Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Everything is moving from point A-B. Are you a clone? Do you possess an advantageous mutation that the rest of us do not (you possess tons of mutations that I don't...tons)?

[Mystic]

I'm still not entirely sure what you're asking - but...the contents of my cold-frame is the entire population of all life. There are no other populations. The purpose of this example is to show you that at the very core of it, the very principle, evolution does not require that a mutation be advantageous, it merely requires that the possessor of that mutation survive long enough to pass on it;s genetic material. The lesser plants in my example had no advantageous mutations whatsoever, any mutation that could even be remotely argued to be advantageous was possessed by the shaded group - which did not survive. This is why insisting that every step from A-Z be advantageous is nonsense. The possessors of these steps needn't out-compete their fellows, they need only survive.

I'm not sure if this answers your question.

I mean in the given population area in the species. Yes if they live in different areas, we can't compare which one is going to be more advantageous than the other. What helps survive is going to be what is advantageous.

[The Grand Nudger]

I mean in the given population area in the species. Yes if they live in different areas, we can't compare which one is going to be more advantageous than the other. What helps survive is going to be what is advantageous.

My cold-frame example applies to all life, all populations of every species. "What helps survive" is not limited to genetics, and can be in direct opposition to what you might consider the "greater" or "lesser" genetics of any given population. A mutation does not need to be, nor is it any guarantee of advantage. We all possess them.

[Mystic]

Everything is moving from point A-B. Are you a clone? Do you possess an advantageous mutation that the rest of us do not (you possess tons of mutations that I don't...tons)?

But what I meant by point A is from lack of a function type system to a system with another function. A and B refer to different systems. Since we are discussing the irreducible complexity issue.

I don't think I have any system that majority of humans don't have and I don't think any of the mutations I had, developed a complex system that most humans don't have.

[The Grand Nudger]

But what I meant by point A is from lack of a function type system to a system with another function. A and B refer to different systems. Since we are discussing the irreducible complexity issue.

I keep trying to explain to you that there isn't any such issue..lol.

I don't think I have any system that majority of humans don't have and I don't think any of the mutations I had, developed a complex system that most humans don't have.

Give it a few generations. LOL. You have plenty of complex systems your ancestors didn't have.

---

I think I've found the crux of your issue, btw. Tell me, explain to me please what the tinkering hand does that descent with modification and ns can't?

(you're not actually arguing that these "complex systems" can't arise from "simpler" ones...you're just inserting djinn - so do that, insert your djinn, tell me what it does, and where it does it?)

[Mystic]

Well the designer can make a bunch of mutations occur at once for example, that would cause a system to arise. That system would be advantageous, and would then have a chance of gaining popularity in the population. He can also be adding mutations that are not random, but making something head towards a direction, by selectively choosing those mutations in advantageous individuals of the population, over and over again, that are adding towards the system, even though the incomplete system plays no advantage. The last line, while you might say is possible through naturalism, I really don't see it possible, because there is no direction by natural selection to select those specific type of mutations over and over again that are leading to a different function and system since the mutations are completely random.

[popeyespappy]

MN, why not get your explanation from the horse’s mouth. The Flagellum Unspun The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" is a short article by Kenneth Miller the scientist that testified against irreducible complexity in the Dover trial.

I think he strawman's irreducible complexity. The reason is not that any parts can't be missing like he goes on to prove (like some proteins or whatever) and still function.

I think he either misunderstands the irreducible complexity issue or is purposely strawmanning the argument or perhaps this is because I'm thinking of the particular version of Michael Behe's argument.

It's that there is essential components, not that you can't find some missing parts in some life form that is found in another life form, and therefore you disprove irreducible complexity.

Moreover, as we are discussing in this thread, showing "stage A" and "Stage B" in nature, while reasoning of Michael Behe seems to suggest to me, that going from stage A and Stage B might be impossible due to the fact you have various parts working together and that can't occur by small changes, because they aren't advantageous when not working in that function and have to somehow be heading towards that direction.

LoL! How can it be a stawman if he shows how you can remove parts and still have a functioning (and useful BTW) system.

Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

You can remove proteins from the flagellum and have a functional T3SS. The flagellum could have evolved from a T3SS like system by slowly adding additional proteins to the structure over time. The addition proteins need not even add an advantage as they are being added as long as they aren't a disadvantage. As Rhythm has tried to point out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well the designer can make a bunch of mutations occur at once for example, that would cause a system to arise.

The mutations are still the ones causing the system to arise, you're just invoking djinn as a cause for mutations. I have no need to do this, as mutatations do not require djinn to occur. The rest of your post honestly falls flat on it;s face right here.....but....

That system would be advantageous,

not that it needs to be, or always is.

and would then have a chance of gaining popularity in the population.

Not that it needs to, or always does.

He can also be adding mutations that are not random, but making something head towards a direction, by selectively choosing those mutations in advantageous individuals of the population, over and over again, that are adding towards the system, even though the incomplete system plays no advantage.

What would this achieve that ns does not by working in the reverse?

The last line, while you might say is possible through naturalism, I really don't see it possible, because there is no direction by natural selection to select those specific type of mutations over and over again that are leading to a different function and system since the mutations are completely random.

Natural selection isn't "selecting" any type of mutations in particular to achieve any sort of specific system, nor are the mutations that express themselves as evolution random in any sense of the word (many mutations occur - not all of them are expressed as adaptations or advantage), I've been trying to explain this to you from the very beginning...so whether or not you can see how it might be doing that is entirely irrelevant, isn't it?

[Mystic]

Ok even say Michael Behe argument falls apart. Isn't it better to try to make their argument more sensible and stronger, than nitpick on a detail of a statement. It's the over all structure of the argument that makes sense to me.

Yes Rhythm has been trying to show me how non-advantageous series of mutations can lead towards a system, but I don't see it as possible, really. I don't see how it makes sense to talk about how the final step when you get the system is advantageous, but all the way up to there, it didn't need to be, when emphasizing natural selection picks advantageous mutations like evolutionist do.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't see it as possible, really? You don't see how my plants survived?

---

Natural selection doesn't "pick" anything. It's an unfortunate choice of words. It's not some scale weighing the respective adaptations of this or that organism. Natural selection is simply "what survived to reproduce". It doesn't have to be genetics, it doesn't have to be anything specific at all....it is just "what survived to reproduce" - nothing more. No directive force, no picking, no paths, no nothing.

Is it alive
-Yes , nuetral
-No, ns weeded it out.

If alive, did it reproduce
-Yes, ns
-no, ns weeded it out.