There's Something Very FISHY About Evolution! Smell it here!

Originally posted by Elzon1
reply to post by Sinny

 

"bananas being made to peel."

In case you didn't know THAT was from humans using selective breeding and other processes to make bananas more human friendly. The supermarket banana you know of today is not anywhere close to how it started.

When you understand how evolution works you can understand how salmon, as well as other animals, develop the capability to sense the earth's magnetic field for navigational purposes.

Here is another example of an animal with the ability to sense the earth's magnetic field for navigational purposes... only it uses light instead of magnetite (interesting concept):

Bird light compass

edit on 31-7-2012 by Elzon1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2012 by Elzon1 because: (no reason given)

I'm well aware of the earth magnetics, and animals use of them.

Thanks for educating me on the bananana thought.... I always thought it was a happy accident lol

Originally posted by Elzon1
Here is another example of an animal with the ability to sense the earth's magnetic field for navigational purposes... only it uses light instead of magnetite (interesting concept):

Bird light compass

Yeah that's pretty amazing, it's also been found to be a quantum effect. It may be something similar going on as in the OP. Get ready for quantum biology, it's a game changer.

But discoveries in recent years suggest that nature knows a few tricks that physicists don't: coherent quantum processes may well be ubiquitous in the natural world. Known or suspected examples range from the ability of birds to navigate using Earth's magnetic field to the inner workings of photosynthesis

www.nature.com...

You just confirmed you don't know what IC is.

Wrong!

So a single judge decides science now?

You lost in court and court is based on the evidence.. Hell, I even demonstrated right here for you as to why it's a laughable joke. You fail!

Fact is he ignored testimony from a micro biologist that performed knockout test confirming IC. The judge went for a story, he believed that it was an argument only against darwinism and not support for ID that story has now been refuted in that the TSIII system is now known not to be a predecessor.

Incorrect.. In fact said Micro Biologist never produced a peer reviewed journal, or ever proved his case. FAIL!...

Watch the lecture from James Shapiro, he brings this up. He says the critique is correct, he does not however agree with the conclusion. He's just a tad more qualified than you I think

I did and I laughed because it's utter made up BS.. Hell easily debunked by the common mouse trap example. The people you are citing are dishonest morons.

Like I said it has not been refuted by any scientific means.

WRONG!

Show empirical evidence in the peer reviewed literature that refutes it? Something besides a story.

Google scholar shows more than one example on reducible complexity:

Evolution: Reducible Complexity—The Case for Bacterial Flagella
WF Doolittle… - Current biology, 2007 - Elsevier
Advocates of Intelligent Design (ID) hold that some biological structures are 'irreducibly
complex', made up of parts that would be useless by themselves, and requiring for their assembly
an intelligent designer. The bacterial flagellum is one such structure, the 21st Century ...
Cited by 8 - Related articles - All 5 versions

Biological Sciences - Evolution

Abigail Clements,
Dejan Bursac,
Xenia Gatsos,
Andrew J. Perry,
Srgjan Civciristov,
Nermin Celik,
Vladimir A. Likic,
Sebastian Poggio,
Christine Jacobs-Wagner,
Richard A. Strugnell,
and Trevor Lithgow

The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine PNAS 2009 106 (37) 15791-15795; published ahead of print August 26, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0908264106
The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine...The challenge of irreducible complexity . Nat Hist 111 : 74 . 8 Miller K...Supporting Information (PDF) The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine...

And I could list far more other than the direct demonstrations I gave you myself to which you clearly ignored..

You won't. It will be just more bla bla bla.

[snip]

You are clearly dillusional.

Care to be a lab rat and test this irreducible complexity theory out? You can be the star of the show on camera.

Like your epic fail in not being able to refute it SCIENTIFICALLY?

Oh I did.. I even gave a real world video demonstration... You fail!

I don't want to derail the thread, so show the empirical peer reviewed evidence. Put up or shut up.

G-lock has tons of peer reviewed material concerning it.. They even record it for study.. And we can get into deep water blackouts and even into medical anesthesia to demonstrate how retarded irreducible complexity is..

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Yes I know there are plenty of PROPOSALS. Probably hundreds in fact. Do you know what empirical evidence means?

From Evolution:Reducable Complexity The Case for Bacterial Flagella.

A recent paper, which will surely figure centrally in the debate between evolutionists and Intelligent Design creationists, proposes a (perhaps too simple) scheme for the evolution of bacterial flagella.

Fail. I'm pretty sure I said not a story?

This is empirical evidence. From one of the worlds foremost experts on the flagella.



IC is confirmed.

I just love how you feel all you have to do is type WRONG! without support.

So there you have it. Like I said for these dogmatic fundamentalists stories take the place of experimental evidence. Thanks for confirming that for me.

Yes I know there are plenty of PROPOSALS. Probably hundreds in fact. Do you know what empirical evedence means?

I just gave you two peer reviewed journals and a video that explicitly demonstrates why irreducible complexity is a laughable joke.. Clearly you do not comprehend what empirical evidence is.. Like I said, you can feel free to be a lab rat..

Dolittle, W.F. & Zhaxybayeva, O., (2007). Evolution: Reducible Complexity — The Case for Bacterial Flagella , Current Biology, 17(13) , 510-512

Pallen, M.J., & Matzke, N.J., (2006). From Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4, 784-790

Wong, T., Amidi, A., Dodds, A., Siddiqi, S., Wang, J., Yep, T., Tamang, D.G., & Saier, M.H., (2007). The Evolution of Bacterial Flagellum, Microbe, 2(7), 335-340

Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ. (2006). “From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella.” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 4(10), 784-790. October 2006. (Published online ahead of print on September 5, 2006.) [PubMed] [Journal] [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Fail. I'm pretty sure I said not a story?

Wrong.. It's based on a scientific paper and demonstration of the reducible complexity of the flagella.. You FAIL!. And it was this they used in court to to demolish your little ID friend who couldn't even back himself up..

IC is confirmed.

Try typing that without a language or alphabet. ...IC confirmed? NOPE you fail!. Demonstrated again!

reply to post by TheJackelantern


OK dude, I don't want to derail the thread. If you wish to ignore experimental evidence and testimony from someone who has decades of hands on experience with the flagella over stories that's entirely your decision.

You are a funny fella.

WRONG!!

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

OK dude, I don't want to derail the thread. If you wish to ignore experimental evidence and testimony from someone who has decades of hands on experience with the flagella over stories that's entirely your decision.

You are a funny fella.

edit on 1-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

No incorrect.. Testimony and experiments you have no scientific journal to back up with.. You fail! Beheh never got his supposed IC paper published, in fact, he never submitted it.. EVER!!! ... Why? Because it's pseudoscience, and it's JUNK.. He's a discredited scientist.. And unlike you, I have provided a peer reviewed journal, and an actual demonstration of why IC is laughable..

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Sigh.... WRONG!!! you presented a proposal. It even says so. There are plenty of those.

And if you actually read some of those papers, most will infer the TSIII system as a predecessor, this has been refuted.

Neo-darwinism is not falsifiable, the goal posts are constantly moved, and stories fill any gaps. Unfalsifiable means it is not scientific at all.

Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes, Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (Ashurst, Southampton, United Kingdom: WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review to be included in the peer-edited volume of proceedings.

Another. jb.asm.org...

He shows the results of the experiments for crying out loud, and he has dozens more papers on the subject.
He's pretty much THE expert on the matter.

And just for the record his a list of peer reviewed material.
www.discovery.org...

You are extremely rude. You do realize the first person you insulted and attacked was actually presenting a case for standard evolution and not intelligent design?

Thick as... What ever happened to the ignore button?

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

Sigh.... WRONG!!! you presented a proposal. It even says so. There are plenty of those.

Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes, Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (Ashurst, Southampton, United Kingdom: WIT Press, 2004).

This article underwent conference peer review to be included in the peer-edited volume of proceedings.

Another. jb.asm.org...

He shows the results of the experiments for crying out loud, and he has dozens more papers on the subject.
He's pretty much THE expert on the matter.

And just for the record his a list of peer reviewed material.
www.discovery.org...

You are extremely rude. You do realize the first person you insulted and attacked was actually presenting a case for standard evolution and not intelligent design?

Thick as...

What ever happened to the ignore button?

edit on 1-8-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)

Youre citing a page that is not a journal site for scientific peer reviewed material... And You do realize that IC in his context is a straw-man argument right? And you do realize that most of Beheh's actual work has nothing to do with establishing ID. And the site you posted, literally counts on you not reading the journals as it quote mines them out of context... Do me a favor, don't post known dishonest sources that have zero academic value..

Muller's definition of "interlocking complexity" is exactly the same as the definition of "irreducible complexity" -- a system of mutually independent parts that requires all those parts to be present for the system to work. However, Muller's claim is that this is an EXPECTED result of evolution. Behe took the same definition, and claimed it was IMPOSSIBLE as a result of evolution.

The reason for the difference is basically that Muller was using evolution; and Behe was using a weird strawman of his own devising. Behe describes evolution as working by the gradual addition of parts, one by one. Muller, however, describes evolution as working by gradual modifications of parts. Muller's description is the more accurate. New proteins don't get added to systems particularly often; the vast majority of evolution is small modifications to proteins, to alter their amino acid sequence and hence their chemistry. Behe neglects this entirely; and hence omits the vast majority of evolutionary change.

And the examples and demonstration video I gave you tells you exactly why it's a strawman argument and why it's an utter fail.. It's irrelevant if you take a part out and if there is a fail in the current system, or a reduction of functionality.. It doesn't equate to zero function, or magically it not being irreducible.. And worse yet, evolution is not refuted what-so-ever by trying to claim IC in this context.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


What video? the pilot blanking out? or the cat playing the piano?

Really?

Ok. I concede for the sake of the thread. You are far too intellectual for me.

You should apologise to the first person you insulted I think.

What video? the pilot blanking out? or the cat playing the piano?

If the tenants of IC were correct, Consciousness could not be reduced. See, your trying to imply evolution wrong when the conscious state itself is a product of evolution in itself. It can not exist without cause, and the complexity required to support it is immense. IC is based on the concept that something like that would be irreducible due to it's complexity.. Well that failed eh!... It's fundamentally a bad argument and entirely WRONG!..

It doesn't take a genius to figure it out!.. The only part he gets right is that if you remove parts, the function of the system either changes, or doesn't work. And there is no requirement for an organism to have all it's parts be of significant function or purpose..They can simply evolve to have and gain functions.. Your argument rests on just claiming it's impossible while ignoring how it's demonstrably and arguably possible. And the biggest reason he lost in court is because he couldn't demonstrate IC.. And there is no peer review paper on IC being "confirmed" for a very good reason. It's a straw man at best.

In fact there isn't anything you can point me to, other than existence itself, to which you could say isn't reducible in complexity.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Consciousness is a mystery. It has never been refered to as IC. So it is a strawman.
To refute something you have to understand what it is you are attempting to refute I think.

The funny thing is what you are saying is consciousness is IC, which cannot be founded in any way. I can't emphasize how STUPID that is!

But as I said, I concede oh wise one.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I thought thought came before the word?

Yes matter cannot exist without a mind to observe it... Both creationism and evolution are incorrrect. We need to look at the universe as a living entity. The laws of physics simply habits...

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

Consciousness is a mystery. It has never been refered to as IC. So it is a strawman.

It proves IC is a laughable JOKE.. and Consciousness is only a mystery regarding how exactly it emerges even though we know the basic principles that are required for it to function or exist at all. It's a highly complex system the produces it. Consciousness is just the emergent end result or property. In analogy terms, it's like the image being displayed on your computer screen to which is the emergent property or end result of the processes that produce it... Disrupt those processes and you loose the image, or the conscious state... Simple as that, and it really debunks ID because it isn't ID that produces the conscious state, or creates the cognitive system capable of producing a conscious state. .. Ever hear that question: How did GOD get here? You know, the rebuttal to how the universe got here when discussing cause and effect? Well, first cause definitely isn't going to be a conscious entity son.. Hence, everything is here not because of ID, it's here because of a self-generating system we call existence. Yep, you first need the inertia of information before you have any hope of having anything other than a blank dead static state..

Yes matter cannot exist without a mind to observe it... Both creationism and evolution are incorrrect. We need to look at the universe as a living entity. The laws of physics simply habits...

Incorrect. consciousness is an emergent property of the physical system.. You are governed by a system that must be a quantized system. A system that has feedback within the system. Matter is not dependent on your observation, and existence isn't either. You are dependent on them to exist.. Existence would persist to exist without any conscious entity what-so-ever. It would simply exist without observation or appreciation. Consciousness can't exist without cause, and thus is irrelevant to the big picture as a whole. Without such systems, their rules ect, you or any conscious being couldn't be here. Evolution in general is a fact, and the conscious state is all the direct evidence you need to prove it a fact, and ID/IC as BS.

If self organization and order out of chaos is the cause, then it is the finely tuned natural laws of the universe that allow it to happen. If any of the finely tuned constants where just slightly out we would not exist.

In steps the multi universe theory where we just happen to reside in a universe that allows it to happen. Even the high preist of atheism Richard Dawkins has made this comment. Yes there's always a way out for the materialists even if it invokes unfounded possibilities.

Originally posted by squiz
If self organization and order out of chaos is the cause, then it is the finely tuned natural laws of the universe that allow it to happen. If any of the finely tuned constants where just slightly out we would not exist.

Existence itself is the totality of all laws and rules and is the totality of causality. It fine tunes itself.. it fine tuned itself so a conscious entity like you could exist. Your argument again fails to realize why the fact a conscious state can't exist without cause invalidates your entire argument. Everything looks fine tuned because that is an inherent property of reality (existence itself)... Any quantized existence is going to give you that impression. And there can only be a quantized existence. Hence, 1 above zero being a good example.. pretty hard to exist as nothing. And it requires a massive amount of information to support a cognitive system.. There is no "I", here.. It's all that which makes "I" possible that is relevant. Just like it takes trillions of cells to make up the average human body. It's a team effort! And you are the product of it.

In steps the multi universe theory where we just happen to reside in a universe that allows it to happen. Even the high preist of atheism Richard Dawkins has made this comment. Yes there's always a way out for the materialists even if it invokes unfounded possibilities.

It's irrelevant of how many places reside in existence. Existence is every place, and governs them all regardless of what rules are in them. At the end of the day, Existence is Causality and it all begins there.. You can't exist without cause, and only existence itself can exist without cause.. Existence exists without creation for the simple fact that non-existence can not exist, or literally exist as a person, place, object, substance, or thing.

reply to post by TheJackelantern


Wow you even now the mystery of existance and consciousness! Impressive.

It fine tunes itself you see.

You can't create or design into existence what yourself is slave to require to exist, or function. Thus ID is a laughable joke, and so is IC.. And you worshiping another part of existence is like existence worshiping itself, and that is playing along and assuming their might be some entity out there in and of existence like you to which you might like to worship... It's silly, pointless, and moot. You may as well become a Pantheist and worship existence in it's entirety at that point.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by TheJackelantern

 

Wow you even now the mystery of existance! Impressive.

It's no mystery, it exists. and it doesn't take a genius to know one can't create that which one's self requires to exist.. So I am going to ask you a question son...

What is GOD without existence?

Let's see if you can comprehend the context of that question, and actually answer it.. That answer exposes why the concept of god is meaningless, or at best a narcissistic delusion of grandeur. Worst of all, there is no beginning to existence, and one can't create time to have a beginning.. It's pretty impossible to preexist existence and time so you could create it so yourself can exist. It's why theistic arguments are self-refutations. There isn't even a need to refute self-refuting concepts as they dismiss themselves by consequence.. It's just redundant to..