-57, it seems you didn't read nor respond to the points presented. Here there are again for your convenience.
Whoa, I see you ignored nearly all of my post.
You ignored these points. So do you agree?
A. That IC is evidence in favor of evolution, not against it. This was established nearly 100 years ago, long before Behe was out of diapers.
B. That your argument of "I don't understand how it evolved, so it must have been poofed into existence." is simply an argument from ignorance, and hence fallacious.
D. Even if designed, the examples given previously show that many of the designs are really stupid. That's not something that we, as Christians, want to blame God for.
The only one you responded to was C - about the feature itself.
........
You wrote:
I think you need to learn how to present your case.
I did. I showed that your whole argument was not only factually incorrect, but also based on the fallacy of the argument from incredulity. That means that you have no case.
So far I presented how complicated the celluar level is...and you blew it off with a link.
No, only presented those facts from the experts in case you actually wanted to understand. I had already pointed out that your argument was invalid because it was fallacious. There was no blowing of any reasonable argument.
Explain to me....in your own words...seeing as if you have some sort of knowledge of how DNA works, show me how a motor protein could have evolved through a process that contains random mutations where only a small fraction of a percent would be considered as beneficial.
It's clear from your posts that you don't have a clue how actual evolution based on mutation and natural selection works (not to mention basic grammar and spelling), and thus won't be able to understand biochemical evolution until you first understand some of the basics of evolution itself. Of the many obvious falsehoods you've posted, your statement above shows that you don't understand the basic idea of natural selection, which shows that the greater frequency of harmful mutations is irrelevant. So I'll start there. Here is a basic description of why a greater number of harmful mutations than beneficial mutations still allows evolution to work well.
Take a population of, say, 100,000 (which is really quite small, the population of deer just in Michigan is over 2,000,000 - 20 times as much). So the mutations will usually be on separate individuals, not on the same individual. Thus, the mutations will or will not be transmitted to the next generation according to the common sense observation of whether they help or hurt.
So let's try an example:
So, out of that population of 100,000 there will be around 20 to 80,000 births in one breeding season, depending on the species. (actually, it's much higher in many species that have litters of more than 2 babies). Of those 50,000 say there are 5000 harmful mutations and 50 beneficial mutations (that's 100 to 1 harmful to beneficial). So those 5,000 fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of the babies will reproduce anyway, most just lose the competition even being unmutated), and most importantly, of course those 50 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 40 of them do so, giving just 3X babies, or 120.
**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 40 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:
5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
120 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations
So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 170 beneficial mutants (120 + 50 new ones) are more likely to reproduce, so say that 150 of them do so, giving 450 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).
**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 450 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:
5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
450 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations
So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce (they're hampered by harmful mutations), the population isn't affected (only 10,000 of all babies will reproduce anyway), and most importantly, of course those 500 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 400 of them do so, giving 1,200 babies (again, only 3X, a conservative number since it's much higher in many species).
**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 1,200 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:
5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
1200 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations
So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 1,250 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 1000 of them do so, giving 3,000 babies.
**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 3,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies. So that gives:
5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
3,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations
So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 3,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 2,700 of them do so, giving 8,000 babies.
**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 8,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:
5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
8,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations
So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 8,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that 7,000 of them do so, giving 21,000 babies.
**
Now, next generation. Remember that you had 21,000 with good mutations. You get another batch of 50,000 babies, and we'll assume the same mutation rates. So that gives:
5,000 new harmful mutations.
50 new beneficial mutations
21,000 offspring from the previous generation's good mutations
0 offspring from the previous generation's harmful mutations
So, just like before, let's look at the competition phase next.
Those with harmful mutations fail to reproduce. Those 21,050 beneficial mutants are more likely to reproduce, so say that only 18,000 of them do so, giving 54,000 babies.
Hold on though. Our land can only support 50,000 babies per generation, so we only get 50,000 of those.
But look at what has happened! Even though there were
always 100 harmful mutations to only 1 good mutation, what one would naively think is an overwhelmingly bad rate, yet at the end of the day we have seen that the good mutations have now spread to every single member of the population, and the harmful mutations are gone!
You can run this again and again with different ratios of good to bad mutations, different mutation rates, and so on. I've changed all those numbers, and you know what? Biologist have too, both by looking at different actual animal populations, and by computer simulations. Both the real world and the simulations show that same things. Those are:
1. The higher the overall mutation rate, the faster the good mutations add up.
2. The faster the reproduction, the faster the good mutations add up.
3.
The rate of harmful mutations has no effect. 3 to 1 bad to good, or 20 to 1, or 50 to 1, or 100 to 1 or whatever, has no effect because the harmful mutations are removed by selection anyway. Try it for yourself and see.
4. The larger the total number of good mutations, the faster they spread though the population, but this is less important than conclusion #2.
Does that all help? Looking at it in detail shows that it's all common sense, nothing that's hard to understand.
If I presented you with a 5-10 min long video showing how certain orgenelle are made...would you watch it, or would I be wasting my time?
Being that you won't take 5-10 minutes to watch a video showing what really happens according to those who actually understand it, who have spent literally dozens of thousands of hours in this research, I guess I can't be surprised that you don't know the basics of biology. The description above is at least a start. And I'm still waiting on responses for points A-D.
In Christ-
Papias
