[QUOTE=cheesehead;102920]"Assume the gene provides no other benefit." That's a pretty big assumption.[/QUOTE]

So, reading between the lines, you agree with my hypothetical that if a gene's only trait was a slight reduction in number of offspring then the gene would be unlikely to survive in large numbers. And you think this is the assumption that is most likely wrong.

I agree. To my layman thinking, the most convincing explanation is that the genetic component of homosexuality also brings out some other beneficial traits.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;102926]It is another to dismiss, out of hand, the claims of respected scientists who offers evidence which should, rightly, be examined (and considered evidence).[/quote]My point was that the claim of "irreducible complexity" by creationists [I]has already been examined scientifically and was already disproven[/I] by evolutionists a few years ago.

Let me point out here that you mentioned "irreducible complexity" here in this thread about evolution, and that I think I was justified in assuming that you were referring to the use of "irreducible complexity" by creationists in a biological setting, not a mechanical one. It is the creationists's extension of this idea from mechanics to biology that has been refuted. That doesn't mean that no idea from mechanics can be extended to biology, just that this particular one can't, in the way creationists are trying to do.

[quote]I thinketh thou dost jest.[/quote]No, I was quite serious -- but also too-seriously brief.

[quote]First, your quotation of my sentence was taken completely out of context (literally--you gave no context for it).[/quote]I don't understand whether or what harm you're claiming that I did. I don't think I distorted what you wrote. I merely replied (or intended to reply) that the idea of "irreducible complexity" (in the context of biology, as contended by creationists, which is what I thought you meant) has already been considered scientifically and has been demolished. I didn't contend that you should already have known that. I merely presented a (too-)short, sharp reply without any intended malice.

[quote]Even [I]if[/I] the theory of irreducible complexity has been scientifically demolished (for the sake of argument) that only adds to the strength of the evolutionist position,[/quote]Right.

[quote]which in my humble opinion, is something evolutions should be happy about.[/quote]Right.

By this time, I certainly regret having given such a short response earlier!!

[quote]Second, I think you have misunderstood the theory of irreducible complexity, if you believe it to be a logical fallacy. It certainly is not (as used by respected scientists).[/quote]... except that it has already been shown not to be applicable to biology in the way that creationists have used it.

[quote]It also isn't a statement about incredulity. It is a precise statement that certain systems are unstable (or even dangerous) if certain mechanisms within them are even slightly changed.[/quote]Or, in different wording,

"I am unable to conceive of any way in which certain systems can be stable if certain mechanisms within them are even slightly changed"

or

"I consider the possibility that certain systems can be stable if certain mechanisms within them are even slightly changed to be incredible."

Now, [U]if[/U] the incredulity could be justified, as it might in some mechanical system (e.g., by exhaustively eliminating all alternatives), then it wouldn't be a fallacy. But in biology that particular incredulity has been shown to be unjustified.

[quote]For example, I think it would be fair to say that a nuclear reactor is an irreducibly complex machine, created by an intelligent agent.[/quote]But that's not what the creationists are saying, that evolutionists claim is false. They're saying that "irreducible complexity" applies to [U]biological systems[/U].

Now, here I need to qualify that. It might be shown that on an atomic level, some very simple biological process is irreducibly complex, but that is not at all what creationists mean -- they're referring to whole organs such as the eye, or to whole parts such as the flagella of bacteria, or to the immune system -- and there they've been demonstrated to be wrong.

[quote=Prime95;102931]So, reading between the lines, you agree with my hypothetical that if a gene's only trait was a slight reduction in number of offspring then the gene would be unlikely to survive in large numbers. And you think this is the assumption that is most likely wrong.[/quote]Sorry, but that is not a correct interpretation of what I meant by what I wrote. We were discussing a complicated subject, and I was (inadequately) commenting on only a small part. I apologize for not being clearer.

cheesehead,

[QUOTE]My point was that the claim of "irreducible complexity" by creationists has already been examined scientifically and was already disproven by evolutionists a few years ago.[/QUOTE]But your original claim was that there was no evidence. The fact that this issue had to be dealt with meant that there was evidence. At least, that's how I understand the word evidence.

And, by the way, I'm not entirely convinced that it has been completely disproven.

[QUOTE]Let me point out here that you mentioned "irreducible complexity" here in this thread about evolution, and that I think I was justified in assuming that you were referring to the use of "irreducible complexity" by creationists in a biological setting, not a mechanical one.[/QUOTE]Perhaps. Although most people who use "irreducible complexity" do not limit themselves to only biological machines, as far as I know.

[QUOTE]No, I was quite serious -- but also too-seriously brief.[/QUOTE]:)

[QUOTE]I don't understand whether or what harm you're claiming that I did.[/QUOTE]There wasn't any. I was teasing you. Hence the smiley face. ;)

[QUOTE]... except that it has already been shown not to be applicable to biology in the way that creationists have used it.[/QUOTE]Granting this (for the sake of argument) would not make their position one which is a logical fallacy.

[QUOTE]Or, in different wording,

"I am unable to conceive of any way in which certain systems can be stable if certain mechanisms within them are even slightly changed"

or

"I consider the possibility that certain systems can be stable if certain mechanisms within them are even slightly changed to be incredible.[/QUOTE]Those are very creative rewordings. You might try to understand the position better, and not work with such straw-men characterizations.

[QUOTE]Now, if the incredulity could be justified, as it might in some mechanical system (e.g., by exhaustively eliminating all alternatives), then it wouldn't be a fallacy. But in biology that particular incredulity has been shown to be unjustified.[/QUOTE]First, I think you are mis-stating logic here. If person E (the evolutionist) shows that person C (the creationist) has a position which is unjustified, that does not make person C's position a logical fallacy, especially if the rebuttal is difficult! It just means person E has (supposedly) rebutted person C's argument. Furthermore, person C can now counter-respond, and person ID can join the fray, *change* person C's original argument, and the fun can continue (with no logical fallacies from anyone).

Second, I think you are mis-stating the strength of the evolutionist position. Especially given the fact that we, homo-sapiens, can indeed create irreducibly complex biological machines. (And with time, more complicated ones.) I think there is still room for debate and further research in the area of irreducible complexity.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;102920]A few years ago one of the biggest surprises to come out of the sequencing of the human genome was the discovery that the number of human genes was only 30,000 or so, whereas most geneticists had predicted that the number surely was over 100,000, considering how complicated we are. IIRC, there are plants with more genes than we have. One lesson there was that genes interact with each other and can have multiple influences in combination.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I remember reading an article sometime in the last couple of years which said that even 30,000 is an overestimate, and that the real figure is probably somewhere in the low 20 thousands.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;102940]But your original claim was that there was no evidence.[/quote]At this point, I need to ask you to tell us exactly where I made the claim to which you refer. I've used the word "evidence" several times in this thread.

[quote]The fact that this issue had to be dealt with meant that there was evidence. At least, that's how I understand the word evidence.[/quote]Oh, good grief. When I used "evidence", I meant "valid evidence" or "evidence that has not been shown to be false" or "evidence that has been proven to imply what the party presenting the evidence claims it implies" or the like.

Please provide quotes or links to specific instances of my use of "evidence" that you dispute so I'll know how to clarify my usage (or refute your charge).

[quote]And, by the way, I'm not entirely convinced that it has been completely disproven.[/quote]Which of the following pages I earlier linked-to have you read, including following relevant links from those pages?

[URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html[/URL]

[quote]Perhaps. Although most people who use "irreducible complexity" do not limit themselves to only biological machines, as far as I know.[/quote]As I've already explained, I did not intend to contest that "irreducible complexity" could apply to mechanical systems.

So let's please have an end to discussion of non-biological contexts of "irreducible complexity" except insofar as it's [I]necessary[/I] for discussion of biological "irreducible complexity".

And please give us some exact quote or reference of an instance of the use of "irreducible complexity" in a biological context to which you are referring so that we can agree on what we're discussing.

[quote]Those are very creative rewordings. You might try to understand the position better, and not work with such straw-men characterizations.[/quote][U]Exactly how are my rewordings deceptive or straw-mannish in any way?[/U] They were meant as sincere and nondeceptive.

If you don't show how my rewordings are deceptive or straw-mannish, I want a clear retraction and apology.

[quote]If person E (the evolutionist) shows that person C (the creationist) has a position which is unjustified, that does not make person C's position a logical fallacy,[/quote]... and I never said it did.

What makes it a logical fallacy is that the claimant is stating that it is not possible for anyone to disprove a statement, when in fact he has not proven that impossibility, but is making the claim on the basis of his own inability to conceive of a disproof of the claim. Example: [quote=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html]... Indeed, that is the whole thesis of Behe's book. A system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if [B][I]he[/I][/B] cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system.[/quote]
- -
[quote=Zeta-Flux;102940]Second, I think you are mis-stating the strength of the evolutionist position.[/quote]You haven't shown us that you are even familiar with any evolutionist position! Most of your contentions sound like creationist ones (that have been discredited, as shown elsewhere on the Web or in books). I'm not saying that you're knowingly presenting only (invalid) creationist arguments, just that you have [U]not[/U] shown that you know enough about evolutionist postions to be any judge of their strength!

Let me also refer you to posts #1 and #8 of this thread, in which Ernst and I both disclaimed being professional evolutionary biologists. If/when anything I post here disagrees with one of the main pro-evolutionary sites or sources listed by Ernst or me, it is almost certainly I who am in error. The evidence for evolution is far stronger than I can present here.

Which of the references listed by Ernst earlier in this thread have you read?

What book(s), written by a professional evolutionist, about evolution have you read?

[quote]Especially given the fact that we, homo-sapiens, can indeed create irreducibly complex biological machines.[/quote]Name one -- that is comparable to any biological item, such as the eye, or the immune system, or even a bacterial flagellum, that a creationist has claimed to possess "irreducible complexity" sufficient to make its evolution by natural means impossible. And I hope you're not going to answer with "babies" or anything natural like that, that is irrelevant to a "design" argument.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;102922]millionsbiologicalfrom past or present opposite-sex marriages.[/QUOTE]I realized this, but that's not what I was talking about. I was purposely leaving out the "I had kids because I thought I didn't have any other choice due to societal pressures" group. I thought that would skew things.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;102913]The long-term goal of creationism is not merely to adjust biology, but also to overturn the entire scientific method. The more that has been discovered by modern science, the more we've seen that all the various scientific specialities are interrelated and logically connected. It is not possible to throw out evolution without also throwing out all other science.

See "The Wedge Strategy" at [url]http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html[/url].[/QUOTE]

I disagree with the above assertion. First off, just because such a document was posted to a creationist website does not mean it expresses the belief of most creationists, just as the mere fact that I post something to this forum here does not mean I speak for all other forum users. Some creationists may indeed be such hard-core biblical literalists that they go so far as to deny the scientific method wholesale (although I expect very few are prepared to really live with the consequences doing so in non-hypocritical fashion would require), but I'd say the vast majority acknowledge the power of the scientific method - they just want to selectively ignore/deny its results when they are in stark disagreement with their core religious beliefs. In the young-earth example, the obvious way out is that the bible neither gives a clear date (IIRC, the 6000-year thing is only according to one widely debunked reading of the Bible) and is widely recognized by biblical scholars of many stries and faiths as being highly euphemistic: the whole "rendered word of God" thing. But with evolution, the implication is quite direct and (to religious persons) shocking: No God Required.

The very fact that they've gone to all the trouble to try and dress creationism up in the guise of "science" (i.e. ID) supports this. I further suspect a goodly fraction of IDers (perhaps the majority, even) are not doing it as a cynical ploy but rather as a desperate attempt to reconcile their core religious beliefs with the undeniable power and credibility of the scientific method. That credibility is due to its actually being supported by overwhelming amount of objective evidence - every time you get in your car and drive, you are making use of centuries of scientific and technical progress. I've seen numerous examples of respected scientists trying to reconcile the results of their work and of science in general with their personal religious beliefs. I recall seeing Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project) on the [i]Comedy Central[/i] "News" show [i]The Colbert Report[/i] last Fall, "explaining" how he reconciles his Christian faith with his scientific work - the man was just jumping through all sorts of logical hoops to try to accomplish that feat. "Perhaps God designed a kind of adaptability into DNA...", such sorts of unscientific stuff. Square peg in round (or nonexistent) hole, my friend. While I sympathize with the urge, I cannot agree with the logical inconsistency such attempts at reconcilement inevitably entail.

cheesehead,

[QUOTE]Oh, good grief. When I used "evidence", I meant "valid evidence" or "evidence that has not been shown to be false" or "evidence that has been proven to imply what the party presenting the evidence claims it implies" or the like.

Please provide quotes or links to specific instances of my use of "evidence" that you dispute so I'll know how to clarify my usage (or refute your charge).[/QUOTE]I hope you didn't expect me to understand by "evidence" the three different things you mentioned, simultaneously! Maybe I'm being pedantic. Anyway, I'll drop it.

[QUOTE]Which of the following pages I earlier linked-to have you read, including following relevant links from those pages?[/QUOTE]All of them.

[QUOTE]As I've already explained, I did not intend to contest that "irreducible complexity" could apply to mechanical systems.[/QUOTE]But biological systems are a *subset* of mechanical ones. Do you have a reason to suppose that they should be regarded otherwise? Do you believe that humans are unable to create biological machines which are irreducibly complex? [Note: By an irreducibly complex machine I am not implying that there is no possible slow-developmental Darwinian path for the machine. Rather, that such paths are improbable, for one reason or another. This stance might differ slightly from others' use of IC.]

[QUOTE]And please give us some exact quote or reference of an instance of the use of "irreducible complexity" in a biological context to which you are referring so that we can agree on what we're discussing.[/QUOTE]I already explained that I will leave it to the scientists themselves to evaluate, in each specific instance, whether any system is irreducibly complex or not. I am not defending any specific scientist's theories, as much as defending the notion that there are examples (provided by us humans) of machines which give evidence for sudden (and not gradual) design.

[QUOTE]Exactly how are my rewordings deceptive or straw-mannish in any way? They were meant as sincere and nondeceptive.

If you don't show how my rewordings are deceptive or straw-mannish, I want a clear retraction and apology.[/QUOTE]First, a point about communication. Usually when one makes demands on someone else, this is a sign of aggression, or anger. By demanding that I make a retraction (even conditionally) you are adding emotions into a rational discussion. Furthermore, you are jumping to conclusions when you think I was implying insincerity or deception on your part. One can commit the straw-man fallacy without any insincerity or deception.

To answer your question about how they were straw-men, I need merely remark that if you grant the existence of irreducibly complex machines (which seems to be what you did in your latest post), then you must grant the possibility for their existence in biological machines in particular. If you grant their existence, then you must have an intuitive idea of what makes a machine irreducibly complex, and hence can quantify such notions for yourself (either for all machines, or for biological machines in particular).

[QUOTE]What makes it a logical fallacy is that the claimant is stating that it is not possible for anyone to disprove a statement, when in fact he has not proven that impossibility, but is making the claim on the basis of his own inability to conceive of a disproof of the claim. Example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html[/url]
... Indeed, that is the whole thesis of Behe's book. A system is labeled "irreducibly complex" if he cannot postulate a workable simpler form for the system.
[/QUOTE]As I understand it, Behe never stated it was impossible for "anyone to disprove" his statement. (This is another example of where you seem to be misunderstanding the IDers' position.) In fact, from my readings of his works he encourages such research. Second, as I understand it, the statement of irreducible complexity (as used by Behe) isn't a statement about incredulity, as much as a call for examples of molecular machines capable of building seemingly irreducible ones. Third, when one is familiar with a subject (such as Behe) they can make educated guesses about the non-existence of something, and it isn't an argument from incredulity as much as an educated guess. For example, this happens in mathematics all the time in the form of "conjectures". Behe isn't claiming *proof* for his theory, as much as a call for more research on the subject of Darwinian mechanisms in microbiology.

[QUOTE]Most of your contentions sound like creationist ones (that have been discredited, as shown elsewhere on the Web or in books).[/QUOTE]Then either I have greatly misrepresented my position, or you have greatly misunderstood it (or both, or neither :wink: ). My position, if it isn't clear, is that humans are intelligent designers. Thus, the notion that there might be intelligent designers elsewhere is not a ludicrous one, nor should be [i]a priori[/i] dismiss the idea that some machines we are familiar with in biology are designed and not the result of gradual development.

[QUOTE]What book(s), written by a professional evolutionist, about evolution have you read?[/QUOTE]I believe I read one of Richard Dawkin's books. I've also taken college biology.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

[quote=cheesehead;102913][I]The long-term goal of creationism [/I]
[I]< snip >[/I]
[/quote]I apologize for going off-topic (which I should have recognized when writing "On a tangent: ..."), especially because in my carelessness I referred to creationism in general, when what I actually had in mind was a particular segment of extremists.

[quote=ewmayer;102995]First off, just because such a document was posted to a creationist website does not mean it expresses the belief of most creationists, just as the mere fact that I post something to this forum here does not mean I speak for all other forum users.[/quote]
I intended my link to the document only to illustrate an example of what I was referring-to, not to say that it was the basis for my conclusion.

- - -

[quote=Zeta-Flux;102997]But biological systems are a *subset* of mechanical ones. Do you have a reason to suppose that they should be regarded otherwise?[/quote]Hmmm... We may be using different definitions of "mechanical".

[quote]Do you believe that humans are unable to create biological machines which are irreducibly complex?[/quote]Please name a specific one, so I can tell whether I'm misunderstanding you.

[quote][Note: By an irreducibly complex machine I am not implying that there is no possible slow-developmental Darwinian path for the machine. Rather, that such paths are improbable, for one reason or another. This stance might differ slightly from others' use of IC.][/quote]We may have discrepancies of definition here, too, so again I'll ask for a particular example for reference.

[quote]the notion that there are examples (provided by us humans) of machines which give evidence for sudden (and not gradual) design.[/quote]May I have a specific example of one comparable to the eye, immune system, or bacterial flagellum?

[quote]To answer your question about how they were straw-men, I need merely remark that if you grant the existence of irreducibly complex machines (which seems to be what you did in your latest post), then you must grant the possibility for their existence in biological machines in particular. If you grant their existence, then you must have an intuitive idea of what makes a machine irreducibly complex, and hence can quantify such notions for yourself (either for all machines, or for biological machines in particular).[/quote]When you wrote: "Those are very creative rewordings. You might try to understand the position better, and not work with such straw-men characterizations." you were responding to my sentences:

"Or, in different wording,

'I am unable to conceive of any way in which certain systems can be stable if certain mechanisms within them are even slightly changed'

or

'I consider the possibility that certain systems can be stable if certain mechanisms within them are even slightly changed to be incredible.'"

In those, I was trying (imperfectly) to show how the claim you gave as an example involved personal inability to conceive, i.e. incredulity, and thus were an argument from incredulity. I also pointed out that if the incredulity could be supported by actual proof, then it would not be a logical fallacy.

Perhaps I needed to use a better example, but what was it about those sentences that involved "straw-men characterizations"? I don't understand how your sentences quoted above ("I need merely remark ...") answer that question.

[QUOTE=Prime95;102897]That is a semi-plausible explanation. I suspect a gene would have to "work harder" to be passed on indirectly. That is, wouldn't a gene that increases an individual's survival rate by 10% have a better chance of passing itself on than a gene that increases your family's survival rate by 10% (or maybe not depending on the size of the family!)?

One could also argue that homosexuality reduces the average number of direct offspring but is balanced by some increase in the direct offspring's chance of survival.

Can mathematical modeling of evolution give us some clues? For example, take recessive gene diseases like hemophilia, sickle-cell anemia. If you assume it eliminates that individual's chance of passing on the gene, but unaffected family members still can, then a mathematical model would probably predict a low prevalence of the disease in the total population.

If models were good enough, you could adjust the "percent of homosexuals that pass on their genes directly" and "increased survival rates because of beneficial aspects of homsexuality", run the model and see which settings explain the current prevalence in the population.[/QUOTE]

From a mathematical point of view, you are assuming some theories not starting from an axiom: AFAIK it is not yet confirmed that homosexuality is a genetic disease. :rolleyes:

Luigi