Evolution debunked

I fail to see how any of our explanations of Irreducible Complexity require there to be useless proteins. In these systems, most of the 'parts' are actually made up of several proteins, not just one. No proteins are 'useless'. Most proteins perform more than one function. There certainly are examples of natural systems with superfluous proteins, but those same proteins fulfill necessary functions elsewhere in the same organism. And remember, function is only relative to the environment.

Natural selection can most definetly lead to useless proteins.

during DNA replication, errors can occur. these lead to deviations from the original specimen. these deviations can be one of three types:

negative; the deviation harms the creatures chance at life, as it hinders its chances at getting food, escaping predators etc.

positive; the deviation gives the creature a better edge as far as survival

and last but not least, deviations that have no real bearing on the ability of the creature. its is neither useful nor hindering. however, as, over generations, these deviations 'stack up' on each other, it can lead to greater developments.

so evolutionary developments do not neccessarily have to pass through 'useful' stages

Right, but the point is that the development of a complex system which can only be developed through a long sequence of useless stages would be vanishingly improbable, so while possible, we would not expect to see such a history of development. If such a system existed, it would indeed be fair to call it "irreducibly complex", and it would indeed be good evidence against the theory of evolution. However, many of the systems which so called "ID scientists" call irreducible complexity are not, and the arguments they make that something is irreducibly complex are unscientific, and generally proceed by argument from ignorance, which is not a logically valid argument. It may be that an "ID scientist" cannot imagine how a structure may have been formed in a series of small steps, each of which confer a survival benefit, but such a sequence did occur. To truly show irreducible complexity, a scientist would have to do better than that - they would have to give a logical argument that such a sequence of events could not have occurred.

So far, nobody has done this. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence for evolution (although not all of the details have yet been explained), but no concrete evidence showing it did not occur. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the only reasons for disbelieving the theory are religious, rather than rational.

Evolution still has yet to be debunked.

Indeed it has. Most likely because it's (more or less) a true theory, although as scientists we must always be open to later evidence that the theory is wrong, or requires modification.

Hey BOG, where's that thread you said you were going to make?

I'm gathering materials.

Natural selection can most definetly lead to useless proteins.

during DNA replication, errors can occur. these lead to deviations from the original specimen. these deviations can be one of three types:

negative; the deviation harms the creatures chance at life, as it hinders its chances at getting food, escaping predators etc.

positive; the deviation gives the creature a better edge as far as survival

and last but not least, deviations that have no real bearing on the ability of the creature. its is neither useful nor hindering. however, as, over generations, these deviations 'stack up' on each other, it can lead to greater developments.

so evolutionary developments do not neccessarily have to pass through 'useful' stages

I agree. My contention is that we find mutations "in the small", but across the entire human population there should be more evidence of such "deviations".

I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)

These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.

I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)

These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.

That would be a 'hopeful monster'. Mutations on that scale just don't happen. Novel features are built from many small mutations over many generations. Besides, it is hard to say that the mutations in that photo are the result of one gene. It isn't one gene per discrete physical feature; it isn't that ordered. Some features are controlled by a single gene, others are controlled by many genes, some of which may control other features as well.

I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)

These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.

That's completely false.  Through every step of evolution we can see very small (ultimately one gene difference) changes that result in a positive outcome.  Just because you don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean evolution is wrong, rather, that you're just stupid.

Quote from: narcberry on April 11, 2007, 07:34:48 AM

I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)

These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.

That's completely false.  Through every step of evolution we can see very small (ultimately one gene difference) changes that result in a positive outcome.  Just because you don't know what you're talking about, it doesn't mean evolution is wrong, rather, that you're just stupid.

What would be the PURPOSE of that? (kidding) 

Positive? Always?

That's how natural selection works.  Life forms with a higher chance of surviving survive more.  Thus the species becomes made up of life forms with that higher chance of survival.  Life forms with a lower chance of survival survive less.  Hence animals only evolve from natural selection in a direction that gives them a better chance of survival given their current environment.

Well obviously the results are always positive. How can something that wasn't mean to survive, survive? Obviously the ones that DO survive are the fittest for the time.

Is this so hard?

Semantics evolve I see.

Quote from: narcberry on April 11, 2007, 07:34:48 AM

I love it when beast chimes in. (nice pic btw)

These types of anomalies are singular. They represent one gene gone bad. What I am suggesting, is that many genes must deviate in order to create a functioning protein, there would be many many genes gone bad.

That would be a 'hopeful monster'. Mutations on that scale just don't happen. Novel features are built from many small mutations over many generations. Besides, it is hard to say that the mutations in that photo are the result of one gene. It isn't one gene per discrete physical feature; it isn't that ordered. Some features are controlled by a single gene, others are controlled by many genes, some of which may control other features as well.

As the creature becomes more complex, the genes would in fact relate and begin to incorporate into each other but the original steps were likely to be independent of others.