Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.

Faith means you have zero proof of anything and that you do not need proof. The more proof you desire or have the less faith you need. If you actually studied any of this you would realize evolution is a done deal. What Darwin wrote about is basically very surface level observations of it all, but is barely 1% of what we know today. His work was extremely note worthy, but had a good amount of intelligent assumptions and there was a good amount that he got wrong.

You can look at insects and see real time evolution since they evolve quickly. There are 14,000+ species of ants and 360,000+ species of beetles. The true reality of evolution is life was very stagnate at extremely simple levels for almost 4 billion years and then we got our first predatory microbes and the arms race started between predator and prey. This is what has driven evolution for the last 600 million years..

Well said and I know I couldn’t have send it better or more succinctly.

New Caledonian Crows are a very good example of how legit intelligence can spring up fairly quickly — with respect to geological time/periods — without the help of any external agency.

At any rate, really just jumped in to reinforce the saliency of your reply. Loved it!

a reply to: Phantom423

“The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity....they usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. . . . Many mutations are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.”

-Geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky

The life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.

-Scientific American

After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.

The Book Darwin Retired

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33

I am glad you brought that up, there is documented empirical scientific evidence that has been done with fruit fly's.
They were heavily experimented with to prove evolution, but the opposite happened.
Because they live and die so quickly you can have 100's of generations go by very fast. When they experimented with them mutating them they either failed to reproduce or the RNA/DNA self corrected. They eventually reverted back to original form or the generations were so deviated they could no longer continue the line and died out. Either way the fruit fly never was able to sustain mutational change defeating the attempt to make them evolve.

Do you just read creation sites?

The flies live in populations of 2,000 or so, each kept in a shoe-box-size container and fed a mixture of bananas and corn syrup of which they never seem to grow tired, Ms. Burke said.

With each generation the researchers picked the flies that hatched earliest to be the parents of the next generation, and by the end of the experiment, the time to hatching had become 20 percent shorter.

In these experiments they were doing artificial selection to pick traits and not natural selection that could go many different ways. There is a big difference there. Many species happen over a long period of time when a group from a species gets physically separated and then there is divergent due to a huge amount of factors, not just picking one trait or two in a lab. There are 1500+ species of fruit flies BTW.

They live like 40 days, but only produce eggs for about 2 weeks after they reach maturity. This makes one think about are they around long enough for all the variants that help push to a new species actually having much influence on them? Maybe you need 6000 generations which would be about 230 years...

If you take humans and look at 200,000 years ago we are pushing the species limits, and that is 6000+ generations of about 30 years each of reproduction.

a reply to: Xtrozero

And yet the extreme disappointment by pro-evolutionary people conducting the experiments....why is that?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Those are NOT research papers. A research paper describes the EXPERIMENT that led to the conclusion. It includes the METHODOLOGY i.e. HOW THEY DID IT and an explanation as to how they interpreted their results.

So once again, post the links to the research papers.

originally posted by: Phantom423

The challenge is still on: Pick a research paper from a peer-reviewed journal that discusses self assembly of a biological molecule or structure and discuss why it's wrong.

I did though. You didn't respond. The peer-reviewed journals don't call it self-assembly, they rightfully call it assembly now, because they know more about the interdependent mechanisms of assembling even the most basic protein structures in a cell:

"Both myosin folding and assembly require factors to coordinate the formation of the thick filament in the sarcomere and these factors include chaperone molecules. Myosin folding and sarcomeric assembly requires association of classical chaperones as well as folding cofactors such as UNC-45. Recent research has suggested that UNC-45 is required beyond initial myosin head folding and may be directly or indirectly involved in different stages of myosin thick filament assembly, maintenance and degradation."

Source - Myosin Assembly

I agree with the paper: the process of myosin assembly involves "a precise ordered pathway to assemble different proteins into a linear array of sarcomeres (muscle units)". When protein chains are created, they need to be folded properly to function. But even the folding process of myosin can't be done without other proteins called 'chaperones'. So what came first, myosin in its unfolded form, or the chaperone capable of folding it properly?? Immediately this process is irreducibly complex, it's the chicken or the egg over and over again. Self-assembly of these proteins does not happen, because assembly requires a host of other proteins and developmental factors: "In order for proper function of the thick filament, all regions of the myosin motor must be correctly folded and assembled."



Self-assembled? The research says no way. It is a well-designed motor unit that allows your muscles quick and seamless contraction speed.

a reply to: cooperton

That's ridiculous. There are dozens of papers on self assembly. Once again, you pick and choose a few words that you thinks validates your case. It doesn't.

Protein folding is a classic example of a thermodynamic-enabled self assembly process.

When you have a list of citations that support your case, let us know. I won't hold my breath.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

That's ridiculous. There are dozens of papers on self assembly.

not on muscle generation

Once again, you pick and choose a few words that you thinks validates your case. It doesn't.

It does though. The entire paper goes into detail about the interdependent involvement of the assembly of myosin

Protein folding is a classic example of a thermodynamic-enabled self assembly process.

Protein folding requires other proteins.. Chaperone proteins don't just appear from a chemical slew.

When you have a list of citations that support your case, let us know.

Instead of asking for more, how about you discuss the one I presented already?

He keeps begging for citation papers you give him some, and he says not good enough, it's like a one trick pony repeating parrot.

ATS is not university, it's a discussion boards of idea's, concepts and opinions.

I don't need to produce peer reviewed papers to voice my opinion on this subject, and science can be wrong and change like we said on spontaneous generation earlier in the thread. I am sure there was peer reviewed citation papers supporting that ideology at some point.
Then they wised up and abandoned that theory.

Going back to the fruit fly...

The main point is mutation that's happening now affects long-term evolution. How this happens is not clear. Some scientists believe that the supply of mutation is what guides evolution. Others have suggested that the same processes that shape long-term evolution also shape mutation.

Professor of Biological Science David Houle who conducted experimentation on fruit fly's at Florida State University

So they don't really know or agree on the mutation variable. What is clear is the fruit fly subjugated to forced radioactive mutations does not evolve beyond a core fruit fly, and it either reverts back within generations, or the family dies out by genetic degradation. Proving mutation is usually not a positive thing for advancing the species.

Epigenetics and its role in evolutionary biology

when environments are dynamic (e.g., climate change effects), there may be an “epigenetic advantage” to phenotypic switching by epigenetic inheritance, rather than by gene mutation. An epigenetically-inherited trait can arise simultaneously in many individuals, as opposed to a single individual with a gene mutation. Moreover, a transient epigenetically-modified phenotype can be quickly “sunsetted”, with individuals reverting to the original phenotype. Thus, epigenetic phenotype switching is dynamic and temporary and can help bridge periods of environmental stress.

Epigenetic changes are often temporary, so you can't say it replaces evolution or conflicts with it. It happens alongside it.

Epigenetic inheritance likely contributes to evolution both directly and indirectly. While there is as yet incomplete evidence of direct permanent incorporation of a complex epigenetic phenotype into the genome

You can't say that epigenetics happens instead of evolution, when considering the bolded statement.

originally posted by: Barcs

Epigenetic changes are often temporary, so you can't say it replaces evolution or conflicts with it. It happens alongside it.

I was saying that changes that were perceived as evolution, i.e. antibiotic resistance, are actually just epigenetic alterations As shown in this report:

epigenetic inheritance and antibiotic resistance

The relatively quick reversibility of these traits is a hallmark of epigenetic inheritance. It is not evolution because there is no change to the genetic coding, it simply turns genes higher or lower. Evolution, on the other hand, has yet to be observed:

Regarding the ability for an organism to change into another organism (evolution) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

and also:

“properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

originally posted by: cooperton
I was saying that changes that were perceived as evolution, i.e. antibiotic resistance, are actually just epigenetic alterations As shown in this report:

At very best you can say SOME evolutionary changes MIGHT BE influenced by it, but most of them are not long term, so have very little influence on the overall picture.

The relatively quick reversibility of these traits is a hallmark of epigenetic inheritance. It is not evolution because there is no change to the genetic coding, it simply turns genes higher or lower. Evolution, on the other hand, has yet to be observed:

It happens alongside evolution, as I clearly said. It is usually temporary and aids survival for some species, but the changes don't usually last, so if you are going back and looking at the fossil record and going, "Well how do you know, it wasn't an epigenetic change," that is exactly how scientists know, aside from the fact I quoted about lack of evidence for direct permanent incorporation of a complex epigenetic phenotype into the genome.

Regarding the ability for an organism to change into another organism (evolution) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

Irrelevant quote mine.

“properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.)

Another quote mine that has nothing to do with what I said. Mutations accumulate.

Why so many red herrings? Stick to the topic for once.

originally posted by: Barcs

It happens alongside evolution, as I clearly said.

Epigenetic inheritance is repeatable in a lab. Evolution is not. There has never been an organism to change into another organism over time via the mechanisms of evolution. Your statement is faith-based.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

It happens alongside evolution, as I clearly said.

Epigenetic inheritance is repeatable in a lab. Evolution is not. There has never been an organism to change into another organism over time via the mechanisms of evolution. Your statement is faith-based.

Another 100% lie. Seriously give up the ghost, Kent. You are wasting everyone's time with your unconvincing verbal diarrhea and ignorant diatribe.

Funny how yet again, you ignore the vast majority of the post, in favor of a dishonest quote mine. JUST LIKE ALWAYS.

a reply to: cooperton

I will get back to you tomorrow - tied up today.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33


And yet the extreme disappointment by pro-evolutionary people conducting the experiments....why is that?

What was the extreme disappointment? That they could not make a new species after 600 generations by hand picking a couple of traits, BTW I think this was all done in the 50s, so do you not understand how much more we know today about all this? I said in my last posts that humans have gone 6000+ generations since they were another species, do you think these people would be willing to test that for the next 230 years on fruit flies using a much larger amount of influences than one or two traits?

To answer your question...it seems they were ignorant to much of what we know today, just like Darwin was ignorant to much of what they knew. Advance life has been in the play ground for the last 600 million years and they wanted to make a new species in 600 generations????? ya ignorance.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33


And yet the extreme disappointment by pro-evolutionary people conducting the experiments....why is that?

What was the extreme disappointment? That they could not make a new species after 600 generations by hand picking a couple of traits, BTW I think this was all done in the 50s, so do you not understand how much more we know today about all this?

Have they had any success since? They haven't. Still fruit flies. If you consider all the labs across the world testing fruit flies, some particularly trying to get them to evolve, and yet they remain fruit flies. It shows that evolution does not happen.

Advance life has been in the play ground for the last 600 million years

Source? Stick to empirical data. Watchout for fairy tale numbers without factual basis.

originally posted by: Barcs

"It happens alongside evolution, as I clearly said."

Funny how yet again, you ignore the vast majority of the post, in favor of a dishonest quote mine. JUST LIKE ALWAYS.

How was that a dishonest quote mine? Do you not believe epigenetics happens alongside evolution? I have a feeling you're just barcing again. Do you have any demonstrable evidence that an organism can change into another organism over time? Like real empirical lab data.

originally posted by: cooperton

Have they had any success since? They haven't. Still fruit flies. If you consider all the labs across the world testing fruit flies, some particularly trying to get them to evolve, and yet they remain fruit flies. It shows that evolution does not happen.

Well they would have 200 more years to go...lol

What do you mean by success? If you mean changes in DNA that leads to big changes in the species to include making a new species when enough changes happen? That is seen all the time.

Source? Stick to empirical data. Watchout for fairy tale numbers without factual basis.

Fossils?

Together with stratigraphic principles, radiometric dating methods are used in geochronology to establish the geologic time scale. Among the best-known techniques are radiocarbon dating, potassium–argon dating and uranium–lead dating.

We are not only very good at knowing exact changes in DNA and knowing complete genomes. we are also extremely good at determining age of rocks and matter.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Barcs

It happens alongside evolution, as I clearly said.

Epigenetic inheritance is repeatable in a lab. Evolution is not. There has never been an organism to change into another organism over time via the mechanisms of evolution. Your statement is faith-based.

Another 100% lie. Seriously give up the ghost, Kent. You are wasting everyone's time with your unconvincing verbal diarrhea and ignorant diatribe.

Funny how yet again, you ignore the vast majority of the post, in favor of a dishonest quote mine. JUST LIKE ALWAYS.

Lab based empirical evidence with proven science verses your faith based theory....now who is lying ?

a reply to: cooperton

Actually thanks to Next Gen DNA sequencing, you can repeat any number of experiments, as long as you have a PC with enough memory, and a bit of patience. You do need to know what you are looking at, but anyone, and I mean ANYONE can check results.

DNA studies have shown evolution to be correct.