Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: Phantom423
Creationism has nothing to do with Christianity, God or the Bible. It's a cult of evil doers.

Creationism posits that a conscious Being created all matter. Evolutionary theory posits that matter created conscious beings.

originally posted by: peter vlar
unlike them, I engage in due diligence and actually look at the other sides arguments and tactics.

I was a long time believer in evolution. I first bit in 8th grade, and it lasted for over a decade. I was totally convinced, making the same arguments you guys are making now. But the more you study biological tissue, organs, etc, you tend to realize it is beyond the capabilities of random mutation to have made these magnificent biomolecular machines.

originally posted by: cooperton
He gave his results confidently until he realized they dated dinosaur bones, Then they concluded it must have been contamination. This is not how real science works.

According to who??

Yeah exactly. Lying creationists. The same liars that claimed the lab "fully stood by" those samples, despite the scientist himself refuting that and specifically stating that they were told this in the beginning.

I was a long time believer in evolution. I first bit in 8th grade, and it lasted for over a decade. I was totally convinced, making the same arguments you guys are making now. But the more you study biological tissue, organs, etc, you tend to realize it is beyond the capabilities of random mutation to have made these magnificent biomolecular machines.

Riiiiight. I'll buy that. You are regurgitating the same tireless nonsense. I'm sure that's pretty much copied directly from Stephen Meyer. Is that you, Steve? Why don't you tell us again about all your degrees and how well you understand science, because based on your posts here you are a huge expert! LOL!

a reply to: cooperton

But the more you study biological tissue, organs, etc, you tend to realize it is beyond the capabilities of random mutation to have made these magnificent biomolecular machines.

If that's the case, then you truly did not understand what you were looking at. "Beyond the capabilities" - of whom? Humans? All these mechanisms are observable phenomena in the lab.

From the Harvard Gazette:

Evolution in real time

59,000 generations of bacteria, plus freezer, yield startling results

One of the central questions Lenski has explored is the tension between evolution’s opposing forces: the random mutations that initiate genetic change and the natural selection that shapes which mutations survive. Those forces, Lenski said, provide evolutionary pressure in different directions. Random genetic mutation pushes organisms to diversify, while natural selection is a homogenizing force, favoring characteristics that enhance survival under specific conditions. The experiment has run according to the same protocol since it began. E. coli bacteria are grown in the solution of glucose, a kind of sugar. The glucose is carefully measured so it eventually runs out and creates a period of scarcity and starvation before the bacteria are propagated the next day and transferred into a fresh solution. Every 75 days, roughly 500 generations, a portion of the cultures is frozen. Though the bacteria were originally genetically identical, they have evolved. Today’s populations grow roughly 80 percent faster than the original lines, a development that Lenski called “a beautiful example of adaptation by natural selection.”

news.harvard.edu...

a reply to: cooperton

And this:

Observation and Evidence for Evolution
Lack of Direct Observation is Not a Lack of Evidence for Evolution

www.thoughtco.com...

Creationists like to argue that evolution can't be science because we can't directly observe evolution in action — and since science requires direct observation, evolution is necessarily excluded from the realm of science. This is a false definition of science, but more than that it's also a complete misrepresentation of how humans actually work when it comes to forming conclusions about the world.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's your problem in a nutshell: You don't understand mechanism i.e. the way things work. It's similar to a person who never saw an airplane and had no idea how the thing could fly. Rather than digging into the reasons, that person makes a unilateral decision that it has to be some supernatural force that makes it fly. End of story, no more questions please, I have the answer!

A real scientist seeks to understand mechanism - how stuff works. Creationists shut the door and close the book on learning. It's easy, doesn't take much effort and definitely does not stress the brain.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Here's your problem in a nutshell: You don't understand mechanism i.e. the way things work.

Ok... let's start with the brain. It is Protected by reinforced self-repairing armor (the skull) with an additional shock-absorbing buffer of cerebrospinal fluid that reduces physical trauma to the brain. The skull is perfectly formed to allow cavities for eye sight, hearing, smelling, and food ingestion. Chewing requires a detached bone which is connected to the the skull through muscle fibers which receive signals from the brain to coordinate a chew in less than a fraction of a second. Your tongue has a host of sensory cells that detect palatable food which sends signals to your digestive system to get ready for the goods. These systems are also linked to the olfactory nerves which accurately detect airborn molecular cues. All of these are interconnected and synced with the hypothalamus so you know how much to eat and your body knows how much digestive enzymes to assimilate.

All these systems require an immense interconnected network of molecules, macromolecules, organelles, cells, tissues and organs to be working at homeostatic levels at all times. There are 100s of millions of proteins working in synchrony in each cell of the human body. There are a total of approximately 30 trillion cells in the human body. 30,000,000,000,000. Again, of which, all have 100's of millions of proteins. Not once in your life have you sat back and wondered how the f%$# does this work so well? When you are injured your body repairs it, you can create more humans with an animalistic thrust of a hip, and you have complex emotions that you have yet to understand the depth of even to this day. There are around 100-billion brain cells that total around 100-trillion synapses which creates a dynamic, changeable brain structure to allow you to instantly adapt to various environmental stresses or variables.

This unimaginably complex amalgamation of living tissue in your head allows you, the often ungrateful user, the ability to freely control your body throughout a planet that is located at the perfect distance from a sun that continues to shine energy upon the earth without fail to continually invigorate it with life. You are upright with a workable set of hands and the highest degree of encephalization that allows you to be the apex creator on the planet.

Have you ever wondered what it means to be created in the image of the Creator? We are the ideal material vessels of the Creative Spirit, and you are in control of the greatest machine ever made. You are given such freedom and infinite imagination that you can even convince yourself you are the ancestor of mutant apes to the dogmatic excess where you mock and ridicule others who don't share this same erroneous belief.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
Creationism has nothing to do with Christianity, God or the Bible. It's a cult of evil doers.

Creationism posits that a conscious Being created all matter. Evolutionary theory posits that matter created conscious beings.

To an extent this is true. You're leaving out the fact that you believe that a very specific conscious being created it all and did so a very short time ago. And that the conscious entity you believe is responsible for all of this didn't exist until ~3500 years ago and wasn't even the original god of the Hebrews as they didn't start out Monotheistic.

originally posted by: peter vlar
unlike them, I engage in due diligence and actually look at the other sides arguments and tactics.

I was a long time believer in evolution. I first bit in 8th grade, and it lasted for over a decade. I was totally convinced, making the same arguments you guys are making now. But the more you study biological tissue, organs, etc, you tend to realize it is beyond the capabilities of random mutation to have made these magnificent biomolecular machines.

So your premise for not believing that evolution is a well documented biological process is incredulity? Because in my experience, people who actually study it and not merely copy and paste the counter argument based solely on confirmation bias, find the opposite to be true. Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between that you feel can not be accounted for by mutations. The only way to reach your conclusion is to ignore the evidence. You also ignore all of the devout Christians who support evolution and you can't claim that they all do so because they're afraid of losing their jobs. I'll use Francis Collins as an example. As head of the Human Genome Project, he was quite vocal that MES coexists just fine with his faith and his job was running a massive, private company that didn't rely on anybody's grants or public funding as a private company. They've since gone public but it's irrelevant. And no, I'm not basing this off of what I've read online either. He's a family friend and my mother in-law was the VP of HR for HGP, I've had these conversations with him first hand. Just like "poor Mary Schweitzer" would not have found her position in jeopardy as a tenured professor. These claims of being afraid to speak out are just as fallacious as the supposed 14C tests of dinosaur "bones" that anybody with an associates degree can see through. The fact that you are happy to support liars who resort to subterfuge and illegality to obtain samples is mind boggling. That isn't how science is done. Furthermore, if you knew anything about the science involved, you would use your own words and not simply spit out everything that is posted on the ICR and AIG websites verbatim because you would have the knowledge to discuss the facts. You have yet to demonstrate such knowledge and when asked to support your claims, you skipped that and went right for the ad hominem attacks against me and the hilarious claims that I was sending children to hell by teaching them to think critically and for themselves.

a reply to: cooperton

Hey look a Gish gallop

You are over stating the perfection of the human body. If that were so doctors would be almost irrelevant. Every thing you describe has a host of mutations that cause problems. So either your deity is a bad crafts man or Occam's razor says....

That is the problem with creationists, they are flummoxed by geology and genetics scares them

You lot want the biblical flood ( which is without evidence) to have created the features of the earth like the Grand Canyon. If that happened that fast, rock is a poor material to use to build. Genetics and anatomy show that there is more chance of evolution than Your God being involved. As a polytheist I am good with that

a reply to: cooperton

What you posted in your belief system. It is not science. I have no objection to belief systems and religion. They make for some very nice stories. But science is pragmatic and objective. Unless there is evidence, there is no way to make any statement about the subject.

My analogy to the man who never saw an airplane still holds. You see something you can't explain. Therefore, it is a God or a spirit or something supernatural. Why not the simulation model which is being discussed by scientists? It's all speculation until there's hard evidence.

For the life of me, I can't understand your train of thought and logic. This has been stated ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and others: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's something else that we have all said before: You and the Creationist crowd have closed the book of knowledge. Instead, you work backwards to reverse engineer the real science into the image that fits your model.

What you forget is that humans are born with innate curiosity. That's one of the reasons why evolution is such an important function for life on this planet. Without biological evolution, nothing would change and improve.

You also don't read the literature, particularly new research. In brain research alone, there's a huge body of evidence that says we will crack it. You, of course, will never understand it because you willfully ignore anything that might hint at the fallacy you're living with.

A better way to crack the brain

Focused grass-roots collaborations that start small and scale up could
overcome technical and sociological barriers to ‘big’ neuroscience, argue
Zachary F. Mainen, Michael Häusser and Alexandre Pouget.
www.nature.com...!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/539159a.pdf?origin=ppub

THE CHALLENGE Several advances over the past decade have made it vastly more tractable to solve fundamental problems such as how we recognize objects or make decisions. Researchers can now monitor and manipulate patterns of activity in large neuronal ensembles, thanks to new technologies in molecular engineering, microelectronics and computing. For example, a combination of advanced optical imaging and optogenetics can now read and write patterns of activity into populations of neurons5 . It is also possible to relate firing patterns to the biology of the neurons being recorded, including their genetics and connectivity. Other tools coming online include powerful statistical techniques for analysing data and advances in machine learning. There is also now a rich set of theories stemming from progress in fields such as statistical physics and computer science. Computational approaches have been used to understand, for instance, how neurons

in the retina and visual cortex encode information about visual scenes6,7. But the experiments now possible are increasingly resource-intensive. The neuronal activity driving a simple behaviour, such as a mouse navigating a maze, could involve the cooperation of several hundred brain areas. Mapping the whole picture implies making recordings in many neurons from each area. Yet a typical 1–3-year study involves recording from relatively small populations of neurons in just a single area of the brain. And, as we will discuss, these data cannot at present be combined across labs. Most new approaches for the collection and analysis of neural data require training and expertise across a range of domains — from genetics to optics to computational neuroscience. As in most disciplines, neuroscientists in one laboratory — let alone one scientist — rarely hold the entire set of requisite skills. Moreover, because labs do not normally share raw data, the fruits of difficult experiments cannot be fully exploited by groups with complementary expertise. In short, a generation ago, neuroscientists were largely limited by theory and tools. Today, the bigger problem is effectively harnessing, as a community, what is already available.

This is a perfect example of how science works. Collaboration. A coming together of disciplines. Big questions. Lots of work. Develop new instruments and new techniques. SOLVE PROBLEMS. UNDERSTAND THE WORLD AROUND US.

Hey Coop, did you ever think that perhaps you're missing all the fun?

originally posted by: peter vlar
You also ignore all of the devout Christians who support evolution and you can't claim that they all do so because they're afraid of losing their jobs.

Certainly most Christians under 30 years old have bought into evolution. My close friends and I have had lengthy discussion and they are just as ironclad in their evolution-creation hybrid beliefs as most other believers in anything. I held this hybrid belief for a while, because it was easy, and I was still convinced evolution did its thing, but I realized the validity of Hindu, Greek and Christian Philosophy, and realized Jesus was that dude they all talked about coming. Quantum physics really hit home for me, and a plethora of personal experiences made me realize the authenticity and power of the Spirit that I was searching for. I knew Its power would by no means require random mutation to create, and that it was exactly as was told by Jewish, Greek and Hindu tradition.

you would use your own words and not simply spit out everything that is posted on the ICR and AIG websites verbatim

Oh come on now, that's an exaggeration. I've come to these conclusions on my own, and yes, of course other agencies with the same philosophy would realize the same truths.

originally posted by: Noinden

You are over stating the perfection of the human body. If that were so doctors would be almost irrelevant.

If people knew how to take care of their cars there would be no need for mechanics.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
My analogy to the man who never saw an airplane still holds. You see something you can't explain. Therefore, it is a God or a spirit or something supernatural.

There is much much much that science does not have a grasp on. And just like you stated about religious philosophies, that which science cannot explain, science assumes that it will have the answer eventually. So science is admittedly incomplete, and people have spent their whole lives eventually receiving no conclusive answer as to the reality of their existence. I love science and it definitely has its purpose, but at times it is worshiped like a god - a weak, indecisive, and inconclusive god.

The practical truth was explained to us through many prophets Hindu and Christian alike, but people don't seek to understand their message. We all have this teacher within us, but we are so easily distracted.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between that you feel can not be accounted for by mutations.

Like the 3 (only 3?!!! out of....thousands that have to be imagined? So don't even bother with 'it's more than 3' when it's still not in the thousands, in the last debate between David Berlinski and Kenneth Miller he still presented only 3) supposed 'whale' ancestors in between a hyena-like animal and actual whales (not claimed "whales that had feet and walked on land")? That's sufficient for you? Never mind the deliberate fluke deception after already having realized there was no fluke on...what was it... ambulocetus I think?

I see many people here are still living in their own fantasy version of reality, sticking to the same arguments that are presenting that fantasy version. The more you make such arguments about the fossil record the more insincere und unreliable you sound, even those teachers and promoters of evolutionary philosophies that acknowledge that what you said is clearly not the case sound more convincing as they twist the issue with every ounce of cunning they can muster to justify their useless research and positions, never having made an actual significant scientific discovery the way Isaac Newton discovered how to describe the force of gravity with a testable mathematical law and formula that has proven its usefulness to mankind since he first penned it.

*sigh* and none of the fans of evolutionary philosophies feels the need to point out some nuances about that statement about the fossil record, silent agreement. That says a lot too (also in light of those teachers and promoters of evolutionary philosohies that acknowledge something quite different regarding the fossil record, those that are actually leading figures in digging up and studying the fossils and displaying biased replicas* of them in musea and exhibitions, or in pretty pictures in text books with a beguiling storyline).

*: You can start the video below at 19:54 and end at 23:17 for another example (other than the ones for 'whale evolution' already discussed in the previous video), don't even bother with any young earth creationism in the video below if there is any:

a reply to: whereislogic

right...because the fossil record is the only piece of evidence right? Please, feel free to ignore the fact that off all the scientific theories in human history, the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis has the largest body of supporting evidence simply because you're emboldened by willful ignorance because the truth offends your religious proclivities. And that really is the bottom line, it's easier to ignore evidence because A. You don't understand it and B. Your personal creator is offended by it. It's pathetic and as usual, you've brought nothing to the table.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic

right...because the fossil record is the only piece of evidence right?

Yeah, quickly switch to pointing to the other cards in the house of cards, that'll work. That'll negate the bogus claims about the fossil record made by many who either don't want to know any better, or know better but propaganda just works so well for them, so they just lie about it.

This is a lie/falsehood:

Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between that you feel can not be accounted for by mutations.

A complete fantasy. And it becomes lying if one is stating it while they know better. Otherwise it's just a sign of gullibility, biased thinking, wishful thinking, delusionality, living in a fantasy world, being fooled, deluded, tricked, deceived, etc. And since it's such an obvious one, a sign and evidence of a certain mental condition that is well described in the bible.

a reply to: Phantom423

You and the Creationist crowd have closed the book of knowledge.

That statement is untrue.

Creationists created science.

Creationists opened a book that leads to everlasting life.

Instead, you work backwards to reverse engineer the real science into the image that fits your model.

Actually science is the process of reverse engineering things that already exist and figuring out how it works.

A "discovery" isn't quite so cool if someone else created it first.


Europeans who "discovered" the new world, found people already living there.

The next trick was to downplay and belittle the native population.

a reply to: whereislogic


Not even worth reading your posts considering your source of information is Watchtower and Awake and you have nothing but ad hominem attacks and can't actually falsify any of the science. You're a clown and offer nothing to the thread except for fringe biblical fantasies. I always get a chuckle though considering your sig is a link about propaganda from the JW's Irony is a concept that totally escapes you apparently. It's unfortunate that you're so closed minded and refuse to attempt to understand the science you dispute.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic


Not even worth reading your posts considering your source of information is Watchtower and Awake and you have nothing but ad hominem attacks and can't actually falsify any of the science. You're a clown and offer nothing to the thread except for fringe biblical fantasies. I always get a chuckle though considering your sig is a link about propaganda from the JW's Irony is a concept that totally escapes you apparently. It's unfortunate that you're so closed minded and refuse to attempt to understand the science you dispute.

Not sure how its fair to constantly refuse any evidence from creationist sites when you are constantly presenting evidence from evolution-believing sources. Address the empirical evidence for what it is, not for who is presenting it. For this reason you can get stuck in a feedback loop where you are only hearing reinforcement from others who believe the same as you

a reply to: cooperton

"... evolution-believing..." hahaha... you're a riot!

Those sources don't "believe" in evolution, they set out to study the evidence and draw a conclusion in a peer-reviewed format where results and conclusions are scrutinised among the academic community.

So far, "evolution" is the best fit for all those little pieces of evidence and conclusions... in fact in every circumstance ever, the facts point to "evolution" as the most likely explanation... so there is a pretty strong case for evolution.

Not so much for creationism. Creationist sites regularly lie and misrepresent "any evidence" to fuel an agenda of "God did it"!.. and the content is never peer reviewed. So it is right to be skeptical of those sites, and the argument in general.

However, the beauty of the academic world is that you (or anyone) can refute all those evolution sources, or propose creation evidence, and shift the paradigm in literature and understanding globally... and if the evidence was solid, the majority would be in adulation of your discovery, and it would become the new paradigm!

So far NO creationist source has EVER stood up to scrutiny... even though millions would like it to be so. I would love if you could show solid evidence of creation, it would prove to me that there is something supernatural out there!... which would be awesome!... because at the moment I am skeptical that there is more to the universe, than the universe itself.

The irony in your post is resounding.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: whereislogic


Not even worth reading your posts considering your source of information is Watchtower and Awake and you have nothing but ad hominem attacks and can't actually falsify any of the science. You're a clown and offer nothing to the thread except for fringe biblical fantasies. I always get a chuckle though considering your sig is a link about propaganda from the JW's Irony is a concept that totally escapes you apparently. It's unfortunate that you're so closed minded and refuse to attempt to understand the science you dispute.

Not sure how its fair to constantly refuse any evidence from creationist sites when you are constantly presenting evidence from evolution-believing sources. Address the empirical evidence for what it is, not for who is presenting it. For this reason you can get stuck in a feedback loop where you are only hearing reinforcement from others who believe the same as you

Where is the validation for your "empirical" evidence? When was it repeated? Which independent laboratories confirmed the findings? If none of this was done, then it is NOT empirical. Your definitions are screwed up.

You still refuse to respond to the evidence which I, Peter and Barcs have presented. Do you even read the papers or do you draw a conclusion like a robot who's been programmed without reading the research? Why don't you admit the truth? You haven't read a paper in a scientific journal - probably never IMO. If you had, you would refute the findings based on the research. You would challenge their results. You do absolutely none of this. All you do is post crap from Creationist websites and expect intelligent people to accept it.

Gish Gish Gibberish.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

What you posted in your belief system. It is not science. I have no objection to belief systems and religion. They make for some very nice stories. But science is pragmatic and objective. Unless there is evidence, there is no way to make any statement about the subject.

My analogy to the man who never saw an airplane still holds. You see something you can't explain. Therefore, it is a God or a spirit or something supernatural. Why not the simulation model which is being discussed by scientists? It's all speculation until there's hard evidence.

For the life of me, I can't understand your train of thought and logic. This has been stated ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and others: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE.

You reminded me of this. The allpoweful god of the airplane.


www.indy100.com...

I think this part is pertinent to our conversation.

"They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land."