Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: Barcs

Yeah, he keeps ignoring that even complex functions can develop incrementally over millennia.

Do you have any lab data that shows that complex organ systems can develop synchronously over millenia? Like real empirical evidence to prove that? I know you don't have any. It is a faith based assumption.

originally posted by: Barcs

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

Yikes, no wonder your thoughts are so scattered. That's not what irreducible complexity means. It is defined as:

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning"

i.e. the irreducible complexity of the heart - lung - circulatory system. The irreducible complexity of the tendon - muscle - nerve combination. The irreducible complexity of the retina - lens - optic nerve - visual cortex. Dermis - epidermis - nerve endings. It is everywhere. There is no denying the irreducible complexity of most parts of the human body. It is a fantasy to think this could all have formed incrementally.

This question was posed to you in another thread:

‘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.'

Show an example in the scientific literature that a mutation can cause a coordinated effect on multiple organs to allow a synchronized advancement of multiple organs in an organism. That would prove the feasibility of evolution. But it doesn't happen, despite countless attempts to reproduce such an effect in a lab. There has never been a demonstration that this can happen.

originally posted by: cooperton
Do you have any lab data that shows that complex organ systems can develop synchronously over millenia? Like real empirical evidence to prove that? I know you don't have any. It is a faith based assumption.

Incremental change is shown all over the fossil record, and directly within DNA in lab environments. LMAO @ calling it assumption when you still to this day have not once EVER refuted a single research paper with evidence. I can cite bacteria that adapted to consume nylon, is that not an incremental change?

Yikes, no wonder your thoughts are so scattered. That's not what irreducible complexity means. It is defined as:

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning"

Wow, the lies don't stop. You claimed evolution was impossible because you can't remove a heart and still survive. That is laughably retarded. If you are claiming it makes evolution impossible, then yes, you are directly claiming that the parts in question COULD NOT HAVE developed incrementally. You didn't prove # about that. I proved that IC is fallacy when you apply it to evolution, because evolution isn't a sudden addition of a fully modern complex parts, it's the slow changing of parts over time. Funny how you still don't grasp the VERY BASIC FUNDAMENTALS of evolution after vehemently arguing against it for years.

i.e. the irreducible complexity of the heart - lung - circulatory system. The irreducible complexity of the tendon - muscle - nerve combination. The irreducible complexity of the retina - lens - optic nerve - visual cortex. Dermis - epidermis - nerve endings. It is everywhere. There is no denying the irreducible complexity of most parts of the human body. It is a fantasy to think this could all have formed incrementally.

Nope, it's backed by evidence. Your claim that they are assemblies of fully formed parts holds no weight or credibility in science whatsoever. It's just creationist making up more BS to promote a dying religion. Watch the rationality rules video I posted, IC is a joke not even relevant to evolution.

‘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?

LMAO!!! The parts don't all need to develop exactly at once. Another fail point. One part can change first, then something else changes later.

These are vital questions that demand an answer.

No they don't. They are ignorance to the extreme degree. That's why scientists already know your claims are false and don't even bother with your ASSUMPTIONS about irreducible complexity and evolution.

Until you refute a research paper on evolution you are still just swinging your fists in the air, despite failing to land a single punch. It's pathetic. IC is a fallacy when you apply it to evolution, plain and simple. Inability to remove a heart and survive does not mean it couldn't have developed incrementally. If only creationists were honest.

a reply to: Barcs

If creationists were honest, there wouldn't be creationists.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
a reply to: Bluntone22

With all due respect, the sooner people stop simplifying intelligent design in order to disprove it the better. People hear "intelligent design" and can't comprehend anything other than a robed man in the sky creating everything in a matter of days.

i can comprehend the part where "you made intelligent life" means "you own intelligent life, it is your property forever no matter what"

because that makes me think dictator, and that makes me think of civil rights being infringed upon and power of the people getting revoked and "might makes right" making freedom wrong, and that makes me nervous because history is FULL of reasons why that is a bad idea

see, the funny part here is when people talk about creationism and intelligent design and act like there are no sociopolitical ramifications of some hyperintelligent cosmic architect coming around and deciding the planet and everyone on it is now resources and toys for some intergalactic governing force that doesnt give two craps about what we feel or believe in.

its like inventing nuclear warfare and saying "but SCIENCE, dude! its for research, no one is gonna use it to hurt people!" and then the military comes knocking and wont take no for an answer.

a reply to: cooperton

Organisms adapt, they don't evolve though. Adaptations are set within a particular boundary of the genetic code.

This has been explained to you many times: INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EVOLVE - POPULATIONS EVOLVE.

Living individual organisms adapt to minor changes in their environment. They will migrate to find water during a drought or stay in their burrow longer during a cold spell. That kind of adaption is certainly "set within a particular boundary of the genetic code" - but it is NOT evolution.

Living individual organisms reproduce, that is a fundamental feature of life. Every generation is slightly different from its parents, that is also a fundamental feature of life. That kind of difference is defined by small changes to the DNA during the reproduction These differences are NOT adaptions and are NOT conscious - they are biological - and they change, ever so slightly, the "particular boundary of the genetic code" for THAT individual and that is NOT evolution either.

Groups of similar individuals in a given location comprise a population. All individuals in the population reproduce creating a new, slightly different population from the preceding generation population. Each individual within the population will have different changes (mutations) from all the other individuals in the generation cohort. This results in an enhanced gene pool for the population - more chances to improve the robustness of the population as a whole, more chances that when something big comes along there will be enough individuals in the population to continue into the future. That is NOT evolution.

If the changed "particular boundary of the genetic code" for some individual gives that individual a disadvantage over other individuals in the population, the individual may die before reproducing, or not reproduce as well as others. That particular change will disappear from the gene pool. That is NOT evolution - that is natural selection.

If the changed "particular boundary of the genetic code" for some individual gives that individual no disadvantage or advantage over other individuals in the population, that particular change will just sort of stick around in the gene pool not doing anything. Maybe someday an environmental change will make that change useful, but not necessarily. That is NOT evolution - that is natural selection.

If the changed "particular boundary of the genetic code" for some individual gives that individual a material advantage over other individuals in the population, that particular change will spread through the population from generation to generation as the individuals that possess that change out reproduce the individuals that do not possess that change.That is NOT evolution - that is natural selection.

Notice that each generation is only slightly differently than its parents generation. No two adjacent generations are so different that they are different organisms - parents could breed with offspring, in fact, probably grandparents could breed with their grandchildren, maybe individuals 10 generations or 100 generations apart could breed with each other, especially if they had remained within the same population all that time. Eventually the descendents will end up "looking" very different, that is they will have a very different "particular boundary of the genetic code" from their far ancestors. Even though they can breed with their parents, and their parents with their grandparents, and their grandparents with their great-grandparents for every generation, there is a point when generation "0" cannot breed with generation "-n". That IS EVOLUTION.

Populations that don't experience major changes in their environment don't have "crises" that cause natural selection to draw on the resources of the gene pool. Sharks for instance are quite good at what they do and haven't changed much for a long time because their environment hasn't changed much. Evolution for sharks is relatively slow.

Other populations experience faster evolution, some gradual, some punctuated, but all populations evolve.

Discussing individual adaptions to short term environmental fluctuations is not a discussion about evolution. Evolution occurs across generations of individuals that make up populations.

INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EVOLVE - POPULATIONS EVOLVE.

a reply to: Bluntone22

It’s a good thing he left his theory open to change seeing as everything he proposed evolution to be has been proven wrong and so the theory keeps “evolving” into a new theory based upon supposition to keep the faith alive. It’s become a laughing stock evolution is propped up on wobbly legs real science is making progress that does not contradict itself and need reworking and guess what, it’s what keeps proving evolutionary claims wrong...

originally posted by: Barcs
The parts don't all need to develop exactly at once. Another fail point. One part can change first, then something else changes later.

You don't know enough about biology then.

Take for example the retina - optic nerve - visual cortex. each rod and cone cell in the retina is connected to a particular neuron in the optic nerve which sends the visuospatial data to be processed in the visual cortex. Each section would have to be upgraded simultaneously, otherwise the upgraded retina would not have the proper optic nerve connection, or visual cortex processing abilities to do anything with it. This is why synchronous functional improvements are necessary. Same with the lungs and the pulmonary blood vessels. Getting more alveoli in the lungs is useless unless they are connected to pulmonary vessels. There are countless examples of this.

You don't know enough about biology to have a conversation with. Your crass attitude is also really, really obnoxious.

originally posted by: rnaa

This has been explained to you many times: INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EVOLVE - POPULATIONS EVOLVE.

Sure, according to the theory. But in actuality populations don't evolve. It is mostly allele drift and epigenetic inheritance that allow populations to adapt to environments, and these changes are limited to a boundary of a pre-existent genetic code. Allele drift only selects pre-existent alleles, and epigenetics turns genes higher or lower and is inheritable.

Again, we have never observed a population of any organism changing into something else. Fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, finches remain finches. It is purely faith and speculation to believe otherwise.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Bluntone22

It’s a good thing he left his theory open to change seeing as everything he proposed evolution to be has been proven wrong and so the theory keeps “evolving” into a new theory based upon supposition to keep the faith alive. It’s become a laughing stock evolution is propped up on wobbly legs real science is making progress that does not contradict itself and need reworking and guess what, it’s what keeps proving evolutionary claims wrong...

As usual, you speak only from ignorance. Just a few examples of predictions Darwin made nearly a century before DNA was known to exist-

Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.


Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.


There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.


Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.


Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.


Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.


Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.


Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.


In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.


It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.


In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.


Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.


In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 150 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.


Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.



A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

a reply to: peter vlar

Continued-

The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.



An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.

Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.

It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

Double Post

a reply to: peter vlar

You don't expect these people to read all that do you?

LOL

a reply to: Akragon

Hell no. Posts like that are more for lurkers and people on the fence who are capable of thinking independently. I have zero expectation the the individual I was replying to would even understand it if they were to read all of it. But you already knew that haha!

a reply to: Akragon

Peter gave the same answer I give when you ask these questions. Its not for those Zealots, its for those who are seeking. An fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil

a reply to: cooperton

Again, we have never observed a population of any organism changing into something else. Fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, finches remain finches.

What? You want a finch to turn into a sparrow maybe? Is that what you are whining about? No, we haven't seen that and if we had it would be evidence AGAINST evolution as we understand it.

Every generation of every organism is directly related to the preceding generation and will be directly related to the following generation. 'Something Elses' are on different branches - branches that split a long long time ago.

We most certainly HAVE observed finches evolving into DIFFERENT KINDS of finches. It will be many, many generations of isolated populations before we can decide that one or the other branches have diverged enough to be something other than a finch. And the only way you will know that it isn't a finch is because some taxonomist of the future decides that it is so different from past finches that they decide to give it its own name - maybe a 'scrunce' or something.

Actually, the only reason why you can say that finches remain finches is because taxonomists say so at the moment. Just like Planetary Astronomers can settle on the definition of what a planet is - and that definition excludes Pluto as a planet, taxonomists move the species boundaries from time to time. If they decide that the new finch species they have observed aren't finches anymore, then your statement falls apart.

Taxonomists move animals and plants around all the time - so a finch is a finch because taxonomists say so, not because there is any 'law of the definition of a finch'.

a reply to: cooperton

Sure, according to the theory. But in actuality populations don't evolve.

You just don't get it do you? The theory is "just" an explanation of the way the world is observed to work.

Populations don't evolve "according to the theory". Populations are observed to evolve - the theory attempts to EXPLAIN how that happens.

"The Earth orbits the Sun" is not "according to the theory" of gravitation - the theory of gravitation EXPLAINS how that happens.

The idea that "populations evolve, not individuals" is a DEFINITION of what Biologists mean by "evolution". Biologists don't mean that the "cosmos evolves", they aren't addressing the way the cosmos changes. Biologists don't mean that "cities evolve", they aren't addressing population or demographic or sociological changes. They are addressing how life changes.

Evolution is a term that describes an observation of the way things are - the observation that life changes over time. It is not something that can be "incorrect" in the sense that you want it to be incorrect in your statement. Your argument literally makes no sense because you are arguing from a stance that is a complete misunderstanding of the most fundamental idea that is being addressed.

a reply to: cooperton

It is mostly allele drift and epigenetic inheritance that allow populations to adapt to environments, and these changes are limited to a boundary of a pre-existent genetic code. Allele drift only selects pre-existent alleles, and epigenetics turns genes higher or lower and is inheritable.

That process that you summarize from about a million miles above it, is a fairly reasonable description of 'evolution'. Now the theory takes over to describe how that happens.

Those "pre-existent" alleles you describe are 'pre-existent' precisely because of changes (mating contributions, transcription errors, mutations) that occurred between past generations. Of course allele drift only selects "pre-existant" alleles, they were not always "pre-existent", but they do have to exist before they can be selected.

Your argument is silly and repeating a trivial given as if it is the centerpiece of a revelation just makes your entire discussion look silly.

Why dont the mods delete posts that are obviously disregarding the facts and refusing to engage in honest intelligent discourse?

Lov this site, but seems its become a heaven of accepted trolls.

originally posted by: rnaa

What? You want a finch to turn into a sparrow maybe? Is that what you are whining about? No, we haven't seen that and if we had it would be evidence AGAINST evolution as we understand it.

Evolution has never been replicated in a lab setting. It is therefore based on faith. Populations and organisms can adapt, but not outside of the boundaries of their genetic limitations.

Or, for example, you'd have to explain how genetic mutations made the titin protein - made of over 100,000 base pairs. This is integral for muscles to function properly, and also requires actin and myosin proteins among a host of other supporting components. This is the conundrum of irreducible complexity. Even if, by miracle, a coherent protein coded by 100,000 base pairs were to be created through random mutation, it would be useless without actin and myosin, and vice versa.



To attempt to explain this, evolutionists fantasize about an intermediate type of muscle, but this has never been found. They assume such an intermediate skeletal muscle structure must exist, because they assume evolution must be true. It's this type of backwards science that allows this dead theory to continue. To add to the irreducible complexity, even if the protein were created by a vast genetic mutation, what causes it to organize properly with the rest of the proteins required to make muscle? What organizes it developmentally? These necessities are insurmountable for random mutation to create. Even intelligent scientists cannot replicate or improve such functions in a lab. Evolution is a fantasy and is not based in reality.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: cooperton

Well I disagree with your "proof"
Tonsils,
Appendix,
Wisdom teeth, did you know today that 1 in 4 people are born without at least 1 wisdom tooth?

Dinosaurs...


The idea that some all knowing omnipotent being snapped his fingers is even more ridiculous.
Who created god?
He couldn't have just existed.

The sooner the world gives up all the fantasies of religion the better off we will be.

So no valid argument against the OP, just a straw man. If you can't comprehend it, then it didn't happen, or can't exist? Interesting use of "reasoning".

originally posted by: peter vlar
In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

You're avoiding the issue of irreducible complexity. Darwin also said this:



Incremental mutations cannot suffice the multi-faceted aspects of, for example, the development of a functional muscle unit.



All these aspects are required for functional skeletal muscle. Adding a new protein to it is not as easy as miraculously mutating a new useful protein (never been witnessed in a lab), because it also has to be directed to the relevant location in the body and synchronize with the rest of the muscle units. Again, never observed in a lab. Mechanistically, it is unthinkable for such an event to occur

As darwin said, if it were to be found that any organ (or any functional component of the body for that matter) could not have formed by successive mutations, the theory becomes invalid. Skeletal Muscle, among many other examples, could not have formed by successive mutations because of the multiple types of proteins involved, and also the proper assemblage of these pieces. Therefore Darwin is right, the theory is invalid as demonstrated by biological science.