Proving irreducible complexity with a cell-phone


(Mikkel R.) #102

You’re the one who said the experiment starts with a cellphone.


#103

yes. it was changed during the discussion.


(George) #104

@scd

You really seem to be going around in circles.

Behe’s position is that if a complex mutation has no intermediate value for doing something else, then it’s more difficult to argue that multiple steps of intermediate mutation can successfully contribute to the final outcome.

For example:
Some critics used to say that the point of mutations that put feathers on dinosaurs was so that the dinosaur could eventually fly. And so this was easy to criticize.

But when feathers on dinosaurs were further studied, it was shown that feathers, even if only partially deployed, could contribute to the following:

a) insulating the animal from heat or cold;
b) for ornamentation that attracted mates;
c) for use in assisting creatures to move up inclines to find food sources or to avoid predators at the bottom of the ecological niches.

As long as there are “intermediate” uses, any partial mutation can eventually be used for a completely different final use.

It only took about a month to explain this to you, @Scd and @Monk.


#105

Why do we need to get to a cell-phone?


#106

first: these are no small steps. feathers code by many genes. so even to evolve the first feather you will need many genes/changes. second: even if it was possible it will not be possible at the molecular level. as i showed with the cell-phone case.


#107

because we need to evolve it s tepwise.


(George) #108

@scd,

You are ignorant of the proto-structures that are common to feathers and to reptilian scales…

Start learning stuff…


#109

this article actually doesnt support stepwise:

“The reason the gene doesn’t cause the development of a fully feathered alligator is that unlike birds, alligators don’t have the underlying genetic architecture evolved to support these central feather-making genes”

this is what i said: we need many changes at once to evolve even the first feather.


(George) #110

@scd

The “step-wise” nature of feathers comes from the fact feathers had other purposes other than FLYING.

Mating can use decoration and ornamentation.

Camouflage can benefit from the extra textures and colorations.

Insulation from heat or cold benefit from feathers.

There must be something wrong with your brain that we have to keep explaining this to you.


#111

again; the article said that we need 5 genes ( Sox2, Zic1 ,Grem1, Spry2 ,Sox18 ) to evolve a feather from a scale. i dont think that 5 genes can be consider as a small step.


(George) #112

@scd

You need to read up on neutral mutations then. And then you have to ask yourself, why wouldn’t God do things this way? You keep forgetting, I am not an Atheist. You are not arguing with an atheist. You are arguing with someone who thinks God can make things naturally as well as miraculously.

And you have the nerve to tell me: “No… it’s too hard for God to do it this way… it’s too many steps…”

Take a hike.


#113

i never said that. i actually refer to natural evolution.and a natural evolution cant explain how 5 genes evolve by small steps. at least not according to the scientific data we have.


(George) #114

@scd

I entered into this discussion because you seemed incapable of understanding the logic of Irreducible Complexity is not confined to an all or nothing creation … IF there are other uses for early steps of the mutation.

It was not my intent to insist that it could be done without God.

I hope you get some education soon … before you start embarrassing yourself in front of your grand children.


(George) #115

@Scd,

I reject natural evolution. My position is God-Guided Evolution, which is where the majority of the American adults put their faith!


#116

But why do we have to evolve a cell phone?


#117

because that was the analogy.


(Bill Cole) #118

Do you believe guided common descent explains 100% of the cause of the diversity of life?


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #119

How about 99% @colewd?


(Bill Cole) #120

Ok.
Now we have common ground that universal common descent is not clear.

The question is how many origin events are we dealing with. I think as a minimum the origin of the eukaryotic cell and the origin of multicellular organisms is my starting point as they are very different than their prior life forms .

We all agree on common descent the question is how much does it explain? Is it 99% or 1% I have no idea at this point and am completely open to either case. I would bet that it is closer to 99% than 1% but would limit the bet.

When I discussed this with Mike his real position is that this is a fight he chooses not to engage in. This is a tar baby in the same class as junk DNA. Paul likes the tar baby’s :slight_smile:


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #121

If it explains 99%, UCD is clear, it just may not explain everything.