Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Speedwell]

Your article didn't prove it's point. It was just silly.

There wasn't anything to prove. No verifiable examples of irreducibly complex biological structures have ever been brought forward.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We know that's true because humans wrote the bible.

There is some 'dishonesty' in the bible. Thankfully it can be corrected.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except natural selection can be observed happening, both in the fossil record and in life, so we can factor nature in to scientific equations. But you're right, we cannot observe God acting on His creation, so he cannot be included in scientific equations.

Isn't natural selection really just mutation, part of the creation process.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course it is! That's how evolution works! A mousetrap without the lock and trip makes a perfectly functional (if not a little bulky) tie clip too.

The flagellum that's often touted as irreducibly complex can lose 12 or so of it's proteins (in the same way the Mousetrap lost two of its five parts) to be reappropriated as a virulence system as used by Yersinia, also known as the Black Plague.

a very persuasive argument imho.

But a tie clasp isn't a mouse trap.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Tell me about how you've been dishonest in this discussion.

WHAT, ME dishonest? Perish the thought.

 

[durangodawood]

WHAT, ME dishonest? Perish the thought.

I can see where you get the idea that honest discussion is not possible.

 

[MasonP]

There is some 'dishonesty' in the bible. Thankfully it can be corrected.

Yes by other dishonest humans.

 

[MasonP]

But a tie clasp isn't a mouse trap.

That's because before it was a mouse trap it was a tie clasp, please try and keep up.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I can see where you get the idea that honest discussion is not possible.

You really don't. Picture a group of well educated, well dressed, well spoken people standing and smiling, against a backdrop of confusion, destruction and depravity. That's our world. The best efforts by people (like me) cannot change that. We are bailing with a tea cup against the tide.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's because before it was a mouse trap it was a tie clasp, please try and keep up.

Er, no. Only after parts were removed did it become a 'tie clasp'.

 

[Speedwell]

Isn't natural selection really just mutation, part of the creation process.

No. Genetic mutation is one of the inputs to the process which produces variation amongst individuals of a species. This range of variants is then subject to selection by the natural environment--i.e. natural selection.

 

[MasonP]

Er, no. Only after parts were removed did it become a 'tie clasp'.

No, parts were added to make it a mouse trap, what's wrong with you? we are talking about evolution, populations change over time.

 

[Speedwell]

Er, no. Only after parts were removed did it become a 'tie clasp'.

Same difference. If mousetraps reproduced and evolved instead of being made in a factory, then each stage of assembly would have to be a stage of improved usefulness over the previous stage--though not necessarily usefulness as a mousetrap.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Same difference. If mousetraps reproduced and evolved instead of being made in a factory, then each stage of assembly would have to be a stage of improved usefulness over the previous stage--though not necessarily usefulness as a mousetrap.

We're not talking about adding parts over time to produce a mousetrap from another contraption. We're talking about 'reducing' a working mousetrap to something other than a mousetrap by removing parts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, parts were added to make it a mouse trap, what's wrong with you? we are talking about evolution, populations change over time.

The subject is "irreducible complexity" to rebut evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. Genetic mutation is one of the inputs to the process which produces variation amongst individuals of a species. This range of variants is then subject to selection by the natural environment--i.e. natural selection.

If you mean that "those with thicker fur survive the cold winter" I agree. But I wouldn't call that an 'evolutionary' change the way we dummies understand the term. It also could be that "those who ate more food and therefore had more fat survive the cold winter", but that too isn't an evolutionary change. They might be starved for enough food the very next season and freeze to death.

 

[Speedwell]

We're not talking about adding parts over time to produce a mousetrap from another contraption. We're talking about 'reducing' a working mousetrap to something other than a mousetrap by removing parts.

Not a worthwhile thought experiment. Mousetraps are assembled in factories. There is no requirement that each stage of assembly produces a useful structure. Consequently, it is not surprising that disassembling the mousetrap in the reverse order does not result in useful structures.

 

[Speedwell]

If you mean that "those with thicker fur survive the cold winter" I agree. But I wouldn't call that an 'evolutionary' change the way we dummies understand the term.

It could be, if the tendency to grow more fur was an heritable trait.

It also could be that "those who ate more food and therefore had more fat survive the cold winter", but that too isn't an evolutionary change.

It could be, if eating more food resulted from an heritable physical variation which allowed them to forage or hunt more effectively.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Isn't natural selection really just mutation, part of the creation process.

No, natural selection is the whole process by whether or not an animal lives to pass on it's genes. It involves the birth-rate, the number of animals in any given area, the environment, the location, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The subject is "irreducible complexity" to rebut evolution.

Yes; the point was that you can show that a mousetrap is not necessarily irreducibly complex by demonstrating how it could be produced by successive modification, where each stage is a functional mousetrap (or has some other function). This refutes Behe's claim that a mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex functional object.

The moral is that claims of irreducible complexity are often the result of lack of knowledge and/or imagination.