Cellers kompleksitet utelukker mulighet for evolusjon

[Venerable]

Vær så snill og ikke forurense livssynsforumet med slike diskusjoner! Det er nok av interessante ting å diskutere, om vi ikke skal diskutere ting som er bevist for lenge siden.

Det er nok av folk der ute som ikke vet det, og som ikke har akseptert bevisene enda, så det er viktig at slike ting blir... Nevnt.

[isbit]

Trådstarter er religiøs og lar seg neppe påvirke av vitenskapelige bevis uansett. Men jo, greit at vi kan informere andre som er interessert i å lære.

[Venerable]

Vi har klart å få andre til å innse det her på forumet. Og 70% av forskere (Hvorav 99,98% aksepterer evolusjon) er religiøse. Så det er ikke umulig.

[isbit]

Moderate riktignok.

[Gunfreak]

var et program om nettopp dette på NGC i går.

 

de viste blant annet dette med øyet på en veldig lett måte.

 

det kom også fram at evolusjon kan skape store forandringer på kortere tid en vi trodde.

er det mye konkuranse vil evolusjon bli drever frem mye fortere.

verden er vist ganske stabil nå, så evolusjon tar lengre tid, når global oppvarming virklig setter jorda i kaos, vil kanskje evolusjon settes i høygir, med store forandringer på kort tid

[yssi83]

Hvis du er motvillig mot å lese Dawkins pga hans manglende religion, kan du heller lese hva Ken Miller skriver om evolusjon. Han er troende og praktiserende kristen, men er også evolusjonsbiolog.

[Timeo]

Hvis du er motvillig mot å lese Dawkins pga hans manglende religion, kan du heller lese hva Ken Miller skriver om evolusjon. Han er troende og praktiserende kristen, men er også evolusjonsbiolog.

 

Takk for linken. Satte den i bookmarks.

[Leviath]

Sitter selv og leser Dawkins' "The god delusion" og han omtaler noe jeg syntes var meget interessant med tanke på det Bellicus nevner om kompliseksiteten av celler. Argumentet er altså at flagullummotorens (staving?) deler er ubrukelige dersom en av de fjernes. Men hva om deler av den allerede har blitt fjernet? Deler som ved tidligere evolusjonstadier var nødvendige for at motoren deler skulle fungere, men som nå er overflødige i det utviklingstadiet vi har nådd?

 

For å forklare litt enklere kan vi sammenligne med en betongvegg. En blanding av sement og vann (betong) er ubrukelig som vegg da det bare flyter utover,størkner og blir et ujevnt underlag som ikke kan brukes til mye. Man kan da i stedet sette opp en rad med planker og man har en vegg. Den er ikke veldig stødig men likefremt en vegg. Men hva om vi setter opp en vegg til parallelt med den første og fyller betong oppi? Se det, en fullt fungerende betong- og planke-vegg som er solid. Men nå er jo plankeveggen temmelig ubrukelig siden den bidrar minimalt til veggens primære formål. Så da fjernes den.

 

Hvis du reduserer betongveggen til dens "deler" er det altså vann og tørr sement, to deler som er helt ubrukelige som byggverk, og selv blandingen er ikke brukbar som vegg. Men et sted på veien fra vann+sement til betongvegg fikk man altså et bidrag fra et element som er overflødig for sluttproduktets primære funksjon og derfor fjernet.

[Speik]

Vis meg ett eneste kreasjons-argument som ikke kan motbevises (eller gjøres ikke-gjeldende, eventuelt latterliggjøres) innen 15 minutter googling...

[Crowly]

Hvis du er motvillig mot å lese Dawkins pga hans manglende religion, kan du heller lese hva Ken Miller skriver om evolusjon. Han er troende og praktiserende kristen, men er også evolusjonsbiolog.

Tok en tur innom Ken Miller sin side og har lest igjennom det meste av denne siden (er ikke ferdig enda, er en del tekst): "The Flagellum Unspun - The Collapse of Irreducible Complexity." - den omhandler akkurat det denne tråden begynner med. Og Miller taler ID/krasjonisme mitt i mot.

 

Hvis man kun ønsker ett greit sammendrag så kan det være greit å hoppe ned til bunn av siden og lese avsnittet "The Flagellum Unspun".

 

In any discussion of the question of "intelligent design," it is absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself. If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along with many scientists. As H. Allen Orr pointed out in a recent review:

 

Plenty of scientists have, after all, been attracted to the notion that natural laws reflect (in some way that's necessarily poorly articulated) an intelligence or aesthetic sensibility. This is the religion of Einstein, who spoke of "the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence" and of the scientist's "religious feeling [that] takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law." (Orr 2002).

 

This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.

 

Certainly, the issue of design and purpose in nature is a philosophical one that scientists can and should discuss with great vigor. However, the notion at the heart's of today intelligent design movement is that the direct intervention of an outside designer can be demonstrated by the very existence of complex biochemical systems. What even they acknowledge is that their entire scientific position rests upon a single assertion – that the living cell contains biochemical machines that are irreducibly complex. And the bacterial flagellum is the prime example of such a machine.

 

Such an assertion, as we have seen, can be put to the test in a very direct way. If we are able to search and find an example of a machine with fewer protein parts, contained within the flagellum, that serves a purpose distinct from motility, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted. As we have also seen, the flagellum does indeed contain such a machine, a protein-secreting apparatus that carries out an important function even in species that lack the flagellum altogether. A scientific idea rises or falls on the weight of the evidence, and the evidence in the case of the bacterial flagellum is abundantly clear.

 

As an icon of anti-evolution, the flagellum has fallen.

 

The very existence of the Type III Secretory System shows that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. It also demonstrates, more generally, that the claim of "irreducible complexity" is scientifically meaningless, constructed as it is upon the flimsiest of foundations – the assertion that because science has not yet found selectable functions for the components of a certain structure, it never will. In the final analysis, as the claims of intelligent design fall by the wayside, its advocates are left with a single, remaining tool with which to battle against the rising tide of scientific evidence. That tool may be effective in some circles, of course, but the scientific community will be quick to recognize it for what it really is – the classic argument from ignorance, dressed up in the shiny cloth of biochemistry and information theory.

 

When three leading advocates of intelligent design were recently given a chance to make their case in an issue of Natural History magazine, they each concluded their articles with a plea for design. One wrote that we should recognize "the design inherent in life and the universe" (Behe 2002), another that "design remains a possibility" (Wells 2002), and another "that the natural sciences need to leave room for design" (Dembski 2002b). Yes, it is true. Design does remain a possibility, but not the type of "intelligent design" of which they speak.

 

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

 

 

Hvor jeg syntes det siste var bra sagt

As Darwin wrote, there is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life. I do not believe, even for an instant, that Darwin's vision has weakened or diminished the sense of wonder and awe that one should feel in confronting the magnificence and diversity of the living world. Rather, to a person of faith it should enhance their sense of the Creator's majesty and wisdom (Miller 1999). Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God.

Endret 14. juli 2008 av Crowly