Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

a reply to: cooperton

Because it is correctly an amide bond. A peptide is connected by amide bonds. Yes they can be used interchangeably, but they are still aminde bonds. Cross linking in a protein or peptide is not an aminde usually. A chemist would know this. Its first year organic nomenclature.

So I am not back tracking. YOU are not a scienst. Chances are you teach science, to kids, in a religious school.

You are correct I made a mistake with amino acids vs base pairs. I am due my afternoon coffee, after not sleeping with a sick child to comfort. It however does not mean your paper shows you anything. Beyond what they thought in 1983.

Further If you really want to say someone is looking stupid. You are talking about Bisphosphoglycerate mutase (aka BPGM not 2,3-BPG (which is a chemical)

from the opening post

a reply to: cooperton

snip

So, if we can find examples of functions that rely on other functions, organs that relies on another organs, cells that rely on other cells, etc, then we can demonstrate clearly that evolutionary theory is invalid. The examples I am about to show are some of the countless mechanisms in biological organisms that fall under this category called "irreducibly complex".
snip

Irreducibly complex was a term coined by some IDiots, anyways the lies were exposed here. More about head IDiot michael behe here which includes him showing himself up in court. The irreducibly complex nonsense is taken apart moreso here oooh videos

So no, it's not time for us to start thinking past evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

So lets talk Peptide Bond Formation. It s a condensation reaction (meaning it will result in a water molecule being generated for every bond formed)

A chemist would know that every reaction (spontaneous or not) has an activation energy. The formation of a peptide to form an maide bond consumes energy. Said energy in a cell, is derived from ATP (Adenosine triphosphate). Anyone who has taken some biochemistry knows that ATP is what provides energy in the cell. There is nothing special, about the ATP requirement. This is simple thermodynamics. End of story. Bond formation (assembly) requires energy, in the cell this has evolved to be provided by ATP. Again your lack of education in sciences is showing.

a reply to: cooperton

Y'all might want to try reading up on the gene you are waving around here neighbour. Like I said you cited an old (1983) paper. Like I said, its not showing what you think it is.

Similarly I am not sure you know the difference between a gene, and an enzyme, or the chemicalwhich it makes.

So lets make it simple is BPGM the gene or the enzyme? Which chromosome is the gene found in for Homo sapiens?

originally posted by: contextual

Irreducibly complex was a term coined by some IDiots

Well then you must be the super-genius that has found a mechanism for how interdependent components could have evolved in synchrony! Please show me the empirical evidence that shows this possibility so I may go and change my mind.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Because it is correctly an amide bond. A peptide is connected by amide bonds. Yes they can be used interchangeably

Then why did you say this a couple pages back:

originally posted by: Noinden

A peptide, or more correctly AMIDE bond formation

You can't even keep up with your own head, let alone keep up with a conversation. You claimed my sources did not back up my claim, but they did. the information about bisphosophgylcerate mutase that I posted was only meant to show the base pair length, so yes, it showed exactly what I wanted to show. So did the other links. The rest of your posts are ramblings that have nothing to do with the conversation.

a reply to: cooperton

You've asked this I answered. IF you were a chemist you would know. QED You are not trained in chemistry Bryan.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You've asked this I answered. IF you were a chemist you would know. QED You are not trained in chemistry Bryan.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Get it together man. No one's out to get you.

The fact is, nucleic acid chains don't spontaneously polymerize into protein-coding length strands. It has never been observed. It does not happen. Evolution is a lie.

a reply to: cooperton

Thanks for confirming. You do not know wjhat you are talking about neighbour.'

SO lets make it easy for you, because you made it easy for me.

(a) You got uppity over me insisting that a bond between two amino acids, is most correctly an Aminde bond (it is), it is acceptable to call it a peptide bond. But since you decided to sya that its not an amide bond, I decided to go IUPAC on your arse.

(b) You just switched int talking about nucleic acids. Which is a non sequitur for the discussion of protien bonds.

(c) You don't understand Macromolecules.

(d) Nothing you have shown invalidatesw evolution. You and your cabal are stuck on abiogenesis, yet attacking Evolution. This illustrates your lack of critical thinking.

Cheers Bryan thans for playing.

Slan leat

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Thanks for confirming. You do not know wjhat you are talking about neighbour.'

I was referring to your paranoia about a guy named Bryan. It's freaky.

But since you decided to sya that its not an amide bond

I never said it wasn't an amide bond. I said it is more accurate to call a polymerizing polypeptide a peptide bond. That is true. This all started because I correctly cited a paper to support my claim that bisphosphoglycerate mutase has over 750 base pairs. Which I cited correctly.

You constantly have to side-track with appeals to semantics to avoid the fact that you are wrong.

a reply to: cooperton

No you balked at the idea. You said it was not an amide bond but a peptide one. Which means you have no back ground in chemistry. Which is evidenced by your illiteracy in the language

End of story.

a reply to: cooperton

When your wrong, semantic gymnastics is all you have left to fight with, and hope people will side with your perspective, if you can build a case that sounds plausible the crew that has a bias will always support it.

Still no explanation as to how random mutations can create parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

I was putting together a desk for my Nephew and it came with all of these parts that came together and built a beautiful desk.

How can random mutations create any parts that work together?

You have molecular machines with hundreds of parts or organisms with thousands of parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

A Modular Interpretation, which is an intelligent design interpretation of evolution is the only thing that makes sense.

Your limited thinking capacity - brought about by your own religion - is exposed in your example. I have said before, and this is scientifically proven, religion rots the brain.

However, using your infantile example, here is a suggested evolution of a desk species that you built for your nephew.

Caveman creates art, but the earthen floor of his cave is not rigid and the rock ledges are too rigid. He finds a plank of wood. This is the root origin of the desk taxa. Many other cavemen copy this idea and fine tune it to their own tasks. Desk species variation begins.

Later cavemen experience aching backs. One caveman raises the plank to a more comfortable working height with two supports at the ends. A new desk genera emerges. Different cavemen prefer different heights depending on their task, so within the kingdom of desks we already have several genera and many species.

And so on and so on. Each part of the desk is adapted and refined over time according to its task.

The desk did not arrive into the world fully formed and packaged, it evolved from its environment and conditions. For you and other creationists to live with such a shallow and narrow mind is frankly frightening. I feel a great pity for any children you have or may have, or that may come to you seeking knowledge.

a reply to: TerraLiga

The fact that all the versions of 'desks' or 'planks' (if you want to call them as such*) in your hypothetical story were created by intelligent beings doesn't bother you as you try to interpret these creations and the resulting gradual development from creating multiple different versions of 'desks' as 'evolution' ("evolved from its environment and conditions")? *: planks don't just lie around in nature either, they are created by humans, usually by harvesting wood from trees which is then processed/machined/shaped into a plank, otherwise, it's not called a "plank" (a flat piece of wood not deliberately shaped into a plank like that isn't called a plank).

After all, it's not the environment and conditions that is the primary cause of the creation of these 'desks' (in your hypothetical story).

I find it a bit odd for someone to invoke creation/engineering by intelligent beings in an analogy to explain or in an example of how evolution works and is caused exclusively by environmental conditions with no creation/engineering by intelligent beings being involved. Your analogy or example story contradicts your own proposal as to what happened in regards to the biomolecular machinery and technology that makes up life, or the observed design(s) in nature.

Just to be clear about my earlier footnote, here's the definition for "plank" that applies in the context you used it (from google):

1. a long, thin, flat piece of timber, used especially in building and flooring.

And "timber" in this context is:

wood prepared for use in building and carpentry.
or
a wooden beam or board used in building a house, ship, or other structure.

So yes, creation/engineering is involved in the production of planks. Planks are not produced by their environment (or natural processes on their own). And neither are desks for that matter. Otherwise, these words wouldn't apply to them (I take it you were referring to a naturally occuring flat piece of wood instead, but please use the right words then, also, it's besides the point I was making about what you referred to as "a suggested evolution of a desk species", "the root origin of the desk taxa", "Desk species variation", "A new desk genera" and "the kingdom of desks"; all rather inapplicable and confusing terms and usage of words because of trying to forcefit a really crappy analogy for or example of evolution). The word "prepared" above referring to processing the harvested wood by means of a process we call creation/engineering. Shaping something into the desired shape for further engineering projects, using something important the forces of nature do not have: foresight. Among other things but that's the most pertinent one.

It's almost like you're equating or conflating the change over time caused by creation/engineering with evolution. I know some people conveniently like to switch to the limited meaning for evolution as merely meaning "change over time" leaving out the topic of the causal factors of chance and the forces of nature (exclusively)* as opposed to creation/engineering by intelligent beings, allowing one to interpret changes over time caused by creation/engineering as "evolution" as well (as is so often done when the word "evolution" is used in historical views about how humans developed different versions of various creations and designs), but this is getting ridiculous.

*: as these causal factors are expressed in your expression "it evolved from its environment and conditions." When various versions of desks are created/engineered by intelligent beings, the phrase 'they evolved from their environment and conditions' does not apply. That should be obvious. These 2 things are directly opposed to one another. The causes referred to are notably different in these 2 different ways of expressing what happened and how the 'desks' came to be (by what means, by which cause or causes).

originally posted by: contextual
from the opening post

a reply to: cooperton

snip

So, if we can find examples of functions that rely on other functions, organs that relies on another organs, cells that rely on other cells, etc, then we can demonstrate clearly that evolutionary theory is invalid. The examples I am about to show are some of the countless mechanisms in biological organisms that fall under this category called "irreducibly complex".
snip

Irreducibly complex was a term coined by some IDiots, anyways the lies were exposed here. More about head IDiot michael behe here which includes him showing himself up in court. The irreducibly complex nonsense is taken apart moreso here oooh videos

So no, it's not time for us to start thinking past evolution.

The last video where components of biomolecular machinery known as proteins are represented by hexagonal shapes to tell a fanciful story that doesn't prove squat and only sounds plausible in the eyes of biased beholders who desperately want to have this storyline sound plausible in the eyes of other beholders as well, always makes me chuckle a bit. Perhaps it's because of what Michael Behe reminds people of in his response to that supposed refutation of his argument for design and what he actually has to say concerning the topic of "irreducible complexity" rather than the straw man argument often used when that subtopic is explained by those who want to argue a particular biomolecular machine or protein complex is not irreducibly complex. At 10:58 - 12:09 and 12:48 - 19:32 (especially his opening remark which is what the rest is based upon):

Btw, you already lost the argument when you used the propagandistic labels "IDiots" and "head IDiot". If truth, reason and rationality were on your side and you had any desire to be honest about the subject, you would not have to resort to the use of such propagandistic labels.

The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

Making Generalizations

Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people.
...
Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.
...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Hatred is a strong emotion exploited by propagandists. Loaded language is particularly effective in triggering it. There seems to be a nearly endless supply of nasty words that promote and exploit hatred toward particular racial, ethnic, or religious groups.

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid [whereislogic: i.e. idiotic]. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Funny how you managed all of those in such a short comment. Now the question remains, is it the effect of having been affected by others using these propaganda techniques, or are you doing it deliberately because you have come to know how effective propaganda is? Propaganda...it works!

Still not cool though.

a reply to: contextual

Maybe a recap of the actual argument for design vs the notion of evolution (first 30 minutes or so) and the topic of irreducible complexity (around 30 minutes) may be helpful for those wanting to avoid falling into the trap regarding the behaviour of fighting straw men regarding those subjects. For anyone who wants to chip in in this thread:

Here's some more about the subject that also shares some interesting anecdotes regarding the latest factual discoveries in biology regarding how the information or instructions for the production of proteins is stored in the genome of living organisms and the various design patterns recognizable in those details. The anecdotes I'm referring to starting at 35:15 with the most interesting stuff at 38:50 - 40:10 (most notably the ending of that last anecdote).

Another interesting anecdote at the very end there starting at 1:27:28.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You've asked this I answered. IF you were a chemist you would know. QED You are not trained in chemistry Bryan.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Get it together man. No one's out to get you.

The fact is, nucleic acid chains don't spontaneously polymerize into protein-coding length strands. It has never been observed. It does not happen. Evolution is a lie.

LMFAO!!!!

People are STILL repeating the same irreducible complexity lies despite STILL not being able to PROVE a single biological function could not arise naturally. I swear these clowns are just here to make theists look stupid. There is no way these arguments are even real. Nobody is that dumb.