Ben Stein Expelled

[Millie]

The Temptation of Adam in the Garden of Eden: What Really Happened

[PerritoBites]

Hmm I I thought the snake had legs

[Mimirswell]

The case is closed on blood clotting as it pertains to irreducible complexity even withstanding the puffer fish (there is a lungfish species too).

First, fibrinogen-like sequence is found in the sea cucumber. Why is this important? Because Behe posits that it's a necessary part of the cascade that wouldn't otherwise develop independently, yet, here it is in one of the most primitive of species using fibrinogen in a manner independent of blood clotting. Second, cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) is actually useful as a primitive blood clot mechanism by itself. When it's released, it causes smooth muscles around a broken vessel to contract, limiting blood flow. Third, the five proteases (prothrombin and Factors X, IX, XI, and VII) all share extensive homology, a clear sign of gene duplication. The list goes on. Taken together, you have a clear evolutionary pathway for Blood clotting that doesn't is quite reducible to a single primitive form.

IC has no example as of yet, that cannot be explained via evolution. If you are really interested in this field, check R. F. Doolittle's research on the matter. He's been studying blood clotting evolution since the mid 1980's and it's largely his work that Miller relies on in his lectures on this subject.

[Ronne]

Does family guy win this thread?


Family Guy - The Big Bang - More free videos are here

[Arakkis]

Interesting article, it is amazing the amount of information that was put out after Mullis invented PCR.

Anyway, I think that the whole point of why the blood clotting mechanism is thought to be irreductibly complex is that if fibrinogen gains the ability to form clots once cleaved by random mutation, there is no complex control mechanism set up to prevent it from forming clots all over, thus killing the organism.

But what if you have the control mechanism first you ask? Well, the cascade that leads to the generation of the enzyme that cleaves fibrinogen to its active clotting form is thrombin, which has no other function except to clot blood. It does many other very complex things, but only to regulate the blood clotting cascade. So why would this complex (or less complex precursor) control mechanism develop if its only function is to do something that hasn't been invented yet? This is the fundamental question that irreductible complexity asks.

Edited for clarity.

[Kaosu]

Originally Posted by Ronne

Does family guy win this thread?


Family Guy - The Big Bang - More free videos are here

I like it.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Irreductable complexity may not be a new theory but damn if it isn't a good one in terms of the complexity of biochemistry.

What makes it a good theory? How does it hold up to the criteria of adequacy for scientific theories?

[Rythonn]

Originally Posted by PerritoBites

My point: You cannot prove something doesn't exist because there is no way to observe/test it
Your example: You can prove something exists without observation

But just in case... I don't know a lot about Dark matter/energy, and I don't think that is something that is accepted by most scientists, but I could be wrong.

My point was they say it exist because it has to exist, because there is not enough visible matter in the universe to make up the current size of the universe. But you can't really prove it doesn't exist because it is something you can't really prove is there to begin with.

[Schatze]

Dark matter has been observed. There is something out there that produces gravitic effects, that is not conventional matter of a type known, and these gravitic effects can be observed through things like gravitic lensing or simply by their direct effects on galaxies, especially colliding galaxies.

Irreducible complexity is a god of the gaps. We don't understand how something came to exist through evolution, therefore it was designed. Of course, all examples of irreducible complexity from the eye to the flagellum to blood clotting have been completely debunked, and explained.

Here's something key, kiddies. For something to be a scientifically valid point, it has to be falsifiable. Science relies on the logic of falsifiability. "You can't prove it doesn't exist, or absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence" are complete non-sequiturs when it comes to science. If there is no way to falsify a hypothesis, if there is no evidence to suggest that a hypothesis is true, it is assumed a priori that it is not true.

[Rythonn]

Originally Posted by Schatze

Dark matter has been observed. There is something out there that produces gravitic effects, that is not conventional matter of a type known, and these gravitic effects can be observed through things like gravitic lensing or simply by their direct effects on galaxies, especially colliding galaxies.

Dark Matter has not been observed, only the effects of it. Or actually we have observed gravitational effects that we can not explain. I'm not saying I don't believe the theory, I simply brought it up because like god you can't prove it exist.

[Arbitrary]

The fact that physics doesn't do a great job of explaining microstate phenomenon doesn't mean I want a "theory" that God is the Intelligent Mover being taught in high school physics.

Fuck man, by the time you are running into the limitations of evolutionary biology you are a biology major in college. Evolution is a chapter in a high school. Couple weeks, move on.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Schatze

Irreducible complexity is a god of the gaps. We don't understand how something came to exist through evolution, therefore it was designed. Of course, all examples of irreducible complexity from the eye to the flagellum to blood clotting have been completely debunked, and explained.

Man if I had a dollar for every time I have read or heard this.... No, many of those examples have NOT been completely debunked. Very brilliant scientists have found evidence of plausible explanations, but they have not completely debunked the theory. The problem, imo, is the big picture. You have roughly 3 billion years to get where we are today, including a couple bottlenecks where almost all life on Earth was destroyed which knocks the time down considerably. So to buy evolution hook, line, and sinker you have to believe that random chance has created super complex machines that not only have redundant backup systems but can repair themselves if damaged and can also replicate themselves. For me, it takes more blind faith to believe something so implausible.

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

Fuck man, by the time you are running into the limitations of evolutionary biology you are a biology major in college. Evolution is a chapter in a high school. Couple weeks, move on.

And therein lies the problem. 99% of people don't know just how damn complex the crap that goes on in our bodies is, so it is easy to but into the pure evolutionary theory. I know that evolution takes place, there have been experiments that have shown it at work, but can it design redundant, self-repairing, replicating machines? I have a hard time believing that.

[Arbitrary]

And a few hundred years ago diseases were still regarded with mysticism and superstition among the most civilized regions. Next time you get immunized think about the people who argued against the existence of invisible creatures that cause illness due to the (perceived) improbability when faced with the certainty that God has a plan or is punishing/testing someone. Scientific certainty takes an extremely long period of time and being a little obstructionist prick because all the details haven't been ironed out is foolish.

Every watch a clip from the 50s or 60s of an elected official ranting about niggers and segregation on the floor of the Senate? It looks insane. It borders on unbelievable.

That's you. You are that guy.

[Schatze]

You sure don't know what the fuck observing means when it comes to science, or anything really. Okay, let's add in black holes, all sub atomic particles, etc. etc. in with dark matter as "being unobserved" because we can only see their indirect effects on other things. Let's also add in vision, touch, taste, etc. Because we can only perceive these indirectly because of the effects the stimulus has on other things. Erythrolabe photolyzation in L cones, for long wavelength 450-750 nM light, the photolyzation itself is nothing more than the absorption of a quanta's worth of energy by retinal changing it from the CIS to trans configuration, which triggers the activation of phosphodiesterase which breaks down cGMP, a second messenger, into GMP, which causes the ligand activated Na+ channels to close which leads to a reduction in gNa+ which leads to hyperpolarization, which leads to, depending on the type of bipolar the photoreceptor is associated with, flat or invaginated (and the associated neurotransmitter glutamate or GABA) to the possible stimulation of the ganglion, but also because of the horizontal cells in the inner plexifrom layer... and on and on. Each of the other sensory modalities are as complex. Why bring this up? Because by your definition of observe, we can't observe anything, not even with our own senses, because the percepts themselves are incredibly indirectly related to the actual physical stimulus. Your definition of "observe" is complete nonsense and is a "special" (as in retarded) definition you're using in this specific case to try to discredit a scientific idea.

The problem, imo, is the big picture. You have roughly 3 billion years to get where we are today, including a couple bottlenecks where almost all life on Earth was destroyed which knocks the time down considerably. So to buy evolution hook, line, and sinker you have to believe that random chance has created super complex machines that not only have redundant backup systems but can repair themselves if damaged and can also replicate themselves. For me, it takes more blind faith to believe something so implausible.

You fail. You don't even understand the basics of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not random. Mutations are random, evolution is not. And just because you don't find it "plausible" doesn't mean it's wrong. Included in your post is also the implication that evolution is directional, which it is not, and that extinctions, whether singular or mass, somehow work "counter" to evolution, or "slow" it down, which they don't. At all. And furthermore displays a gross misunderstanding of what evolution is. Isn't it funny how the people who don't understand evolution are the ones who invariably have problems with it? By the way, as an aside, the 3 billion year figure is wrong. Life appeared almost as soon as the crusts cooled on Earth. It just took at least 3 billion years for life to go from single celled organisms to multi-celled organisms.

Instead, you think something more "plausible" is that there is an even MORE complicated thing out there that had to have come into existence somehow which was able to "intelligently design" everything, not to mention create all the fake evidence of evolution, and throw in a bunch of shit like appendixes, 20 degrees nasal eccentric blind spots, our singular passage for both ingestion and inhalation, cancer, etc. etc.

You essentially posit an even more complex and improbable solution to what you deem a complex and improbable solution (because the designer himself would have to be at least as complicated as the most complex things he designed, multiplied by the entire fossil record). So, to solve the problem of how mindboggling complex living organisms are, you posit an even MORE mindbogglingly complex and ineffable mechanism for their creation. Go you!

Not only that, but where'd THAT designer come from? Surely not from natural forces! So now we need a designer for the designer who is even more complex than the designer who is even more complex than the things that he designed. It's turtles all the way down, man!

ID is a SHITTY idea. The only way it makes an iota of sense is if you admit you're a creationist bearing a false flag and invoke a mystical, religious answer. Which is not science.

edit; removed the word "theory" from describing ID because it doesn't have that degree of legitimacy. Also erythromycin != erythrolabe

[Pinchandroll]

ID makes sense to me. You have to start somewhere, and if you break anything down small enough, or go back in time far enough, you hit a brick wall. I don't think we will ever be able to, through science, explain the origin of all matter in the universe. I feel that it makes perfect sense that if something exists, it had to come from somewhere, and the only plausible explanation if you go back to the absolute origin is that it was created. I don't see a logical scientific explanation for how something came from nothing.

Also, I don't see how evolution and ID are mutually exclusive. I don't see how theories like the Big Bang and ID are mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible that the creation the Bible describes could be God setting into motion the events that would cause a Big Bang.

From an engineering perspective, you can think of it in terms of system theory, which seeks to model any function as an input-output system. Let's say we want to model the structure of the universe as a function of time. You need a state, and an input. non-ID science cannot tolerate a nonzero input, because it would imply that there is some influence outside of the system affecting the output. Since our system is the universe, that would be saying there is some power beyond the universe affecting our results. However, setting input to zero means the state of the system must be nonzero. However, even if you found a function that perfectly fits the data (ie it perfectly models the universe, setting our origin at the Big Bang or whatever), the amount of matter in the universe must remain constant, because a fundamental principle in all fields of science states that the mass of a closed system must remain constant. Because our system encompasses EVERYTHING, non-ID science states that we MUST start with as much matter as we "end" with. So where did all this matter come from? There is no explanation, unless you accept that there can be an input function that creates the initial matter. It makes perfect mathematical sense to me that God exists, because you cannot really accurately model anything as a function of time in the system of the universe unless you allow for some extra-universal input.

I realize most people who read this probably aren't believers in ID, but I just wanted to add my point of view, because I've never really even questioned the idea that God exists since it makes perfect sense to me.