tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post114592344228452798..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Reducible complexityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33385005332654025472007-07-06T16:42:00.000-04:002007-07-06T16:42:00.000-04:00Just my thought on the question "What good is half...Just my thought on the question "What good is half an eye anyway?" and the answer the author of the article supplied. THe author says the correct answer to this question is "Just as good as one full eye". This is incorrect as an incomplete eye (half an eye) will not ba able to function if all its components is not present. The retina is useless without the lens to focus and the muscles in the iris to control the entrace of light. What I am trying to say is that half an eye is completely useless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1146982974373306962006-05-07T02:22:00.000-04:002006-05-07T02:22:00.000-04:00I'm not a biologist, so I don't know the specific ...I'm not a biologist, so I don't know the specific terminology that applies to this example, but I'll try anyway.<BR/><BR/>In Arizona there is a kind of squirrel that lives at the south rim of the Grand Canyon, and another one that lives at the north rim. They are virtually identical, except for coloration. If I remember correctly, one is grey with a white back, and one is black with a grey back. Or something like that.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it has been established that both emerged from the same gene pool at some time in the far distant past. The theory is pretty straightforward: that the deepening canyon eventually separated one contiguous population into two groups, after which they evolved separately. I don't think speciation has occurred, but it's interesting anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1146658019973870832006-05-03T08:06:00.000-04:002006-05-03T08:06:00.000-04:00Gee I guess Michael Behe has no problem seeing ho...Gee <BR/><BR/>I guess Michael Behe has no problem seeing how this system could have evolved via Natural Selection. Cool.lily palmerstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781464070656607284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1146235514047289522006-04-28T10:45:00.000-04:002006-04-28T10:45:00.000-04:00I don't think creationist believe that nature is "...I don't think creationist believe that nature is "perfectly crafted." If that were the case then events in the Bible would be disregarded as false. ie the flood, or plagues. You are misunderstanding the thoughts of creationism just as they misunderstand the theories behind evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1146150506543026182006-04-27T11:08:00.000-04:002006-04-27T11:08:00.000-04:00Kim wrote: "... I think the main question from peo...Kim wrote: "... I think the main question from people who believe in creationism is how are humans able to be different than Apes?"<BR/><BR/>I would start with the hidden assumption in there that needs to be challanged: Are we really that different from the other Apes? What is factually the same and what is different?<BR/><BR/>This assumption is comparable to the ID idea (no pun intended) that "nature is perfectly crafted". Or my personal favorite: "nature is beautiful" (ever seen a real nature documentary? :-)<BR/><BR/>I guess these statements usually come more from a desire than from real knowledge...<BR/><BR/>GCB.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1146117997516659892006-04-27T02:06:00.000-04:002006-04-27T02:06:00.000-04:00I do believe things evolve; however I am curious t...I do believe things evolve; however I am curious to know how mutation plays a role in evolution. I think the main question is from people who believe in creationism is how are humans able to be different than Apes? I don't mean it in such a micro way, but rather if we all come from one gene pool how does that creature create/mutate into an ape and a human. Furthermore through geneology what about the idea of mating? Wouldn't it have been possible for lets say Apes and Humans to procreate together even though their genes have mutated slightly? Essentially according to my research we are extremely close to chimpanzees so I am just curious. No I am not ID either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1146082581177345282006-04-26T16:16:00.000-04:002006-04-26T16:16:00.000-04:00Continuing in jeff's vein:I think that what IDers ...Continuing in jeff's vein:<BR/><BR/>I think that what IDers think is something more like: "If evolution were capable of explaining P, then it might be true; but it isn't true, therefore it cannot explain P."<BR/><BR/>Along comes a biologist and shows how evolution does, in fact, explain P; so the IDers shift to "If evolution were capable of explaining Q, then it might be true; but it isn't true, therefore it cannot explain Q."<BR/><BR/>Rinse and repeat <I>ad nauseam</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1145995720255290522006-04-25T16:08:00.000-04:002006-04-25T16:08:00.000-04:00From my very vague understanding of "irreducible c...From my very vague understanding of "irreducible complexity" concept, isn't it just a big logical fallacy? To me, it seems like they're saying: "If evolution can show how this evolved, then it could be true. But, it can't (at the moment), therefore it is not true." Logically, If the "if" part of an implication is false, then nothing can be known about the "then" part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1145987500584260602006-04-25T13:51:00.000-04:002006-04-25T13:51:00.000-04:00To the biology student:The question if a good one,...To the biology student:<BR/><BR/>The question if a good one, and your confusion is very common. The reason the approach is not circular is that the ancestral protein sequences are inferred by assuming evolution, but their biochemical properties are not. The latter are studied experimentally, and they are the ones that are used to test adaptive scenarios, not the sequences. Yes, the properties do depend on the sequences, but only indirectly and in a complex fashion, which essentially decouples the two issues. I hope this helps.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1145985988987630612006-04-25T13:26:00.000-04:002006-04-25T13:26:00.000-04:00Hi,I'm a biology student, and you touched on somet...Hi,<BR/><BR/>I'm a biology student, and you touched on something that has confused me for a while - why is the strategy of building ancestral proteins and analysing their function not circular logic? They recreate "ancestral protein" based on phylogenetic analysis, which is based on the assumption that evolution happens. If evolution didn't occur, and there was no such thing as an "ancestral protein", then any conclusions made about this ancestral protein are a moot point aren't they?<BR/>I "believe" in evolution and I'm not a creationism/ID supporter, but if a creationist/IDer were to ask me what I just asked, I wouldn't know what to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com