The Process of Evolution is evidence of irreducible complexity

The process of evolution is evidence of irreducible complexity. There's no evolution without:

1. The Genetic Code
2. Error correction
3. Regulatory sequences
4. transcription
5. translation
6. amino acid sequencing
7. folding of amino acid sequencing

Without the process of evolution being in place, you have nothing. Here's a video animation of the process that looks like something you see in a factory.



There's just no way that this process evolved. There's no evidence it evolved. The process had to be in place in order for organisms to evolve and it starts with information in the genetic code.

The problem here is people took natural selection and turned it into magic.

Natural selection isn't powerful and it's nothing special. It simply says, when traits reach the environment, the ones that thrive will be selected to populate the environment through reproduction. That's it.

In a gym the muscle bound guy will probably get the female who also works out there and likes fit men over the out of shape guy who cleans the equipment. In this environment, the muscle bound guys will be selected and populate the environment with the fit females. This selection has nothing to do with how they became fit or got to the gym.

It's the same with geneses. Natural selection happens after the fact. When the gen has went through the process of becoming a protein and then reaching the environment.

Natural selection only works because the designer of the code reduced the traits that can reach the environment by coding for 20 amino acids and limiting which PP chain sequences can fold into proteins.

Natural selection only works with the traits that reach the environment which is limited by the genetic code.

For instance, natural selection wouldn't work if a factorial of 20 amino acid PP chains reached the environment. This would be 2.432902008 E+18 sequences that could fold into proteins and reach the environment. We would still be trying to reach multi-cellular life if the genetic code didn't limit the traits that could reach the environment.

Again, natural selection is something that happens after the fact and the process of evolution is irreducibly complex. If the factory isn't in place with a code that limits amino acids to 20 and limits the PP chain, then evolution can't occur.

What does any of this have to do with natural selection? You are arguing something that really has nothing to do with natural selection. You pretty much said this in the OP.

You're basically saying the same as this thread (just below yours currently)

a reply to: neoholographic

a reply to: neoholographic

You are correct evolution is not an expansion it is a detraction. But! Its not about making it complicated, its the opposite of that, do you know what true irreducible complexity is. There is a word for that, its called Chaos. In which no life can exist.

Without a set plan and code from birth to death none of it would be possible, all of life in fact is just that, a pre programed machine from beginning to end. Birds of a feather flock together right? The same can be said of everything, down to the molecule, and even down to thought processes, and even to tastes and everything else.

And the only thing that people have ever created are hierarchical structures, which is your evolution right there, from single celled amoebas to today, its merely an overlapping patterns of hierarchical structures, both physical and metaphysical. A jumbled mess working in cohesion.

There is no evolution, there is merely change in the complexity and expanse of the set guidelines, and by default the complexity of a the structures involved. It does not evolve it merely grows or it does not grow, and once in a while it changes. But a duck will always be a duck, a cat will always be a cat, a tree will always be a tree, etc etc.

That is unless off course an outside force, somehow forces it to change, which is what the environment is. Or so the theory goes.

Saying something exists because of natural selection is the same as saying "well its there, so therefore it exists"

Its just giving a name to something, that already exists. Kind of like that guy who saw an apple fall down and dubbed it "gravity" When in fact things have been falling down for countless years and eons, long, long, long, long before he decided to name it that.

And a good theory it is indeed, I would even say its an evolution.

But yes, your right. Its nothing new.

a reply to: neoholographic

Holy crap, bro. You are a broken record. You keep posting this verbal diarrhea over and over. You don't even know what the evolutionary process is. Genetic mutations are NOT irreducibly complex, the process is well known. Natural selection is not irreducibly complex, also is well known.

You have no evidence whatsoever to prove that any aspect of evolution or life is irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is a concept that only applies to technology assembled from PARTS. Evolution doesn't claim that so once again you fail miserably and try arguing a dishonest straw man because you have been programmed to hate evolution for religious reasons. It's pathetic.

There's just no way that this process evolved. There's no evidence it evolved. The process had to be in place in order for organisms to evolve and it starts with information in the genetic code.

Wrong it starts with genes not perfectly copying themselves. LOL @ the process being in place, it's not even a process, it's a fact of nature that genes don't replicate perfectly. Your ignorance doesn't make it wrong, sorry.

The problem here is people took natural selection and turned it into magic.

Um, it's creationists that turn it into magic. In fact everything is magic to you and you think that's more reasonable than actual documented and proved mechanisms.

Natural selection isn't powerful and it's nothing special. It simply says, when traits reach the environment, the ones that thrive will be selected to populate the environment through reproduction. That's it.

Yeah, and that's part of evolution. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

In a gym the muscle bound guy will probably get the female who also works out there and likes fit men over the out of shape guy who cleans the equipment. In this environment, the muscle bound guys will be selected and populate the environment with the fit females. This selection has nothing to do with how they became fit or got to the gym.

A swing and a miss! LMFAO! Complete and utter failure.

Natural selection only works because the designer of the code reduced the traits that can reach the environment by coding for 20 amino acids and limiting which PP chain sequences can fold into proteins.

Prove it.

Again, natural selection is something that happens after the fact and the process of evolution is irreducibly complex. If the factory isn't in place with a code that limits amino acids to 20 and limits the PP chain, then evolution can't occur.

Pure bunk, like usual. Of course NS happens after the fact. That doesn't make it irreducibly complex, dummy. Learn basic science.

originally posted by: R2019
You're basically saying the same as this thread (just below yours currently)

You have to wonder who is writing their material. They have been repeating this same tireless BS for years on here and every time they get refuted, they just vanish for a few months then repost it again.

originally posted by: neoholographic
In a gym the muscle bound guy will probably get the female who also works out there and likes fit men over the out of shape guy who cleans the equipment. In this environment, the muscle bound guys will be selected and populate the environment with the fit females. This selection has nothing to do with how they became fit or got to the gym.

You're assuming everyone's genetics are equal and they can gain muscle mass the same as the next person which is patently untrue and wholly disproves your analogy.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neoholographic
In a gym the muscle bound guy will probably get the female who also works out there and likes fit men over the out of shape guy who cleans the equipment. In this environment, the muscle bound guys will be selected and populate the environment with the fit females. This selection has nothing to do with how they became fit or got to the gym.

You're assuming everyone's genetics are equal and they can gain muscle mass the same as the next person which is patently untrue and wholly disproves your analogy.

It also assumes that women are only interested in fit men and find no other reason to be attracted to someone. Which is also patently untrue. Even looking at the small subset the he lays out, a gym rat female who likes fit men may still not necessarily like a muscle bound man. There are many ways to be fit.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: neoholographic

You have no evidence whatsoever to prove that any aspect of evolution or life is irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity is a concept that only applies to technology assembled from PARTS.

You don't understand biology or the post. The very mechanism that has the possibility to misread and mutate, is a vast network of proteins, nucleic acid strands, homeostatic mechanisms, and so on, which all must be in place to even have the ability for genes to mutate. So if genetic mutations weren't even a thing yet, how did genetic mutations create this mechanism?

This is irreducible complexity. Which you never address the actual logic of it, you just blindly say there's no evidence for it. When in actuality ever organ system, organ, tissue, cell, organelle, macromolecule, and molecule within the body requires the irreducible complexity of the rest of the network of the body to function.

a reply to: cooperton

Once again you are dead wrong. Those mechanisms are for copying DNA TODAY, and it is 100% irrelevant to the first life on earth as I've already told you dozens of times. It's same ol' tireless IC strawman, already been argued to death and literally no progress has been made on that argument in decades. You have never provided any evidence at all supporting your case, you just make dumb generalizations that have nothing to do with whether the theory is accurate. We know it's complex today. It doesn't change anything about how the first life originated or how evolution works.

Which you never address the actual logic of it, you just blindly say there's no evidence for it.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. To say something is irreducibly complex, you must prove it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to emerge incrementally. You have never done this and neither has Meyer, Hovind, Ham, or any of the other liars whom you champion constantly on here.

When in actuality ever organ system, organ, tissue, cell, organelle, macromolecule, and molecule within the body requires the irreducible complexity of the rest of the network of the body to function.

Then prove it already. Just saying something is complex is not an argument. I can't believe you are STILL repeating these blatant lies. You are just repeating your ignorant opinion.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. To say something is irreducibly complex, you must prove it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to emerge incrementally.

Remove DNA polymerase, and cell replication cannot occur.
Remove parietal cells, and digestion cannot occur.
Remove sodium-potassium pumps, and neural impulses cannot occur.
Remove ATP synthase, and ATP production cannot occur.
Remove fumarase, and the Krebs cycle cannot occur.
Remove the vocal cords, and speech cannot occur.
Remove the visual cortex, and sight cannot occur.
Remove pacinian corpuscle, and pressure detection cannot occur.
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,


There are countless examples of irreducible complexity. You are incapable of humbling your self-perceived infallibility to realize this obvious truth.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Once again you are dead wrong. Those mechanisms are for copying DNA TODAY, and it is 100% irrelevant to the first life on earth as I've already told you dozens of times.

Ahh yes, you do constantly talk about your dogmatic infallible speculation about what life was like back billions of years ago. The hubris involved in thinking you know that is disturbing, and I know there's no point in arguing with such megalomania. The fact is, we have found no organism ever that is capable of reproducing without the mechanisms mentioned in the OP:

1. The Genetic Code
2. Error correction
3. Regulatory sequences
4. transcription
5. translation
6. amino acid sequencing
7. folding of amino acid sequencing

Even viruses require these mechanisms from a host cell to reproduce.

So your faith that there is somehow some organism that could have reproduced without these mechanisms is a faith unbased in empirical science. Your sci-fi imagination is unscientific.

a reply to: neoholographic

OP - I'm with you. Good thread.

here's a question to advocates of evolution:

Is evolution a guided process or a blind process?

originally posted by: Barcs


Wrong it starts with genes not perfectly copying themselves.

Oh, now that's how humans became fish mutants.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: Barcs


Wrong it starts with genes not perfectly copying themselves.

Oh, now that's how humans became fish mutants.

Are you capable of posting something that isn't a straw man? Just stop the verbal diarrhea.

originally posted by: cooperton
Remove DNA polymerase, and cell replication cannot occur.
Remove parietal cells, and digestion cannot occur.
Remove sodium-potassium pumps, and neural impulses cannot occur.
Remove ATP synthase, and ATP production cannot occur.
Remove fumarase, and the Krebs cycle cannot occur.
Remove the vocal cords, and speech cannot occur.
Remove the visual cortex, and sight cannot occur.
Remove pacinian corpuscle, and pressure detection cannot occur.
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,

100% irrelevant. It was formed incrementally, not from an assembly of parts, so there is no reason to think removing a part that evolved for billions of years can just be removed. This argument is idiotic and I can't believe you still repeat this crap. We have debunked this bull# for years on here and you just keep repeating it.

There are countless examples of irreducible complexity. You are incapable of humbling your self-perceived infallibility to realize this obvious truth.

There are zero. Nothing you say proves that the parts couldn't form incrementally. The entire IC argument is a fallacy and we've already told you why. You are incapable of listening to reason or logic, you just spew your propaganda and repeat it. You haven't had an original argument in years.

originally posted by: Barcs
Ahh yes, you do constantly talk about your dogmatic infallible speculation about what life was like back billions of years ago. The hubris involved in thinking you know that is disturbing, and I know there's no point in arguing with such megalomania.

WRONG. That is YOU. I'm not making claims about the first life, you are claiming that because DNA is complex today that it couldn't have formed naturally billions of years ago. How do you not realize that it is YOU claiming to know such, not me. You are leaning on ridiculous assumptions, like usual.

So your faith that there is somehow some organism that could have reproduced without these mechanisms is a faith unbased in empirical science. Your sci-fi imagination is unscientific.

100% straw man. Grow up and refute some of the evidence already. I've been waiting decades for any creationist to do such, but in reality you can't and won't, so you diverty to bull# lies and propaganda that your preachers of choice spew to you and you repeat to others like a good little sheep.

originally posted by: Barcs

"Remove DNA polymerase, and cell replication cannot occur.
Remove parietal cells, and digestion cannot occur.
Remove sodium-potassium pumps, and neural impulses cannot occur.
Remove ATP synthase, and ATP production cannot occur.
Remove fumarase, and the Krebs cycle cannot occur.
Remove the vocal cords, and speech cannot occur.
Remove the visual cortex, and sight cannot occur.
Remove pacinian corpuscle, and pressure detection cannot occur.
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,"


100% irrelevant. It was formed incrementally, not from an assembly of parts, so there is no reason to think removing a part that evolved for billions of years can just be removed.

You are assuming evolution is true, but that is a laundry list of how things could not have formed incrementally. It requires all pieces to be in play at once. Therefor evolution could not have done it.

It's really simple. Just because something goes against your material-reductionist faith doesn't mean its false. No one has debunked irreducible complexity, because it is present everywhere throughout the body at all scales.

I only just found out about Haeckel recently.

Why isn't this main stream news lol? You guys fighting all the way over here and I just want the beginning of the evolution theory sorted out.

Generally things built on lies don't carry too much weight with me.

Haha I used to laugh and laugh at religious people that went against evolution. What a moron I was. I should start laughing at all the people that built their new religion based off lies.

Inb4 that was the only lie.

Yes yes. I'm sure.

a reply to: Barcs

Well, ins't it? Or don't you support the theory you're promoting?

originally posted by: cooperton
You are assuming evolution is true, but that is a laundry list of how things could not have formed incrementally. It requires all pieces to be in play at once. Therefor evolution could not have done it.

Repetition of a lie doesn't make it true. I'm not assuming anything, I'm going with the hard evidence, which you have never once even attempted to refute in your entire tenure on this site. You assume it's false without any good reason, you just hate it over your religious views and that much is obvious.

It's really simple. Just because something goes against your material-reductionist faith doesn't mean its false. No one has debunked irreducible complexity, because it is present everywhere throughout the body at all scales.

I literally just debunked it. You cannot prove those features cannot evolve incrementally over time. End of story. You tried you failed. The argument is ancient and completely invalid.