Darwin's Illusion

[shunyadragon]

What languages are the Bible written in?

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek initially.

Maybe I'm right or maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe is not science.

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

You have failed to present your research in this thread.

The problem remains Behe has not presented any 'positive' objective verifiable evidence in support of his hypothesis. He has failed to publish any paper that verifies anything in nature is irreducibly complex. Science has demonstrated all of Behe's previous claims of irreducible complexity as evolved in defined steps by natural processes.

What can be easily presented is the refutation of irreducible complexity.
If you can cite something please present it.

The refutations that I have seen are ether strawman or especulations

The documents, please.

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

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?

No one has ever claimed Humans are Chimpanzees. Your English deficiency is as bad as your intentional lack of knowledge of science.

I believe these references have been presented before. You also can look up references yourself. All you have done is present negative assertions and no citations with 'positive' evidence that would justify irreducible complexity. The same problem is with Behe's assertions.

Evolution of the eye in detail in a video: Evolution of the Eye | PBS LearningMedia

The evolution of the eye is described in other sources as a step-by-step process: The beginning of the eye in primitive life forms are light-sensitive cells in primitive animals similar to Jellyfish. There are primitive animals today with light-sensitive cells with the basic simple genetics that evolved to the eye.

Evolution of the Eye

Scientists now have a clear vision of how our notoriously complex eye came to be

www.scientificamerican.com

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

What languages are the Bible written in?

Hebrew and Greek plus just a little bit of Aramaic. Why do you ask? If @leroy was sincere he would change his debating methods. Endless strawman arguments, bad science that he can never support, and of course worst of all when people give him what he asks for and it refutes his claims he ignores it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Homo erectus bone structure is very similar to modern humans and quite different from that of Chimpanzees. Heck, Lucy's bone structure is closer to ours than that of chimpanzees due to her being bipedal.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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


The refutations that I have seen are ether strawman or especulations

You didn't look hard enough and you don't really have to in order to find them. All his examples were shown to be further reducible.

Not to mention that it is not possible to know if something cannot be reduced in order to claim it is. That would mean that every possible iteration would have to be reckoned with to know if it was incapable of further reduction. How would that be possible with any certainty? I know, you will come up with some convoluted, meaningless strategy, but it isn't possible.

 

[YoursTrue]

You didn't look hard enough and you don't really have to in order to find them. All his examples were shown to be further reducible.

Not to mention that it is not possible to know if something cannot be reduced in order to claim it is. That would mean that every possible iteration would have to be reckoned with to know if it was incapable of further reduction. How would that be possible with any certainty? I know, you will come up with some convoluted, meaningless strategy, but it isn't possible.

There is something that is irreducible, no matter what some may say. There is something that is irreducible. Can you show otherwise?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is something that is irreducible, no matter what some may say. There is something that is irreducible. Can you show otherwise?

That is not the way that it works. If you say that something exists the burden of proof is upon you. When we say there is endless evidence for evolution the burden of proof is upon us. The difference is we can show endless evidence, even though you do not understand the concept.

Where is the evidence for irreducible complexity? No one can seem to find any on your side at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hebrew and Greek plus just a little bit of Aramaic. Why do you ask? If @leroy was sincere he would change his debating methods. Endless strawman arguments, bad science that he can never support, and of course worst of all when people give him what he asks for and it refutes his claims he ignores it.

I go back to the beginning: lava coming from the inside of a volcanoi is molten rock and it cools and leaves rock taken from the inside on the outside. As far as leroy goes, I can't even figure what the two of you are talking about half the time. More than half the time. The continual putdowns by some here really do reveal the personality.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not the way that it works. If you say that something exists the burden of proof is upon you. When we say there is endless evidence for evolution the burden of proof is upon us. The difference is we can show endless evidence, even though you do not understand the concept.

Where is the evidence for irreducible complexity? No one can seem to find any on your side at all.

Here's how I figure: there is a God. He is incomprehensible by human scientific reasoning with one exception in my mind: He is the Creator. I do not understand what nothing means except to say that it is devoid of matter. But that really isn't the answer because exactly how the universe is expanding is beyond my understanding since where is it expanding to? I don't really like all these philosophical questions and I was born without comprehension so I was not 'there' anywhere before I was born. I'm pretty sure of that. I say that jokingly because I know some believe we were somewhere (heaven perhaps?) before we were born. I do not believe that and to me that is common sense also relating to "science," such as reproduction. And I didn't start to think or put things together for a long enough after I was born. My mother taught me how to eat with a spoon, etc. I did not teach myself how to speak, read or write.
About irreducible complexity, I think it's a term that I may not use anymore, but I may. I'll do some research about that. Although it seems logical enough. Because -- "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I'm sure you know that phrase. What was there before that? God. I know because it makes sense. Based on yes, what the Bible AND science (space) says. How long was God around? Without beginning. Is that comprehensible to our human minds? (No, not as far as I'm concerned.) Yes -- the Bible as I understand it now makes sense. It's not a scientific textbook. Later for more, maybe.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is not the way that it works. If you say that something exists the burden of proof is upon you. When we say there is endless evidence for evolution the burden of proof is upon us. The difference is we can show endless evidence, even though you do not understand the concept.

Where is the evidence for irreducible complexity? No one can seem to find any on your side at all.

Despite what I said before about IC (irreducible complexity), can you say that ANYTHING or something in this universe cannot be broken down any further?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I go back to the beginning: lava coming from the inside of a volcanoi is molten rock and it cools and leaves rock taken from the inside on the outside. As far as leroy goes, I can't even figure what the two of you are talking about half the time. More than half the time. The continual putdowns by some here really do reveal the personality.

If you can't understand the science then you are in no position to understand if something is a put down or a legitimate criticism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's how I figure: there is a God. He is incomprehensible by human scientific reasoning with one exception in my mind: He is the Creator. I do not understand what nothing means except to say that it is devoid of matter. But that really isn't the answer because exactly how the universe is expanding is beyond my understanding since where is it expanding to? I don't really like all these philosophical questions and I was born without comprehension so I was not 'there' anywhere before I was born. I'm pretty sure of that. I say that jokingly because I know some believe we were somewhere (heaven perhaps?) before we were born. I do not believe that and to me that is common sense also relating to "science," such as reproduction. And I didn't start to think or put things together for a long enough after I was born. My mother taught me how to eat with a spoon, etc. I did not teach myself how to speak, read or write.
About irreducible complexity, I think it's a term that I may not use anymore, but I may. I'll do some research about that. Although it seems logical enough. Because -- "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I'm sure you know that phrase. What was there before that? God. I know because it makes sense. Based on yes, what the Bible AND science (space) says. How long was God around? Without beginning. Is that comprehensible to our human minds? (No, not as far as I'm concerned.) Yes -- the Bible as I understand it now makes sense. It's not a scientific textbook. Later for more, maybe.

In the sciences one does not get to assume that there is or that there is not a God. That means right at the start your "figureing" is incorrect. That does not mean that a God does not exist. He merely cannot be part of your scientific answer if you do not have any reliable evidence for him. And so far you have not shown any evidence for your God.

Second, can your God lie?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Despite what I said before about IC (irreducible complexity), can you say that ANYTHING or something in this universe cannot be broken down any further?

There is a limit to how far we can break things down. But that does not mean that we have found a absolute limit on anything. At one point atoms were the absolute limit. And then we found that we could break them down into protons, neutrons, electrons, and other subatomic particles. Those appeared to be the absolute limit, but the fact that a bare neutron is unstable told us that there was something unaccounted for. Now protons and neutrons are thought to be made up of quarks. An electron also appears to be as simple as it gets.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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"

Your research was inadequate. Like I said, you didn't watch the summary of the Dover trial by Nova on PBS. They did all the research you need there. Behe was refuted and humiliated with a mousetrap. Behe was humiliated and refuted regarding his definition of a scientific theory.

There is something that is irreducible, no matter what some may say.

Yes, there is, but it's not a biological system as far as we know. Entropy in a closed system is irreducible.

Here's how I figure: there is a God. He is incomprehensible by human scientific reasoning with one exception in my mind: He is the Creator. "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I'm sure you know that phrase. What was there before that? God. I know because it makes sense.

We don't need a god for that. There's a reason gods don't appear in any scientific fact, law, or theory. They're not needed. They add nothing to the science - no explanatory or predictive power.

Furthermore, the number of things a god might have done is decreasing as science proceeds and the gaps in knowledge narrow. We know how the earth formed. The "void" was actually the nebula that formed our sun. Earth formed by the accretion of gas, dust, and rocks, and later, the addition of water and other volatiles by comets and asteroids. No gods needed, no gods involved. To do what? Create the nebula? That's the primeval gas of the Big Bang enriched by exploding supernovae. That's what's meant by the god of the gaps. What job is it needed for? Creating the first life in the universe? Creating the "singularity" that began expanding at T=0? Fine tuning the universe? We have naturalistic hypotheses for all of those, meaning that they contain no gods.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is something that is irreducible, no matter what some may say. There is something that is irreducible. Can you show otherwise?

Nothing that is complex in our physical existence has been found to be irreducible. If you believe there is something please cite a reference.

You asked this concerning the eye, and I gave several references with detailed step-by-step evolution of the eye in post #8.361.

 

[leroy]

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.

You supported your claim with a wiki article that adresses all the objections and cases that different scientists have proposed.

I will not address everything in this forum…………. If you think there is a specific objection (or case) please quote it, and I will be happy to tell you why I disagree.

 

[leroy]

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

his mistake is that he included theological implications in his cliams............ many scientists have made similar cases, and they are easily accepted in peer reviewd literature

 

[leroy]

Hebrew and Greek plus just a little bit of Aramaic. Why do you ask? If @leroy was sincere he would change his debating methods. Endless strawman arguments, bad science that he can never support, and of course worst of all when people give him what he asks for and it refutes his claims he ignores it.

can you quote a strawman made by me?...................NO you stop making false accusations

 

[leroy]

You didn't look hard enough and you don't really have to in order to find them. All his examples were shown to be further reducible.

Not to mention that it is not possible to know if something cannot be reduced in order to claim it is. That would mean that every possible iteration would have to be reckoned with to know if it was incapable of further reduction. How would that be possible with any certainty? I know, you will come up with some convoluted, meaningless strategy, but it isn't possible.

Well that is my point………. We can´t know if something is IC unless we have a clear and detail understanding on the genetic steps necessary to go from a simple organ to a complex organ

 

[Madmogwai]

Charles Darwin is widely celebrated as one of the most influential scientists in history, renowned for his groundbreaking theory of evolution. However, it is important to acknowledge that even great minds such as Darwin's are not immune to errors. While his contributions to the field of biology have had a profound impact on our understanding of life on Earth, there are a few areas where Darwin's theories have been challenged and proven to be inaccurate.

Firstly, Darwin's theory of gradual evolution through natural selection implies a slow and steady process of change over time. However, the fossil record has revealed instances of rapid and abrupt changes in species, which cannot be easily explained by Darwin's gradualistic view. This has led some scientists to propose alternative theories, such as punctuated equilibrium, which suggest that evolution occurs in fits and starts, rather than in a continuous manner.

Secondly, Darwin's theory of sexual selection posits that certain physical traits in animals, such as the peacock's extravagant tail, have evolved through mate choice. However, recent research has shown that these traits may not always be linked to reproductive success. In some cases, they may even be detrimental to an organism's survival. This has raised doubts about the explanatory power of Darwin's sexual selection theory and prompted further investigation into the complexities of mate choice and sexual dimorphism.

Additionally, Darwin's understanding of inheritance was limited by the lack of knowledge about genetics during his time. He proposed the concept of "blending inheritance," where traits from both parents blend together in offspring. However, this idea was later disproven by the discovery of Mendelian genetics, which revealed that traits are inherited in a more complex manner through the transmission of discrete units known as genes. While Darwin's theories laid the foundation for the study of genetics, his understanding of inheritance was incomplete and has since been refined.

while Charles Darwin's contributions to the field of biology and our understanding of evolution are undeniably significant, it is important to recognize that he was not infallible. Like any scientist, Darwin had his share of errors and areas where his theories have been challenged and refined by subsequent research. These errors, however, should not diminish the overall impact and importance of his work, but rather serve as a reminder that scientific knowledge is constantly evolving and subject to revision.

 

[leroy]

Your research was inadequate. Like I said, you didn't watch the summary of the Dover trial by Nova on PBS. They did all the research you need there. Behe was refuted and humiliated with a mousetrap. Behe was humiliated and refuted regarding his definition of a scientific theory.

And will you support that claim?

I have seen many ridiculous refutations related to mouse traps……. But perhaps you have a good refutation……….. care to provide a source?

Or are you going to invent more excuses for not providing a source?

Or even better……… are you going to lie and say that “you already did”