Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly...
That's how evolutionists attempt to explain away the the irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor that it evolved into existence...
And that the necessary parts that make up the motors preexisted before they were motors then decided to become the motors...
Except that does nothing to explain how those purposed 30 odd pieces of proteins magically fit together in shape and chemical makeup...
The truth is they have all the information always have and are self replicating...
This is irreducible complexity...

Evolution is a process. If you had any interest in science at all you would delve into the contradictions that your position obviously brings up.

Because you don't understand it doesn't mean that the process has been declared null and void. You simply don't understand it. Therefore, you assign it to a god or whatever your deity of the day is.

This thread has pretty much turned into nothing but the same ol' creationists repeating the same ol' nonsense they have been spouting for years. Surely it gets old to blindly deny everything in favor of a pipe dream. Vestigial doesn't mean useless. It means the organ or feature currently has a different function than it used to have. It's not that complicated to understand.

a reply to: Barcs

Yeah, my thought also. But it sure is entertaining.

Here is to me an interesting tidbit: I did not say BECAUSE it was fought over in court it has proven to be non-scientific. ..... The fact is that irreducible complexionist start to become irreducible simplitionists as they cannot read and keep grasping at straws while repeating the same question:

O and how about this part .... rebuttal
O and how about that part ... rebuttal
O and how about this part .... rebuttal ad infinitum. just like little kids constantly asking: why? Why? why?

As I said before, the question itself is interesting in that it forces us to think about natural selection processes in detail, which, I personally find a contribution to science. But that is all what can be said to be scientific about the concept of irreducible complex.

O, and perhaps you intelligent design proponents want to have a quick peak @ logical fallacies?
Like strawman and other red herrings. Sorry, I don't bite. Do your homework guys and girls. Try at least to be open minded in terms of being able to entertain an idea without the need for accepting it.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Your thinking is very obviously flawed. First, the explanation that "God did it" requires no evidence. It has no evidence.
Second, the explanation "evolution did it" is not imaginary. There's a process in place which has been elucidated, albeit you never bothered to even try to understand it.

The difference is process. The difference is evidence. The difference is you don't have a clue.

I studied evolution for over a decade and believed it until empirical evidence made me realize it was an invalid opinion.


SOCRATES: Do you think the one who had gotten out of the cave would still envy those within the
cave and would want to compete with them who are esteemed and who have power? Or would not he or
she much rather wish for the condition above ground? Wouldn't he or she prefer to put up with absolutely anything
else rather than associate with those opinions that hold in the cave and be that kind of human being?
GLAUCON: I think that he would prefer to endure everything rather than be that kind of human
being

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Your thinking is very obviously flawed. First, the explanation that "God did it" requires no evidence. It has no evidence.
Second, the explanation "evolution did it" is not imaginary. There's a process in place which has been elucidated, albeit you never bothered to even try to understand it.

The difference is process. The difference is evidence. The difference is you don't have a clue.

I studied evolution for over a decade and believed it until empirical evidence made me realize it was an invalid opinion.


SOCRATES: Do you think the one who had gotten out of the cave would still envy those within the
cave and would want to compete with them who are esteemed and who have power? Or would not he or
she much rather wish for the condition above ground? Wouldn't he or she prefer to put up with absolutely anything
else rather than associate with those opinions that hold in the cave and be that kind of human being?
GLAUCON: I think that he would prefer to endure everything rather than be that kind of human
being

This is what you posted:

Proponents of evolution scrutinize how theists explain things away by "God did it", while at the same time they use a similar statement "evolution did it"... followed by an imaginary explanation of how, for example, a caterpillar would have managed a mutation that would suffice it to liquefy itself in a cocoon, grow wings, and fly away.

Can you tell me where I or anyone else has said ""while at the same time they use a similar statement "evolution did it...""

My response to you was that evolution was a process. The statement "God did it" requires no evidence because there is no evidence. Evolution has evidence which has been elucidated over a period of close to 100 years.

Once again, you ignore the answer and fill in your own blanks.

I really don't care what Socrates said or didn't say. The quote is irrelevant. What's relevant is that you ignore the fact that evolution is a process, a process which is well known and has been tested repeatedly.

If you have an intellectual challenge to evolutionary biology, then state it. But I'm quite sure that you can't challenge a single tenet of evolution in an analytical way.

EVOLUTION IS A PROCESS WHICH REQUIRES EVIDENCE
THE "GOD" THEORY DOES NOT REQUIRE EVIDENCE - BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE

EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE
"GOD" IS RELIGION OR PHILOSOPHY (TAKE YOUR PICK)

EVOLUTION HAS EVIDENCE (remember the 500 journals and thousands of research articles which I HAVE POSTED A HUNDRED TIMES)
"GOD" HAS NO EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, IT DOES NOT FALL INTO THE REALM OF SCIENCE

Study hard, Coop. Lord knows you need it.

a reply to: Phantom423

Evolution is a faith based religion...
Ok...it's more of a cult really...

You're entitled to your opinion. And your ignorance.

a reply to: Phantom423

Ditto

a reply to: cooperton

No misinterpreation. Chemists are regularly making chemicals, including ones your body makes, AND ones your body can not.

Quite simply you are not educated in Chemistry. Biochemistry, or Neuroscience.

a reply to: cooperton

You have provided zero evidence you have studied science. Your posts are aping typical young earth creationist nonsense. Next you will be trying to tell me this mythical flood of your bible formed the Grand Canyon

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You have provided zero evidence you have studied science. Your posts are aping typical young earth creationist nonsense. Next you will be trying to tell me this mythical flood of your bible formed the Grand Canyon

But here's the polyunsaturated truth: Cooperton and others NEVER challenge the hard evidence of real science. I'm sure you've noticed that whenever the subject comes up, it's totally ignored. A good example is in my previous post to Coop. I said "If you have an intellectual challenge to evolutionary biology, then state it. But I'm quite sure that you can't challenge a single tenet of evolution in an analytical way." This is the type of question/statement that is always ignored. And the answer is obvious. None of them can look at data and analyze it. I've often asked that someone select just one paper published in evolutionary biology, go through the methods and describe to us where the authors went wrong. To date, NO ONE has taken up that challenge. No need to ask why.......................

An intellectually curious person, even with hard and fast beliefs in a religion or whatever, at the very least would be interested in how 100 years of research could be so wrong. Once again, no one ever picks up the ball and runs with it.

So the conclusion isn't hard to draw. It's simply willful ignorance. But it's also about fooling themselves into a black hole of disinformation and outright lies.

a reply to: Phantom423

Why of course I have noticed that. When a citation is posted, it is ingored, indeed we have a couple of the YEC crowed here who say "post proof" repeatedly, and when it is, still say "post proof".

I've asked Coop what his speciality in Chemitry was (every undergrad has one, you have more papers in an area inside a disipline that you take, it is just how it works). No reply. It is as if there was no Chemistry education involved Out of fear of being shown up, by an actual chemist (I) no reply happens.

Another trope of theirs is "all scientists are atheists if they say evolution is the likely cause of the diversity of life". Yet when evidence against this is applied. Silence. I can't count how often I am called an atheist here by them.

Creationists are not used to thinking. I say that is a problem with revealed religions. A book answers all their needs, not thinking. Bring back mystery religions

a reply to: Noinden

Nope, they're not the problem solvers. They're not the future either. Getting run over by a train 24/7 must be a difficult way to live! There's fewer of them around now. Apparently, the campaign to recruit with that hysterical museum Ham built fell somewhat short of the goal. They're in big financial problems at the moment. Let's hope it just gets worse!

a reply to: Phantom423

I used to think creationists (like flat earthers) were a dying breed. But it seems to me, that there has been a reinfection of their diseased thinking. Have you also noticed that there is an inordinate number of well known YEC types from Australia?

I personally have no issue with people believing what they want. I certainly do. Its when these individuals want to form little empires, or challenge the education norms, that I get angry.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly...
That's how evolutionists attempt to explain away the the irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor that it evolved into existence...
And that the necessary parts that make up the motors preexisted before they were motors then decided to become the motors...
Except that does nothing to explain how those purposed 30 odd pieces of proteins magically fit together in shape and chemical makeup...
The truth is they have all the information always have and are self replicating...
This is irreducible complexity...

originally posted by: Phantom423
you ignore the fact that evolution is a process, a process which is well known and has been tested repeatedly.

Evolution relies on extrapolations for its assumed validity. Just because organisms can adapt does not mean they can cross into another type of organism. Prokaryotes remain prokaryotes, whales remain whales, humans remain humans. Of course adaptability is a proven, observable mechanism, but proponents of evolution extrapolate this data and assume it could account for the diversity of life we see today.

EVOLUTION HAS EVIDENCE (remember the 500 journals and thousands of research articles which I HAVE POSTED A HUNDRED TIMES)

God has evidence. There have been countless people throughout history who describe the same all-loving God from which we all came. People died for this being, for the sake of Good. People have also hypocritically acted under the guise of the name of this Being, but their hearts were surely not connected to God, as demonstrated by their violent fruit. All history points to a more fantastic, amazing reality than this dead mutant ape theory, yet the chauvinism in the scientific community is so outrageous that they think their lame extrapolations are more accurate than countless historical records and spiritual experiences throughout the globe.

Your theory is meaningless. Hypothetically if it is true, then life is totally meaningless, and we might as well march back into the sea if that is the case, because nothing you do will amount to any sort of meaning - THIS IS THE PHILOSOPHY YOU ARE TEACHING. If you were truly an adherent to this philosophy, you would realize the futility of opening your mouth

a reply to: Noinden

Ken Ham and his crowd are from Australia. They have a scam going on down there too. It's all about the money.

a reply to: Phantom423

I know (its why I brought it up, and I am just across the ditch afterall). We even have a guy (Johnathon Sarfati) born in Oz who sadlyu was educated here, who thinks he's broken evolution.

I don't know what is broken about that generation of Australians education, I really don't.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
you ignore the fact that evolution is a process, a process which is well known and has been tested repeatedly.

whales remain whales

Heh. Whales are AMAZING example of evolution since they evolved from being ocean dwelling creatures to land dwelling creatures with legs then back to being ocean dwelling creatures again (it's why their fins are orientated differently than fish and why they breath air unlike fish).

a reply to: cooperton

You can call it meaningless if you want. It doesn't make a difference.

What would make a difference is if you select one or several research papers published in recognized journals and discuss why their results are wrong. You won't do that because you can't.

Evolution relies on extrapolations for its assumed validity. Just because organisms can adapt does not mean they can cross into another type of organism. Prokaryotes remain prokaryotes, whales remain whales, humans remain humans. Of course adaptability is a proven, observable mechanism, but proponents of evolution extrapolate this data and assume it could account for the diversity of life we see today.

This is YOUR interpretation. It's totally blind to the hard evidence published by scientists for the past 100 years.

It's amazing that you can continue to convince yourself of these fallacies.

And once again, pick out a paper from a recognized journal and we'll discuss the methods and the results. I would bet $10,000 in Vegas that you won't do it.

THIS IS THE PHILOSOPHY YOU ARE TEACHING

I don't teach philosophy and neither do you. Science is discovery and evidence. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less.
You have neither the discovery nor the evidence.

Believing in your God is fine. Makes no difference to me. But intentionally using your God to corrupt the real world is what I would call a sin.

And who died for your God? Was it really necessary? What kind of God is that?