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

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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

I gave easy examples of irreducible complexity. Instances where parts could not be removed because it compromises the whole. You give a wikipedia link as your rebuttal which contains quotes that further affirms I am using proper examples. You then gave another definition which also matched the examples I gave.

Stop being stubborn. Being a sceptic doesn't mean denying everything. You've gotta be objective.

a reply to: cooperton

Many life forms dont have hearts.

Humans do (and need them to live) because they have evolved that way.

Cutting out someone's heart is not in anyway proof of irreducible complexity.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Off topic a little yes so I'll star ya for that... but the guy who started it took off or was booted.

Begs me to question how y'all say the elements, do you just use the number?

Is it Zedirconium and Zedenon?

Does the State have a problem with saying Zee, do they really make everyone say Zed?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton

Many life forms dont have hearts.

Humans do (and need them to live) because they have evolved that way.

Cutting out someone's heart is not in anyway proof of irreducible complexity.

It doesn't matter what specific component is. I was giving examples. Name any organism and I will tell you a list of irreducibly complex components. Every living organism has ATP synthase. Without ATP synthase the entire organism can not function. this is irreducible complexity

a reply to: iamthevirus

Always 'zed ' unless we are talking about zz top.

a reply to: cooperton

Also part of evolution.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to have been modular whereby two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality.[16][17] This association appears to have occurred early in evolutionary history, because essentially the same structure and activity of ATP synthase enzymes are present in all kingdoms of life.[16]

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton

Also part of evolution.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to have been modular whereby two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality.[16][17] This association appears to have occurred early in evolutionary history, because essentially the same structure and activity of ATP synthase enzymes are present in all kingdoms of life.[16]

How were these pieces even evolving when there was no ATP production without ATP synthase? ATP is required for mostly all biochemical functions, including protein and DNA synthesis.

Yet another example of irreducible complexity.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
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

I see this as incorrect and not needed, but it seems to be a recurring point from a couple of people here as some main reason that evolution can not happen. Do you believe that humans today could not mate with humans in a million years due to Genetic drift?

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 apew

Once again people seem to want to describe all this as some linear path and it is not. It is any number of branches in different direction. So you can't get something like a frog evolving into a wombat as both branched off a very long time ago into totally different paths. Many branches disappear and others continue. If we were to look at that mammals started 135 million years ago we would need to look for the relationship from that point forward, and if we can do that then we can do it all the way back.

I keep reading versions of what you wrote above as another form of proof, and it is incorrect as it is applied. They are talking points pulled from people who are bias to evolution and 99% of those who use these talking point have no clue to what they are talking about other than to propagate the points over and over, but we have 1000s of people who do know what it all means and have zero issues that evolution can happen and did, and is still going on.

a reply to: cooperton

In current lifeforms.

Yet another example of a common ancestor.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton

In current lifeforms.

Yet another example of a common ancestor.

Name any living organism and I will show you irreducibly complex components

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton

In current lifeforms.

Yet another example of a common ancestor.

Name any living organism and I will show you irreducibly complex components

If you really could you would be posting from your mega yacht and be the most famous scientist in the world.

Guessing that's not the case.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: iamthevirus

Always 'zed ' unless we are talking about zz top.

There's something suspicious about that... I swear the State is trying to control your mind, I'll figure it out, I'm a sleuth.

We are kind of untrusting and highly suspicious of all things State, it's just how it goes... thanks to you guys lol



"Queensreich" Operation Mindcrime

originally posted by: ScepticScot

If you really could you would be posting from your mega yacht and be the most famous scientist in the world.

Guessing that's not the case.

The irreducible complexity argument dates back to the very beginning of evolutionary theory

"We come now to Professor Weismann's endeavour to disprove my second thesis — that it is impossible to explain by natural selection alone the co-adaptation of co-operative parts. It is thirty years since this was set forth in 'The Principles of Biology', I instanced the enormous horns of the extinct Irish elk, and contended that in this and in kindred cases, where for the efficient use of some one enlarged part many other parts have to be simultaneously enlarged, it is out of the question to suppose that they can have all spontaneously varied in the required proportions."
-Herbert Spencer (1895)

Spencer used this logic to say that natural selection is incorrect and it must be a system of inheritance of acquired characteristics, similar to Lamarckism. Since the 19th century we have found that even microbiology is irreducibly complex, which is something they didn't even know about in 1895. If you don't understand what irreducible complexity means by now, and how it is present in all organisms then I'm not sure what else I could say. You seem to rely solely on authority figures so here's some more quotes:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."
-William Dembski

"In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..."
-Michael J. Katz 1986


So anything where removing one part ruins the function of the whole is considered to be irreducibly complex. Evolutionists just ignore this inconvenience to maintain their belief system.

a reply to: cooperton

'Evolutionists' ignore irreducible complexity in much the same way they ignore the role of leprechauns in evolution.

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.

...

Evolutionists readily acknowledge that the origin of life remains a mystery​—although there are many conflicting theories. A leading new atheist, Richard Dawkins, claims that by virtue of the vast number of planets that must exist in the universe, life was bound to appear somewhere. But many reputable scientists are not so sure. Cambridge Professor John Barrow says that the belief in “the evolution of life and mind” hits “dead-ends at every stage. There are just so many ways in which life can fail to evolve in a complex and hostile environment that it would be sheer hubris to suppose that, simply given enough carbon and enough time, anything is possible.”

Keep in mind, too, that life is not just an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information, which is encoded in DNA. Hence, when we talk about the origin of life, we are also talking about the origin of biological information. What is the only source of information that we know of? In a word, intelligence. Would chance accidents produce complex information, such as a computer program, an algebraic formula, an encyclopedia, or even a recipe for a cake? Of course not. Yet, when it comes to sophistication and efficiency, none of these even begin to compare with the information stored in the genetic code of living organisms.

Luck as the First Cause​—Good Science?

According to atheists, “the universe is as it is, mysteriously, and it just happens to permit life,” explains Paul Davies. “Had it been different,” say atheists, “we would not be here to argue about it. The universe may or may not have a deep underlying unity, but there is no design, purpose, or point to it all​—at least none that would make sense to us.” “The advantage of this position,” notes Davies, “is that it is easy to hold​—easy to the point of being a cop-out,” that is, a convenient way to avoid facing the issue.

In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, molecular biologist Michael Denton concluded that the theory of evolution “is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious . . . scientific theory.” He also referred to Darwinian evolution as one of the greatest myths of our time.

To be sure, the appeal to luck as the first cause does smack of myth. Imagine this: An archaeologist sees a rough stone that is more or less square. He may attribute that shape to chance, which would be reasonable. But later he finds a stone that is perfectly formed in the shape of a human bust, down to the finest details. Does he attribute this item to chance? No. His logical mind says, ‘Someone made this.’ Using similar reasoning, the Bible states: “Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Do you agree with that statement?

“The more we get to know about our universe,” writes Lennox, “the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator God, who designed the universe for a purpose, gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

...

Source: Has Science Done Away With God? (Awake!—2010)

It's a strange habit when people attribute machinery and technology to chance and mindless processes (especially when at the same time they have an interest in endeavors such as SETI):

Molecular Machinery of Life

originally posted by: Xtrozero
... 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.

"99,6% us", lol, the fictional numbers get higher and higher as time passes (as does the description become bolder from comparing less than 1% of the genomes to the description "99.6% us"). Does anyone still remember the time when the claim was 90%? Then it went to 95%, then 99, then back to 98 or 97.something. And none of those numbers are actually based on comparing (and counting all the differences in) the whole genome without fiddling around especially with the raw data of the chimp genome (to make it appear more like the human genome, and leaving large blank spaces to help with aligning it to the human genome*); and without cherry-picking those parts in the genome which you have made to look more similar by fiddling around with the raw data, and then only counting the differences there (and sometimes not even all of them).

*: see below from 32:55 to 37:42 for an example (in particular starting at 34:03):

originally posted by: cooperton

Stop being stubborn. Being a sceptic doesn't mean denying everything. You've gotta be objective.

Interesting thing I've noticed about those calling themselves skeptics, such as Michael Shermer, founder of the Skeptic Society, and its members, or those on youtube like CosmicSkeptic, that they are never all that skeptical about the claims made by evolutionists, or people like Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking (thinking of the claims made regarding a universe from nothing), or the related stories published as so-called "peer reviewed" science.

Why wouldn't a self-styled skeptic be skeptical about for example the claim that because of DNA similarity we can say that "the Chimp is like 99,6% us"?

a reply to: whereislogic

Who says the universe came from nothing? Hawking didn't say that.

a reply to: whereislogic

What is it about the scientific origin of life on Earth that especially grates with you?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
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.

Welcome to another episode of 'as the clueless twist and turn...'...