The Process of Evolution is evidence of irreducible complexity

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

No I'm not basing it on other scientist's work alone. I know and understand the methodology. You don't. I've been there, done that for the most part and have published utilizing many of the same methods used in those research papers. As I've suggested before, pick one of the papers and discuss why it's wrong - not your opinion - but how the hypothesis, the methodology and the results are faulty. You're great at posting jpgs, but you and the rest of your crowd never post any authentic research that backups your opinions. You have zip experience or ability to analyze one of those papers in depth.

You're also emotionally invested in the topic. So objectivity isn't going to be one of your best contributions!

Let me translate:

"I can't refute anything that you're saying and my source even supports him but please believe me because "I know" even though I sound asinine."

There's zero evidence that these things evolve naturally. They come together and work.

All you have to do genius is provide evidence that refutes what I'm saying.

a reply to: neoholographic

You don't get it. You never will get it. And you're lazy. Everything has been posted dozens of times including recently.

Please don't bother me again with your crap. It's a total waste of time.

a reply to: Phantom423

Stop whining!



I'm lazy because you can't debate the issue? You claimed to be a stable genius who does all this research yet you haven't refuted anything that has been said.

Let me quote your source again:

the two new alvarezsaurians illuminate the pattern, pace, and timing of evolution of the bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton

Also:

The presacral and sacral vertebrae were evidently modified earlier than the caudal vertebrae, and the pectoral girdle and forelimb earlier than the pelvic girdle and hindlimb, implying a general pattern in which anterior parts of the skeleton were modified earlier than posterior parts.

So, stable genius, stick to debating the issue or since you can't debate the issue leave instead of calling people lazy because you know your argument falls short.

a reply to: neoholographic

No, you are lazy because you ignore all of the research and spew garbage in its place, rather than logically evaluating the evidence. You have your conclusion set in stone, so it doesn't matter what reality shows. You are just looking to promote religion.

a reply to: Barcs

You sound ridiculous!

I don't ignore the evidence, I just don't accept your blind interpretation of the evidence. It makes no sense and it's pure fantasy. Then you said:

"You have your conclusion set in stone."

If this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is. You don't listen to nobody. You stick to your moronic assertions no matter how silly they sound.

I have schooled you several times and cooperton has laid out clear flaws in everything you're saying and your asinine opinion is still "set in stone."

So calling someone lazy, is just....lazy. It says I can't refute what you're saying with a sound counterargument, so you're not accepting reality in the backwards way that you look at it.

So if you don't want to add to the debate, please leave. Calling someone lazy because they don't accept your argument, says more about the weakness of your argument not me.

a reply to: neoholographic

I listen to scientific research. If that makes me an idiot, then so be it. You should listen to Phantom, because she wiped the floor with you. Nothing in science is set in stone, but it IS driven by evidence.

Funny you claim I don't listen to anybody, yet you completely ignored this post which pretty much refuted your entire first post.

I explained how it is nonsensical to claim genetic mutations and natural selection are irreducibly complex. I also explained how genetic mutations happen mostly due to copy errors. While I fully admit my post was harsh, it was based on facts (and also your failure to understand that a mechanism cannot be irreducibly complex).

I know I'm a pain in the ass for creationists on this website, and deeply hated over it, but I almost always bring data and facts to back up my position or at the very least refer to them. Am I really the one who refuses to engage? When was the last time you refuted a scientific research paper related to evolution? Can you prove that anything biological is irreducibly complex? If so, what are you methods of testing that?

a reply to: neoholographic

Funny... I follow all of these threads and I have yet to see a single time one of you religious folk schooled anyone... like anyone at all.

Perhaps I missed something... but as far as I've seen, Barcs, Peter, and phantom leave all of you in the dark

*shrug*

a reply to: Barcs

You seem to mistake your interpretation of the evidence with actual evidence.

You haven't presented anything that refutes what I'm saying. Phantom is frustrated because the paper that he/she posted supports what I'm saying.

A natural interpretation of evolution is an impossible fantasy.

Again, there's evidence of evolution but there's not a shred of evidence that supports a natural interpretation of the evidence.

What you and others do is present evidence of evolution but no evidence to support your interpretation.

There's a natural interpretation of evolution and an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. Just because evolution occurred, doesn't mean it refutes intelligent design in any way.

A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy that belongs in middle earth. I have presented overwhelming evidence that supports an intelligent design interpretation of the evidence. You haven't presented a shred of evidence that supports your interpretation.

a reply to: neoholographic

You are just repeating more lies and failed to refute a single point I made. Evidence is not up for interpretation. That's one of the single biggest lies you guys repeat.

A natural interpretation of evolution is an impossible fantasy.

Then back it up with evidence and show me how you tested that claim. You are completely unable to give a single example of anything proved to be irreducibly complex. You use pure speculation, not evidence.

There's a natural interpretation of evolution and an intelligent design interpretation of evolution.

No, dumbass, there is ONE theory of evolution.

Just because evolution occurred, doesn't mean it refutes intelligent design in any way.

Who claimed that? Another ignorant straw man. Evolution is separate from origin or life or intelligent design.

I have presented overwhelming evidence that supports an intelligent design interpretation of the evidence.

Nope, you posted the same ignorant fallacies you have been posting on here for years. Funny how you have no refutation to anything I said, essentially just finger waving and denial. You made a horrible unconvincing argument. Deal with it.

a reply to: Barcs

My evidence is clearly overwhelming and supports an intelligent design interpretation of evolution. You're stuck in an evolution vs. intelligent design debate because you're a believer in evolution. You don't know anything about science. There's evidence, then there's the interpretation of the evidence. This occurs all the time in science and usually the strongest interpretations of the evidence win out. You said:

You are just repeating more lies and failed to refute a single point I made. Evidence is not up for interpretation. That's one of the single biggest lies you guys repeat.

This clearly shows you don't know what you're talking about.

There's evidence for Gravity but science is still debating different interpretations of the evidence.

Some say gravity is a fundamental force, some say gravitons exist, some say they don't, some say gravity is an emergent property while others say it's connected to the entropy of entanglement.

Look at time. There's different interpretations of time. Some say time is an illusion. Others say time is fundamental. Some say time is due to entropy. Others say there must have been a mirror universe on the other side of the big bang where time runs backwards to ours and Scientist are carrying out tests this summer looking for evidence of a mirror universe.

Look at Quantum Mechanics. There's a gazillion different interpretations of the evidence.

There's Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bayesian, DeBroglie-Bohm, Transactional interpretation, Many histories, objective collapse and more!

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. this isn't an evolution vs. intelligent design debate. This debate is about the best interpretation of the evidence for evolution. Let me repeat:

THERE'S NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE FANTASY THAT EVOLUTION OCCURRED NATURALLY!

A natural interpretation of evolution makes no sense

originally posted by: neoholographic
My evidence is clearly overwhelming and supports an intelligent design interpretation of evolution.

You literally posted ZERO evidence supporting that.

There's evidence for Gravity but science is still debating different interpretations of the evidence.

NO. There is one explanation of gravity, which is space-time being warped by the matter that takes up space, causing mass to attract other mass. There is no other interpretation. Interpretation only comes into play with what is NOT known, not with testable evidence.

Some say gravity is a fundamental force, some say gravitons exist, some say they don't, some say gravity is an emergent property while others say it's connected to the entropy of entanglement.

Those aren't interpretations of evidence, they are opinions based on what is not yet known and can't yet be determined because it's NOT testable yet. How do you not even realize that? Evidence is testable. Once again you demonstrate you don't even grasp the scientific method you hate so much. If you want to say that evolution has interpretations, then you aren't actually talking about evolution, you are talking about naturalism or what we don't know about the origin of life.

There's Copenhagen, Many Worlds, Bayesian, DeBroglie-Bohm, Transactional interpretation, Many histories, objective collapse and more!

LOL! Again, you appeal to ignorance. We don't know a LOT about QM, that's why there are many interpretations. None of those are scientific theories like evolution, you are comparing apples to oranges.

THERE'S NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE FANTASY THAT EVOLUTION OCCURRED NATURALLY!

In order to say this you would need to show that genetic mutations don't happen naturally. Problem is we see it in nature constantly and they are random, each time a cell replicates. You can't explain a random occurrence with an intelligent designer. It makes no sense. If you want to say life was designed to evolve, you need evidence, not pure speculation based on unknowns.

a reply to: neoholographic

You're the one who doesn't know science. You're like an over inflated balloon ready to pop. You have no evidence. You have no research. You have no data. All you have is your own misguided opinion.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists (yes, they are REAL scientists - not bloviating windbags like you):

www.ucsusa.org...

Section 4: Why Intelligent Design is not Science

The intelligent design movement is exceptionally good at creating false controversies and misconceptions. Yet their basic claims are easily debunked.

There is scientific controversy over evolution: There is no debate about evolution among the vast majority of scientists, and no credible alternative scientific theory exists. Debates within the community are about specific mechanisms within evolution, not whether evolution occurred.

Structures found in nature are too complex to have evolved step-by-step through natural selection [the concept of "irreducible complexity"1]: Natural selection does not require that all structures have the same function or even need to be functional at each step in the development of an organism.

Intelligent design is a scientific theory: A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.

Intelligent design is based on the scientific method:Intelligent design might base its ideas on observations in the natural world, but it does not test them in the natural world, or attempt to develop mechanisms (such as natural selection) to explain their observations.

Most scientists are atheists and believe only in the material world: Such accusations are neither fair nor true. The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question.

You have absolutely ZERO evidence to support your warped beliefs. ZERO.

a reply to: neoholographic

And moving right along with real evidence (real research, real work! how about that!!),
www.millerandlevine.com...

And guess what? There's a real bibliography (that's a list of references).


www.millerandlevine.com...

In the case of the flagellum, the assertion of irreducible complexity means that a minimum number of protein components, perhaps 30, are required to produce a working biological function. By the logic of irreducible complexity, these individual components should have no function until all 30 are put into place, at which point the function of motility appears. What this means, of course, is that evolution could not have fashioned those components a few at a time, since they do not have functions that could be favored by natural selection. As Behe wrote: " . . . natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working" (Behe 2002), and an irreducibly complex system does not work unless all of its parts are in place. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, and therefore, it must have been designed. Case closed.

Answering the Argument

The assertion that cellular machines are irreducibly complex, and therefore provide proof of design, has not gone unnoticed by the scientific community. A number of detailed rebuttals have appeared in the literature, and many have pointed out the poor reasoning of recasting the classic argument from design in the modern language of biochemistry (Coyne 1996; Miller 1996; Depew 1998; Thornhill and Ussery 2000). I have suggested elsewhere that the scientific literature contains counter-examples to any assertion that evolution cannot explain biochemical complexity (Miller 1999, 147), and other workers have addressed the issue of how evolutionary mechanisms allow biological systems to increase in information content (Schneider 2000; Adami, Ofria, and Collier 2000).

The most powerful rebuttals to the flagellum story, however, have not come from direct attempts to answer the critics of evolution. Rather, they have emerged from the steady progress of scientific work on the genes and proteins associated with the flagellum and other cellular structures. Such studies have now established that the entire premise by which this molecular machine has been advanced as an argument against evolution is wrong – the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. As we will see, the flagellum – the supreme example of the power of this new "science of design" – has failed its most basic scientific test. Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.

And before you post your hogwash jpgs and lousy analysis, please note the operative words in the above quotes:

EVIDENCE, derived from genuine

RESEARCH

and real DATA.

Please don't bother to respond unless you are prepared to present the same.

a reply to: Barcs

Your post is supporting what I said.

The problem here is, atheist and materialist have used evolution to support their belief system. So when you talk about evolution, you say evolution vs. intelligent design or evolution vs. creationism.

That's just nonsense.

I have never said intelligent design replaces evolution. To me, intelligent design is an interpretation of evolution just like Copenhagen or many worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

A 5th grader can understand this.

The reason you can't is because you think your belief owns evolution. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It can't occur as I and others have demonstrated over and over again.

There's a natural interpretation of evolution and an intelligent design interpretation of evolution.

Just posting evidence that evolution occurred means nothing. If you're going to say it occurred naturally, you have to provide evidence.

Darwinist know how weak their position is, so they say,"Anything can happen over long periods of time."

This is because they have no evidence that a natural interpretation of evolution can occur. So they're basically saying, a natural interpretation is impossible but because of the long periods of time, anything is possible.

There's not a shred of evidence that supports a natural interpretation of evolution.

There's not a shred of evidence that the universe can occur naturally and that's why more Scientist are turning to Panpsychism .

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

The universe may be conscious, say prominent scientists

A proto-consciousness field theory could replace the theory of dark matter, one physicist states.

bigthink.com...

DNA encodes the instructions for proteins. DNA also is the blueprint for all life. This blueprint tells the parts how to come together to form everything from molecular machines with 100 proteins to the vertebrae of a Dinosaur.

There's zero evidence that these parts evolve to work together.

It's like going into a factory and seeing a machine that carries out a specific task. This machine was designed and if you reduce the machine to all of it's parts, it will not magically reassemble.

Evolution describes a collection of parts that work perfectly together to carry out specific functions. These parts come together and work. There's no small, successive steps over time. These parts come together because they were designed that way.

Explain how nature just randomly created all of these parts that just happen to work together on a specialized task?

It's like a modular home design. You build these different parts, and when you put them together they fit because it was designed that way.

Lay out the evidence that shows random mutations can produce all of these parts that just work when they come together to carry out specific tasks. Why do these parts work together at all?

A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy.

Evolution is the modification of these parts that work together. This modification works over time and these whole systems can be expressed differently in different species. But the proteins and the way the parts just work together to form a whole is the result of intelligent design.

Darwin even realized this. He saw slight changes to the whole then came up with the theory of evolution. He said:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”

Hey Darwin, I've found numerous cases.

Again, Darwin saw slight modifications of the whole but he didn't know at the time about the complex structures that come together as a whole and work together to carry out specific tasks.

These complex systems don't need slight modifications in order to work together.

Ribosome: The ribosome is a multi-part machine responsible for translating the genetic instructions during the assembly of proteins. According to Craig Venter, a widely respected biologist, the ribosome is “an incredibly beautiful complex entity” which requires a minimum of 53 proteins. Bacterial cells may contain up to 100,000 ribosomes, and human cells may contain millions. Biologist Ada Yonath, who won the Nobel Prize for her work on ribosomes, observes that they are “ingeniously designed for their functions.”

Here's another one:

ATP Synthase: ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is the primary energy-carrying molecule in all cells. In many organisms, it is generated by a protein-based molecular machine called ATP synthase. This machine is composed of two spinning rotary motors connected by an axle. As it rotates, bumps on the axle push open other protein subunits, providing the mechanical energy needed to generate ATP. In the words of cell biologist David Goodsell, “ATP synthase is one of the wonders of the molecular world.”

evolutionnews.org...

1. How did random mutations create all of these parts that just work together? If evolution has no purpose or direction then how in the world did a random process create all of these parts that just happened to work together to carry out specific tasks?

2. Where's the evolution of these parts trying to work together? If you have a molecular machine made up of 50 proteins that has to be positioned in the right way, where is the slight, successive evolution where it tries 40 ways before the right one or 20 ways before the right one?

3. Why would all of these different parts come together at all?

Again, Intelligent design is the design of many parts that come together in complex ways and carry out specific tasks. Evolution is the modification of these wholes over time.

Look at some of these machines at work!



A natural interpretation of evolution is PURE FANTASY!

Ask yourself, Why would these parts come together as a whole to carry out a specific tasks if randomly created? Why would these parts work together at all?

THIS IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN

a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, the YouTube scientist has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there's a big kahuna in the sky orchestrating everything from your bugs to dark matter and black holes. What a guy (or gal)!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, the YouTube scientist has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there's a big kahuna in the sky orchestrating everything from your bugs to dark matter and black holes. What a guy (or gal)!

This reply just might prove the huge black hole and a lot of dark matter of your reality.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes, the YouTube scientist has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there's a big kahuna in the sky orchestrating everything from your bugs to dark matter and black holes. What a guy (or gal)!

This reply just might prove the huge black hole and a lot of dark matter of your reality.

I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

originally posted by: neoholographic
The problem here is, atheist and materialist have used evolution to support their belief system. So when you talk about evolution, you say evolution vs. intelligent design or evolution vs. creationism.

No, it's because CREATIONISTS are almost ALWAYS the ones fighting evolution to support their faith. They never have logical arguments or evidence to support their position. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, nor do atheists claim it supports their "belief." They claim it is SCIENCE because idiots constantly attack it with lies and misunderstandings.

I have never said intelligent design replaces evolution. To me, intelligent design is an interpretation of evolution just like Copenhagen or many worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

No, intelligent design is an idea SEPARATE from evolution. It's not an interpretation of it. QM is not a scientific theory. Stop the invalid analogies. What you are saying is more like, "I support the intelligent falling interpretation of gravity," or "I support the karma interpretation of germ theory." It's nonsensical.

The reason you can't is because you think your belief owns evolution. A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It can't occur as I and others have demonstrated over and over again.

You have never demonstrated this. I clearly refuted you and you still haven't even addressed the post I referenced, you just keep deflecting.

Just posting evidence that evolution occurred means nothing. If you're going to say it occurred naturally, you have to provide evidence.

If you are suggesting that genetic mutations and natural selection are not part of nature, I'd LOVE to see your evidence. Again, evolution isn't the origin of life so stop equivocating it with naturalism. They are 2 different things.

There's not a shred of evidence that supports a natural interpretation of evolution.

There's not a shred of evidence that the universe can occur naturally and that's why more Scientist are turning to Panpsychism .

There's not a shred of evidence for an intelligent designer. LMFAO! Your standards are pathetically weak. You embrace one philosophy over the other but have nothing to support your position.

Evolution describes a collection of parts that work perfectly together to carry out specific functions. These parts come together and work. There's no small, successive steps over time. These parts come together because they were designed that way.

Oh, all of sudden your argument changes. LOL! I thought you agreed with evolution but took the "ID" interpretation... but now you just denying evolution as a whole. The sheer dishonesty from you is off the charts. So basically you just proved yourself a liar. Congrats.

Hey Darwin, I've found numerous cases.

You haven't found a single one and LMAO @ evolutionnews as a science source. I can't do this anymore. It's like arguing with a brick wall.

originally posted by: Barcs


If you are suggesting that genetic mutations and natural selection are not part of nature, I'd LOVE to see your evidence.

So animals adapt to the environment and are subject to natural selection. Who's the super-specie so far? Still every animal I know of dies. But that's nature.