Forums | MacLife

Read this article to see the smackdown that Richard Lendky, the scientist responsible for this experiment, gave to Andrew Schafly (yes, the son of Phyllis), an editor of the Conservapedia who subsequently edited (out) the Conservapedia entry with these letters.

resedit wrote:

I didn't see anything in that article where he identified the mutations responsible for the new capability, which would be necessary to determine if it is irreducibly complex combinations of mutations.

As I understand it: the metabolizing of citrate required 3 separate genetic changes, each of which did little good for E. coli and even any pair of which would not improve the ability of E. coli to metabolize citrate.

How complex are those two genetic changes needed for the third to give it this capability?

I'm not the one changing goal posts.
I am the one pointing out that whenever irreducible complexity is used by a creationist, it is with respect to a complex organ such as an eye - not a three minor mutation change.

Which just shows that you do not even comprehend what is meant when others argue about irreducible complexity--hardly surprising, considering your lack of understanding on many subjects, not just ones dealing with science. You may think that the argument is confined to "a complex organ", but then you always seem to think that your arguments are the end-all-and-be-all on any of the topics you argue about. Time and again people will cite statistical studies showing one point and you will argue against it saying, "In my family..." or "Around here...." (in Redding, CA, no less).

Arguing with you is akin to trying to argue with the old Dover, PA, school board, one member of which referred to "intelligence design" and some of whom couldn't even properly describe the concept except in terms of "God did it/I believe it/End of story" bumper sticker argumentation.

Darwin didn't get it either. OFC, He figured if God wasn't responsible for the construction each and every species on Earth but rather nature forces and systems then God wasn't responsible for the evils and disasters that happened in the world either.

Last edited by ScifiterX (2008-06-27 3:31 pm)

Hank Rearden wrote:

OK, I said that I wasn't getting involved.  But I am now.

After reading the last three pages - and 52 million other MoFT pages on the subject - I can't for the life of me figure out this one, foundational question.

Q:  Why the heck do some Christians feel that evolutionary theory somehow threatens their faith.

I JUST DON'T GET IT.

(caps lock off again)

Please, please explain.

This doesn't threaten my faith.
I believe evolution of this type happens. I believe water buffalo and american bison had a common ancestor, corn snakes and gopher snakes had a common ancestor, etc.

However - this does not seem to be a case of irreducible complexity to me - what this is, people who have a religious zeal to prove evolution making as big of a stretch to do so as the ICR makes to prove ID.

The bacteria mutated. Whoopee - much more complex organisms than bacteria have mutated in the lab.

It is not, however, a falsification of irreducible complexity - not by any definition or stretch of the imagination.

I understand irreducible complexity.
This mutation, even series of them, did not produce an irreducibly complex mutation.

It is you that do not understand the concept.

resedit wrote:

I understand irreducible complexity.
This mutation, even series of them, did not produce an irreducibly complex mutation.

It is you that do not understand the concept.

Right. As if anyone should trust the scientific understanding of someone who doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics?

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

I understand irreducible complexity.
This mutation, even series of them, did not produce an irreducibly complex mutation.

It is you that do not understand the concept.

Right. As if anyone should trust the scientific understanding of someone who doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics?

Go suck an egg.
I understand thermodynamics better than most people, and probably better than you.
I also understand entropy better than most people, and probably better than you.
But I'm not going to get into that discussion.

Note - I didn't bring the old "evolution / creation" crap into this thread.
I only expressed that I didn't see this as evolution, even though I have absolutely no problems with this type of evolution taking place.

You want a fight - and you aren't going to happy until you get one - because you are an extremist who wants to push your ideas onto others in a fashion that no evangelical could even compare with.

This mutation is nothing to get excited about, and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with irreducible complexity.

Please show me, with citation, how this qualifies as an irreducibly complex mutation.
It's not.

I'm sorry I showed you up on it - me thinks you realize I did, hence your desire to dig up some old thread and try to pick a different fight.

Be a man - you can't always win.

user wrote:

Why is it that just about every time anyone debates on behalf of scientific knowledge of evolution they eventually get accused of being an evangelist?

Ironically, also as though there was something wrong with it.

The scientists certainly seem to think there is something to get excited about. Do you suppose that they don't understand?

He wasn't debating on behalf of scientific knowledge.
He was insisting that this is an example of irreducible complexity evolution being demonstrated, and a 3 mutation change where the first two are not harmful to the organism without the third doesn't even come close to irreducible complexity.

He's twisting the irreducible complexity term, evidenced by the fact that IDers never use the term for anything remotely close to this, for the intellectually dishonest purpose of claiming that irreducible complexity has been debunked.

That's not science - science is an investigation into the workings of the natural world. That's evangelism.

Pointing out misconceptions ≠ evangelism

When someone gets a single cell organism to morph into a poly cell organism, then there will be something worth reporting.

I didn't move any goalposts.

Claiming that a simple mutation "proves evolution" is a moving of the goal post.
It's like saying a spring rain is proof of Noah's flood.

Seeing as how it took life on earth somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion years to evolve into multicellular organisms, I can completely see why the creationists demand that such a thing occur before they'll accept evolution.

And I say again, its not *just* a random mutation if the trait is beneficial enough to the organism that it comes to dominate within an asexual population. It obviously gave the mutated bacteria enough of a survival advantage that the descendants of the original mutated bacterium dominated the rest of the population.