Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

[mataj]

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php


. . .
In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it.

The paper in question is one that William Dembski declared "may well be the nail in the coffin [and] the crumbling of the Berlin wall of Darwinian evolution."

[Senor Herberto]

if evolution created new species, we would see hundreds of thousands of new species rather than 'populations'. The physical makeup of the living world would be more of a soup than a series of ordered genetic lines.

I dismiss this proof.

[bowerbird]

if evolution created new species, we would see hundreds of thousands of new species rather than 'populations'. The physical makeup of the living world would be more of a soup than a series of ordered genetic lines.

I dismiss this proof.

We have hundreds and thousands of new variants - they are called individuals. There is huge variation in each population - far more than the text books would lead you to believe.

Drug companies are just finding that out - do you know only about 1/3 of Europeans are able to metabolise codiene and gain any pain relief from it?

[Void Image]

Exactly. It also makes perfect sense that there are "ordered" genetic lines instead of a bunch of randomly mutated independant species running amuck. "Survival of the fittest" ..the key concept of evolution. Those that are best fit for their niche in their ecosystem thrive. It's an ongoing competition between the species, and those that win survive and multiply. This continues until each niche is filled by a species nearly perfected for their specific roles, whether that's eating a particular prey or evading a particular local predator.

[mataj]

I dismiss this proof.It's a disproof.

Self-disproof, as a matter of fact :D

[Senor Herberto]

The average individuation in a species is less than 0.1%. That is statistically tiny. You could find every human gene in any city of 300,000 inhabitants. among a population of 6 billion, that is tight formation.

Species tend to reproduce along their own lines. new species form very, very rarely. Randomness of mutation resulting in *any* successful new species would absolutely result in *millions* of successful new species.

If indeed the new 'species' line formed from a single mutation, or even mutation-set, this would be quite common, and only 'successful' new species would become numerous, while we would see hundreds of thousands of 'failed' or 'side' micropopulations as deviated as any two species.

Instead we see only very tight genetic groupings, with sudden dramatic variations.

Species A is populous. 1 million individuals in an environment.

An individual from Species A mutates into a new species in one generation, it seems by the fossil record. It is now Species B, and by it's new traits it is successful and quickly numbers 10,000.

Another individual from Species A mutates into a Species C, but is less successful and the new species only lasts a few generations, or perhaps has a population of 500 or 1000. But it is as different from Species A is as Species B.

We have seen very few 'Species C' conditions. if successful new species populations ever occured, we would see many more of their failures. i have not seen this to be the case.

[Void Image]

The average individuation in a species is less than 0.1%. That is statistically tiny. You could find every human gene in any city of 300,000 inhabitants. among a population of 6 billion, that is tight formation.

Species tend to reproduce along their own lines. new species form very, very rarely. Randomness of mutation resulting in *any* successful new species would absolutely result in *millions* of successful new species.

Where are you getting this information?

If indeed the new 'species' line formed from a single mutation, or even mutation-set, this would be quite common, and only 'successful' new species would become numerous, while we would see hundreds of thousands of 'failed' or 'side' micropopulations as deviated as any two species.

Failed at what? LIFE. We would not see these 'failed' species because they have become food for more successful species and/or fertilizer.

Instead we see only very tight genetic groupings, with sudden dramatic variations.

I believe sudden dramatic variations are the cornerstone of evolution.

Species A is populous. 1 million individuals in an environment.

An individual from Species A mutates into a new species in one generation, it seems by the fossil record. It is now Species B, and by it's new traits it is successful and quickly numbers 10,000.

Another individual from Species A mutates into a Species C, but is less successful and the new species only lasts a few generations, or perhaps has a population of 500 or 1000. But it is as different from Species A is as Species B.

We have seen very few 'Species C' conditions. if successful new species populations ever occured, we would see many more of their failures. i have not seen this to be the case.

As I said before, a less successful mutation would not be able to compete with the 'normal' or more successful variations. It would die. As you just said yourself, you would see very few 'Species C'. Then you go on to say we would see many more of the failures. Am I that tired, or are you contradicting yourself?

[mataj]

. . .

We have seen very few 'Species C' conditions. if successful new species populations ever occured, we would see many more of their failures. i have not seen this to be the case.It's like sports. You see only winners.