Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I could do this with each and every post that EU and cooperton do, but it would be a waste of time.

I don't use appeals to authority. I am using biochemical facts and showing you that evolution could not have created the mechanism. You'd rather ignore it to maintain your faith.

How could step-by-step mutations create the electron transport chain?



It couldn't. The pieces are useless unless they are assembled and put in the right order altogether.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Sounds like a new flavour of irreducible complexity and every bit as valid.

So you have no clue how evolution could create this biochemical cascade? It's ironic because you were just scrutinizing someone saying they don't know how evolution works.

Can't explain it?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: cooperton

Same tactics are used for evolution regarding the lack of evidence that it can happen. Evolutionists say "it takes too much time for it to be exhibited in a lab". That's why it's a faith and not a science.

A lot of science takes a butt tonne of faith regardless how it's based.

That's probably why so many of those types end up like Saul I read about in that Bible book?

They're really good at it...

Science doesn't require faith and Saul had an epiphany ( a eurika moment) which led to his invention of Christianity.

originally posted by: cooperton

I believe creatures are material manifestations of higher dimensional consciousness. But that's not the topic of the thread, the thread is about the absurdity of evolution.

It is apart of this topic in if it isn't evolution then what is it? Your way is outside of space/time and we are all stuck in some frozen bubble of time. Which does work well within our universe to be correct.

How would it have formed through subsequent modifications? The whole cascade needs to be present to function. This is why the theory falls apart with a closer analysis of biology.

"The whole cascade needs to be present to function" no it doesn't, and once again your opinion...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I could do this with each and every post that EU and cooperton do, but it would be a waste of time.

I don't use appeals to authority. I am using biochemical facts and showing you that evolution could not have created the mechanism. You'd rather ignore it to maintain your faith.

How could step-by-step mutations create the electron transport chain?

It couldn't. The pieces are useless unless they are assembled and put in the right order altogether.

You appeal to authority every time you attempt to substitute microbiology with philosophy texts aka scripture. It has to be true because it's in this very particular book about cosmic wisdom and predeterminism.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Can't explain it?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Before I read that link that you likely did not read in the 6 minute timespan between my post and yours, I want you to tell me in your own words how it could have evolved. You can reference your source to explain it but it has to be in your own words.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You appeal to authority every time you attempt to substitute microbiology with philosophy texts aka scripture. It has to be true because it's in this very particular book about cosmic wisdom and predeterminism.

Lol where did I ever quote scripture in any of our debates? Go try to find one. One single time. I play ball in your guys field and you don't seem to have an answer... which is why you and the others ALWAYS distract away from having to admit that evolution is mere faith. You literally just did that with your response here that I am responding to. You do the same to whereislogic, you never respond to the actual empirical data he is presenting. I don't mean this as an insult, but it seems as though you guys don't know as much as you lead on to believe.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

"The whole cascade needs to be present to function" no it doesn't, and once again your opinion...

What is a stray sub-unit of ATP synthase going to do? Nothing. You need all of the sub-units to come together to form the quaternary protein. And even that alone is not enough because it needs the other proteins that sequester the electrochemical gradient into the membrane. Without the gradient there is no electrochemical flow and therefore no spinning the turbine of ATP synthase. This also doesn't consider the necessity of chaperone proteins that fold these developing proteins into their proper formation. Without these accessory factors, ATP synthase is trash.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Can't explain it?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Before I read that link that you likely did not read in the 6 minute timespan between my post and yours, I want you to tell me in your own words how it could have evolved. You can reference your source to explain it but it has to be in your own words.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You appeal to authority every time you attempt to substitute microbiology with philosophy texts aka scripture. It has to be true because it's in this very particular book about cosmic wisdom and predeterminism.

Lol where did I ever quote scripture in any of our debates? Go try to find one. One single time. I play ball in your guys field and you don't seem to have an answer... which is why you and the others ALWAYS distract away from having to admit that evolution is mere faith. You do the same to whereislogic, you never respond to the actual empirical data he is presenting.

I'm not a biologist which is why I linked to an explanation of how it could have evolved.

It shows your claim it can't be explained to be false.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Can't explain it?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Before I read that link that you likely did not read in the 6 minute timespan between my post and yours, I want you to tell me in your own words how it could have evolved. You can reference your source to explain it but it has to be in your own words.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You appeal to authority every time you attempt to substitute microbiology with philosophy texts aka scripture. It has to be true because it's in this very particular book about cosmic wisdom and predeterminism.

Lol where did I ever quote scripture in any of our debates? Go try to find one. One single time. I play ball in your guys field and you don't seem to have an answer... which is why you and the others ALWAYS distract away from having to admit that evolution is mere faith. You literally just did that with your response here that I am responding to. You do the same to whereislogic, you never respond to the actual empirical data he is presenting. I don't mean this as an insult, but it seems as though you guys don't know as much as you lead on to believe.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

"The whole cascade needs to be present to function" no it doesn't, and once again your opinion...

What is a stray sub-unit of ATP synthase going to do? Nothing. You need all of the sub-units to come together to form the quaternary protein. And even that alone is not enough because it needs the other proteins that sequester the electrochemical gradient into the membrane. Without the gradient there is no electrochemical flow and therefore no spinning the turbine of ATP synthase. This also doesn't consider the necessity of chaperone proteins that fold these developing proteins into their proper formation. Without these accessory factors, ATP synthase is trash.

Excellent. Since you don't need to resort to anecdotes to walk us through the mechanics of divine agency, please explain where one might identify elements of supernatural interference in the process of ATP and electrochemical fermentation. The link for eukaryotic metabolism (or the theory of it at least) has been supplied, let's see how the two analyses compare with each other and which is more comprehensively informative on the subject. More precisely, which dissertation offers more falsifiable statements that can be verified, commonly known as "peer review".

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I'm not a biologist which is why I linked to an explanation of how it coild have evolved.

It shows your claim it can't be explained to be false.

How do you even know what it is explaining in the article if you can't read it? Why did you just mock someone on the last page for not knowing when you yourself rely on faith in 'experts'?

Your source claims that the early ways for organisms to generate ATP would have been through fermentation. Yet even basic processes like fermentation require NAD+ to carry the electrical energy from this process. Guess what NAD+ needs to be created? ATP. It is constantly a chicken-or-the-egg paradox when considering how these mechanisms could have come to be by random chance, due to the fact that so many components rely on other components to be in place. It works very much like a factory, and all the components must be present.

This is why the theory simply does not work.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Excellent. Since you don't need to resort to anecdotes to walk us through the mechanics of divine agency

When you can't defend your own beliefs, which you have touted before that they are actually somehow "facts", you resort to changing the debate topic. Classic evasive maneuver. Everyone who I discuss this with inevitably reaches this impasse. This is why evolution is a faith, and not science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I'm not a biologist which is why I linked to an explanation of how it coild have evolved.

It shows your claim it can't be explained to be false.

How do you even know what it is explaining in the article if you can't read it? Why did you just mock someone on the last page for not knowing when you yourself rely on faith in 'experts'?

Your source claims that the early ways for organisms to generate ATP would have been through fermentation. Yet even basic processes like fermentation require NAD+ to carry the electrical energy from this process. Guess what NAD+ needs to be created? ATP. It is constantly a chicken-or-the-egg paradox when considering how these mechanisms could have come to be by random chance, due to the fact that so many components rely on other components to be in place. It works very much like a factory, and all the components must be present.

This is why the theory simply does not work.

I didn't say I couldn't read it. What it does show is your claim they can't explain it to be false.

Thers is a clear difference between understanding how evolution works and having a detailed understanding of every last part of it.

What you are attempting is fairly poor creationist debate strategy which is to pick a single specialised point and claim that if everyone can't explain it there and then then evolution must be false.

If you can prove a case of irreducible complexity then you would be a scientific superstar and book deals and TV specials would abound. Instead you are posting anonymously on a conspiracy site.


Perhaps you are overestimating your own knowledge a little.

ETA by your own standards please explain how the process was designed?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
If evolution required simultaneous mutations as you describe then you would he able to source this. As you can't it's entirely your creation and irrelevant.

Your circular illogic is dizzying... I'm wondering how often you throw up - or maybe you're immune now>

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I'm not a biologist which is why I linked to an explanation of how it coild have evolved.

It shows your claim it can't be explained to be false.

How do you even know what it is explaining in the article if you can't read it? Why did you just mock someone on the last page for not knowing when you yourself rely on faith in 'experts'?

Your source claims that the early ways for organisms to generate ATP would have been through fermentation. Yet even basic processes like fermentation require NAD+ to carry the electrical energy from this process. Guess what NAD+ needs to be created? ATP. It is constantly a chicken-or-the-egg paradox when considering how these mechanisms could have come to be by random chance, due to the fact that so many components rely on other components to be in place. It works very much like a factory, and all the components must be present.

This is why the theory simply does not work.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Excellent. Since you don't need to resort to anecdotes to walk us through the mechanics of divine agency

When you can't defend your own beliefs, which you have touted before that they are actually somehow "facts", you resort to changing the debate topic. Classic evasive maneuver. Everyone who I discuss this with inevitably reaches this impasse. This is why evolution is a faith, and not science.

I suppose rocket science is also faith because I'm not a NASA engineer? There's a whole national library of medicine article on electrochemical fermentation and metabolic processes in early eukaryotic life with bibliography and credited professionals who participated in the study and published additional materials aside. I'm asking if you can supply a similar record of dissecting supernatural agency and expositing on the exact dimensions, properties, behaviors, etc for "supreme cosmic intelligence" deliberately constructing the electron transport chain apparatus. Or the ATP synthase, polymerase and titen genes, or any other mechanism you can walk us through. That's not moving goal posts, that's inviting you to take your turn. Let's compare those notes and see who is more confused when it's all on the table.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

If you can prove a case of irreducible complexity then you would be a scientific superstar and book deals and TV specials would abound.

Here are some simple examples:

Rip someone's heart out and the body doesn't work.
Rip someone's brain out and the body doesn't work.
Rip someone's lungs out and the body doesn't work.

This irreducible complexity also exists on the micro scale.

Remove the ATP synthase gene from the genome and the body doesn't work
Remove the DNA polymerase gene from the genome and the body doesn't work
Remove the titin gene from the genome and the body doesn't work

These are all proofs of Irreducible complexity. Even the most rudimentary organisms have many irreducibly complex components.

Give me that movie deal, I've been toying around with some script ideas.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I suppose rocket science is also faith because I'm not a NASA engineer?

No because the physics of rocketry is empirically true and repeatable in a lab. Evolution is not. Key difference

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
If evolution required simultaneous mutations as you describe then you would he able to source this. As you can't it's entirely your creation and irrelevant.

Your circular illogic is dizzying... I'm wondering how often you throw up - or maybe you're immune now>

Again no source or even attempt to explain your belief.

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: cooperton

Same tactics are used for evolution regarding the lack of evidence that it can happen. Evolutionists say "it takes too much time for it to be exhibited in a lab". That's why it's a faith and not a science.

A lot of science takes a butt tonne of faith regardless how it's based.

That's probably why so many of those types end up like Saul I read about in that Bible book?

They're really good at it...

Science doesn't require faith and Saul had an epiphany ( a eurika moment) which led to his invention of Christianity.

I am from before the internet, I've read a lot of books, that's what we had back then...

I've probably forgot a lot but I suppose he was a religious man? His religion may not have been science but nonetheless.

Pretty amazing book given its scope and all in one volume, well I guess two technically... I've seen Bills and Laws which are longer and contain more words.

Fascinating stuff... I can go with epiphany that works for me.

Sometimes I feel we could use a new language lol, the language of mathematics is good and all it's just sometimes it lacks the expression and nuances.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

If you can prove a case of irreducible complexity then you would be a scientific superstar and book deals and TV specials would abound.

Here are some simple examples:

Rip someone's heart out and the body doesn't work.
Rip someone's brain out and the body doesn't work.
Rip someone's lungs out and the body doesn't work.

This irreducible complexity also exists on the micro scale.

Remove the ATP synthase gene from the genome and the body doesn't work
Remove the DNA polymerase gene from the genome and the body doesn't work
Remove the titin gene from the genome and the body doesn't work

These are all proofs of Irreducible complexity.

Give me that movie deal, I've been toying around with some script ideas.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I suppose rocket science is also faith because I'm not a NASA engineer?

No because the physics of rocketry is empirically true and repeatable in a lab. Evolution is not. Key difference

That isn't even what irreducible complexity is.

You have failed to even be wrong.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

That isn't even what irreducible complexity is.

An irreducibly complex system is one in which key components cannot be removed from the mechanism while still maintaining the function of that mechanism. This is true when applied to biology, a body cannot survive without key components such as the heart, the lungs, etc. This is also true on the micro level with certain genes that cannot be reduced out of the genome while still allowing the body to function.

You have failed to even be wrong.

soooo... you're saying I'm right. Thank you for being honest in your concession.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

That isn't even what irreducible complexity is.

An irreducibly complex system is one in which key components cannot be removed from the mechanism while still maintaining the function of that mechanism. This is true when applied to biology, a body cannot survive without key components such as the heart, the lungs, etc. This is also true on the micro level with certain genes that cannot be reduced out of the genome while still allowing the body to function.

You have failed to even be wrong.

soooo... you're saying I'm right. Thank you for being honest in your concession.

No you failed to meet the standard to even be wrong.

You rip out the heart of someone they die isn't proof of anything other than the need for a heart in humans.

originally posted by: cooperton

It couldn't. The pieces are useless unless they are assembled and put in the right order altogether.

This is your 747 BS in the body is like a 747 that just can not happen without intelligent design, but the problem is you fail to see even a 747 has a evolutionary path in it started small with a thought, and then was paper, and then we flew with wood, and then it all exploded at at a massive state in a million directions to get us a 747.

So to suggest intelligent design you still need an evolutionary process as we both agree that a 747 can not just appear in its current state from nothing, right? Same thing with life, it just doesn't appear from nothing, so there needs to be some path for it from the start and into the future since we do live within time and not in some frozen time bubble. When was the last time 5000 animals of a new species just appeared out of no where? We kind of need about 5,000 to prevent homozygosity. How did we get billions of life forms with like 7 million still here today? It seems this spontaneous creation of life should be happening all the time.

a reply to: cooperton

No because the physics of rocketry is empirically true and repeatable in a lab. Evolution is not. Key difference

That's an interesting observation because there's no cosmic or supernatural intelligence documented in laboratory studies. Again, you have an opportunity here to illustrate those properties and mechanisms in a manner that identifies a specific agency deliberately meddling in terrestrial biology.