Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking points

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 61 posts ] 
Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking points
Author Message
leroyPosts: 1887Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Rumraket wrote: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.

At these point I am simply establishing the fact that at least some “benfitial steps” require more than 1 mutation.

Rumraket wrote:In the argot of chemical kinetics, getting beyond the deleterious mutation is the "rate-limiting step."

That is not quite relevant; any significant number of neutral mutations in path would limit evolution (feel free to do the math by yourself)

Rumraket wrote:
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.

I would say that you are the one who has to provide the step by step path that would produce an eye or a flagellum, and justify that the path is achievable with Darwinian evolution. After you do that any objector would have to show that at least some steps are not achievable.

Rumraket wrote: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.

Most of the evidence that you mentioned would prove that universal common ancestry is true, as far as I know Behe (and I) grant universal common descend.

The rest bits of evidence show that some diversity is achievable by Darwinian evolution, which is also something that Behe and I would grant. The disagreement is o on whether if Darwinian evolution can account for all the diversity of life.

Rumraket wrote: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....,

Well and I am affirming that there are good reasons to think that for example detecting light and reacting when light is detected are independent and codependent systems. This is to say that you can´t get both systems with a single mutation and each system by itself is useless without the other.

There are also good reasons to say that it would have been statistically unlikely to have a neutral mutation that would allow the organism to detect light, survive genetic drift, and get a second mutation that would allow the organism to react positively when light is detected and survive genetic drift.

Just to be clear what is exactly your point of disagreement?

1 that each system would have been useless without the other

2 that you can’t get both systems with a single mutation

3 that it is statistically unlikely to have a path that involves too many neutral mutations

Rumraket wrote: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.

The number of possible paths is “potentially infinite” even if I show that a path would have been impossible you could always say that there might be an other path. I cant falsify a potentially infinite number of paths.

I can’t prove ether that you can’t get a system that can detect light and a system that causes a reaction when light is detected could have not been accrued by a single mutation, because the number of possible mutations is also potentially infinite. You are the one that would have to provide an example of such mutation.

Well anyway all I can do is:

Show that a significant number of neutral mutations in a path would we statistically unlikely and therefore constitute a barrier and that there are good reasons to assume that a significant amount of neutral steps would have had to occur if the eye or the flagellum would have had evolved by Darwinian mechanism.

To me this is enough to justify my skepticism towards the claim that all (or most) of the diversity of life is a result of Darwinian evolution.

And this is not even a big deal, many “non creationists” share the same skepticism, the issue is widely being discussed in journals
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:50 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 4
 [ 61 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests