Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

originally posted by: cooperton

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.

This post is

It's a theory that belongs in Middle Earth with the Hobbits. It can't happen naturally.

All of the parts can't just magically come together with the right size, right shape and positioned at the right angles in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

It makes no sense and can't happen. How can random mutations create all these parts that just work together and also just the right mutations needed for the organism to evolve?

This is clear evidence of Intelligent Design. These parts are Designed to work together.

a reply to: neoholographic

Oh really? So the guy in the sky did it. As a certified YouTube scientist, you must have overlooked (or disregarded) the research. Let me know if you want me to post more articles about self assembly of myosin filaments.

Cross-bridges on self-assembled smooth muscle myosin filaments☆

Author links open overlay panelApolinarySobieszek Show more doi.org...(72)90573-6Get rights and content

Abstract

A crude myosin fraction may be obtained from vertebrate smooth muscle under low ionic-strength conditions, in which a self-assembly of filaments varying from 0.3 to 1.5 μm in length is seen to take place. These filaments show a constant repeat of about 140 Å, which arises from a regular helical arrangement of projections or cross-bridges. The repeat may be followed along the entire length of the filaments, that is, there is no bare zone. The mode of assembly of these filaments is discussed.

www.sciencedirect.com...

a reply to: cooperton

LOL... "Darwin said..."... please drop this 150 year old trope... which, by the way, is taken out of context... as has been pointed out to you countless times! Oh... and you saying "this is too complex" without showing why, is not falsifying the theory... it's not adult science... it's like a 6 year old not understanding why they can't have ice cream for dinner.

You just can't get past the Appeal to Complexity can you?

Sad that you don't inquire about how complexity can arise, and rather just say "... too complex, god did it."... in the most epic of royal cop-outs. If god did it, then there must be a mechanism/tool that he/she/it used to "create"... and we should be able to show that right?... or at least infer the process that he/she/it used? Or aren't we allowed to question god's creation?

Again, just to be clear, saying "...could not have formed by successive mutations because of the multiple types of proteins involved, and also the proper assemblage of these pieces..." IS NOT PROOF, it is YOUR OPINION... and is quite literally an Appeal to Complexity.

A known fallacy.

In other words.. your words are FALSE. Demonstrably.

You have not falsified evolution by saying "too complex"... lol... not at all... and Darwin's quote holds true because it has never been falsified!

Talking with creationists is like playing with a useless box...

So when will you stop claiming complexity, and show some actual creationist research?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
Oh... and you saying "this is too complex" without showing why

I did show why. with multiple examples. Which you are not addressing. You just keep calling it fallacious without actually arguing the biology that I am addressing.

You just can't get past the Appeal to Complexity can you?

No it's not an appeal to complexity. An appeal to complexity is when you don't understand something and therefore say it's not true. I am saying I understand the depths of biological structures and they could not have been formed by step-by-step mutations because their functions are multi-faceted requiring a multitude of proteins to function properly. Mutating one protein is not going to be able to suffice to create these structures. Not to mention one useful new protein with a new function has never been observed in a lab setting to be created from random mutation. Let alone a multitude of them working in synchrony. Muscle fiber is a perfect example:



So no, it is not an appeal to complexity. I know how muscle contractions work. I know how evolution is theorized to work. The sequential modification proposed by evolutionary theory could not have created and organized the symphony of proteins involved with skeletal muscle.

Do you understand? Or are you just going to do an appeal to complexity and say I'm wrong because you can't comprehend the biological concepts I am addressing?

a reply to: cooperton

Do you understand? Or are you just going to do an appeal to complexity and say I'm wrong because you can't comprehend the biological concepts I am addressing?

You've been clobbered so many times that I'm surprised you're still standing. Now, what was it you were going to say about myosin filaments and self assembly?? Gee, someone already did that!

originally posted by: Phantom423

Now, what was it you were going to say about myosin filaments and self assembly?? Gee, someone already did that!

What about myosin self-assembly? You didn't even have access to the article. You just assume they found the answer. It was also in 1972, there could be a mechanism not known to them at the time that created it. At that time, knowledge about protein synthesis was still in its infancy.

So show me the mechanism how it self-assembled and we'll go from there.

No need for insults, just science

a reply to: cooperton

So post the article. Let's see how it was done.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

So post the article. Let's see how it was done.

Burden of proof is on you. Let's see it.

a reply to: cooperton

No need for insults, just science

a reply to: cooperton

No it isn't. It's on YOU - why? because there are dozens of papers out there that show you are 100% wrong (again).

You just said you want to talk science (and yes, I said that with a straight face). So let's have it. What's wrong with self
assembly experiments? What's wrong with the myosin filament experiment?

What's wrong with you, buddy? Don't you get it??

originally posted by: Phantom423
What's wrong with self assembly experiments? What's wrong with the myosin filament experiment?

Explain the self-assembly mechanism of myosin. You posted the paper. explain how it works and we will go from there.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
What's wrong with self assembly experiments? What's wrong with the myosin filament experiment?

Explain the self-assembly mechanism of myosin. You posted the paper. explain how it works and we will go from there.

Sure. Why don't we start with this:



This is a basic example of how self assembly works.

Now watch this one - it describes how a myosin filament is constructed:

Now watch a simple explanation of self assembly:

A nice explanation, based on experiments, as to how self assembly works using protein folding as an example:

You may not know what microtubules are but they are the fundamental units which form filaments.

This lecture describes how it works:



Pay attention as to how the experiment works. If you don't understand it, look up the paper.

a reply to: cooperton

As I've said before, if your idea of science and how it's done were SOP*, we wouldn't have flushing toilets.

Get over it. You're done.

*Standard Operation Procedure

a reply to: cooperton

You want to remain in perpetual ignorance, that's your business. You're a lousy salesman because I doubt you've brought anyone on this board, or anywhere else for that matter, to your side.

The evidence is self evident. Do you have evidence? NO.
Hundreds of experiments and research papers have been published on this topic. Do you have any experiments or research papers? NO.

You're done.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You want to remain in perpetual ignorance, that's your business. You're a lousy salesman because I doubt you've brought anyone on this board, or anywhere else for that matter, to your side.

The evidence is self evident. Do you have evidence? NO.
Hundreds of experiments and research papers have been published on this topic. Do you have any experiments or research papers? NO.
Have you ever performed ANY experiment in a lab? NO.
Do you know anyone who has performed a credible experiment in a legitimate lab? NO.

You're done.

Here's an experiment you can do in your kitchen:


Effects of different NaCl concentrations on self-assembly of silver carp myosin
Author links open overlay panelGuanWangaManmanLiuaLiweiCaoaJirawatYongsawatdigulbShanbaiXiongaRuLiua

www.sciencedirect.com...

Highlights
•
Myosin self-assembled to filaments mainly through rod-rod ionic linkages at low NaCl concentrations (