[_ Old Earth _] How do macroevolutionists refute irreducible complexity?

[faithtransforms]

(just in case it for some reason didn't show up)


Let's start off with a few points that you don't seem to comprehend at this point in time.

First off there is not such thing as a "macroevolutionist" you either accept evolution, or you don't. You can't accept part of it without accepting all of it. and If you say you do (lets take microevolution for example), then you really don't understand all of what evolution actually is yet.

I'm sorry to be a broken record. but Yes, Micro evolution has the exact same processes as Macro evolution. Macro evolution is made up of micro evolution. There for if you believe in micro evolution, it shouldn't be difficult for you to understand how macro evolution can arise because it's the exact same process, just taken a step back.

Think of it this way.

One moment we have one second, the next moment we have two seconds, the third we have three seconds and so on and so forth. That's what we consider micro evolution if we relate that to small changes in dna or within a species. Then these seconds accumulate and we have a minute! In other words, we have so many small changes in a species that it's more modern form can no longer breed with it's ancestor. And then we have even more seconds which make even more changes and it eventually leads up to a whole hour! the species looks somewhat similar to it's ancestor but cannot breed with it and is getting more and more distant from it. Eventually we have more seconds to add and we have 24 hours, an entire day! Now all of a sudden we have this creature that looks nothing like it's ancestor although it's in the same family still. Next we have a week. and we have ourselves looking at an entire biological order because the relation between the most modern organism and it's ancestor is so great. we take it to a month and we have to look at it as a class, and then a phylum and then finally the entire kingdom because it's so distantly related.

That's the very simplistic version of it, but that's what it is. You cannot believe in macro evolution without also believing in micro evolution and the opposite unless you are trying very hard to reject it to the point that you start lying to yourself.

As for Irreducible Complexity, we've already debunked all the claims from this pseudoscientific argument. Years ago in fact.

Would you be able to give an example of what defies evolution in this way, please?

I can see your posts now evo. Actually that's one of the best explanations of micro into macro that i've ever heard precisely BECAUSE its very simplistic. I'm still not buying it but i'll have to elaborate on that tomorrow. at least now though i've heard a point of view on the topic of macro/micro that leads me to the believe the person holding this view has a somewhat logical reason to do so!!!!

Example defying macro tomorrow simply b/c I have to go to sleep like NOW lol. But i'd love to hear a brief summarization of how irreducible complexity was "proven" to be pseudoscience years ago if you have time!!

 

[Evointrinsic]

Thanks!

Yes this is the first time i've experienced it. Perhaps it's just a lag issue of some sort with the boards?

when are you taking that nature trek?

2012 in july

btw i forgot you like snakes my wife killed one the other day and i though of you siggy.

I'm glad you think about me outside of this forum, lol.

the snake didnt stand a chance, though it wasnt posinous(orange round shapes along the body dont make it posinous and he didnt have pits of a viper)

Actually there are a lot of snakes that seem to have those venom sacks but really it's just muscle, so it gives off an appearance that they are venomous (not poisonous, that would imply that if you ate it you'd be poisoned ;) ) but really they're not.

florida has two pit viper snakes the coral snake and water moccasin, opps three the diamondback

And Florida has more than three venomous snakes. The Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, the Canebrake rattlesnake, the Dusky Pigmy Rattlesnake The southern Copperhead, the florida cottonmouth and the eastern Coral snake.

Although the Coral Snake is part of the Elapidae Family, not theViperidae family or the Crotalinae subfamily. so you have 5 "pit vipers" and one Elapid.

 

[faithtransforms]

You know I wish I could though!!!

Especially now that we have another mind to engage us on physics!!! Looking forward to the string thread tomorrow!! Good night all!!!

 

[jasoncran]

Thanks!

Yes this is the first time i've experienced it. Perhaps it's just a lag issue of some sort with the boards?

2012 in july

I'm glad you think about me outside of this forum, lol.

Actually there are a lot of snakes that seem to have those venom sacks but really it's just muscle, so it gives off an appearance that they are venomous (not poisonous, that would imply that if you ate it you'd be poisoned ;) ) but really they're not.



And Florida has more than three venomous snakes. The Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, the Canebrake rattlesnake, the Dusky Pigmy Rattlesnake The southern Copperhead, the florida cottonmouth and the eastern Coral snake.

Although the Coral Snake is part of the Elapidae Family, not theViperidae family or the Crotalinae subfamily. so you have 5 "pit vipers" and one Elapid.

of those three the pigmy, eastern diamond back and coral snake are a threat. and you also forget that somehow we have asps here as well.i seen one in north florida at camp blanding.

scared the troops when that thing moved sideways and retreated(odd for them as they dont retreat)

copperhead are usually near lakes and swim we call those water mocassins.

good eatins.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ok, so I'm at the bookstore tonight and I pick up the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist." I randomly open it to the chapter that deals with irreducible complexity. I'm familiar with irreducible complexity so it was not terribly enlightening but it did occur to me that I've never actually asked a proponent of macroevolution how they refute what appears to be the clear cut reality that certain systems, organisms, etc, could not have evolved in a piecemeal fashion through unguided, unintelligent, naturalistic processes.

As you have not established the essence of your claim - the clear cut reality that certain systems, organisms, etc, could not have evolved in a piecemeal fashion through unguided, unintelligent, naturalistic processes - and as you appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that evolution is 'unguided', there is nothing that obviously needs refuting.

"Natural Selection" would've had no reason to selectively develop these systems, organisms, etc, without an end product in mind since they would be of no benefit to the organism whatsoever without all the necessary parts in place to make the system or function work.

Natural selection is opportunistic. Perhaps you should read up on our understanding of what co-option entails.

Even Darwin, in whose day I understand the contents of a single cell could not even be analyzed, said that if organisms were found that could not have evolved through very slight, successive modifications over extremely long periods of time his theory would fall apart. In light of irreducible complexity, it seems that Darwin, were he alive today, would have scrapped macroevolution himself a long time ago. So, what say you macroevolutionists?

Well, despite there being no such thing as a 'macroevolutionist', I would say that insofar as irreducible complexity is an idea just as much lacking in robust evidence as it was when it was first espoused in slightly different forms by individuals such as William Paley, Darwin would be most unlikely to scrap 'macroevolution' at all.

I'm not a molecular biologist by any stretch of the imagination. What am I missing here? And please, no refutations of the bombadier beetle...we get it. It's a really stale an argument at this point, as is the assertion that there's no difference between micro and macroevolution; which is so manifestly untrue it's not even funny!! Thanks!!

So what is we are expected to refute? What 'irreducibly complex' biological system are you proposing that resists all such refutation as to the impossibility of its coming about by natural processes? As you have dismissed the bombardier beetle, we can only presume you regard it as not offering evidence of irreducible complexity. And we say that there is no difference between micro- and macro-evolution because the same processes drive both mechanisms: the terms simply define which aspects of evolutionary change we look at.

 

[Mike]

Well, this thread was discombobulated with chat from the beginning.

I'd like to see the response as well. Lordkalvin, I would say the OP made the question obvious, even if it wasn't stated. You know what IC is and the way this is said to create an obstacle for the evolutionist. I've seen members make statements that Behe's research has been trumpted, but I'm confident that this isn't as clear cut as the evolutionist would have people believe. I'm sure you'd want and need it to be true that Behe has been debunked, but from what I've read, those who supposedly debunk him have been debunked.

The study by Bridgham et al (2006) published in the April 7 issue of Science is the lamest attempt yet — and perhaps the lamest attempt that’s even possible — to deflect the problem that irreducible complexity poses for Darwinism. The bottom line of the study is this: the authors started with a protein which already had the ability to strongly interact with three kinds of steroid hormones (aldosterone, cortisol, and “DOC†[11-deoxycorticosterone]). After introducing several simple mutations the protein interacted much more weakly with all of those steroids. In other words, a pre-existing ability was decreased.

The Lamest Attempt Yet to Answer the Challenge Irreducible Complexity Poses for Darwinian Evolution: Behe, Michael

The basic theory of irreducible complexity can't be explained away by changes of any magnitude. As for micro & macro-evolution, the analogy of the seconds turning into minutes and hours doesn't work for me, because that wouldn't explain the introduction of new DNA and a new/unique species.

 

[lordkalvan]

...I'd like to see the response as well. Lordkalvin, I would say the OP made the question obvious, even if it wasn't stated. You know what IC is and the way this is said to create an obstacle for the evolutionist. I've seen members make statements that Behe's research has been trumpted, but I'm confident that this isn't as clear cut as the evolutionist would have people believe. I'm sure you'd want and need it to be true that Behe has been debunked, but from what I've read, those who supposedly debunk him have been debunked.

What is supposed to be responded to? The broadbrush comments on the pseudoscience of IC? There is nothing there to refute.

The basic theory of irreducible complexity can't be explained away by changes of any magnitude. As for micro & macro-evolution, the analogy of the seconds turning into minutes and hours doesn't work for me, because that wouldn't explain the introduction of new DNA and a new/unique species.

As the 'basic theory of irreducible complexity' does not exist - how do we test and falsify it? - and I have no idea what you mean by 'explained away by changes of any magnitude', I don't really know what you are looking for in the way of a response. Insofar as the seconds/minute/hours/days analogy doesn't work for you, I will leave its proposer to reply to you. As far as I understand it. whenever a mutation occurs in DNA, there is 'new DNA'. Perhaps your understanding is different? Also observed speciation and the occurrence of ring species are alone evidence of the workings of evolution without requiring an analogy to understand them.

 

[Evointrinsic]

For a simple explanation on how DNA arose, view this video.

[video=youtube;rtmbcfb_rdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc[/video]

 

[Evointrinsic]

At least now though i've heard a point of view on the topic of macro/micro that leads me to the believe the person holding this view has a somewhat logical reason to do so!!!!

I hold this view for a number of reasons, for one, evolution doesn't make sense without 'macro evolution'. Number two, we've witnessed speciation both in nature and through artificial speciation (both accidental, such as in many domesticated animals, and through laboratory tests)

So not only does it make sense to have macro evolution, but we've witnessed it and tested it. I can give examples if you'd like as well?

 

[jasoncran]

The fickle Y chromosome : Nature News

related topic.

 

[Evointrinsic]

The link isn't available. Why does this forum do that?

 

[jasoncran]

google fickle y chromosome and see what you get

 

[Evointrinsic]

Ah there we are also, what was this relating to?

 

[jasoncran]

Ah there we are also, what was this relating to?

we are discussing the id thought and the concept of micro evolution.

i ran across that article as it was posted by a friend on fb.


btw here in america berkely teaches that macro is unobservable and micro is.

you should correct those biologists that teach that wrong. i also have seen the two differented by another group.

 

[Evointrinsic]

we are discussing the id thought and the concept of micro evolution.

That article represents micro evolution though? I'm not quite sure of your position?

btw here in america berkely teaches that macro is unobservable and micro is.

you should correct those biologists that teach that wrong. i also have seen the two differented by another group.

Would you be able to site that claim?

 

[jasoncran]

Evolution 101: Microevolution

google berkely microevolution and you will see what i am talking about.

they call the terms micro and macro.

they seem at a glance to teach evolution just that its in micro for small changes and macro for the larger changes as in speciation.note i glanced and didnt read all of this so some of this i may be off

 

[jasoncran]

as you know i am a creationist but i look at any science article to see what is going on.i throught that y chromosome thing just to add to the conversation here.

 

[Evointrinsic]

interesting how every other source speaks of macro evolution at and beyond the species level?

either way, everything is always up for debate in science. simply because Berkley says something doesn't mean that the world needs to change it's teachings

 

[jasoncran]

common from what i seen in america.

a book also does that.

 

[Pebbles]

Yes there are plenty of "macroevolution" events as you discribe where one species abruptly becomes another.

In south america there is a genetic family of Octodontidae rodents. In a desert in argentina there is a large sharp vally fissure there are two species that live either side of the fissure gap.

on the one side you have a species called "Plans Viscacha Rat" Tympanoctomys barrerae

on the other side of the fissure there is a seperate species known as "mountain viscacha rat" Octomys mimax

The species appear somewhat similar as they were isolated repoductively from each other in a reasonably short space of time and occupy similar habitats.

They are incapable of breeding with each other anylysis of there genomes reveals why. although most of there genes are similar the number of chromosomes has changed drastically the entire genome has been duplicated in the Plains rat species and it possess TWICE the number of chromosomes (Tetraploid) of the Mountain rat variation. Other species of this Family have also been located and they Maybe Tetraploid or Triploid or Diploid and vairent from there ancentors by other genetic means.

Polyploidy is a very observable phenomion it's only one way in whitch species diversity occurs.

Admittedly this particular event is rare in animals it's actually extremely common in plants periods after mass extinctions there is usually a massive explosion in species diversity DNA extracted from seeds in peat bogs show that alot of these new species are polyploids of previous species.

Another unique form of speciation is Neoteny (Retention of Juvinile characteristics into adulthood in species with a nymph or Larval stage this means that the developing form suddenly through a single mutation aquires the ablitiy to sexually procreate without needing the adult form transformation.

Axolotl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apart from making me squee like a little girl at there incredible cuteness ^.^ Axolotl (Axil-ottol) demonstate this perfectly they are close neotenic relative of another species known as a Tiger Salamander.

They normally live in pools and will live there whole lives as "infants" living and breeding this way however it is possible to spray them with a hormone that is now missing in there bodies to cause them to go through "Puberty" as it were and they will turn into somthing closely resembling but also decidely distinct from a Tiger Salamander. The ancestral form that both species previously possessed before they speciated.

Tiger Salamanders don't make me squee :/

On a lesser scale single genes can be duplicated and seperate functions can be found for this purpose throughout the human genome there are numbers of "Pesudo-genes" These are varient or inactivated forms of genes as in they LOOK like the genes that ought to encode somthing and occasionally you can get products if you happen to attach a promoter to them a very likley phenomion that could happen in nature with transposable DNA elements.

The easiest exsample of this I can think of is human hemoglobin.

in adults the hemoglobin our blood cells consists of two Alpha Hemoglobin subunits
And Two Beta Hemoglobin subunits.

However in fetuses instead of Beta "Gamma" globin creates fetal blood a unique blood type that has a higher oxygen binding capacity than adult blood. (It's done so the fetus can pull oxygen out of the mothers blood creating an oxygen gradient) otherwise no oxygen would get to the fetus.

But what's more intresting is that these homologous globin types are usually duplicated next to each other so you can see in our DNA we possess additional now unused forms of hemoglobin such as "Epsilon" Hemoglobin whitch is used in Egg laying species. (Whitch humans are not anymore) There are also numerous other Pesudogenes where we have slightly muddled forms of the the same gene performing no useful function.

The Beta-globin gene family

Thus you don't usually loose function of a gene in order to develop a new one by chance mutation kay? Most of our cell receptors work on this duplication principle.

I don't know what your thinking in reagrds to the Y chromosome if your refering to the fact that it dosen't pair up with a homologous chromosome therefore is subject to degrading that hypothesis was debunked many years ago It's been discovered that the Y chromosome folds up upon itself and cross checks most of it's genes with anti-sense regions of the DNA whitch don't actively encode anything.

These large seemingly useless non coding regions were previously and erroniously thought to be due to the degredation of the Y chromosome. Meaning that the Y chromosome is uniquely and highly conserved amoungst chromosomes.