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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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.

Notice in your example you say it started with a small thought. Evolution is supposed to be thoughtless, unintelligent, etc. The reason a Boeing jet could never come to be by random chance is obvious. Apply that same logic to humans which are arguably more complex than a Boeing Jet. We have over 500,000 miles of neural circuitry compacted into our brains lol... It's beyond any modern marvel.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

You're now attacking my faith to defend your faith? Nah I'm not biting on that, believe as you will. Just don't call your faith 'science'.

originally posted by: ScepticScot


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

yes it is. That is a simple example of irreducible complexity. An organism ceases to function when certain parts are removed. I'm going to use your own words against you here:

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Again no source or even attempt to explain your belief.

So lemme see your definition of irreducible complexity if you think my example was wrong.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

That said, I'm perfectly happy to admit that, in this seemingly infinite universe, anything is possible, and I look forward to, maybe, one day, learning the answers to these questions of the origins of life.

But then you are failing to see that given enough time the minute changes add up to be big. One interesting part is all life has shared DNA. A grape vine shares like 17% DNA with us and the closer to us a lifeform gets the more shared DNA there is to the point the Chimp is like 99,6% us. Like your appendix story we also share like examples with fish too, so somewhere there is a connection in it all.

a reply to: cooperton


No less complex system would function, not that removing an essential organ causes fatality.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

But then you are failing to see that given enough time the minute changes add up to be big. One interesting part is all life has shared DNA. A grape vine shares like 17% DNA with us and the closer to us a lifeform gets the more shared DNA there is to the point the Chimp is like 99,6% us. Like your appendix story we also share like examples with fish too, so somewhere there is a connection in it all.

Everything that pop-culture spills out is almost always wrong regarding evolution. Chimps being 99.6% like us is a total misrepresentation of the data. Humans have a 4% smaller genome than Chimps, so think how deceptive it is to say any number over 96% similar. Yes, that's right, humans have a smaller genome. Somehow the transition from an ape-like creature to a human involved losing 100 million DNA pairs, all the while adding over 250,000 miles of neurons to the brain. It's just plain stupid, or to quote Randyvine:

"The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined"

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton


No less complex system would function, not that removing an essential organ causes fatality.

Here's a quote from your link:

"a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

This is exactly right. All of those parts where I said the removal would be fatal are therefore an example of irreducible complexity. The body needs these parts to persist, that's why it's irreducibly complex.

a reply to: iamthevirus

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.

A good reply. I expected some vitriol lol.

originally posted by: cooperton


Everything that pop-culture spills out is almost always wrong regarding evolution. Chimps being 99.6% like us is a total misrepresentation of the data. Humans have a 4% smaller genome than Chimps, so think how deceptive it is to say any number over 96% similar. Yes, that's right, humans have a smaller genome. Somehow the transition from an ape-like creature to a human involved losing 100 million DNA pairs, all the while adding over 250,000 miles of neurons to the brain. It's just plain stupid, or to quote Randyvine:

There is still this very definable relationships with all life on earth in many different ways.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

There is still this very definable relationships with all life on earth in many different ways.

Yes I agree. But this wouldn't prove common ancestry any more than it would prove a common Creator

a reply to: cooperton

What has size of genome got to do with it?

(Insert size doesn't matter joke of your choice here)


And it doesn't matter how simple a organisation is if its essential to life. That isnt what Irreducible complexity means.

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton

What has size of genome got to do with it?

(Insert size doesn't matter joke of your choice here)

How do you add 250,000 miles... miles... of neuronal length to an ape's brain by removing 100,000,000 DNA monomers? How this wouldn't stir doubts in the minds of an evolutionist I dunno....

And it doesn't matter how simple a organisation is if its essential to life. That isnt what Irreducible complexity means.

"Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function"

Give it a rest, it's ok that you were wrong. We're all trying to find the truth here, and stubborn bias is the enemy of truth.

ATP synthase could not function without all of its necessary sub-units... for example, If you remove the 'Fo' sub-unit from ATP synthase, it would cease to function. This satisfies the above definition of "no less complex system would function".

The electron transport chain could not function without ATP synthase, because ATP synthase is what completes the process. This satisfies the above definition of "no less complex system would function"

The cell could not function without the electron transport chain, due to not enough ATP being able to be produced. This satisfies the above definition of "no less complex system would function"

A muscle cell cannot function without the cell having ATP. This satisfies the above definition of "no less complex system would function"

A muscle cannot work if all the muscle cells are lacking energy. This satisfies the above definition of "no less complex system would function"

If muscles in the heart cannot work, then the heart ceases to function. This satisfies the above definition of "no less complex system would function"

If the heart ceases to function then so does the body. This satisfies the above definition of "no less complex system would function"

etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Irreducible complexity is applicable from the micro to the macro scale in the body.

a reply to: cooperton

Because there is not a direct relationship between size of genome and size/complexity of the brain.

Please publish your proof of irreducible complexity and enjoy the acclaim (or possibly a different reaction).

Oh and did you ever explain how the electron transport chain was designed.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton

What has size of genome got to do with it?

(Insert size doesn't matter joke of your choice here)

How do you add 250,000 miles... miles... of neuronal length to an ape's brain by removing 100,000,000 DNA monomers? How this wouldn't stir doubts in the minds of an evolutionist I dunno....
body.

That's too many 0's if you want scientific minds to understand.

I'll help...

250.000 = twenty five hundred hundreds

100.000.000 = one hundred thousand thousands

Hope this helps.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Please publish your proof of irreducible complexity and enjoy the acclaim (or possibly a different reaction).

Scott, just admit you were wrong it's ok. It was great when you provided a link that had the exact definition that fit my examples.

Oh and did you ever explain how the electron transport chain was designed.

Yeah it's like a hydrogen fuel cell generator. The first three complexes create an electrochemical gradient like a hydrogen fuel cell generator, and then this gradient is used to spin the turbine of ATP synthesis which turns this energy into usable chemical energy. No detectable trace of random chance involved in creating such a beautifully elaborate mechanism

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Again no source or even attempt to explain your belief.

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

Please publish your proof of irreducible complexity and enjoy the acclaim (or possibly a different reaction).

Scott, just admit you were wrong it's ok. It was great when you provided a link that had the exact definition that fit my examples.

Oh and did you ever explain how the electron transport chain was designed.

Yeah it's like a hydrogen fuel cell generator. The first three complexes create an electrochemical gradient like a hydrogen fuel cell generator, and then this gradient is used to spin the turbine of ATP synthesis which turns this energy into usable chemical energy. No detectable trace of random chance involved in creating such a beautifully elaborate mechanism

I do when I am wrong, fortunately I don't have to in this case.

That is a descriptiion of how you think it works how was it designed.

And my name isn't Scott.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

But then you are failing to see that given enough time the minute changes add up to be big. One interesting part is all life has shared DNA. A grape vine shares like 17% DNA with us and the closer to us a lifeform gets the more shared DNA there is to the point the Chimp is like 99,6% us. Like your appendix story we also share like examples with fish too, so somewhere there is a connection in it all.

Like I said, I'm open to pretty much anything, because what I do know for absolute fact is, no one really KNOWS the answer to this question.

But, since it simply isn't rational to believe that the theory of evolution, as stated, consist of RANDOM mutations, because said mutations would have to occur simultaneously in millions of individual members of any given species in order to be propagated via procreation thereby making said mutations a new permanent feature of said species, and this process would have to repeat itself countless times, in order to change an amoeba into a frog, then again to change a frog into a wombat, then yet again to change a wombat into an ape, and yet again to turn an ape into a neanderthal, and finally one more time to turn a neanderthal into homo sapiens.

That IMPOSSIBLE scenario is precisely why I lean toward the 'intelligent design' and/or some kind of 'Creator', because that is the only way that I can see that it could ever happen like that.

And again, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the truth, the real, actual truth, turned out to be something else entirely.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Xtrozero
a reply to: tanstaafl

But then you are failing to see that given enough time the minute changes add up to be big. One interesting part is all life has shared DNA. A grape vine shares like 17% DNA with us and the closer to us a lifeform gets the more shared DNA there is to the point the Chimp is like 99,6% us. Like your appendix story we also share like examples with fish too, so somewhere there is a connection in it all.

Like I said, I'm open to pretty much anything, because what I do know for absolute fact is, no one really KNOWS the answer to this question.

But, since it simply isn't rational to believe that the theory of evolution, as stated, consist of RANDOM mutations, because said mutations would have to occur simultaneously in millions of individual members of any given species in order to be propagated via procreation thereby making said mutations a new permanent feature of said species, and this process would have to repeat itself countless times, in order to change an amoeba into a frog, then again to change a frog into a wombat, then yet again to change a wombat into an ape, and yet again to turn an ape into a neanderthal, and finally one more time to turn a neanderthal into homo sapiens.

That IMPOSSIBLE scenario is precisely why I lean toward the 'intelligent design' and/or some kind of 'Creator', because that is the only way that I can see that it could ever happen like that.

And again, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the truth, the real, actual truth, turned out to be something else entirely.

Your version of evolution involves a mechanism not required to explain a process that doesn't happen.

Not much of a case against actual evolution.

originally posted by: Kurokage
and did they teach you that in American schools???

Well one things for certain, American schools taught me how to count past 100 without making it weird.

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: Kurokage
and did they teach you that in American schools???

Well one things for certain, American schools taught me how to count past 100 without making it weird.

As a a slightly off topic but genuine question was it an American school?

. Rather , as 000s separation I always thought was a central European convention rather than US/UK.

Maybe it varies by state.