Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Where on earth did you get this stuff?

Weekly World News?

 

[Audie]

Weekly World News?

That and the creo- standby:
Make stuff up.

 

[leroy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes my goal is to share ideas and learn .... and I have learned a few things in this thread


I asked you and other if they disagree with any of my 5 points simple to get fedback.


Why do you respond to my comments, what is your goal?

 

[leroy]

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

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?

I have done research and find no successfull refutation to Behes IC.


The refutations that I have seen are ether strawman or especulations

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you respond to my comments, what is your goal?

Presently, I am trying to understand why you post as you do.

I would love to help you, but I don't think that's a realistic goal, so I'll settle for trying to understand you, which is probably also an unrealistic goal. Either way, human psychology is endlessly fascinating for me.

I have done research and find no successfull refutation to Behes IC.

Then you didn't watch the PBS special on the Dover trial. Behe was refuted and humiliated.

 

[leroy]

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




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.




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

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.

Because sexual reproduction tends to filter neutral mutations, (bacteria don’t have this problem)

If you have a neutral mutation, only a small portion of your offspring will inherit that mutation, and only a small portion of their offspring will have that mutation etc.



In most of the cases You can´t wait 50,000 generations for the combo to occur (as it occurred with bacteria in that experiment)

It's the same carbon based bio-chemistry. There is no reason for why it wouldn't also occur in other DNA based life.

Nobody is claiming that it woulnd occur, just that it is not very common.


Even ignoring the fact that bacteria are asexual, if I understood the experiment, you have only gotten 1 combo in 50,000 generations . So that proves my point. (this mechanism is not a main driving force for evolution)

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok I´ll give you the befit of the doubt and assume that most mutations are like that

So my original claim was

1 you have to provide a path where most mutations are positive, that explains how a blind creature evolved an eye

I will change it for

2 you have to provide a path of any viable combination of neutral and positive mutations that explains how a blind creature evolved an eye

If that path is not shown then nobody can claim (nor deny) irreducible complexity

 

[leroy]

Presently, I am trying to understand why you post as you do.

I would love to help you, but I don't think that's a realistic goal, so I'll settle for trying to understand you, which is probably also an unrealistic goal. Either way, human psychology is endlessly fascinating for me.

Then you didn't watch the PBS special on the Dover trial. Behe was refuted and humiliated.

What is particularly hard to understand about why I post what I post?

Then you didn't watch the PBS special on the Dover trial. Behe was refuted and humiliated.+

not in my opinion.

I agree that he failed in providing a robust scientific case for his IC………. But I don’t think he was refuted


* i am definning refuted as : "shown to be wrong"

 

[Astrophile]

If someone challenges me or asserts his viewpoint but doesn't know about indigenous populations that generate typically long or short legs en masse, why should I take their viewpoints for granted? Yet Masai generate very long legged people and pygmies can produce short legged people but they're still people. Or humans.

You haven't answered my question in post 8,230; do you regard Homo erectus and Homo habilis as humans or people?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have done research and find no successfull refutation to Behes IC.


The refutations that I have seen are ether strawman or especulations

You are unable to do "research". That was why I referred you to someone that could.

And no, you are now making false claims about others again. You need to be able to show that they are strawman arguments or speculations.

 

[leroy]

You are unable to do "research". That was why I referred you to someone that could.

And no, you are now making false claims about others again. You need to be able to show that they are strawman arguments or speculations.

Well the normal thing to do is that you are supposed to quote an article that you think refutes the argument, and then I would tell you why are these straw man or speculations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the normal thing to do is that you are supposed to quote an article that you think refutes the argument, and then I would tell you why are these straw man or speculations.

You keep forgetting how that you don't get "the normal thing" until you change your behavior. You were given the information that you asked for. The correct response would have been "Thank you."

 

[leroy]

You keep forgetting how that you don't get "the normal thing" until you change your behavior. You were given the information that you asked for. The correct response would have been "Thank you."

added to the list of claims that you wont support

 

[Subduction Zone]

added to the list of claims that you wont support

Oh no, this is another lie on your part. I have already supported that claim. I need not do so again.

Almost everyone has told you that you need to change your tactics. Until you do you are in no position to make such claims. I do not need to support claims that have been already supported ad nauseum.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have done research and find no successfull refutation to Behes IC.


The refutations that I have seen are ether strawman or especulations

I can't say I agree with Behe in all matters, however I find his book very interesting. And reasonable in many respects.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh no, this is another lie on your part. I have already supported that claim. I need not do so again.

Almost everyone has told you that you need to change your tactics. Until you do you are in no position to make such claims. I do not need to support claims that have been already supported ad nauseum.

I believe if you are sincere you could at least offer a brief summary. Besides, there is no doubt that lava contains molten rock from within a volcano and it hardens when cooled. Have a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't say I agree with Behe in all matters, however I find his book very interesting. And reasonable in many respects.

That is only because you do not know enough to see its flaws. All of his claims of irreducible complexity have been refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe if you are sincere you could at least offer a brief summary. Besides, there is no doubt that lava contains molten rock from within a volcano and it hardens when cooled. Have a good one.

I am sincere. None is needed for him. You need to pay attention.

 

[YoursTrue]

You haven't answered my question in post 8,230; do you regard Homo erectus and Homo habilis as humans or people?

Maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong. According to your viewpoint. I don't think they're chimpanzees if that's what you're thinking. Maybe they are but no I guess not since their bone structure is different from chimpanzees, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am sincere. None is needed for him. You need to pay attention.

What languages are the Bible written in?