The Process of Evolution is evidence of irreducible complexity

a reply to: Barcs

Your whole post is just a childish rant that hasn't refuted anything that I've said. You said:

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.

First, this is the believers crutch. The crutch to your belief system is evolution, so you're desperate to separate evolution from intelligent design. Nobody I have talked to about intelligent design says it replaces evolution. It just interprets the evidence differently.

A natural interpretation makes no sense. It's a fantasy so of course you want it separate so you can just present evidence of evolution as if it supports your natural interpretation of evolution. It doesn't.

Telling a believer in evolution that a natural interpretation is asinine, is like telling a devout Muslim that the Mahdi doesn't live at the bottom of a well in Iran.

You use evolution to support a belief system and this is why you're desperate to seperate intelligent design from evolution.

Next you said, QM isn't a scientific theory. ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Quantum Mechanics is one of the most successful scientific theories we have and it gives us the modern world we live in.

At bottom, the entire computer industry is built on quantum mechanics. Modern semiconductor-based electronics rely on the band structure of solid objects. This is fundamentally a quantum phenomenon, depending on the wave nature of electrons, and because we understand that wave nature, we can manipulate the electrical properties of silicon. Mixing in just a tiny fraction of the right other elements changes the band structure and thus the conductivity; we know exactly what to add and how much to use thanks to our detailed understanding of the quantum nature of matter.

Stacking up layers of silicon doped with different elements allows us to make transistors on the nanometer scale. Millions of these packed together in a single block of material make the computer chips that power all the technological gadgets that are so central to modern life. Desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones, even small household appliances and kids' toys are driven by computer chips that simply would not be possible to make without our modern understanding of quantum physics.

www.forbes.com...

The fact you don't know Quantum Mechanics is a scientific theory is troubling to say the least. Here's the questions listed again that you failed to respond to:

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?

A natural interpretation of evolution makes no sense. Scientist Pierre Paul Grasse said this:

‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? … These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no “cause” to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]’?

Think about it.

These random process would have to generated all of these parts that come together as a complex whole and work together on a specific tasks. You can have a molecular machine with 100 different proteins or the vertebrae of a Dinosaur. These parts have to be the right size and shape and positioned at the right angle.

Why would a natural, random process create parts that just come together and work on a specific task?

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

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.

Do you only only how to talk gibberish or something? Try making a coherent argument or statement.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Your whole post is just a childish rant that hasn't refuted anything that I've said.

Stop lying. You still have not addressed the post I quoted.

First, this is the believers crutch. The crutch to your belief system is evolution, so you're desperate to separate evolution from intelligent design. Nobody I have talked to about intelligent design says it replaces evolution. It just interprets the evidence differently.

When you talk to mostly moronic creationists, of course they are going to say that. Evolution isn't a belief system. It's a scientific theory fully backed by evidence. Why do you keep changing your position? You keep saying you interpret evidence differently, but everything you are saying conflicts with the evidence.

A natural interpretation makes no sense. It's a fantasy so of course you want it separate so you can just present evidence of evolution as if it supports your natural interpretation of evolution. It doesn't.

Of course, because I'm defending EVOLUTION, not naturalism, dumbass. One can believe life was designed and that evolution is still a natural process as thoroughly demonstrated by evidence. If you are saying there is not, then you need evidence of an intelligent designer or design process that is testable with mechanisms and a model that makes accurate predictions. Sorry but claiming ID is completely unfounded. There is ZERO evidence suggesting that.

Telling a believer in evolution that a natural interpretation is asinine, is like telling a devout Muslim that the Mahdi doesn't live at the bottom of a well in Iran.

So you are cool with the karma interpretation of germ theory??? I'm sorry but your entire argument is blatantly dishonest and wrong.

You use evolution to support a belief system and this is why you're desperate to seperate intelligent design from evolution.

Nope. That's a lie. When have I ever argued that atheism is fact and supported by evolution??? I say that evolution is true regardless of what folks believe about god existing or not.

QM has nothing to do with evolution and ID. Stop the red herring nonsense. Interpretations only come into play for things we DON'T KNOW, not for evidence itself.

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?

This is pure ignorance. Why not look it up? We know exactly how genetic mutations occur. We know how natural selection works.

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?

Existing parts CHANGE, moron, they don't come into existence fully formed and dependent on one another. And your 3rd question is just retardedly stupid, I'm not even answering it.

A natural interpretation of evolution makes no sense. Scientist Pierre Paul Grasse said this:

WHO CARES? Everybody has an opinion. This is a fallacious appeal to authority. Stop quote mining. Demonstrate research that supports your position or STFU.

a reply to: Barcs

A long winded post that says nothing. Not a shred of evidence, just gibberish. You said:

Existing parts CHANGE, moron, they don't come into existence fully formed and dependent on one another. And your 3rd question is just retardedly stupid, I'm not even answering it.

Existing parts change? Where is the evidence that these existing parts change to work together? Where is the evidence that a random process can create all of these parts that just work together? They just happen to be the right size, the right size and positioned at the right angle.

Show me the evidence that these parts evolved overtime to work together in small steps. That's just nonsense and there's not a shred of evidence to support such a notion. These parts are designed to work together, there's no evolution needed.

It's just asinine to think that some random process created all of these parts that just happened to fit together in ways to carry out specific tasks.

Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?

The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwin’s time to the present. Although Darwin, Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have tried to explain how an eye could evolve, their solutions are clearly unsatisfactory. Many kinds of eyes exist, but no progression of eye designs from simple to complex can be produced in the natural or fossil world. Furthermore, the simplest ‘eye’, the eyespot, is not an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis; yet even it requires an enormously complex mechanism in order to function as a vision system.

The source of the design and evolution of the eye, Darwinists postulate, was a series of beneficial mutations that had to occur in appropriate unison in order to produce the set of structures required for eyes to function. The new mutation set, Darwinists argue, resulted in a superior structure compared to the old one, and this new and better eye improved the animals’ ability to compete against other forms of life. Some of the many problems with this conclusion were noted by Grassé in his discussion of Myrmelion (ant lion) anatomy:

‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? … These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no “cause” to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]’?

creation.com...

Here's more from Wiki:

The first fossils of eyes found to date are from the lower Cambrian period (about 540 million years ago).[8] The lower Cambrian had a burst of apparently rapid evolution, called the "Cambrian explosion".

en.wikipedia.org...

Where's the evidence of evolution? There's speculation on top of speculation. There's Darwinist saying it must be this or it must be that, but zero evidence.

The eye just shows up fully formed in the fossil record.

We're supposed to believe that random mutations just creates all of these parts that just come together and work? Why would this process create any parts that work together to carry out specific tasks?

Also, you had no clue about QM being a Scientific Theory. CREDIBILITY GONE!

Why would random mutations create any parts that work together as a whole on a specific task?

How could random mutations create 1 molecular machine with 50 different proteins, let alone all of the molecular machines and species we see today?

Why would a random process create any parts that work together at all?

Barcs, you're so wrong you want to be right.

a reply to: neoholographic

Your creation.com link has been thoroughly refuted already. You are beyond help, just spewing propaganda from religionists, rather than scientific research to support your "interpretation." You literally have nothing.

The eye just shows up fully formed in the fossil record.

Why even post a lie as blatantly false as that. Fully formed? You mean there is proof of an eye as complex as the modern human eye from from 500m years ago? I hope you have evidence to support that claim.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Barcs, you're so wrong you want to be right.

Then refute the evidence I posted and prove it. I know I'm right because my position is supported universally by the world leading scientists who make such determinations and do the actual research. You know, the same people that agree gravity, atomic theory and germ theory are valid and should be taught in the science curriculum. The world's most brilliant minds agree with it because there is TONS of evidence supporting it.

His claim about ID is not backed by any scientific research whatsoever. I keep challenging him to post supporting scientific research to back ID he can't do it. It's really sad. He's just asking "WHY" questions when there might not even be a "why." It's funny because no creationist can ever refute any research, nor can they provide research backing another explanation. I've been asking this for a decade, they make excuses every time and deflect with straw man arguments.

a reply to: Barcs

You haven't refuted anything because you can't. I keep listing these 3 questions and you keep ducking them. Let's try again:

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?

Is the 3rd time a charm or are you still trying to find out if Quantum Mechanics is a Scientific theory?

The fact is, a natural interpretation of evolution is PURE FANTASY!

Why would random mutations produce all of these parts that work together in everything from 53 protein molecular machines to the eye?

Why would random mutations produce any parts that work together?

It's a lie! The reason these parts work together is because they were designed that way. The genetic code makes natural selection efficient because it limits what it has to work with to 20 amino acids where some sequences reach the environment. These parts are DESIGNED to work together.

When I talked about the eye, I said:

The eye just shows up fully formed in the fossil record.

If I meant the human eye, I would have said so. Here's some of the parts of the eye that work together.

To fully appreciate why that is so requires a basic understanding of developmental biology. During development, cells divide, migrate, and differentiate into a wide variety of types. Throughout this process, the cells send chemical signals to their neighbors, and these signals cause proteins known as transcription factors (TF) to bind to genes in regulatory regions, which control the corresponding genes’ activity. The TFs bind to what are called transcription factor binding sites (TFBS), and the correct binding enables the genes to produce their proteins in the right cells at the right time in the right amount.

The evolution of additional components in the vertebrate eye requires that this network of intercellular signals, TFs, TFBS, chromatin remodeling, as well as many other details be dramatically altered, so that each developmental stage can progress correctly. For instance, the seemingly simple addition of a marginally focusing lens — that is to say, a lens that directs slightly more light onto a retina — requires a host of alterations:

1. Ectodermic tissue folds into a lens placode, which then forms a lens vesicle.

2. Cells in the lens vesicle differentiate into lens fibers, which elongate to produce the proper lens shape.

3. The lens fibers then undergo several key modifications, including tightly binding together, filling almost entirely with special refractive proteins called crystallins, developing special channels to receive nutrients, and destroying their organelles.

evolutionnews.org...

To say this has anything to do with random mutations is a joke. Here's more:

Even more steps are required for the improved image to be properly interpreted:

Feedback circuitry must be added to allow the lens to automatically refocus on images at different distances.

1. The retina has to be completely reengineered to process high-resolution images, including the addition of circuits to enable edge and motion detection.

2. The neural networks in the brain have to be rewired to properly interpret the pre-processed high-resolution images from the retina.

3. Higher-level brain functions must be enabled to identify different objects, i.e., dangerous ones such as a shark, and properly respond to them.

evolutionnews.org...

It's simply asinine to think random mutations can create all of these parts that work together. Why would random mutations create any parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks?

Like I said in my example of the hypothetical Poker hand environment, natural selection is only efficient because the code limits what it has to work with. Natural selection does nothing and is blind and if you give it too much it will be inefficient.

If I say, the code for my Poker environment will only allow 5 card combinations that are 2 pair up to a Royal Flush to reach the environment, then natural selection will be more efficient.

If I say all 5 card combinations can reach the environment, then that's adding around 2.4 million additional combinations to the environment and natural selection will be less efficient.

Natural selection is nothing and only means some traits will thrive and reproduce and others will not when they reach the environment.

That's the key. They reach the environment as fully formed parts and wholes that work together. Evolution is just small changes to these DESIGNED PARTS AND WHOLES once they reach the environment.

The reason why such an asinine concept like a natural interpretation of evolution is accepted, is because of belief. atheist, materialist, secularist or whatever ist you want to call them, use evolution to religiously support their belief. So they accept the absurd. They say random mutations can produce parts that come together as a complex whole to carry out specific tasks.

I mean, that's just nutty. It's shocking to anyone not blinded by belief.

originally posted by: neoholographic

‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? … These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no “cause” to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]’?

Answer it Barcs. Or stop Barcing.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
Barcs, you're so wrong you want to be right.

DITTO

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: neoholographic

‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? … These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no “cause” to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]’?

Answer it Barcs. Or stop Barcing.

Man, that's a great quote!