10 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by C HessI was responding to criticism of Irreducible Complexity:
It's more complex in both design and function? I wrote that? Why, I must be positively mad. 🙄
That's like speculating over how a toaster oven, vacuum cleaner, food processor, coffee maker, etc etc (all serving useful functions) could have come together (without showing how) to become a refrigerator. So taking some general idea of independently different functions and then suggesting how they could have combined (without showing how) to form some other biological function is an absurd counter argument to irreducible complexity.
If you reduce irreducible complexity to saying I don't believe it could have happened therefore it didn't happen, then of course it becomes an argument from incredulity... because you've reduced it to the point where it no longer resembles irreducible complexity.
Evolutionists necessarily need to focus on and demonstrate how a known level of complexity can be achieved through natural (and not intelligently guided) forces. So an argument (or counter argument) suggesting another level of complexity doesn't help to support your argument... it just piles on more complexity in need of an explanation.
Your (full) response to this was:
If toaster ovens, vacuum cleaners, food processors, cofee makers, etc. etc. had the ability to reproduce themselves, and if we could observe that when they do, their offspring is always unique (slightly different from their parents), and if they were all made up of essentially one or two different kinds of parts, then yes, you might have a point. It seems unwise, comparing inanimate objects that consists of literally hundreds of different parts in different materials, to living organisms which basically consist of one or two basic types of cells (depending on the organism), using the same building blocks across all variations.
Also, the explanation for how a flagellum could come together, I would have thought is an explanation for how it could come together. You make little sense to me here.
The explanation for how a flagellum could come together is an explanation for how it could come together...
The explanation is the explanation?
10 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI said it did not start working right on its own. I had to locate the error and correct it first. Computer programs do not write themselves. Someone with a mind has to do it. Computer programs are not alive, so they don't really die off. It is called a crash when it stops working. 😏
You clearly don't do a lot of programming. So tell us, did the overwhelming number of bad typing mistakes result in all your programming dying off as Kelly would have us believe, or did you select the working programs and end up having working programs surviving?
10 Jan 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadNormal variations like blue or brown eyes do not require mutants.
Not necessarily. A mutation may be 'relatively bad' in that it results in fewer offspring, or even results in fewer offspring in later generations, or in relatives.
[b]It's true that one and the same mutation can prove to be bad under some circumstances and good or neutral under others, that's what natural selection relies on.
And I am saying tha ...[text shortened]... ealize just how much variation in genes exists in the population without causing serious damage.[/b]
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Jan 15
Originally posted by lemon limeAnd clearly I was saying that biological complexity is simpler in design, not function. The point I made there, however, is the same I made in the analogy thread.
Not in so many words. You said:
[b]... comparing inanimate objects that consists of literally hundreds of different parts in different materials, to living organisms which basically consist of one or two basic types of cells (depending on the organism), using the same building blocks across all variations.
You and I talked more about this in other messages, but is it really necessary for me to copy and paste what has already been said?[/b]
11 Jan 15
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsThat video clearly states that eye color is determined by 'genetic factors' ie mutations. If you are going to learn only from YouTube, then at least learn how to listen properly.
Eye color mainly depends on the amount of melanin.
Why Do Our Hair And Eye Color Change?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REVpwKKd8VA
If on the other hand you can handle a bit of reading, try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color
In 2008, new research tracked down a single genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
11 Jan 15
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Maybe we're sliding ever so slowly off the point I was trying to make there, like it's evolving, or something.
Prevention of reproduction for an individual need not be bad and is often
beneficial for the gene/species. i.e. insect colonies and social mammals.
There are obviously many possible reasons why an individual may not get to reproduce, and in no way did I mean to imply that such an organism couldn't still play a vital role in preserving the existing gene pool (for some species this is part of their evolved behaviour, as you say). My point was specifically about mutations (that always happen to individuals), and where reproduction is (in)directly prevented by those mutations.
Let me clarify that. What determines whether a specific mutation is good, bad or neutral is circumstances (whether or not it's part of an activated gene, and whether or not that activated gene is good for the individual and/or the group). If a new mutation occur in a given individual, it therefore goes without saying that if it can spread through the population as a neutral mutation, it's a potential good mutation. It would only be a bad mutation if it cannot spread through the population, or if (at a later time) it prevents other potentially good mutations from spreading.