J. Behe
Let's go back to the human eye. Dawkins and Hitching also clash over the classic complex organ. Hitching had stated in the neck of a giraffe that:
It is quite evident that if the slightest thing goes wrong en route - the cornea is fuzzy, or the pupil fails to dilate, or the lens becomes opaque, or the focusing goes wrong - then a recognizable image is not formed. The eye either functions as a whole or not at all. So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements. Is it really plausible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn't see?
Dawkins, grateful that Hitching again leads with his chin, doesn't miss the opportunity:
Consider the statements that "If the slightest thing goes wrong...[if] the focusing goes wrong....a recognizable image is not formed." The odds cannot be far from 50/50 that you are reading these words through glass lenses. Take them off and look around. Would you agree that "a recognizable image is not formed"?...(Hitching) also states, as though it were obvious, that the lens and the retina cannot work without each other. On what authority? Someone close to me has had a cataract operation in both eyes. She has no lenses in her eyes at all. But she assures me that you are far better off with a lensless eye than with no eye at all. You can tell if you are about to walk into a wall or another person. If you were a wild creature you could certainly use your lensless eye to detect the looming shape of a predator, and the direction from which it was approaching.
After attaching Hitching - as well as scientists Goldschmidt and Steven J. Gould - for worrying about the eye's complexity, Dawkins goes on to paraphrase Charles Darwin's argument for the plausibility for eye evolution:
Some single-celled animals have a light sensitive spot with a little pigment behind it the screen shields it from one direction, which gives it some "idea" of where the light is coming from, among many celled animals...the pigment backed light sensitive cells are set in a little cup. This gives slightly better direction finding capability....now, if you make a cup very deep and turn the sides over, you eventually make a lensless pinhole camera....when you have a cup for an eye, almost any vaguely convex, vaguely transparent, or even translucent material over its opening will constitute an improvement because of its slight lens like properties. Once such a crude proto lens is there, there is a continuously graded series of improvements, thickening it and making it more transparent and less distorting, the trend culminating in what we all recognize as a true lens.
We are invited by Dawkins and Darwin to believe that the evolution of an eye proceeded step by step through a series of plausible intermediates in infinitesimal increments. But are they infinitesimal? Remember that the "light sensitive spot" that Dawkins takes as a starting point requires a cascade of factors, including 11-cs-retinal and rhodopsin to function. Dawkins doesn't mention them. And where did the "little cup" come from? A ball of cells - from which the cup must be made - will tend to be rounded unless held in the correct shape by molecular supports. In fact, there are dozens of complex proteins maintained cell shape, and dozens more that control extracellular structure; in their absence, cells take on the shape of so many soap bubbles. Do these structures represent single-step mutations? Dawkins did not tell us how the apparently simple "cup" shape came to be. And although he reassures us that any "translucent material" would be an improvement (recall that Haeckel mistakenly thought it would be easy to produce cells since they wee certainly just "simple lumps"馃槈, we are not told how difficult it is to produce a "simple lens." In short, Dawkins's explanation is only addressed to the level of what is called gross anatomy.
Both Hitching and Dawkins have misdireced their focus. The eye, or indeed almost any large biological structure, consists of a number of discrete systems. The function of the lens is to gather light and focus it. If a lens is used with a retina, the working of the retina is improved, but both the retina and lens can work by themselves. Similarly, the muscles that focus the lens or turn the eye to function is a contraction apparatus, which can be applied to many different systems. The perception of light by the retina is not dependent on them. Tear ducts and eyelids are also complex systems, but separable from the function of the retina.
Hitching's argument is vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system, and Dawkins rightly points out the separability of the components. Dawkins, however, merely adds complex systems to complex systems and calls that an explanation. This can be compared to answering the question "How is a stereo system made?" with the words "By plugging a set of speakers into an amplifier, and adding a CD player, radio receiver, and tape deck." Either Darwinian theory can account for the assembly of the speakers and amplifier, or it can't.
While it is an interesting post and long read, much of the problem is your delivery, starting a post of with big bold "watch" can be taking as demanding and rude. Using big bold letters and underling gets very annoying and is childish to some. I would also stop with the poor pity me ploy, it will get you no where. Just my two cents and also saying everyone hates you is jumping a bit. 馃槈 Annoyed yes but I doubt hate from everyone here.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
While it is an interesting post and long read, much of the problem is your delivery, starting a post of with big bold "watch" can be taking as demanding and rude. Using big bold letters and underling gets very annoying and is childish to some. I would also stop with the poor pity me ploy, it will get you no where. Just my two cents and also saying everyone hates you is jumping a bit. 馃槈 Annoyed yes but I doubt hate from everyone here.
馃憜
I've no intention of actually having to put any effort into replying to IDBS, since it will be indubitably ignored anyway, and is off topic so...
"Claim CB200:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.
Source:
Behe, Michael J. 1996. Darwin's Black Box, New York: The Free Press.
Response:
1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts
All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).
Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Mel茅ndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.
2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.
3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.
4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
* In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system."
"Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:
1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
* photosensitive cell
* aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
* an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
* pigment cells forming a small depression
* pigment cells forming a deeper depression
* the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
* muscles allowing the lens to adjust
All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations. "
"Claim CB921.1:
What use is half an eye?
Source:
Paley, Richard, 2000. The eye. http://objective.jesussave.us/eye.html
Response:
1. Half an eye is useful for vision. Many organisms have eyes that lack some features of human eyes. Examples include the following:
* Dinoflagellates are single cells, but they have eyespots that allow them to orient toward light sources (Kreimer 1999).
* Starfish and flatworms have eyecups; clustering light-sensitive cells in a depression allows animals to more accurately detect the direction from which the light is coming from.
* Most mammals have only two kinds of color photoreceptors, allowing less color discrimination than most humans have. Some deep-sea fish can see only black and white.
Visual prosthetics (bionic eyes) with as few as 16 pixels are found to be very useful by people who had become blind (Wickelgren 2006, Fildes 2007).
2. Humans themselves have far from perfect vision:
* Humans see in only three colors. Some fish see five. (A very few women are tetrachromats; they have four types of color receptors; Zorpette 2000.)
* Humans cannot see into the ultraviolet, like bees.
* Humans cannot see infrared, like pit vipers and some fish.
* Humans cannot easily detect the polarization of light, like ants and bees.
* Humans can see only in front of themselves. Many other animals have far greater fields of view; examples are sandpipers and dragonflies.
* Human vision is poor in the dark; the vision of owls is 50 to 100 times more sensitive in darkness. Some deep-sea shrimp can detect light hundreds of times fainter still (Zimmer 1996).
* The range of distances on which one may focus is measured in diopters. A human's range is about fourteen diopters as children, dropping to about one diopter in old age. Some diving birds have a fifty-diopter range.
* The resolution of human vision is not as good as that of hawks. A hawk's vision is about 20/5; they can see an object from about four times the distance of a human with 20/20 vision.
* Humans have a blind spot caused by the wiring of their retinas; octopuses do not.
* The Four-eyed Fish (Anableps microlepis) has eyes divided in half horizontally, each eye with two separate optical systems for seeing in and out of the water simultaneously. Whirligig beetles (family Gyrinidae) also have divided compound eyes, so one pair of eyes sees underwater and a separate pair sees above.
* The vision of most humans is poor underwater. The penguin has a flat cornea, allowing it to see clearly underwater. Interestingly, the Moken (sea gypsies) from Southeast Asia have better underwater vision than other people (Gisl茅n et al. 2003).
* Humans close their eyes to blink, unlike some snakes.
* Chameleons and seahorses can move each eye independent of the other.
If you want to know what use is half an eye, ask yourself how you survive with much less than half of what eyes are capable of. "
Thanks X. As usual, saves me some time.
Ushome, you don't have to like me. That's cool. I actually consider it somewhat of a compliment that you insist on attacking me instead of my arguments. But there was a crap-ton of actual rational discussion on the last few pages that you ignored completely. My words as well as those of others. So I can't really refute the claim that I tlak about "being" scientific but don't actually talk science, except by saying this: Er, no. Once again, if you actually engaged us in discussion, rather than saying what you think, posting variations on the same arguments, and ignoring us and our points, my respect for you would...well...it would exist.