It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible complexity and Evolution

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi


'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.


That's false as well.

My dog for example. He's a dog. He goes woof, plays fetch, barks at dogs, eats dog food and is, well, a dog.

Now, he had an accident as a pup. He severely damaged his tail. His tail was removed apart from a couple of inches. Guess what? He's still a dog.

Same goes for your woodpecker example. You take its ability to be a woodpecker and guess what? It's still a bird.




posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

It would help if you actually quoted what the modern theory of evolution states. Not paraphrase it to build your strawman



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi


back to irreducible complexity


OK. It's nonesense because not every mutation is beneficial and adaptations originate from changes in function.

Want an example of changes in function?

I give to you, the lungfish!



Could you elaborate on your rather mysterious argument?


A fish doing something a fish shouldn't. It can breathe air. It has a swim bladder (helps with distributing its buoyancy) like most other fish. The big difference? It can use the swim bladder like we use our lungs. That means it can literally live out of water for, sometimes, a few years.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

Which God is the answer. I say there are many, but as a polytheistic Pagan I would
Prove me wrong. Oh and learn what evolution actually says ey?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22640036]TerryDon79[/post

the lung fish, my anti-evolution friends, is the intermediate stage creature that you keep asking for.
edit on 5-9-2017 by stormson because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: stormson

Shhhh don't do that too them, they'll only pretend its the Debils work



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Symbiotics.

Mitochondria and chloroplasts. The energy factories of all animal and plant life.

Imagine a Civil War era submarine moving along by bicycle chain and sprocket power, then along comes a fully functioning nuclear power plant out of nowhere and fits itself into the submarine, and retrains the bicycle crew to supply and maintain the engine . About the same level of complexity and happenstance happening out of nowhere.

In order for this evolve story to work, the single celled primordial sludge stayed inefficient long enough for bacterial evolution to produce mitochondria and chloroplasts, their DNA is circular and similar to bacteria. Then this highly developed bacterium joins symbiotically with this going nowhere inefficient single celled primordial sludge that's been just hanging around forever.....not likely. The bacterium itself would have been so highly evolved in comparison it would have dominated the inefficient single celled sludge and probably used it as a snack during it's climb up the complexity scale because it could convert more energy.

But that is not what happened, the more highly evolved mitochondria was joined with the inefficient life form. Not what you would call survival of the fittest, the exact opposite of the evolutionary gospel happened. A sign from God? Right there in front of everyone to see once scientific inquiry exposed the inner workings of the cell.
edit on 6-9-2017 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2017 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

why not bring both theories together and say that evolution is one of many omnipotently controlled creations. The electrical energy we know as consciousness being the driving factor.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: SaturnFX

I think in most cases things do evolve gradually but there are also cases where several different systems evolve at the same time and they just happen to form a more complex system when put together.

The best example of this is probably the very first single celled organisms, there are many parts required for a cell to have reproductive capabilities, and the very first self-replicating cell would have come together based on pure chance because there wasn't yet any evolutionary pressure. And unless the exact right parts came together in exactly the right way, the replication process would fail or not work at all.

Isn't using your imagination a fascinating ability of the human mind? What you described above is still wishful thinking though (the bolded parts). In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (source: How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

But who cares about proper evidence when there are other methods to convince people of a myth or several myths, right? My nr.1 reason for not believing evolutionary philosophies are factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive/true:

the way of arguing and talking about it by those adhering to these unverified philosophies/ideas and storylines. I prefer actual evidence* over arguments. *: Evidence that makes sense logically. Not leaving out or downplaying inconvenient details using every propaganda technique I've ever read about which includes the teaching and contradictory philosophy that 'science does not deal with absolutes' (and all its variants that promote agnosticism and regarding this phrase, attempts to capitalize on the ambiguity of language and people's ignorance of the synonyms for "absolute" or "science", i.e. knowledge, which essentially means a familiarity with facts or things that are factual/true/certain/absolute/correct, without error/definitive, acquired by personal experience, observation, or study).

I don't particularly like the way the video below was done (I think it could have been done much better) but I'm sharing it anyway cause it doesn't matter anyway to most people here (how he puts it, they'll disagree anyway and it won't really pass the conditioned mental barrier):

I particularly don't like him skipping past the subjects of redundancy (in engineering) and interdependency (in engineering), his numbers of "50 to a hundred" are totally off because he does that (I guess it's ok to add 3 zeros at least to those numbers if you want to give an estimate, depending on what you're actually counting).

The screencast below will introduce students to the idea of homeostasis, interdependence and hierarchal organization among cells. Also, it will discuss the important of cell communication in multicellular organisms. (at least it says so in the description)
Chapter 7 Section (7.4)
edit on 6-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: cyberjedi

This makes a lot more sense to me than anything you are talking about. There's a natural progression to complexity over millions and millions of years:



"Those are some of the things molecules do given 4 billion years of evolution."

Fish have 2 eyes, a mouth, 2 nostril holes, a backbone, and a poop hole might be a clue as to where we came from!



Yes the assumptions made in the video are quite pleasing. But how do you argue against irreducible complexity?

Ever read about the Bacterial flaggelum motor? Its a bacterial motor. It has 50 parts or so. It needs every part to operate. If one part i missing, the motor cannot operate.


It doesn't evolve that way. You are presuming an intelligent designer which is contrary to the existing evidence. The evidence is the billions of years of organizing molecules and proteins to create order out of the forces driving towards chaos. It is impossible for the human mind to comprehend the amount of intelligence that goes into a billion years of evolution. It's like trying to understand how many plants absorbing the suns's energy went into making one barrel of oil. It's just one of those ideas that is so big over such a long time span it's impossible to appreciate.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: cyberjedi

why not bring both theories together and say that evolution is one of many omnipotently controlled creations. The electrical energy we know as consciousness being the driving factor.


This is simply no agreeable evidence to suggest evolution was directed or controlled. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest from the fossil record evolution is pure chaos in terms of picking winners and losers.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What is the driving force of these changes? usually electrical energy of some sort. What gives us consciousness? Electrical energy. What is the one thing that connects us all humans and animals alike. electrical energy. Maybe chaos is the modus operandi of this electrical energy the driving force of all life as we know it.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 03:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9 *

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.

Source: The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking (QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?)

Again and again, just storytelling, no proper evidence for any of the storylines erronuously and dishonestly* referred to as hypotheses and scientific theories (*: with a marketing agenda).

To make sure nobody is going to argue that it's presented as just a hypothesis and not also a "theory" (implying a "scientific theory")...
Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia

Symbiogenesis, or endosymbiotic theory, is an evolutionary theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic organisms,...

The Endosymbiosis Theory: Evolution of Cells - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

The endosymbiosis theory explains how eukaryotic cells may have evolved from prokaryotic cells. ...

It's neither a scientific theory nor a hypothesis as hypothesis is defined by at least 1 dictionary of scientific terms that I've seen. It's just a fancy story, sophisticated, presented in the most persuasive manner possible as if it's plausible at the least, but with little bearing on reality. The fact remains that "no experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible."

That doesn't stop people from pretending and claiming that there is so-called "evidence" for this storyline and myth though, like wikipedia does shortly after what I quoted in spite of that fact.
edit on 6-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: conscientiousobserver
a reply to: cyberjedi

why not bring both theories together and say that evolution is one of many omnipotently controlled creations. The electrical energy we know as consciousness being the driving factor.


There's a Dutch expression that talks about dragging old cows out of the ditch for which the translation hardly does the expression justice the way I was reminded of it (some translations I've found online talk about 'let bygones be bygones' or some example sentences say "I do not want to go back over old arguments." and "We do not need to harp on what is past."). Regarding those example sentences, unless when it's done in a useful manner like this:
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 1 (take note of the quotation about consciousness at 11:57)
The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies Part 2 (take note of his commentary regarding desire, will and consciousness at 1:07 and 3:44)

It's not uncommon to hear teachers of evolutionary philosophies use phrases such as "the ...(fill in a name for an organism) evolved a ... (fill in the name of some biomolecular machine or system of machinery) or they might phrase it as "found a way to evolve or develop a ...". That's just how Plato would talk about it if he were alive today.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi


'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.


That's false as well.

My dog for example. He's a dog. He goes woof, plays fetch, barks at dogs, eats dog food and is, well, a dog.

Now, he had an accident as a pup. He severely damaged his tail. His tail was removed apart from a couple of inches. Guess what? He's still a dog.

Same goes for your woodpecker example. You take its ability to be a woodpecker and guess what? It's still a bird.


I am as of yet unsure of the point you are making. Have you seen the video about irreducible complexity?



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi


'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.


That's false as well.

My dog for example. He's a dog. He goes woof, plays fetch, barks at dogs, eats dog food and is, well, a dog.

Now, he had an accident as a pup. He severely damaged his tail. His tail was removed apart from a couple of inches. Guess what? He's still a dog.

Same goes for your woodpecker example. You take its ability to be a woodpecker and guess what? It's still a bird.


I am as of yet unsure of the point you are making. Have you seen the video about irreducible complexity?


I don't need to watch a video. The IC argument has been around for some time. It's also failed every time.

And you not getting my point isn't on me. It would be your comprehension issue.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.



May I present you: Paramecium bursaria.

What? a species of ciliate protozoan
What is so special about it? it "swallows" photosynthetic green algae, Zoochlorella, but does not digest it. It keeps them alive inside the cytoplasma, provides a "safe environment", nitrogen and light, while getting part of the sugar the algae produces via photosynthesis.

link with more info

Of course, we used Paramecium to artificially force something similar; to create a model to study this endosymbiont hypothesis in greater detail:



Our aim in this study was for experimentally reproducing the conditions mimicking the first contact and development of symbiosis between unicellular ciliate protozoa and photosyn - thetic bacteria as a novel model for studying the very early evolu - tional processes for the emergence of photosynthetic eukaryotes, the hypothetical ancestorial organisms of plants


link to publication
edit on 6-9-2017 by whismermill because: layout



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: SaturnFX

In your "belief" system how did non-material consciousness evolve. It's rhetorical don't hurt yourself.


Its not rhetorical though, nor is it a belief system.

We don't know, but there are a few halfway decent hypothesis on this matter on how the first basic rna strands came to be. Not sure if you want a link, I suspect your question was rhetorical on the basis of you not wanting to be bothered with possible answers.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi
As for the debunking of evolution,


Falsificationism is a keystone of science, yes, but it must be done in earnest.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
it simply means you cannot reduce the complexity of a system without having it fail,

As the thing it is, but that doesn't mean it started out as that thing. You can reduce a car for instance to its basic components, but once you remove the wheels, it is no longer a car..but it could make a perfectly fine air conditioned box, or a storage...remove the engine and its not a car, but it could be a bike, etc...point is, things evolve from lesser things and in that evolution, something may drastically change its attributes..from small house to car type thing



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join