Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

I´ll rather ask

What exactly do you mean by legit?

No one has ever shown that anything is irreducibly complex. The idea was born out of a shallow look at recent discoveries and Behe claiming, well there is no way that those could have evolved He was shown to be wrong. In fact by the time his book was published most of the problems in his book had been solved.

It is like basing an argument on the existence of big foot or rainbow farting unicorns. Until one shows that either of those things exist the argument is not a legitimate one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok

Added to the list of unsupported accusations

You forgot why any accusations are unsupported. You have to own up to your past failures first. And playing the way back game.

 

[leroy]

leroy, any scientific theories have already been tested, through observations, and observations that include evidence, experiments & the all-important DATA, which together support and verify those respective theories, whether it be Newtonian mechanics, the 2 Relativity theories, Maxwell’s electromagnetism, Quantum mechanics, genetics, evolutionary biology, etc.

if there are new or old alternative concepts, then the burden of proof falls upon anyone proposing or supporting those alternatives, including Irreducible Complexity (IC), Specified Complexity (SC) or the Intelligent Design (ID).

To date, Michael Behe have been able to support with any experiments or evidence or with data. His excuses in his book like Darwin’s Blackbox or at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, were always to present irrelevant analogies or to make excuses that he had offered some logical explanations.

Neither logical explanation, nor an analogy, are evidence. They are merely apologetic excuses to avoid his responsibility of burden of proof.

And it is the same every other creationists, to avoid presenting demonstrable evidence or data to support whatever crap alternatives.

And that’s including you and other members of RF, who are creationists with very little or zero background in science.

But even qualified and experienced scientists, such as Behe being biochemist, as well as supporter of Discovery Institute and its Intelligent Design, avoid showing they have no evidence to present to the science community.

You are the one trying to offer alternative to Evolution, then as a “claimant” of the alternative, whether it be for Genesis Creationism, Intelligent Design or Behe’s Irreducible Complexity, the burden falls upon you.

I am not affirming nor proposing IC nor specified complexity, nor any of that stuff.

I agree with all your post, except for the part where you seem to be implying that Behe is beign dishonest.

I think he is asking a valid question and proposing a valid challenge to the mechanism of random mutation + natural selection.

The burden proof goes to both sides

1 the guy who claims that eyes or flagellums can evolve through random mutations + NS

And

2 Behe who claims that it can´t happen because IC

And the truth is that non has meet his burden proof

 

[wellwisher]

Well done, wellwisher.

You have just spectacularly demonstrated that you have failed to show where “Evolution falls short”, because you were using Abiogenesis as example, which has nothing to with Evolution.

(A) Evolution is all about the biodiversity of life, both extinct and extant species, over periods of time. This would include passing traits genetically to descendants, either through “common ancestry”, which is divergence evolution or through convergence evolution.​

​

(B) Abiogenesis is about the origin of first life from a number of different models. Regardless of which model is true, they involved twofold approaches:​

1. To understand the origin of the first cell.
2. To understand the origins of biological macromolecules (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, etc) that played essential roles of cells.

If you want to show how evolution falls short, then you need to show evidence that Evolution isn't the mechanism for changes to organisms, and not show example on Abiogenesis.

And beside that, Abiogenesis is still in a hypothesis, but it is a working hypothesis, meaning they are still doing researches and experiments. They are still seeking answers, through understanding what Earth was like 3.7 or 3.8 billion years ago (eg atmosphere composition, climate, terrains, etc).




That’s just blatant misinformation, wellwisher.

Genesis creation is just a story. Neither Adam, nor the book we called “Genesis”, existed 6000 years ago, or about 4000 BCE.

Do not confuse narrative as “history”. There are not single historicity in Genesis, in which we can either collaborate and verify with from independent sources or with archaeological evidence with either people or events that supposedly happened in Genesis.

There is nothing new, nor unique about Genesis creation (including the Flood myth), because it is based on much older Mesopotamian creation (and flood) myths that have popular from the 1st century BCE, all the way back to 2400 BCE, when Sumerians and the Akkadians ruled Mesopotamia.

If you really want to talk about "innovation thinking", then the Sumerians & Akkadians were ones who started the creation and flood myths, that the Jews borrowed 1800 years later from the Chaldeans at Babylon. What ever innovation you believe that exist, then know that the Sumerian and Akkadian myths were scientifically wrong (creating humans from clay), which would mean who ever wrote Genesis (eg creating man from dust) were also wrong.

BESIDE THAT. Genesis wasn’t written 6000 years ago, Genesis didn’t even exist 3000 years ago.

you don’t find any so-called “biblical” texts until 2600 years ago at the most, when Jews were living in exile at Babylon in the 6th century BCE, borrowing ideas of creation and the flood from the Babylonians, but the polytheistic tales, predated the 7th-6th centuries BCE Chaldeans.

The fact that Jews have traditions that attribute Moses as the author of Genesis, is fabricated traditions, with no basis in history. There are no evidence that Moses & Joshua led the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 12:37), after through some miracles is a myth just as Genesis is a myth. There are nothing to collaborate & verify Genesis and Exodus narratives. Adam to Joshua are all mythological or fictional characters, not historical ones.

The points is that Genesis is neither a science book, nor a history book. It failed at both.

I think you misunderstood where I was going with the story of those 1950's experiments. This was not about abiogenesis. They were using live earth single cells, exposing them to all the possible solvents speculated via casino math, to be able to evolve some form of life. They wanted to see what the cells would do.

What they learned is earth cells were so specifically tuned to water, being the continuous phase, touching and integrating the cell, that nothing worked in other solvents. This tells me everything in modern cells, that evolved on earth, are chemically tuned to water. Water was a key part of the natural selection process, at the nanoscal; protein, RNA and DNA. There is not just an environment for macro-scale selection, but also water was an environment needed for micro-selection, as demonstrated by only water working and allowing life with the test cells.

The current theory of evolution, leaves water and the nanoscale chemical selection processes of evolution, out of the theory. Everything in current evolution theory is too organic centric, even though all these organics, by themself, will not support life, without water. Yet water is not given credit as a copartner with the organics, even with its finger in every pie. Evolution is not yet real science. It falls one step short. Water need to leave the black box.

Water limits the odds of dice and cards. This may be the reason casino science resists. Water counts cards so it is not allowed to play in the science casinos. For example, water can fold and pack open proteins into active bio shapes in a very reliable way. It has to due with the energy potential within surface tension between the open protein and the water. The folding leads to the lowest surface energy in water. Water has a goal can do this folding, again and again, perfectly, since the goal is about energy minimization.

Water is not about dice and cards. In fact, when a protein is open, it has maximum entropy; complexity, When the water packs the protein to lower its surface tension, it ends up with lower entropy, adding an entropic potential, which allows the cells to use for some extra free energy at each enzyme.

In a mixture of water and oil, we can shake the water and oil into chaos; emulsion. If we wait the chaos will return to order; two layers, again and again. Water gets rid of the odds and stacks the deck toward simplicity.

Other solvents like alcohols are too organic, and will not pack the protein the same way. The protein lose their enzymatic potential and do not work. To get this to all work, all the time, for any protein, water had to start making chemical selection choices very early in Abiogenesis, even before evolution started; picking the smallest pieces first and the always building, to minimize the potential in the water.

 

[leroy]

No one has ever shown that anything is irreducibly complex. The idea was born out of a shallow look at recent discoveries and Behe claiming, well there is no way that those could have evolved He was shown to be wrong. In fact by the time his book was published most of the problems in his book had been solved.

It is like basing an argument on the existence of big foot or rainbow farting unicorns. Until one shows that either of those things exist the argument is not a legitimate one.

You didn’t answer the question......... what do you mean by legit? (the defitnion of that term)

He was shown to be wrong.

I don’t think his actual claims have been shown to be wrong……. but if you say so…….. whatever

 

[gnostic]

I agree with all your post, except for the part where you seem to be implying that Behe is beign dishonest.

I think he is asking a valid question and proposing a valid challenge to the mechanism of random mutation + natural selection.

Expec that without testable evidence & data, such questions and proposing are merely unsubstantiated claims or opinions.

Any alternative must be falsifiable or testable. What alternative or questioning Behe have been voicing are neither, which we can dismiss claims as pseudoscience.

Clearly you don't understand that even a hypothesis requires to be "falsifiable ".

 

[leroy]

Expec that without testable evidence & data, such questions and proposing are merely unsubstantiated claims or opinions.

Any alternative must be falsifiable or testable. What alternative or questioning Behe have been voicing are neither, which we can dismiss claims as pseudoscience.

Clearly you don't understand that even a hypothesis requires to be "falsifiable ".

Again, I think he is asking good questions and proposing a valid challenge

But I agree at this point these are just claims and opinions.

 

[shunyadragon]

And I would say that your thinking so is telling. It shows you don't understand the claims of the theory of evolution.

He would fail high school science.

 

[shunyadragon]

I didn’t, I simply responded to post that already mentioned IC


The concept is legit


What techniques do you think I am using?

As far as (IC) or other negative claims concerning evolution you are not recognizing or referring to legitimate scientific references. Science has explained in detail how the examples Behe claims are irreducible take place under natural processes, which demonstrate that Behe's claims are not legit.

Concerning the claim of "resurrection you are not using the standard academic standards of history. Your whole claim is based second had documents without historical provenance.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not affirming nor proposing IC nor specified complexity, nor any of that stuff.

I agree with all your post, except for the part where you seem to be implying that Behe is beign dishonest.

I will not imply I will say he is dishonest, because he has sufficient education to know what he asserts is dishonest and not legitimate science..

I think he is asking a valid question and proposing a valid challenge to the mechanism of random mutation + natural selection.

No the question id not valid it is based on justifying ancient tribal religious agenda

The burden proof goes to both sides.

Ther is no proof in science.

Actually, 170+ years of research and discoveries have established the foundation of the sciences of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

You lack knowledge of science and make numerous very basic errors in your posts concerning science.

Behe has presented nothing valid in science to support his assertions.

1 the guy who claims that eyes or flagellums can evolve through random mutations + NS

There is no such thing as Random mutations.

Actually, 170+ years of research and discoveries have established the foundation of the sciences of evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. 95%+ of all scientists support evolution beyond any reasonable doubt.

And

2 Behe who claims that it can´t happen because IC

And the truth is that non has met his burden proof

Again there is no proof in science and Behe has not published anything concerning a hypothesis to justify his claims. (IC?) How does this demonstrate any sort of anything?

What 'positive' objectively verifiable evidence has Behe provided to justify his hypothesis?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don’t seem to have followed the conversation from the beginning. I am not making any controversial claims

All I am saying is that the specific mutations that helped to build the eye or any other complex system, where likely mainly beneficial mutations. (the key word is “mainly” nobody is denying the impact of neutral mutations)

If your point is that the mutations that get selected by the selection process are beneficial mutations, then you are just stating an obvious tautology.

If you disagree, and therefore claim that mutations where mainly neutral, then you can´t really call it “evolution by natural selection”

It is you who is not listening. Most mutations are neutral.
Some are harmful. Some are beneficial.

What we are saying is that many if not most of the ones that are NOT neutral, and which do have a phenotype change effect, are often only possible because of the accumulation of neutral mutations.

Neutral mutations can open up new genetic pathways. Another mutation can then activate those pathways and have a phenotype change effect (and thus not be neutral). This would have happened countless times in the evolution of our eye. So it is simply wrong to ONLY focus on all those beneficial mutations that molded our eye with phenotype changes, while ignoring all the accumulated neutral ones that actually made the beneficial ones even possible in the first place.


No, neutral mutations alone did not build the eye. That would be impossible as "neutral" means "no phenotype effect".

And borrowing from Dawkins analogy, you would be climbing mount improbable , whithout the help of natural selection.

"Climbing mount improbable" sounds exact what it's like to try and make you understand your mistakes and simple corrections.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, you are not following, in this context I am talking about multicellular organisms with slow reproductive cycles, (so bacteria are expluded)

The claim is that *IF* ….you need 2 or more specific neutral mutations to get a benefit then this this combo will likely never happen (or it will happen few times)

That's pure nonsense.
What you fail (or refuse) to realize is that these mutations don't need to occur at the same time.

• Lets say that John was born with a neutral point mutation (call it A)
• Lets say that if a descendent of John would benefit if it also obtains “B” (as long as he also has “A”
• 
  
• The problemas are
• 1 genomes are big (3 Billionbase pairs long) so hitting the correct spot to get B is unlikely

A can piggy back with beneficial mutations to achive fixation in the genome.
Now the entire population can have a shot at obtaining B every generation over again.

• 2 given that mutation A is neutral, it is unlikely to survive much…………..genetic drift will soon get rid of it.

That's not at all what genetic drift does.
Genetic drift does not get rid of neutral mutations. That's not what it does.
Ironically, genetic drift is the procss by which neutral mutations can achieve fixation

• Of course the evidence that confirms this, is that such an event has never been observed, in multicellular organism. (just in microbes that reproduce asexualy and very very fast)

Are there examples of traits that require many new mutations? - The Tech Interactive

www.thetech.org

Off course it is done with fast reproducing organisms. It's the only way to do a proper study about such things without it taking multiple human life times to conclude it.

Why would it be a problem to find examples of this in bacteria?
The chemistry / mechanism is the exact same. Mutation followed by selection.
It's the same carbon based bio-chemistry. There is no reason for why it wouldn't also occur in other DNA based life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not for a long time, genetic drift would tend to filter the “neutral mutation” within a few generations , the mutation will likely disappear................so it is not like the neutral mutation will still be there for millions of years

That's not what genetic drift does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I am saying that we don’t know if there are Irreducibly Complex steps.

And we have no reason to assume there is one either.
So why are we even talking about it?

1 first the evolutionist has to provide the steps (which mutations do you need to evolve say an eye)

2 then the ID proponent has to show that there is a IC step

None of these has been done.

No.
The one who brings up "irreducibly complex steps" is the one that needs to show it is a thing.
You're shifting the burden of proof again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do your homework. You keep asking others to do yours for you.

And subsequently ignores it when he finds a shmuck naive enough to actually do it also.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What @YoursTrue is asking is how do you get something fundamentally different, from the original specie.

And the answer I have given him countless times is: you don't.
All descendants of homo sapiens will be subspecies of homo sapiens.
They will be apes. They will be mammals. They will be tetrapod. They will be vertebrates. They will be eukaryotes.

In evolution, you don't outgrow your ancestry.

Humans will not evolve into non-humans.
They will evolve into sub-species of humans - which will "still" be humans.

For example how do you go from a flightless insect, to a fruitflie (that can has wings and can fly)
In my opinion it is a good question , the fact that you can have variations of fruitflies doesn’t imply that a flightless insect can develop wings.

Like with most subjects in evolution, there's plenty of sources out there where one can read all about the evolution of any given trait.
If one is interested off course. It doesn't seem here that this is the case.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok

Added to the list of unsupported accusations

The reality of Behe: Michael Behe - Wikipedia

Michael Joseph Behe[2] (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist and an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).[3][4]

He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe advocates for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design. Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where his views were cited in the ruling that intelligent design is not science and is religious in nature.[5]

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[6][7] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.[8][9]

Behe and other associates of the Discovery Institute have failed to provide a falsifiable hypothesis based on 'positive' objective verifiable evidence. He asserts negative statements to support his Intelligent Design and fails to confirm irreducible complexity (IC), which was the only basis of his claims. No example of complexity was provided by Behe that could not be explained by natural processes.

He has spent millions donated ny churches and Christians over the years and provided no published results.

He has extensive education to realize the futility of his work based on a religious agenda to make it a fact beyond any reasonable doubt that he is being unethical and dishonest.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

my point is that in order to claim (or deny) that a system is IC you need to know the steps.

OK. So why make it? Irreducible complexity is a creationist concern like macroevolution. You're conversing with people who accept the theory and aren't looking for irreducible complexity.

we dont know if there are barriers or not

Nobody does, but we see no barriers and, once again, aren't looking for them. Neither of the last two points is controversial among scientific community, nor increases doubt about the correctness of the theory.

Borrowing form the car analogy we don’t know if there is a river between California and New York that makes the trip in car impossible. So to assert (or to deny) that there is a river is premature.

Agreed, but who's thinking in such terms except somebody trying to disprove that John couldn't have made the drive? Maybe his ex or an insurance company looking to undermine John's claim.

My point is that we don’t know if random variation + natural selection is good enough to explain the diversity and complexity of life

Same thing. No, we don't know, but it appears to be the case and there is no known barrier, so it's an idea in nobody's mind but a creationist's.

I am skeptic on weather if random variation + natural selection can explain all (or most) of the diversity and complexity of life

And another. So what? Science is tentative. There is always the understanding that a scientific belief may eventually be falsified. Why is this a concern to you if not to imply that those who accept that it likely is the case should doubt it more? Your comment doesn't increase doubt, but why would you make it if not for that reason?

Incidentally, you use the word skeptic to mean somebody with active doubt, as in "I don't see it." I use it to mean a person who does not accept claims of truth without sufficient supporting evidence, and then only to the degree the quality and quantity of available evidence supports, always ready to adjust likelihood up or down with new relevant findings.

Yes I completely agree, What makes you think that I would disagree?

I thought you hadn't read it, or maybe hadn't understood it well enough to offer an opinion. There was zero indication that you had seen it. That is always my default position for people who ignore significant text in posts. Why didn't they address a significant argument, or in this case, an analogy in support of an argument? Here's my candidate list of hypotheses:

1. Didn't read it
2. Read it, but didn't understand it and was therefore reluctant to bring the topic up and was hoping it would just go away, so ignored it
3. Understood it, but was intimidated by the thought of having to answer and was hoping it would just go away, so ignored it.
4. Troll. Deliberately malicious and disruptive.

This is what I think about your every choice to avoid a topic. I don't get down to three with you before seeing some kind of response from you that suggests you understood as is the case here. Now that I see that you read it and seem to have understood it, my list changes:

1. Read and understood it, but didn't understand the significance to the argument or that he has a duty to respond and so failed to comment.
2. Trolling.

Leroy, you're behavior is inexplicable to me. It seems counterproductive to any purpose you might have that isn't masochistic or malicious. The above are my best guesses at what is going on in your head when you behave like this. Is this how you like to be thought of or understood? It's hard to believe that's the case. So why can't you do better if it serves you to and what is requested is so easily provided? Just another enduring mystery of the cosmos for me.

And your purpose? I can only think of one:

1. Seed doubt about the validity of the theory in support of promoting biblical beliefs.

Do you disagree with anything? It seems to me that you don’t´

No, I don't disagree with any of the comments I addressed. My interest is why you make them. If your purpose is to promote creationism, which I assume lacking any viable alternative, you'll need to find things others disagree with. I don't believe that your purpose is to learn, since you aren't interested in what others write enough to comment on most of it.

I presume that you know the answers to my questions about you, but I also expect you to offer no insights that would help unravel any of this.

 

[Audie]

I think you misunderstood where I was going with the story of those 1950's experiments. This was not about abiogenesis. They were using live earth single cells, exposing them to all the possible solvents speculated via casino math, to be able to evolve some form of life. They wanted to see what the cells would do.

What they learned is earth cells were so specifically tuned to water, being the continuous phase, touching and integrating the cell, that nothing worked in other solvents. This tells me everything in modern cells, that evolved on earth, are chemically tuned to water. Water was a key part of the natural selection process, at the nanoscal; protein, RNA and DNA. There is not just an environment for macro-scale selection, but also water was an environment needed for micro-selection, as demonstrated by only water working and allowing life with the test cells.

The current theory of evolution, leaves water and the nanoscale chemical selection processes of evolution, out of the theory. Everything in current evolution theory is too organic centric, even though all these organics, by themself, will not support life, without water. Yet water is not given credit as a copartner with the organics, even with its finger in every pie. Evolution is not yet real science. It falls one step short. Water need to leave the black box.

Water limits the odds of dice and cards. This may be the reason casino science resists. Water counts cards so it is not allowed to play in the science casinos. For example, water can fold and pack open proteins into active bio shapes in a very reliable way. It has to due with the energy potential within surface tension between the open protein and the water. The folding leads to the lowest surface energy in water. Water has a goal can do this folding, again and again, perfectly, since the goal is about energy minimization.

Water is not about dice and cards. In fact, when a protein is open, it has maximum entropy; complexity, When the water packs the protein to lower its surface tension, it ends up with lower entropy, adding an entropic potential, which allows the cells to use for some extra free energy at each enzyme.

In a mixture of water and oil, we can shake the water and oil into chaos; emulsion. If we wait the chaos will return to order; two layers, again and again. Water gets rid of the odds and stacks the deck toward simplicity.

Other solvents like alcohols are too organic, and will not pack the protein the same way. The protein lose their enzymatic potential and do not work. To get this to all work, all the time, for any protein, water had to start making chemical selection choices very early in Abiogenesis, even before evolution started; picking the smallest pieces first and the always building, to minimize the potential in the water.

Where on earth did you get this stuff?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn’t answer the question......... what do you mean by legit? (the defitnion of that term)

You should have admitted that you didn't understand. By claiming I didn't answer you lost the right to demand one.

I don’t think his actual claims have been shown to be wrong……. but if you say so…….. whatever

Then you have never done any research into the man at all and should never have brought him up in the first place. Do your homework.


But look up. See that post three posts above mine?