Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking points

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

No, they don't - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

By definition only beneficial changes can be selected by natural selection, (sure other mechanism like genetic drift can select neutral and negative changes)

Wrong. Non-lethal ones - whether beneficial or neutral - are passed on.

But they don't have to occur in one generation - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

Evolution is suppose to work on the basis of building and selection upon mutations, each individual mutation occur in 1 generation, this is what I mean, we simply mean something different with “change”

No, they don't have to occur in one generation - generations can go by without any relevant mutation occurring.

No, they don't - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

For natural selection to select 2 independent and codependent mutations they have to occur at the same time.
If you what to invoke other mechanisms (like genetic drift) then these mutations can occur at different times.

You're switching between evolution and natural selection - it's all just evolution.

Independent and codependent are not necessarily the same thing.

Mutations may need to be present at the same time but they don't have to occur at the same time.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

That wasn't on what Moran doesn't disagree with Behe - it was that chloroquine resistance is extremely rare.

On what he, and others, find fault is Behe's claim that the probability is 10[sup]-20[/sup].

However it is still a fact that Morlan, Behe and I agree on that at least some “beneficial steps” require more than 1 mutation in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection.

Do you also agree with us?

If you're willing to agree that most don't...

Selectionism and neutralism are not mutually exclusive - they are just aspects of evolution

No one is saying g that these are mutually exclusive, all I am saying is that one of them has to predominate over the other.

Selectionists: Most mutations involved in the evolution of the eye where positive and selected by natural selection

Neutralists: Most mutations involved in the evolution of the eye where neutral and selected by random genetic drift.

So given these definitions, what are you a neutralist or a selectionist?

note that I am using the word “most” I am not using the word “all” and note that I am talking about the specific mutations involved in the evolution of the eye.

I don't know which took precedent in this particular instance - all that is known is that it was due to evolution, not creationism/ID.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Tis in an abduction, you are not making an abduction. You are saying I do not know what caused X, therefore Y did it.

You can label it however you what, all I am saying is that if ´´X´´ is the only known possible cause for ´´Y´´ it is completely rational an valid to grand X as “Probably true” (unless prove

The alleged logical fallacy is just a straw man.

How can I be the only one when I am just paraphrasing borrofburi's response to you? Have you ever tried to sit down and think for a minute before responding to me?

l:

You are correct I would have lost my bet; sometimes I forget that I am dealing with people who believe that “events with zero probabilities happen all the time”

However if you ask any “normal person” that is not a fanatic atheist, he would tell you that there is nothing wrong with this kind of reasoning.

if ´´X´´ is the only known possible cause for ´´Y´´ it is completely rational an valid to grand X as “Probably true” (unless proven otherwise)

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Wrong. Non-lethal ones - whether beneficial or neutral - are passed on.

Please read, no one is saying that neutral mutations do not passed on

No, they don't have to occur in one generation - generations can go by without any relevant mutation occurring.

Granted, no one is claiming the opposite,

You're switching between evolution and natural selection - it's all just evolution.

Independent and codependent are not necessarily the same thing.

Mutations may need to be present at the same time but they don't have to occur at the same time.

Kindest regards,

Again granted
The only point that I am making is that if 2 mutations are independent and codependent they cannot be selected by natural selection unless they occur at the same time, if they didn’t accure at the same time, then atleast the first mutation would have had to be “selected” by genetic drift

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

If you're willing to agree that most don't...

I would like to see your proof, but for the sake of the argument lets assume that “Most don’t”
Anyway even if 1% of the relevant “beneficial steps” require multiple mutations independent and codependent mutations evolution would be dead.

I don't know which took precedent in this particular instance - all that is known is that it was due to evolution, not creationism/ID.

Kindest regards,

James

It doesn’t matter which one do you choose both selectionism and neutralism have flaws.

Selectionism: we know that at least some “benefitial steps” require multiple independent and codependent mutations therefore selectionism can´t account for the evolution of the eye

Neutralism: if any relevant number of neutral mutations was involved in the evolution of the eye, you would be climbing mount improbable.

Have you ever done the math yourself?

Pretend that an organism requires mutation A and Mutation B in order to have a beneficial step towards the evolution of the eye.

Mutation A and mutation B would be useless by themselves. Only the combination of both would have a benefit.

Calculate,

1 the probability of having mutation A in any individual member of a population
2 times the probability of that mutation being fixed in the population
3 times the probability of having mutation B in any individual member of the population that already posse’s mutation A
4 times the probability of fixation

You can look at the values by doing research in any source that you consider reliable, or you can just ask me, I can tell you which values are you suppose to use.


After doing the math you will note that the result is a very small number, there are simply not enough probabilistic resources to account for any significant number of relevant neutral mutations.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

Wrong. Non-lethal ones - whether beneficial or neutral - are passed on.

Please read, no one is saying that neutral mutations do not passed on

The way you put it implies that you believe/claim that only beneficial ones are passed on.

No, they don't have to occur in one generation - generations can go by without any relevant mutation occurring.

Granted, no one is claiming the opposite,

Again, the way you put it implies that you believe/claim that they "must" occur in one generation.

You're switching between evolution and natural selection - it's all just evolution.

Independent and codependent are not necessarily the same thing.

Mutations may need to be present at the same time but they don't have to occur at the same time.

Kindest regards,

Again granted
The only point that I am making is that if 2 mutations are independent and codependent they cannot be selected by natural selection unless they occur at the same time, if they didn’t accure at the same time, then atleast the first mutation would have had to be “selected” by genetic drift

They are passed on through evolutionary processes - regardless of which specific one. That's what matters.

And thank you for finally acknowledging that your three *musts* are irrelevant.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

If you're willing to agree that most don't...

I would like to see your proof, but for the sake of the argument lets assume that “Most don’t”

It's a logical conclusion that if "at least some do" then "most don't" - there's nothing complicated about this.

Anyway even if 1% of the relevant “beneficial steps” require multiple mutations independent and codependent mutations evolution would be dead.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I don't know which took precedent in this particular instance - all that is known is that it was due to evolution, not creationism/ID.

Kindest regards,

James

It doesn’t matter which one do you choose both selectionism and neutralism have flaws.

Selectionism: we know that at least some “benefitial steps” require multiple independent and codependent mutations therefore selectionism can´t account for the evolution of the eye

Neutralism: if any relevant number of neutral mutations was involved in the evolution of the eye, you would be climbing mount improbable.

According to you.

Evolution comprises a number of processes that results in life-forms evolving over time. It's not an either-or situation as you seem to believe.

Have you ever done the math yourself?

Pretend that an organism requires mutation A and Mutation B in order to have a beneficial step towards the evolution of the eye.

Mutation A and mutation B would be useless by themselves. Only the combination of both would have a benefit.

Calculate,

1 the probability of having mutation A in any individual member of a population
2 times the probability of that mutation being fixed in the population
3 times the probability of having mutation B in any individual member of the population that already posse’s mutation A
4 times the probability of fixation

You can look at the values by doing research in any source that you consider reliable, or you can just ask me, I can tell you which values are you suppose to use.

After doing the math you will note that the result is a very small number, there are simply not enough probabilistic resources to account for any significant number of relevant neutral mutations.

Again, according to you.

Moran already addressed this in his article.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

But this is the problem with the argument from IC, because they would NOT have to evolve at the same time. One thing can be added at a time, and each step can have some function, it just doesn't have to be the particular function that the whole system ends up having. The individual parts of the flagellum had other functions as it evolved. And as the structure grew larger and more complex, the function changed along the way.

granted if you show that each step required to make an eye or a flagellum would have a benefit the argument from IC would be falsified.

Then it is falsified.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Rumraket]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Selectionism: we know that at least some “benefitial steps” require multiple independent and codependent mutations

No we don't.

 

[Rumraket]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

The only point that I am making is that if 2 mutations are independent and codependent they cannot be selected by natural selection unless they occur at the same time, if they didn’t accure at the same time, then atleast the first mutation would have had to be “selected” by genetic drift

Yes. And now your job is to go out in the world and find that there are many many more adaptations or functions in living organism that require multiple (two or more) of such individually useless, or deleterious (but only if combined beneficial), mutations to have evolved, than evolution could ever have been expected to produce.

It is all fine and well to come up with these hypothetical barriers to evolution. Finding actual examples of them in the real world is a different matter. So off you go, find me an adaptation or function that requires multiple specific simultaneous mutations to have evolved.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

The way you put it implies that you believe/claim that only beneficial ones are passed on.

I don´t think so, in my opinion I was clearly not implying that only beneficial ones are passed on. But I apologize if it wasn't clear.

Again, the way you put it implies that you believe/claim that they "must" occur in one generation.

same as above. I apologize if it wasn't clear.

They are passed on through evolutionary processes - regardless of which specific one. That's what matters.

And thank you for finally acknowledging that your three *musts* are irrelevant.

Kindest regards,.

it matters because none of the evolutionary processes (except maybe for some sort of intelligently guided evolution) solve the problems presented by Behe.

I already explained why selectionism and neutralism fail, is there any other mechanism on the table?



James[/quote]

leroy wrote:
Anyway even if 1% of the relevant “beneficial steps” require multiple mutations independent and codependent mutations evolution would be dead

How do you come to that conclusion?

I simply did the math. you can also do them by yourself.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Selectionism: we know that at least some “benefitial steps” require multiple independent and codependent mutations

No we don't.

well atleast Behe, Dragan, Morlan and I would disagree with you,

besides a paper proving that statement was already provided in this thread,

a real life example would be chloroquine resistance (https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so_michael_behe/)

we know that at least some “benefitial steps” require multiple independent and codependent mutations, this is an uncontroversial fact,

Yes. And now your job is to go out in the world and find that there are many many more adaptations or functions in living organism that require multiple (two or more) of such individually useless, or deleterious (but only if combined beneficial), mutations to have evolved, than evolution could ever have been expected to produce.

It is all fine and well to come up with these hypothetical barriers to evolution. Finding actual examples of them in the real world is a different matter. So off you go, find me an adaptation or function that requires multiple specific simultaneous mutations to have evolved.

one wonders, why is it that atheist from this forum never what to carry their burden proof? you are the one who is affirming that there is a step by step path (each step being positive and achievable with 1 mutation) in the journey to evolve and eye or a flagellum. You are the one who is making the positive claim, I cant prove the negative.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

The way you put it implies that you believe/claim that only beneficial ones are passed on.

I don´t think so, in my opinion I was clearly not implying that only beneficial ones are passed on. But I apologize if it wasn't clear.

Again, the way you put it implies that you believe/claim that they "must" occur in one generation.

same as above. I apologize if it wasn't clear.

Thank you for acknowledging these two points.

They are passed on through evolutionary processes - regardless of which specific one. That's what matters.

And thank you for finally acknowledging that your three *musts* are irrelevant.

Kindest regards,

James

it matters because none of the evolutionary processes (except maybe for some sort of intelligently guided evolution) solve the problems presented by Behe.

There aren't any problems with evolution - Behe's "problems" are inconsequential as Rumraket has explained to you several times.

I already explained why selectionism and neutralism fail, is there any other mechanism on the table?

The "problems" you imagine to be there don't exist.

Anyway even if 1% of the relevant “beneficial steps” require multiple mutations independent and codependent mutations evolution would be dead

How do you come to that conclusion?

I simply did the math. you can also do them by yourself.

Since you complained about Moran not showing his mathematics, perhaps you'd like to show yours!?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

No we don't.

well atleast Behe, Dragan, Morlan and I would disagree with you,

Just to clarify something...

I didn't agree with you, leroy - I was using your own "logic" against you.

This was the back-and-forth we had:

Greetings,

Dragan Glas wrote:
If you're willing to agree that most don't...

I would like to see your proof, but for the sake of the argument lets assume that “Most don’t”

It's a logical conclusion that if "at least some do" then "most don't" - there's nothing complicated about this.

As you can see, I wasn't agreeing with you.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Just to clarify something...

I didn't agree with you, leroy - I was using your own "logic" against you.

This was the back-and-forth we had:

well lets quote your actual words

However it is still a fact that Morlan, Behe and I agree on that at least some “beneficial steps” require more than 1 mutation in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection.

Do you also agree with us?

If you're willing to agree that most don't...

To me it seems obvious that you did agree with us, And just for the record, this is why usually insist too much in getting direct yes or no answers when I ask a question, it seems to me that you made a vague response on purpose so that you can ether deny or affirm your answer in the future, just in case you get cornered.

Not to mention that the article by Morlan that you quoted does concede my assertion. + The fact that I supported the assertion with a peer reviewed article.



The fact that you are not willing to grant something that has been proven by direct observation and by multiple independent scientists speaks volumes about you. Specially because you haven’t provided any evidence for your negation

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

The "problems" you imagine to be there don't exist.

If these problems don’t exist then why are so many scientists working in the solution of these problems? Why isn’t there a consensus in the scientific community on how to solve these problems?

These problems are real, the only controversial thing is on whether if we should be skeptical about the theory of evolution despite the existence of these problems.

Since you complained about Moran not showing his mathematics, perhaps you'd like to show yours!?

Kindest regards,

James

Do you agree on that the “equation” is valid? Or would you add or remove some other variable?

to Calculate, the probability of getting 2 independent and codependent mutatoins occuring at a differen time


Pretend that an organism requires mutation A and Mutation B in order to have a beneficial step towards the evolution of the eye.

Mutation A and mutation B would be useless by themselves. Only the combination of both would have a benefit.


1 the probability of having mutation A in any individual member of a population
2 times the probability of that mutation being fixed in the population
3 times the probability of having mutation B in any individual member of the population that already posse’s mutation A
4 times the probability of fixation

Remember that I am very bad in interpreting texts, so any answer that is not a direct and clear answer might be misinterpreted by me.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Tis in an abduction, you are not making an abduction. You are saying I do not know what caused X, therefore Y did it.

You can label it however you what, all I am saying is that if ´´X´´ is the only known possible cause for ´´Y´´ it is completely rational an valid to grand X as “Probably true” (unless prove

Right. You just gave a great example of the argument from ignorance. As everyone keeps pointing it out.

The alleged logical fallacy is just a straw man.

How can it be a strawman when you gave a perfect example of it? Dandan/leroy, how about taking a minute to learn about something before pretending to be an expert in it for once?

How can I be the only one when I am just paraphrasing borrofburi's response to you? Have you ever tried to sit down and think for a minute before responding to me?

l:

You are correct I would have lost my bet; sometimes I forget that I am dealing with people who believe that “events with zero probabilities happen all the time”

I am still waiting for you to do the math and show that you are right. However, I also know just how good you are at running.

:lol:

However if you ask any “normal person” that is not a fanatic atheist, he would tell you that there is nothing wrong with this kind of reasoning.

if ´´X´´ is the only known possible cause for ´´Y´´ it is completely rational an valid to grand X as “Probably true” (unless proven otherwise)

:lol:

Theist: I cannot get anyone to buy my argument from ignorance, even after I doubled down on it, thus, I will just ad an argumentum ad populum. That will show them.

:lol:

How pathetic can one person get?

 

[Rumraket]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

leroy: Selectionism: we know that at least some “benefitial steps” require multiple independent and codependent mutations
Rumraket: No we don't.
leroy: well atleast Behe, Dragan, Morlan and I would disagree with you,

I thought you meant besides the example of chloroquine resistance. You are claiming to have found examples of adaptations that could not have evolved, right? Then showing an example of an adaptation that evolved seems rather self-defeating in my view.

That means adaptations that require multiple specific but necessary mutations where both (or more) of them are neutral, or even deleterious, but only when combined are beneficial, in species that have too low population sizes to have "found" them.

we know that at least some “benefitial steps” require multiple independent and codependent mutations, this is an uncontroversial fact,

We know that chloroquine resistance requires at least one neutral mutation, which if present will result in resistance if another particular mutation happens. This second mutation is then beneficial. And chloroquine resistance evolved.

The problem is that Michael Behe originally declared that it required two simultaneously deleterious mutations, meaning that they would have been selected against individually, but only when in combination would the exhibit synergistic postitive epistasis. Had that been true, he would have had a point.

"Close your eyes and envision a pathway to a malaria parasite that has four mutations. The first mutation is deleterious, the second rescues the first and makes the parasite marginally chloroquine resistant. Subsequent steps are all beneficial by dint of either improving chloroquine resistance or of stabilizing the structure of the mutated PfCRT, which is required for malaria survival. Once a parasite can survive at least marginally in the presence of chloroquine, further mutations can be added one at a time (no longer two at a time) in each cycle of infection because the population size (1012) greatly exceeds the inverse of the mutation rate.

In the argot of chemical kinetics, getting beyond the deleterious mutation is the "rate-limiting step." After that hurdle is passed further mutations can be added singly -- the way Darwinists like -- and comparatively rapidly. Since they would be added rapidly, they would be difficult to detect in the wild." - Michael Behe

"If even one step in a long and relentlessly detailed evolutionary pathway is deleterious, then a Darwinian process is woefully impaired. If several steps in a row are deleterious, you can kiss the Darwinian explanation goodbye." - Michael Behe

He then later changed the tune to claim that when it was found at least one of the required mutations for strong resistance to chloroquine resistance, was neutral, this vindicated his prediction. That is just some historical background here that shows Michael Behe's tendency at historical revisionism.

Let me note here that None of the mutations required for chloroquine resistance are deleterious.

Now, it is still true that depending on the genetic background of the parasite (which mutations are already present), some pathways to chloroquine resistance requires two mutations to yield a single beneficial step. And Behe then says that IF a particular adaptation requires such two specific mutations to evolve, one or both of which on their own are neutral(or worse, deleterious), then this is the "edge" of evolution beyond which we should not generally expect Darwinian evolution to be able to move for species with smaller population sizes. Which is true, but a trivial statement. Nobody has claimed otherwise.

The issue is that only a single example of such an adaptation, which required two specific mutations a single of which is neutral, to evolve. But we don't know of any other such examples, and certainly not for any multicellular eukaryote.

And notice, though, that this is supposedly the "edge". Meaning such double-mutants could still evolve in organisms with huge population sizes, like bacteria, viruses and so on. It would become very interesting if an example could be found in multicellular eukaryotes like plants and animals.

And now your job is to go out in the world and find that there are many many more adaptations or functions in living organism that require multiple (two or more) of such individually useless, or deleterious (but only if combined beneficial), mutations to have evolved, than evolution could ever have been expected to produce.

It is all fine and well to come up with these hypothetical barriers to evolution. Finding actual examples of them in the real world is a different matter. So off you go, find me an adaptation or function that requires multiple specific simultaneous mutations to have evolved.

one wonders, why is it that atheist from this forum never what to carry their burden proof?

Because YOU are the one claiming to be in possesion of an argument that should cause us to doubt the veracity of the evidence that has already been collected. The evidence from the past history of life from comparative genetics, comparative anatomy, chronology of embryological developments, from the fossil record, from observations of molecular change in experiments, to observations of change of wild populations, from change due to domestic breeding and artificial selection and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

This is all evidence that evolution took place, that species share common descent, and that the process has been going on evolving new species, greater diversity, more complexity, more genetic information and so on for hundreds of thousands of independent lineages for billions of years.

Now you come along and say "oh but you see if there are these hypothetical barriers, then something else would have to have caused those particular things to evolve".

Yes, but ARE there these hypothetical barriers? Prove it. The burden is yours.

you are the one who is affirming that there is a step by step path (each step being positive and achievable with 1 mutation) in the journey to evolve and eye or a flagellum.

No, we are affirming that we don't have reason to think there isn't one given all the evidence we already have. This goes back to Darwin himself, who when he wrote the Origin of species, also supplied the conditions necessary for it's observational falsification:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

All it takes is one example of that, and then we would know that something else had to have contributed to the evolution of life, beyond just mutations, drift, selection, and population mechanics.

You are the one who is making the positive claim, I cant prove the negative.

You're confused again. You don't seem to understand what it means to prove a negative, or at least you don't see how it is you who is demanding of us that we prove a negative in this particular case.

First, some background here: When Michael Behe started making the Irreducible Complexity argument, he was actually trying to meet Charles Darwin's criterion for falsification: Find an example of something your theory says should not exist.

You're not being asked to prove a negative, you're being asked to prove that there IS actual barriers to evolution out there that means (for example) that the eye, or the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved. You're being asked to prove that a particular thing DOES exist, you are not being asked to prove that it does NOT exist.

Rather it is YOU who is demanding of US that we prove a negative to you. All YOU have to do is find a SINGLE example of something that genuinely could not have evolved. Instead, you are demanding that WE prove to you that there are NO such examples. You want of us to prove that no barriers exist out there, an impossible task.

Suppose we did that for the eye and the flagellum, suppose we managed to evolve eyes and flagellums all the way from only a single original protein to the fully formed structure. You could then simply move on and ask "Oh yeah, but you haven't proved it for the nuclear pore complex, or the endoplasmatic reticulum, or the spliceosomal complex, or the mammalian inner ear, or the central nervous system etc. etc. It would never stop, it would be impossible to falsify the claim "there is no single barrier to evolution out there in any species of life that has ever existed".

We then have to "evolve" all these things for you to prove that there are no hidden "barriers" inside them, a completely ridiculous demand. Given the evidence already collected, the null hypothesis is that the diversity and functions of life on Earth evolved. A proper null hypothesis should be one that is easy to falsify, ideally by a single observation, which is why finding just a single example of an actual barrier to evolution could falsify the null hypothesis.

But if we make the null hypothesis to be "there are hidden barriers to evolution, somewhere, in some structure, or in some species, of some function we just don't know about yet", then it is almost impossible to falsify, because we'd have to literally evolve everything ever to show that null hypothesis false.

THAT is why it is you, who claims that there IS a barrier to evolution out there, that has the burden of proof: Because such a burden of proof can be realistically met. It is like being asked to prove that a particular fossil exists in a particular rock layer. This can be done, it is practically realistic. You just go and look for it. And if you fail to find it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that you haven't found it.

If the reverse had been the case, if you had been asked to prove that such a fossil does not exist, then you'd have to dig up all the billions and billions of tonnes of rocks of that particular layer all over the globe, an impossible and unrealistic task.

The neutral mutations required to evolve chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium Falciparum are supposed to be the very limits of what evolution can produce, and if it had required multiple double mutations, any single of which was lethal (for example), that WOULD have been an actual barrier.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

Just to clarify something...

I didn't agree with you, leroy - I was using your own "logic" against you.

This was the back-and-forth we had:

well lets quote your actual words

However it is still a fact that Morlan, Behe and I agree on that at least some “beneficial steps” require more than 1 mutation in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection.

Do you also agree with us?

If you're willing to agree that most don't...

To me it seems obvious that you did agree with us, And just for the record, this is why usually insist too much in getting direct yes or no answers when I ask a question, it seems to me that you made a vague response on purpose so that you can ether deny or affirm your answer in the future, just in case you get cornered.

I was attempting to find out if you are willing to concede that most "beneficial steps" don't.

If you do agree that most don't, then I'm not sure why you're making such a fuss about a molehill.

In other words, it's not a problem for evolution.

Not to mention that the article by Morlan that you quoted does concede my assertion. + The fact that I supported the assertion with a peer reviewed article.

Exactly which assertion is that, and to what peer-reviewed article are you referring.

The fact that you are not willing to grant something that has been proven by direct observation and by multiple independent scientists speaks volumes about you. Specially because you haven’t provided any evidence for your negation

I cited Moran's article to show that Behe's claim was irrelevant to evolution - as Rumraket has explained several times.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

The "problems" you imagine to be there don't exist.

If these problems don’t exist then why are so many scientists working in the solution of these problems? Why isn’t there a consensus in the scientific community on how to solve these problems?

These problems are real, the only controversial thing is on whether if we should be skeptical about the theory of evolution despite the existence of these problems.

The "problems" only apply to a specific set of circumstances - not the vast majority of them; therefore, they're not a problem for evolution.

As I've explained before elsewhere, it's like standing on the bank of a river flowing "that way", and pointing out eddies, micro- and cross-currents, and claiming that these "prove" that the river isn't flowing "that way".

They're irrelevant to the direction in which the river is flowing.

Since you complained about Moran not showing his mathematics, perhaps you'd like to show yours!?

Kindest regards,

James

Do you agree on that the “equation” is valid? Or would you add or remove some other variable?

to Calculate, the probability of getting 2 independent and codependent mutatoins occuring at a differen time

Pretend that an organism requires mutation A and Mutation B in order to have a beneficial step towards the evolution of the eye.

Mutation A and mutation B would be useless by themselves. Only the combination of both would have a benefit.

1 the probability of having mutation A in any individual member of a population
2 times the probability of that mutation being fixed in the population
3 times the probability of having mutation B in any individual member of the population that already posse’s mutation A
4 times the probability of fixation

Remember that I am very bad in interpreting texts, so any answer that is not a direct and clear answer might be misinterpreted by me.

This isn't showing your calculations - show your figures, from where you get them, and how you're calculating them.

Kindest regards,

James