Was the Real Flood in Genesis or Gilgamesh?

[leroy]

That is not what irreducible complexity is, thus you are incorrect in claiming that in order to disprove it one needs to show anything evolving. Please learn what a term means before pontificating about it.

CreationWiki[/url]"]It is asserted that if a system cannot be reduced to fewer components and retain functionality, then it could not have evolved by the gradual assemblage of components over successive generations.

]

The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe ​​as:

“ a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly

Given this definition, what is it what you are arguing.
A) that life doesn’t have irreducibly complex systems
B) that IC complex systems can evolve?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Given this definition, what is it what you are arguing.
A) that life doesn’t have irreducibly complex systems
B) that IC complex systems can evolve?

It is actually C) there is no example of Irreducibly complex system observed in life that could justify its adoption as an argument to claim that life couldn't have evolved.

 

[leroy]

According to the theory of darwinian evolution, the eye evolved from a simpler organ, in a step by step basis (one mutation at the time) each mutation was achieved in 1 generation and each mutation was selectively positive.


Therefore in order to prove evolution you have to provide a path, where each step is achievable in 1 generation and each step has to be selectively positive. Since you can´t do this, at the very least you have to admit that you are far from solving the dilemma that Behe proposed.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

According to the theory of darwinian evolution, the eye evolved from a simpler organ,

not necessarily, but no that controversial.

in a step by step basis

yes.

(one mutation at the time)

Nope.

each mutation was achieved in 1 generation

What do you mean?
1 mutation = 1 generation, then no.
Do you mean that a mutation is atomic, meaning that when a mutation occurs a parent organism does not have it but the child organism does have it. Then it is a very simplistic view of genetics, but ok.

and each mutation was selectively positive.

nope, it does not say that.

Therefore in order to prove evolution you have to provide a path,

But we are not talking about proving the whole of evolution, we are talking about dismissing the claims of irreducible complexity.
And the biological pathways given as a counter example to the so called "examples of irreducible complexity" does just that.

where each step is achievable in 1 generation and each step has to be selectively positive.

Evolution does not require any of those things.

Since you can´t do this,

Are you blind? Examples have just been given to you.

at the very least you have to admit that you are far from solving the dilemma that Behe proposed.

Nope. I wasn't even aware that the Behe anal extractions were even a problem that merited any consideration.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

According to the theory of darwinian evolution, the eye evolved from a simpler organ, in a step by step basis (one mutation at the time) each mutation was achieved in 1 generation and each mutation was selectively positive.

That is not the case - where does the theory of evolution claim that?

Relevant mutations can take several generations to materialise - it's not "one positive step (mutation) each generation".

A particular trait may take a combination of two or more mutations to take effect - as mentioned, many generations may go by before the right combination of mutations occurs, at which point the trait materialises.

Therefore in order to prove evolution you have to provide a path, where each step is achievable in 1 generation and each step has to be selectively positive. Since you can´t do this, at the very least you have to admit that you are far from solving the dilemma that Behe proposed.

Paths have already been shown for the flagellum mentioned in Miller's lecture.

And it's not "one mutation per generation" - that's complete nonsense.

Despite proposing IC in support of ID, Behe was forced to admit - in court - that there were no scientific papers in support of Intelligent Design.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Dragan / Master Ghost:

Let’s try to agree on what evolution states.

Assuming that 10 mutations are required to change a proto-eye in to an eye….

First an individual gets mutation #1

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population (not necesarly all the members of the specie)

Then another individual (descendent of the firs individual) gets mutation #2

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population

By repeating the process 8 times more you have your evolved eye.
------------
You can´t get all the 10 mutation at once, because that would be climbing mount improbable. This is what I meant by one step at the time (achievable in 1 generation)

If the mutation is not positive it would be very unlikely for it to become selected.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragan / Master Ghost:

Let’s try to agree on what evolution states.

Assuming that 10 mutations are required to change a proto-eye in to an eye….

First an individual gets mutation #1

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population (not necesarly all the members of the specie)

Then another individual (descendent of the firs individual) gets mutation #2

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population

By repeating the process 8 times more you have your evolved eye.
------------
You can´t get all the 10 mutation at once, because that would be climbing mount improbable. This is what I meant by one step at the time (achievable in 1 generation)

If the mutation is not positive it would be very unlikely for it to become selected.

Two things:

1) Several generations can go by without any relevant mutation;

2) Neutral (the majority) and beneficial mutations are propagated - deleterious mutations are selected out through natural selection.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe ​​as:

“ a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly

I know English is not your native tongue, but what I provided and what you have provided from Behe are essentially saying the same thing. That is irreducible complexity is a system that cannot be reduced any further and still work.

Given this definition, what is it what you are arguing.
A) that life doesn’t have irreducibly complex systems
B) that IC complex systems can evolve?

I am not saying either A or B as you have outlined them. What I am saying is that organs, such as the eye and bacterial flagellum, were presented as irreducibly complex and both were shown to be reducible and functional. My argument is that all organs thus far presented as irreducibly complex have turned out to be reducible, thus falsifying that claim for those organs. Thus far, intelligent design creationists have failed to produce one example of a truly irreducibly complex organ.

Now you are asking for the evolutionary history of the eye, which is pointless when talking about irreducible complexity. All one has to do to falsify it is demonstrate that any given organ can be reduced and still have a function. Luckily, you already provided such an example for the eye.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Let’s try to agree on what evolution states.

Assuming that 10 mutations are required to change a proto-eye in to an eye….

First an individual gets mutation #1

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population (not necesarly all the members of the specie)

Then another individual (descendent of the firs individual) gets mutation #2

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population

By repeating the process 8 times more you have your evolved eye.

But it does not. First of all, only 10 mutations is way to simplistic a picture, i will use your example only for the sake of argument. There is nothing that stops an individual from having mutation #1, and then a different individual having mutation #2 without having #1, and because of sexual reproduction, those mutations will spread through the population over successive generations and you can handout in a situation where there individuals with mutation #1 only, individuals with mutation #2 only, individuals with both #1 and #2, and individuals with neither.
And maybe mutation #3 and #4 started with the same individual.

And there is nothing that states that every single mutation required to make structure X needs to be beneficial, they can be neutral, or even detrimental at times. What Natural Selection (which is part of the theory of evolution, not evolution itself) states is that beneficial traits are selected for and detrimental traits are selected against.
Some detrimental mutations can be really nasty, so nefarious that it can even kill the individual even before it leaves its mother's womb, but others only gives an individual a disadvantage, i.e. that given the environment in which it lives it reduces the probability of being able to reproduce. For instance a fish can get a different shaped fin that is less efficient at swimming, that does not necessarily kill it but makes it a slower swimmer, if it finds itself in a situation where it needs to swim away from a predator then it has a lower probability of surviving that encounter (compared to not having that mutation) and thus reducing the probability of it reaching its adult stage and be able to reproduce. The important thing to take from this is that some detrimental mutation just affect the odds of survival, it does not make death before reproduction certain. It maybe that the fish rolled a 7 on a 12 die and live to adulthood and passed its bad genes to its offspring. Now its offspring need to survive to reproduction in order for that gene to passed to the next generation, but there is so much one can be lucky, and the odds will eventually caught up with that gene and remove it from the gene pool. I.e. a detrimental mutation can piggyback ride a couple of generations before the odds caught up with it and eliminate it.

Now let's apply this to your 1,2,3 example. Let's say mutation #1 is detrimental to an individual without mutation #2, the individual that first had mutation #1 did not have mutation #2, but mutation #2 is still none the less very prevalent through out the population. If mutation #1 can piggyback-ride enough generation before it gets eliminated, such that and individual with mutation #1 mates with an individual with mutation #2 thus producing and individual with both mutation #1 and #2, then now the rules have changed. Because while mutation #1 can be detrimental without #2, mutation #1 can be beneficial if combined with #2, and now you have a situation where an individual with both mutation #1 and #2 have a better chance of survival than individuals with just #2 while at the same time having mutation #1 being detrimental to the organism that first had it.

And just so we are clear, what I am talking about here is effects at a very small time scale. At very large time scales, the odds will invariably drown out detrimental mutations. And the evolution of the eye is a very very large time scale process, and for example between the stages of a cone eye and a pin-hole eye there has been allot of variation and experimentation over many many successive generations in terms of depth of of the cone, width, curvature, orientation, cell concentration, so on and so forth. Those that were advantageous were kept, the others were eventually eliminated. We are certainly not talking about only 10 mutations.

The subject of Evolution is much more nuanced than you think. And it is not as simple as you think it is.

 

[Inferno]

Assuming that 10 mutations are required to change a proto-eye in to an eye….

First an individual gets mutation #1

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population (not necesarly all the members of the specie)

Then another individual (descendent of the firs individual) gets mutation #2

Then the mutation has to be selected, and become dominant in a given population

By repeating the process 8 times more you have your evolved eye.
------------
You can´t get all the 10 mutation at once, because that would be climbing mount improbable. This is what I meant by one step at the time (achievable in 1 generation)

If the mutation is not positive it would be very unlikely for it to become selected.

This is actually a well-understood fallacy.

First of all, we know that the large majority of mutations are neutral, i.e. they don't immediately affect the survival chances of an organism. Through the E. coli long-term evolution experiment (Lenski et. al) and many other such experiments we know that one or more neutral mutation(s) can occur, after which one beneficial mutation enables the code (so to speak) and provides a huge boost in survivability.

So we could have neutral-neutral-neutral-beneficial, after which all the neutral ones suddenly become beneficial due to the now changed parameters.


Second, there are so-called trade-offs. For example, a body builder has huge muscles, but can't run very fast or far. Which is the more important criterion? Speed or strength? You may go through one mutation causing a benefit and a detriment at the same time.
Take sickle-cell disease. There are a huge number of health problems associated with this disease, but it also provides serious protection against malaria. Which is more important?


I could go further, pointing out that two or more beneficial mutations at the same time are not unheard of.
I could point out that there may have been underlying structures that are now gone but which helped the development. (Like bridge-building.)
The mutations also don't have to be in that particular order, it could be #5, #1, #8, #2, #3, etc.
And so on and so forth.

 

[leroy]

I know English is not your native tongue, but what I provided and what you have provided from Behe are essentially saying the same thing. That is irreducible complexity is a system that cannot be reduced any further and still work.

Wrong, that is not the definition of IC, an irreducibly complex system is a system where SOME of the parts can´t be removed, or else the whole system loses the entire function. This doens´t mean that you can´t remove any of the parts.

In the case of the eye, creationists suggest that multiple systems would have had to evolve simultaneously in order to have a benefit.
For example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin in to a system of light sensitive cells, you need to evolve a system that allows the organism to detect light and another system that allows the organism to react (or to do something) when light is detected. In order to have a selective benefit, both systems would have to evolve at the same time.

But you can falsify this creationist claim, all you have to do is provide a step by step path, where each step is positive and achievable with 1 mutation.

 

[leroy]

Master Gohost/ Inferno / Dragan

If you what to argue that neutral mutations play a major role, then we can agree on something, darwinain evolution is wrong. If neutral mutations + genetic drift are better builders than positive mutations + natural selection (as you seem to suggest) then darwinists are wonrg.

Given that you seem to support neutralism, would it be fair to conclude that there is room for reasonable doubt concerning Darwinian evolution by natural selection?

Just to let you know that I am aware of the fact that the difference between a neutralist and a selections is that neutralist argue that neutral mutations play a more important role than beneficial mutations, but neutralist don´t deny that positive mutations have some minor role in explaining the diversity of life.

 

[Deleted member 619]

For example the argument form irreducible complexity is a good argument;

Actually, not only is irreducible complexity not a good argument against evolutionary theory, it's actually a natural outcome of evolutionary processes, as was demonstrated by Hermann Joseph Müller decades before the lying fuckwit Michael Behe was even born, in a process that has since come to be known as the Müllerian Two-Step.

In an age of information, ignorance is a choice.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Dragan / Master Ghost:

Let’s try to agree on what evolution states.

Assuming that 10 mutations are required to change a proto-eye in to an eye….[sic]

OK, now you've said that, how about what evolutionary theory actually states?

This sentence shows only that you don't know anything whatsoever about how evolution really works. This is then 'half a wing' bollocks all over again. Now go and read Climbing Mount Improbable and learn how horribly wrong you've got it.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Leroy, are you familiar with the modern synthesis? Darwin didn't know anything about genetics so his framing of evolutionary theory was at least incomplete.

The modern synthesis is what you should be looking at when evaluating evolutionary theory. Even there, the relative influence of selection, mutation and drift has been under debate for some time. This has largely settled with nearly-neutral mutations and genetic drift being considered the predominant drivers in species diversity, thought natural selection is still significant.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Wrong, that is not the definition of IC, an irreducibly complex system is a system where SOME of the parts can´t be removed, or else the whole system loses the entire function. This doens´t mean that you can´t remove any of the parts.

But that is the thing, he is not just arguing that you can remove parts, he is arguing that you can remove parts still remain functioning.
Maybe not necessarily the same function, but function none the less. Something that shouldn't happen if the system is as they claim, irreducibly complex.

In the case of the eye, creationists suggest that multiple systems would have had to evolve simultaneously in order to have a benefit.
For example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin in to a system of light sensitive cells, you need to evolve a system that allows the organism to detect light and another system that allows the organism to react (or to do something) when light is detected. In order to have a selective benefit, both systems would have to evolve at the same time.

No, they don't, the system that reacts to light could have already been there before light sensitive cells evolved, they may just been doing other functions like react to pressure difference on the skin.

This is why this argument doesn't work, it hinges on ignorance on how it could possibly have happened and then concluding that it didn't.

If you what to argue that neutral mutations play a major role, then we can agree on something, darwinain evolution is wrong. If neutral mutations + genetic drift are better builders than positive mutations + natural selection (as you seem to suggest) then darwinists are wonrg.

No. there is no such thing as "darwinian evolution", there is just evolution. and the theory of evolution does have mutation + natural selection as the sole mechanism by which diversification takes place, genetic drift is another that gets to play a role in the history of evolution. And we didn't claim that genetic drift is a better at guiding the increase of fitness of a population, natural selection is still the major player in large scale changes, but that doesn't mean that changes does not happen because of genetic drift, because it does. We would be lying to you by saying that every single mutation must be beneficial and that they should appear one by one, one after the other, holding hands and singing cumbaya, that is not what happens.
Science tries to model the real world, and in the real world things happen, there is no one thing that is responsible for absolutely everything and allot of things can be accomplished in more than one way. In the real world you have a complex mess of factors and phenomenas that play a role into shaping the world, each in their own way.

 

[Inferno]

Wrong, that is not the definition of IC, an irreducibly complex system is a system where SOME of the parts can´t be removed, or else the whole system loses the entire function. This doens´t mean that you can´t remove any of the parts.

In which case IC becomes a meaningless concept. IC is only relevant to creationists if "no single part" can be removed without detriment. Even then it wouldn't be an obstacle to evolution due to the reasons I mentioned.

In the case of the eye, creationists suggest that multiple systems would have had to evolve simultaneously in order to have a benefit.
For example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin in to a system of light sensitive cells, you need to evolve a system that allows the organism to detect light and another system that allows the organism to react (or to do something) when light is detected. In order to have a selective benefit, both systems would have to evolve at the same time.

Incorrect.
For example, Euglena is a single-celled protist. It has what is called an eyespot, basically a spot of cell tissue that can distinguish light from dark but nothing more. It helps to keep its 24h rhythm. No "two systems" needed to evolve.

But you can falsify this creationist claim, all you have to do is provide a step by step path, where each step is positive and achievable with 1 mutation.

Or I can do the sensible thing and propose what scientists are proposing: A pathway suggested and endorsed by evolutionary science.

Come now, we've been over this: We can easily prove creationism wrong (just as we showed you that radiometric dating works) if you let us. If you simply say "that's not what science says" every time we explain something, we're not going to get very far.

If you what to argue that neutral mutations play a major role, then we can agree on something, darwinain evolution is wrong.

Darwin was wrong on a great many things, as HWIN pointed out. The neutral theory is mostly accepted (some kinks here and there) and is a valid addition to the modern synthesis.

If neutral mutations + genetic drift are better builders than positive mutations + natural selection (as you seem to suggest) then darwinists are wonrg.

Again, I'll go with option C:
Mutations (beneficial, neutral, detrimental) + genetic drift + natural selection + artificial selection + sexual selection + ... a great many other things (some of which we may not yet understand) = evolution.

You seem to think they're mutually exclusive when really they're one side of the same one-sided coin.

Given that you seem to support neutralism, would it be fair to conclude that there is room for reasonable doubt concerning Darwinian evolution by natural selection?

No, seeing as you misunderstand how they fit together.

Just to let you know that I am aware of the fact that the difference between a neutralist and a selections is that neutralist argue that neutral mutations play a more important role than beneficial mutations, but neutralist don´t deny that positive mutations have some minor role in explaining the diversity of life.

They're both important and at this point we don't yet know how important each is. Whatever the case, it doesn't distract from the fact that eyes did evolve.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I know English is not your native tongue, but what I provided and what you have provided from Behe are essentially saying the same thing. That is irreducible complexity is a system that cannot be reduced any further and still work.

Wrong, that is not the definition of IC, an irreducibly complex system is a system where SOME of the parts can´t be removed, or else the whole system loses the entire function. This doens´t mean that you can´t remove any of the parts.

leroy[/url]"]

a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

[Emphasis added.]

Again, I will attribute this to English not being your native tongue. Now that I have demonstrated that I am not in error, but you are, next time please learn what a term is before you start pontificating about it.

In the case of the eye, creationists suggest that multiple systems would have had to evolve simultaneously in order to have a benefit.

:facepalm:

Geocentralist believe that since the sun moves across the sky, they can suggest that the sun orbits the earth. Please stop pretending as if a creationist’s suggestion amounts to anything more than a bucket a piss.

For example if you what to evolve a bunch of skin in to a system of light sensitive cells, you need to evolve a system that allows the organism to detect light and another system that allows the organism to react (or to do something) when light is detected. In order to have a selective benefit, both systems would have to evolve at the same time.

You mean like a photoreceptor cell and a nervous system. well, since nervous systems were around long before eyes came about, the second part of your need was already in place. Furthermore, they would be evolving at the same time, it is called coevolution.

But you can falsify this creationist claim, all you have to do is provide a step by step path, where each step is positive and achievable with 1 mutation.

Again, dandan, we went over this a year ago. You were wrong than, and you are still wrong now. evolution does not work like the straw man of it you have constructed in your mind. Until you stop referring to that straw man, and start listening to others, you will never get it.

Oh, and incase it was not clear enough from what everyone else was saying; Darwinism is wrong. It has been known to be wrong for about 130 years. Evolutionary theory has moved on since Darwin’s time, yet creationists only seem to argue against him and refuse to address modern evolutionary theory.

 

[Bango Skank]

I posted this earlier on first page, but it got ignored.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2545494/Was-Noahs-Ark-ROUND-3-700-year-old-clay-tablet-reveals-boat-coracle-reeds-bitumen.html

Just for fun, would this type of ark be more plausible than the bible's version?

From artice: "A television documentary due to be broadcast later this year will follow attempts to build the ark according to the ancient manual."

Sounds a lot more interesting than Ham's ark project. :lol:

EDIT: Just found this from wiki:

"In 2014, Finkel's discovery of a cuneiform tablet that contained a Flood narrative similar to that of the story of Noah's Ark, described in his book The Ark Before Noah, was widely reported in the news media.[4][5] The ark described in the tablet was circular, essentially a very large coracle, and made of rope on a wooden frame. The tablet included sufficient details of its dimensions and construction to enable a copy of the ark to be made at about 1/3 scale and successfully floated, as documented in a 2014 TV documentary."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Finkel#Philology

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The meaning of "irreducible complexity"

Just something I found relevant to this discussion.