Evidence For And Against Evolution

[leroy]

You don't believe in natural selection? How do you explain selective breeding, peppered moths, tube mosquitoes, ring species?

Yes I belive in the darwinian mechanism (random variation + natural selection) and I accept that somethings can be explained by this mechanism. The claim is not that Darwinism doesn't explain anything, but rather that Darwinism can't explain everything

The mechanism works. What alternative are you proposing?

The alternative that I propose is non random genetic changes, there are many non random mechanisms where the genes change or jump from one place to an other forming new proteins, and new tools for survival. (natural genetic engineering would be an example of such mechanisms)

These mechanisms have been observed, they are real, and can produce fast changes in a short period of time. For example one can get new proteins in 1 generation via these mechanisms.

Obviously as a theist I belive that God is behind these mechanisms, but the mechanisms themselves are natural, you can still be a hard core atheist and accept the claim that these mechanisms rather than Darwinism are the main cause for the diversity of life.

 

[leroy]

A nothing response. How unexpected.

Not.

Just an excuse from your part, to ignore my responses

 

[leroy]

Behe has had been refuted. Clinging to his ideas is a desperation play. That and trying to turn uncertainty into a win by default.

Well the support your asertion, prove that behe was refuted.

Behe claims that there is not a viable path to evolve eyes, flagella etc. Feel free to refute his claim or to provide a source where his claim has been refuted

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well the support your asertion, prove that behe was refuted.

Behe claims that there is not a viable path to evolve eyes, flagella etc. Feel free to refute his claim or to provide a source where his claim has been refuted

We have done that. Did you forget the video and article that I posted and linked?

 

[leroy]

One single mutation can have a massive effect, for good or ill. Multiple mutations aren't needed.

You need more that just a "massive effect" you would need a mutation that would chance multiple independent systems for good.

And even more important, you have to show which of these "massive" mutations occured in the process of the evolution of the eye or the flagellum

 

[Subduction Zone]

And of course Behe in effect refuted himself. I do believe that even @leroy admitted this.

 

[leroy]

True. We only know minds as the source of made up phrases and made up ideas. Human minds.

Then why did you shirk from my previous post, if demonstrating a designer is so easy? That is because, your premises are false. Demonstrate they are valid and you might have something. You wont. You will shift the burden of proof instead. Or at least expend post after post, trying to.

I presented a positive and testable case for ID, wasn't that your request?

BTW
Why don't you provide a positive case for Darwinism, (the claim that organisms evolve mainly by the mechanism of random variation and natural selection)

Provide your premises like I did...
The premises have to be testable, more likely to be true than wrong and the conclusion "therefore Darwinism is true" has to follow from the premises.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presented a positive and testable case for ID, wasn't that your request?

BTW
Why don't you provide a positive case for Darwinism, (the claim that organisms evolve mainly by the mechanism of random variation and natural selection)

Provide your premises like I did...
The premises have to be testable, more likely to be true than wrong and the conclusion "therefore Darwinism is true" has to follow from the premises.

i remember terribly flawed tests that you have posted. Here is a hint, your test cannot use nonsense phrases such as "specified complexity" . That is an instant loss.

And you don't do "positive" tests. Those are not of much value. A better test is one that can refute one's claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I presented a positive and testable case for ID, wasn't that your request?

BTW
Why don't you provide a positive case for Darwinism, (the claim that organisms evolve mainly by the mechanism of random variation and natural selection)

Provide your premises like I did...
The premises have to be testable, more likely to be true than wrong and the conclusion "therefore Darwinism is true" has to follow from the premises.

Your premises failed in your test, if I recall correctly.

 

[leroy]

Only if you redefine your terms to the point where they are so general as to be worthless.O

Congratulations, you just refuted yourself again.

Something is specified and complex if:
1 has many parts or units

2 there are many possible combinations, or many possible way to arrage this parts

3 only 1 or few combinations would produce something with a function or meaning.


Take for example a car,
1 it has many parts
2 there are many ways in which you can arrage this parts
3 but only one or few combinations would produce a functional car

Therefore the car has the attribute of specified complexity,

There is nothing tricky about this concept, in my opinion it is very easy to understand.

 

[leroy]

Demonstrate the designer of nylonase. Hop to it. Be specific. Be complex.

Why is nylonaise suppose to be relevant?

Be more specific, exactly what is the challenge.

Nylonase requires only 2 coordinated mutations, something that is within the limits of what is possible to achieve via random mutations and natural selection

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something is specified and complex if:
1 has many parts or units

2 there are many possible combinations, or many possible way to arrage this parts

3 only 1 or few combinations would produce something with a function or meaning.


Take for example a car,
1 it has many parts
2 there are many ways in which you can arrage this parts
3 but only one or few combinations would produce a functional car

Therefore the car has the attribute of specified complexity,

There is nothing tricky about this concept, in my opinion it is very easy to understand.

Life does not match your description. @Polymath257 already explained that to you.

 

[leroy]

.

But your basic claim that there are only a few sequences that can do a job is shown false by the fact that proteins from different species tend to be different in many locations. So, human hemoglogin is slightly different than that from other great apes, which is different than from other mammals, etc.

For every functional fold there are 10^77 useless folds (source)
This doesn't mean that there is only one possible folding that would have a functional outcome, but it makes functional outcomes very, very unlikely to have o cure by chance.

An analogy would be, imagine that you have 100 different letters, sure there might be more than 1 meaningful sentence that can be forned with such letters, but the mayority of possible combinations would represent a meaningless set of letters.

The claim is that it is very unlikely for aminoacids to have organice by chance in the exact order required to produce the first living organism (a self replicating molecule)

And, the nested heierarchies seen from morphology are also seen in the sequences for proteins. Which is yet another way to see that there has been common descent.

Yes common descent is uncontrovertially true

 

[leroy]

You need to justify that claim with a lot more than hand waving.

This is not a big deal,

1 we know that self replication is a process that requires many parts (many aminoacids)

2 We know that there are many ways in which aminoacids can excist in nature (many possible combinations)

3 we know that few or the possible arrangements can produce self replication.


Requirements 1,2 and 3 are meat therefore self replication has the attribute of specified complexity

Something is specified and complex if:
1 has many parts or units

2 there are many possible combinations, or many possible way to arrage this parts

3 only 1 or few combinations would produce something with a function or meaning.

 

[leroy]

You need to justify that claim with a lot more than hand waving.

The video (nor the paper) represent a step by step path. You can't go from. Stage a to stage b via a single mutation

 

[leroy]

Life does not match your description. @Polymath257 already explained that to you.

That would imply that life (the first living thing or first self replicating molecule) would lack at least 1 of the 3 attributes

So which one is it?

Something is specified and complex if:
1 has many parts or units (in this case many aminoacids)

2 there are many possible combinations, or many possible way to arrage these parts

3 only 1 or few combinations would produce something with a function or meaning. (in this case self replication)

 

[YoursTrue]

@Valjean or others:
Do you agree with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (nih) that "scientists agree" that cells are the smallest form of life? Just wondering if you accept that as true (realizing now that the word 'true' in the 'truest' sense of true is not necessarily something to be taken for granted in scientific postulations or definitions, I suppose). Thank you. So again -- do you agree or accept the description that cells are the smallest form of life?

 

[Polymath257]

For every functional fold there are 10^77 useless folds (source)

Nope, that is NOT what the article says. See below.

This doesn't mean that there is only one possible folding that would have a functional outcome, but it makes functional outcomes very, very unlikely to have o cure by chance.

An analogy would be, imagine that you have 100 different letters, sure there might be more than 1 meaningful sentence that can be forned with such letters, but the mayority of possible combinations would represent a meaningless set of letters.

The claim is that it is very unlikely for aminoacids to have organice by chance in the exact order required to produce the first living organism (a self replicating molecule)

Yes common descent is uncontrovertially true

You misunderstood what the article said. it said that for some previously given protein, there is a 1 in 10^77 chance that a random pattern will match that protein's functionality. This is very far from saying that there is a 1 in 10^77 chance of having a functional protein. it is justthat other functional proteins have *different* functionality. Those other folds are functional, just not with the same functionality.

Given the number of different types of functionality that could potentially exist, the chances of having *something* functional are much higher than 1 in 10^77.

Also, and this article makes the same mistake as many counting arguments in this subject, there is NOTHING that says that the protein has to ALL be there or there is nothing. This is red herring.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it would not be natural selection. Why would you think it would be?

I'm wondering. I wonder also what Valjean thinks. I'll relate what he says when I have more time. I've been looking up about what the NIH (National Institutes of Health) is saying about cells being the smallest (?) form of living matter. Of course that leads to questions in my mind, me not being that conversant with all these things, but -- now again -- wonder what Valjean thinks if there is a penile and scrotum transplant that works, and how can that be natural selection. At first I didn't think so, but now -- I wonder. (Thanks.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not a big deal,

1 we know that self replication is a process that requires many parts (many aminoacids)

2 We know that there are many ways in which aminoacids can excist in nature (many possible combinations)

3 we know that few or the possible arrangements can produce self replication.


Requirements 1,2 and 3 are meat therefore self replication has the attribute of specified complexity

Nope. What you are trying to do is to justify an argument from ignorance with hand waving.