Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

a reply to: cooperton

I will refute your examples one at a time now.

1. Skunk.

Tons upon tons of other carnivores have those anal sacs and they don't all smell as bad as a skunk. Many just function as scent glands and they use it to mark territory, not as a defense against predators. Skunks got lucky and have the right chemical combo and it stuck. This isn't some magical instance where both glands suddenly appeared at once with the right chemicals fully intact. They have existed in carnivore mammals for millions of years, skunks just have slightly different chemicals.

Weasels, ferrets, minks, otters, martens, and badgers are all in the same family and all have smelly spray, the skunk just has an extreme version of it. It clearly evolved from an ancestor with a less potent smell, rather than a sudden fully assembled skunk spray system at once. Some animals even spray a scent that smells like vanilla. There are tons of variations on anal glands and scents sprayed by them.

owenstripedskunk.weebly.com...

So that example is completely false. You have done absolutely nothing to show that the feature could not have possibly evolved in incremental fashion, in fact everything we know about mammals shows otherwise and ironically this is good example OF incremental evolution.

I'll be back for the next one later. Your entire argument here is assuming that because certain systems are complex today that they were formed from sudden assemblies of parts, but that is easily debunked by looking at ancestors and other organisms in the family today.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Just found the time to finish watching the video, very interesting and thought provoking to be sure. Thank you for sharing.

originally posted by: Aryabhata
a reply to: Raggedyman

source i read said those bones are for penis control, even though we've never seen them procreate.
on a side note, Why act like that? Do you react that way to anyone who questions or differs from your beliefs that way? or just when they can not look you in the eye?
www.icr.org...

This is a common misconception. The term "vestigial" in biology, does not mean useless. It means it had a different ancestral function, one that has been reduced or altered. This is indeed evidence in support of evolution when scientists can match them to earlier organisms.

Creationists like ICR can't refute that, so they instead argue the straw man that they cannot be vestigial, because they have functions today. But like pretty much all of their arguments, it is easily shown to be fallacious or flawed.

The simple conclusion in this discussion is as follows:

Science asks questions that might never be answered, and religion preaches answers that may never be questioned.

Most Christians entice non-Christians to church with a pancake breakfast and other similar gentle tactics, which is very Christian in nature.

However, trying to convince a non-Christian they're on the wrong path by asking about a person's basis for their philosophical grounding--and then picking it apart and criticizing it--is about as un-Christian as it gets. It's no different from an Islamist extremist telling you to convert to Islam (or else) because your life depends on it.

What a bucket of hogwash.

a reply to: TheTruthRocks

However, trying to convince a non-Christian they're on the wrong path by asking about a person's basis for their philosophical grounding--and then picking it apart and criticizing it--is about as un-Christian as it gets

Actually that is 100% christian...

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
The simple conclusion in this discussion is as follows:

Science asks questions that might never be answered, and religion preaches answers that may never be questioned.

Most Christians entice non-Christians to church with a pancake breakfast and other similar gentle tactics, which is very Christian in nature.

However, trying to convince a non-Christian they're on the wrong path by asking about a person's basis for their philosophical grounding--and then picking it apart and criticizing it--is about as un-Christian as it gets. It's no different from an Islamist extremist telling you to convert to Islam (or else) because your life depends on it.

What a bucket of hogwash.

Mostly correct. However, Creationists are not Christian. It is a cult. They use Christianity as cover to entice people into a world of lies. Cooperton, Neo and the rest of the crowd have no investment in Christianity. The Bible is a prop upon which they deliver their goods. If I believed in the supernatural, which I don't, I would call for an exorcist. Creationism is no different than other satanic cults. They thrive on lies and deceit. When you fall for the lies, then you're under their control. You are outside of the norm, you're dependent on them for all your information. You ask questions. They tell you lies. They also are not immune to cleaning out your pocketbook.

People think that cults are just a bunch of religious nut cases. This is a common mistake people make thinking that cults are purely religious groups. The modern definition of a mind control cult refers to all groups that use mind control and the devious recruiting techniques that this article exposes. The belief system of a religion is often warped to become a container for these techniques, but it is the techniques themselves that make it a cult. In a free society people can believe what they want, but most people would agree that it is wrong for any one to try to trick and control people.

Cults that use a belief system as their base are very common. Their belief system could be standard Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other of the world religions, or they may have invented their own belief system. What makes them a cult is the fact that they use mind control, not what they believe.

A cult needs to recruit and operate using deception. Why? Because if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the truth from you until they think you are ready to accept it.

Deception. Lies. Fraud.

A real life example:

Youngstown, Ohio, students are learning creationism in school with materials from a Islamic, Holocaust-denying group accused of being a sex cult. A curriculum map (PDF) recommends teachers in this public school district show a creationist video, Cambrian Fossils and the Creation of Species, as part of 10th-grade science education.

The video claims that the Cambrian Explosion “totally invalidates the theory of evolution.” The Cambrian Explosion was a time period, nearly 550 million years ago, where, over the next tens of millions of years, the number of species on Earth experienced a (relatively) rapid expansion by evolutionary standards. Christian creationists regularly point to this explosion of life as evidence for creation by God and against evolution.

Blink and you’d miss the Islamic connection in the video. A black screen flashes for less than one second that says “this film is based on the works of Harun Yahya.” In the right corner, there’s a gold bubble that says, “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” in Arabic. Harun Yahya, whom The Daily Beast has covered before, is a pseudonym for Adnan Oktar, a creationist cult leader and Islamic televangelist who owns Turkey’s A9 TV channel. Yahya (along with his followers) is the author of hundreds books, including an 800-page Atlas of Creation, and another (PDF), which Oktar has now disavowed, titled The Holocaust Deception: The Hidden Story of Nazi-Zionist Collaboration and the Inner Story of the Hoax of “Jewish Holocaust.”

a reply to: Barcs

to take this further, and in a slightly different direction;
many mammals have anal glands that not only do not produce skunk-type scents, but are actively not great for that animal - my ex used to have to squeeze her pet dog's anal glands frequently because they got full of pus and yuck.
And that's not just her dog being ill, from what i understand it's a pretty common thing that many larger breeds need.

what sort of designer goes "oh yeah i got these glands over here and they're working good let's just chuck them in all these similar animals oh wait it's giving these ones problems eh too bad i'm off to make some more beetles"
?

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420


I don't think OP mentioned any type of god figure once in his or her post. Triggered much?

So if not "any kind of god figure", then what? Stop hiding behind the curtain, we all know what's behind it.

if Darwin himself recognized the potential for his theory to be disproved, i think it's scientifically prudent to at least entertain the idea that we have become "satisfied" with the wrong explanation. to just yell back "oh what so you think GOD did it; you dolt!?" doesn't address the issue of irreducible complexity. which would invalidate the theory of evolution, and doesn't in any way point to divine intervention.

That is the way science works. Darwin proposed an hypothesis (syntax may have been looser in his day, he may have used the word 'theory' where today we use the word 'hypothesis' - I don't care to argue the point). One of the main concepts of an hypothesis is the idea of testability - every hypothesis must be testable. In addition to showing the evidence FOR the conclusions which led to the hypothesis, the proposer must also show what would prove the hypothesis wrong. That is what Darwin did. Not because he doubted his conclusions, but because it is the CORRECT WAY TO OPERATE IN A SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

And it is true, if you can find a irreducibly complex mechanism, just one, then evolution is wrong - at least to the extent that that instance is not accounted for. Evolution is also demonstrated at least uncertain if you can identify another method that explains the diversity of life on this planet as well as or better than evolution. Remember that Darwin's ideas are just part of the 'Theory of Evolution', and that Darwin didn't 'invent' evolution. Darwin 'just' provided an explanation of how evolution worked and that after 150 years nothing has come close replacing Darwin's model. Things like punctuated equilibrium expanded upon it, but do not invalidate it.

And no, no one has found an actual case of irreducible complexity - if they had they would already be hanging their Nobel Prize certificate on their wall.

Evolution vs Creationism is a false dichotomy.

Maybe so, if you split hairs fine enough, but "Intelligent Design" vs "Creationism" is smoke and mirrors.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
Adaptation is not evolution , Everything adapts to their environment if the environment changes so do the species in that environment - Why where the Dinosaurs so large ? Because the World had a lot more Oxygen at the time as the oxygen became less species got smaller . That's not evolution that's adaptation .

I stick to my theory that Humans are transplanted from a dying Mars .

I agree. And before anybody asks the logical follow on question : its turtles all the way down.

originally posted by: continuousThunder
a reply to: Barcs

to take this further, and in a slightly different direction;
many mammals have anal glands that not only do not produce skunk-type scents, but are actively not great for that animal - my ex used to have to squeeze her pet dog's anal glands frequently because they got full of pus and yuck.
And that's not just her dog being ill, from what i understand it's a pretty common thing that many larger breeds need.

what sort of designer goes "oh yeah i got these glands over here and they're working good let's just chuck them in all these similar animals oh wait it's giving these ones problems eh too bad i'm off to make some more beetles"
?

Very true. My ex-roommate had a chocolate lab and he had to squeeze those glands out once every few months. Pretty nasty stuff. This highlights the critical flaw in the OP's reasoning when he says that these traits can't exist with minimal function or no function. This happens all over the animal kingdom. Features become useless or have reduced function over time, or lay dormant for millions of years until a mutation happens that slightly changes it and gives the organism an advantage. He assumes either FULL function or NO function in all traits and that's ridiculous.

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
Why where the Dinosaurs so large ? Because the World had a lot more Oxygen at the time as the oxygen became less species got smaller . That's not evolution that's adaptation .

Except for that not being at all true. Highest levels of atmospheric oxygen occurred during the Carboniferous Period which was from~ 298 MA before present to ~260 MA before present. Long before dinosaurs came into existence. Sure there were large creatures like 10 ft long millipedes and dragonflies w 3 foot wingspans. However, when the dinosaurs were alive, there was a fluctuation in.O2 levels ranging from about half of what we see today to roughly what we have currently.

I stick to my theory that Humans are transplanted from a dying Mars .

I think that would be more of a let Hypothesis than a theory. Theories have evidence to support them in a scientific context.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

I will refute your examples one at a time now.

1. Skunk.

Tons upon tons of other carnivores have those anal sacs and they don't all smell as bad as a skunk. Many just function as scent glands and they use it to mark territory, not as a defense against predators. Skunks got lucky and have the right chemical combo and it stuck. This isn't some magical instance where both glands suddenly appeared at once with the right chemicals fully intact. They have existed in carnivore mammals for millions of years, skunks just have slightly different chemicals.

skunk spray is a perfect combination that would humble the chemists at DOW. The scent is potent and enduring. Not to mention the dispensing mechanism is also something taken for granted. But sure, let's just say it's like you say and:

"they have existed in mammals for millions of years.." (source?)

You still need the correct neural circuits that allow the skunk to use this as a defense mechanism. You take this for granted. Without the right neural circuits to release it during times of fear or defense, this potent smell combination is either going to be inert, or constantly leaking out noxious smell. New neural circuits have never been found to occur from mutations. You just assume and have faith that it can. Even if new neural circuits did occur by mutations, how would it be able to correctly wire the fear centers in the brain to the anal glands to elicit a proper release during times of fear?

Therefore the problem still remains. Pointing to other animals that have a similar mechanism is not proof either, because they exhibit the same irreducibly complex dilemma as the skunk.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

I will refute your examples one at a time now.

1. Skunk.

Tons upon tons of other carnivores have those anal sacs and they don't all smell as bad as a skunk. Many just function as scent glands and they use it to mark territory, not as a defense against predators. Skunks got lucky and have the right chemical combo and it stuck. This isn't some magical instance where both glands suddenly appeared at once with the right chemicals fully intact. They have existed in carnivore mammals for millions of years, skunks just have slightly different chemicals.

skunk spray is a perfect combination that would humble the chemists at DOW. The scent is potent and enduring. Not to mention the dispensing mechanism is also something taken for granted. But sure, let's just say it's like you say and:

"they have existed in mammals for millions of years.." (source?)

You still need the correct neural circuits that allow the skunk to use this as a defense mechanism. You take this for granted. Without the right neural circuits to release it during times of fear or defense, this potent smell combination is either going to be inert, or constantly leaking out noxious smell. New neural circuits have never been found to occur from mutations. You just assume and have faith that it can. Even if new neural circuits did occur by mutations, how would it be able to correctly wire the fear centers in the brain to the anal glands to elicit a proper release during times of fear?

Therefore the problem still remains. Pointing to other animals that have a similar mechanism is not proof either, because they exhibit the same irreducibly complex dilemma as the skunk.

Again, you ignore that small adaptions occur incrementally over millions and billions of years to get to how an animal is TODAY. Being irreducibly complex does not occur over night. It takes so long that the human mind has a hard time visualizing exactly how long millions and billions of years actually is which is why some people have a hard time grasping the concept.

We can see these types of adaption on a small scale in insects and viruses. Flu viruses mutate every year to fight against vaccinations. How does it occur? A vaccination is created and kills most of the viruses. The stronger viruses survive and replicate thus creating an entire new strain that is resistant to the vaccine.

The same thing happens with all living creatures. They are constantly adapting and evolving based on their environment whether it is weather or predatory threats. The animal with the mutation survives and breeds their characteristics in the offspring. As these small changes occur over millennia you are left with the animals / organisms that we can see today. A million years from now, scientist may be looking at something like a polar or grizzly bear in complete disbelief how such an animal existed much like how we may look at a Saber Tooth Tiger or Mammoth.

The skunk examples that myself and others is perfectly logical in terms how a skunk would have evolved from other weasels and mammals all of which also have smelly anal glands.

We can sit here all day giving other examples.

originally posted by: Edumakated

Again, you ignore that small adaptions occur incrementally over millions and billions of years to get to how an animal is TODAY. Being irreducibly complex does not occur over night. It takes so long that the human mind has a hard time visualizing exactly how long millions and billions of years actually is which is why some people have a hard time grasping the concept.

We can see these types of adaption on a small scale in insects and viruses. Flu viruses mutate every year to fight against vaccinations. How does it occur? A vaccination is created and kills most of the viruses. The stronger viruses survive and replicate thus creating an entire new strain that is resistant to the vaccine.

The same thing happens with all living creatures. They are constantly adapting and evolving based on their environment whether it is weather or predatory threats. The animal with the mutation survives and breeds their characteristics in the offspring. As these small changes occur over millennia you are left with the animals / organisms that we can see today. A million years from now, scientist may be looking at something like a polar or grizzly bear in complete disbelief how such an animal existed much like how we may look at a Saber Tooth Tiger or Mammoth.

The skunk examples that myself and others is perfectly logical in terms how a skunk would have evolved from other weasels and mammals all of which also have smelly anal glands.

We can sit here all day giving other examples.

Organisms adapt, they don't evolve though. Adaptations are set within a particular boundary of the genetic code. Take for example antibiotic resistance in microbes. It was thought to be a prime example of evolution, but in actuality, the antibiotic-resistant strand was increasing the expression of a detox pump that was already present in the genome: Source. This is not evolution. Organisms do not evolve. We have never observed an organism change into another organism. Finches remain finches, moths remain moths, and so on. Millions of fruit fly generations artificially selected to try to evolve these things to no avail.

Adaptations happen, but to assume they can culminate in an organism changing into another organism is not founded in the scientific literature. It is faith-based.

Any thoughts on how neural circuits can be wired through random mutations Involving the correct inhibitory, modulatory, and excitatory neuronal connections to allow proper functioning from the brain to the gland? This stuff can't happen through random mutations.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Edumakated

Again, you ignore that small adaptions occur incrementally over millions and billions of years to get to how an animal is TODAY. Being irreducibly complex does not occur over night. It takes so long that the human mind has a hard time visualizing exactly how long millions and billions of years actually is which is why some people have a hard time grasping the concept.

We can see these types of adaption on a small scale in insects and viruses. Flu viruses mutate every year to fight against vaccinations. How does it occur? A vaccination is created and kills most of the viruses. The stronger viruses survive and replicate thus creating an entire new strain that is resistant to the vaccine.

The same thing happens with all living creatures. They are constantly adapting and evolving based on their environment whether it is weather or predatory threats. The animal with the mutation survives and breeds their characteristics in the offspring. As these small changes occur over millennia you are left with the animals / organisms that we can see today. A million years from now, scientist may be looking at something like a polar or grizzly bear in complete disbelief how such an animal existed much like how we may look at a Saber Tooth Tiger or Mammoth.

The skunk examples that myself and others is perfectly logical in terms how a skunk would have evolved from other weasels and mammals all of which also have smelly anal glands.

We can sit here all day giving other examples.

Organisms adapt, they don't evolve though. Adaptations are set within a particular boundary of the genetic code. Take for example antibiotic resistance in microbes. It was thought to be a prime example of evolution, but in actuality, the antibiotic-resistant strand was increasing the expression of a detox pump that was already present in the genome: Source. This is not evolution. Organisms do not evolve. We have never observed an organism change into another organism. Finches remain finches, moths remain moths, and so on. Millions of fruit fly generations artificially selected to try to evolve these things to no avail.

Adaptations happen, but to assume they can culminate in an organism changing into another organism is not founded in the scientific literature. It is faith-based.

Any thoughts on how neural circuits can be wired through random mutations Involving the correct inhibitory, modulatory, and excitatory neuronal connections to allow proper functioning from the brain to the gland? This stuff can't happen through random mutations.

You can see where some organisms have clearly evolved from other organisms. Again, the time scale is too large so it isn't like you are going to find this elusive missing link. For example, there are fish that can leave water and walk/survive on land for a few days.

Snakes clearly evolved from lizards. We have skinks who have legs that are practically shriveling up.

Animals learn how to control bodily functions. Some people can roll their tongue, others cannot. Why? There is some debate if this ability is genetic or not, but it is clear that it is a function that only a portion people can do. So how do some people have this ability and others do not?

originally posted by: Edumakated

You can see where some organisms have clearly evolved from other organisms. Again, the time scale is too large so it isn't like you are going to find this elusive missing link. For example, there are fish that can leave water and walk/survive on land for a few days.

Snakes clearly evolved from lizards. We have skinks who have legs that are practically shriveling up.

Animals learn how to control bodily functions. Some people can roll their tongue, others cannot. Why? There is some debate if this ability is genetic or not, but it is clear that it is a function that only a portion people can do. So how do some people have this ability and others do not?

Don't change topic. How could mutations create new neural circuits that manifest as new functions in an organism? Remember there needs to be inhibitory, modulatory, and excitatory neurons in the circuit to allows proper control of the function from the brain.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

I will refute your examples one at a time now.

1. Skunk.

Tons upon tons of other carnivores have those anal sacs and they don't all smell as bad as a skunk. Many just function as scent glands and they use it to mark territory, not as a defense against predators. Skunks got lucky and have the right chemical combo and it stuck. This isn't some magical instance where both glands suddenly appeared at once with the right chemicals fully intact. They have existed in carnivore mammals for millions of years, skunks just have slightly different chemicals.

skunk spray is a perfect combination that would humble the chemists at DOW. The scent is potent and enduring. Not to mention the dispensing mechanism is also something taken for granted. But sure, let's just say it's like you say and:

"they have existed in mammals for millions of years.." (source?)

You still need the correct neural circuits that allow the skunk to use this as a defense mechanism. You take this for granted. Without the right neural circuits to release it during times of fear or defense, this potent smell combination is either going to be inert, or constantly leaking out noxious smell. New neural circuits have never been found to occur from mutations. You just assume and have faith that it can. Even if new neural circuits did occur by mutations, how would it be able to correctly wire the fear centers in the brain to the anal glands to elicit a proper release during times of fear?

Therefore the problem still remains. Pointing to other animals that have a similar mechanism is not proof either, because they exhibit the same irreducibly complex dilemma as the skunk.

I knew you would come back with some weak ass excuse like that. Sorry, it's very obvious how a feature like that can develop over time. Funny how you ignored all information I gave you as usual and just went back to spewing your lies as if nothing I said mattered.

You cannot prove it is impossible to develop incrementally. You are just looking at the feature exactly as it is now and dishonestly working backwards in terms of addition of entirely NEW PARTS instead of changing of existing parts. As I said, the anal glands exist all over the animal kingdom. It's not that crazy to think one could slightly change to make it capable of storing different chemicals or spray further. There is absolutely nothing impossible about that, plus you completely discount neutral mutations.





IC is fake news, bro. Always has been. It's a complete straw man of evolution and how it works. Nobody has ever PROVED that any feature of any organism is irreducibly complex. Not ONCE. You just assume because it is complex today, that it can't happen and call it a day. It's dishonest.

originally posted by: Barcs
Nobody has ever PROVED that any feature of any organism is irreducibly complex. Not ONCE.

Do you still not know what irreducibly complex means?


Take out a heart, see if someone survives.
Take out the lungs, see if someone survives.
Take out the stomach, see if someone survives.
Take out the brain, see if someone survives.
Take out the skin, see if someone survives.
Take out the circulatory system, see if someone survives.

It is laughable to say that irreducible complexity has not been proven.

Take out parietal cells, see if digestion can occur.
Take out alveoli, see if oxygen can be transferred into the blood stream.
Take out myelin, see if neuronal impulses can still fire fast enough.
Take out actin, see if muscle can still contract.
Take out myosin, see if muscle can still contract.


Should I go on?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs
Nobody has ever PROVED that any feature of any organism is irreducibly complex. Not ONCE.

Do you still not know what irreducibly complex means?


Take out a heart, see if someone survives.
Take out the lungs, see if someone survives.
Take out the stomach, see if someone survives.
Take out the brain, see if someone survives.
Take out the skin, see if someone survives.
Take out the circulatory system, see if someone survives.

It is laughable to say that irreducible complexity has not been proven.

Take out parietal cells, see if digestion can occur.
Take out alveoli, see if oxygen can be transferred into the blood stream.
Take out myelin, see if neuronal impulses can still fire fast enough.
Take out actin, see if muscle can still contract.
Take out myosin, see if muscle can still contract.


Should I go on?

Irreducible complexity means it CANNOT develop incrementally and you haven't proved that about ANYTHING you listed.

Incremental development of features does not mean that you should be able to remove a major organ and still survive. This is as idiotic as it gets, I've refuted this blatant lie dozens of times, yet you still spew it. You literally think that evolution means sudden addition of fully formed organs all at once.

And of course, you ignore the refutations I posted.

IC is fake news, a fallacy and is irrelevant to evolution. Educate yourself, holy crap Kent.

a reply to: Barcs

Yeah, he keeps ignoring that even complex functions can develop incrementally over millennia. As many have pointed out, this is clearly observable in numerous species....

Another example I was thinking about are flying squirrels. They glide, more so than fly, but anyone who has observed squirrels can see why a subset of squirrels has extra skin to help them glide from tree to tree. One can also posit that this could very well develop into actual flying hundreds of thousands of years from now... kind of like maybe how bats evolved.