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: 21
11
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

The wiring in the brain is so tightly calibrated. it is an electrical circuit that would put the work of the best electrician to shame. The science of neural plasticity demonstrates the ability for these circuits to rewire throughout an organisms lifespan to allow it to further adapt to various environmental cues.


Have you heard of the particular foible among humans, generally referred to as "mental illness"? About 1% of of all human beings are Schizophrenic, with Schizotypals making up a far larger percentage. Not to mention all sorts of other problems which can often cause psychosis and delusion and immense suffering and certainly don't always appear to be "adaptive" to environmental cues in any helpful way. If it was purposeful, it doesn't seem like such a great design.

Not to also mention the billions who believe they have a fairy godfather up there somewhere. Humans are generally irrational, whether designed or not, it might not be as tightly calibrated as you believe it is.



No sort of amalgamation of mutations could ever manage to create such complex mechanisms.


Lol.

Because......(you seem to have left this part out).


With over 100 billion neurons and approximately 1 quadrillion synapses, the brain is the most complex computer known to humans. This is no accident. This is a purposefully designed computing machine.


The most complex "at this point". Though the pov amounts to an appeal to complexity and seems a bit whimsical.

You would know this because.....(you seem also to have left this part out lol).



edit on 10-10-2017 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Prove it. Quite simply prove what you said. Prove that it is not chance.


We can all agree that a car motor does not occur by random chance correct?


Superficially yes, in the normal sense.


But in the sense that this observation could be used to support a proposed "creation" by some intelligent being, that's a huge leap and it's not that simple.

You seem to be taking for granted a level of "causal agency" for one specific arrangement of matter (us/people) that we might not have to begin with (and seems contrary to the principles of nature). At least it has never really been demonstrated to exist (and there is lot of disagreement among academics). Then anthropomorphising this into something with only a conjectured existence at best. Simply because what you are trying to understand (evolution) seems complicated?

There is no evidence of any creator. There isn't even any evidence that our psyche and everything arising out of it (such as design of machines) itself isn't simply the result of the mechanical forces of nature.



edit on 10-10-2017 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
notice that the mind is so complex that it can even convince itself it is meaningless, as demonstrated by those vehemently arguing that we are chaotic mutant pond scum. Free will at its finest. and as always, there are biological consequences for those who stray from natural law.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Prove it. Quite simply prove what you said. Prove that it is not chance.


We can all agree that a car motor does not occur by random chance correct? It is an intelligent design that serves a purpose and behaves in a predictable, logical manner.

Notice the mitochondrion. It acts very similar to a car motor. Just like in a car motor, combustion reactions in living cells metabolize macronutrients to create energy for the organism. The energy from this reaction is meticulously transferred by coenzymes into the inner chamber of the mitochondrion to create an electrochemical gradient. This electrochemical gradient, which is much like a hydrogen fuel cell, then powers a turbine called ATP Synthase which creates ATP to be used as energy for the body. This entire process is carefully regulated by various biochemical and electrical cues to allow ample energy to the cell without causing excessive oxidative stress. Problems with these regulators can lead to cell death, cancer, etc, but for the most part mitochondria do an amazing job at maintaining a healthy metabolic equilibrium.

And unlike car engines, mitochondria are able to effortlessly reproduce. Henry Ford has nothing on these wonderful creations.


LOL! "It acts similar to". You seriously call that evidence? This is apologetics and excuses, not evidence. You have zero evidence, just flawed comparisons. You can't prove that it was actually designed. The fact that there are dozens of copy errors every single time a cell is replicated, should clue you in. You are seriously telling me that my COMPUTER from 20 years ago is more reliable at copying than something designed by an all powerful creator???


notice that the mind is so complex that it can even convince itself it is meaningless, as demonstrated by those vehemently arguing that we are chaotic mutant pond scum. Free will at its finest. and as always, there are biological consequences for those who stray from natural law.


And finish off with a nice straw man. Can you show me a scientific paper that refers to "chaotic mutant pond scum"? Yeah, you have free will to deny all science if you want, but I also have the free will to call you out on your illogical lies claiming that design has evidence because you think it kind of works similar to an engine when it doesn't.
edit on 10 10 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Again this is not proof.

Show proof.

And... GO



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I believe that we have someone confusing an allegory with proof
I am still waiting on proof of this double degree
After all critical thinking is a requirement in any science degree I've seen.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

LOL! "It acts similar to". You seriously call that evidence? This is apologetics and excuses, not evidence. You have zero evidence, just flawed comparisons. You can't prove that it was actually designed. The fact that there are dozens of copy errors every single time a cell is replicated, should clue you in. You are seriously telling me that my COMPUTER from 20 years ago is more reliable at copying than something designed by an all powerful creator???


Take it easy. That unnatural high blood pressure is bound to lead to some cell replication errors due to the excitotoxic brain activity you were exhibiting while writing that paragraph.

But anyway, I seem to have found my way into a den of wolves again. I'm out. Peace.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

ad hominem is ad hominem!

Answer the questions. Or are unable?



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes


Gee, you mean exactly the same thing that people have done who share a different opinion? Yes, it's a mindset. Evolution is nowhere close to being proven. It's a theory, and there are a lot of problems with the theory. For someone to claim that there are no "evolutionists", as was done, because there is no degree issued for that, is disingenuous at best.


The colloquial term "proven" is subjective and reliant on individual preference. Nothing is ever "proven" scientifically in the way most people would think of that term (something final, incontrovertible). That's usually the area inhabited by religions. Science is subject to revision and falsification. "Facts" themselves are never considered an absolute truth.

What do you think would happen if you were to supply scientists with a pre Cambrian rabbit fossil, for instance?

There is often consensus regarding the best explanations that are consistent with the evidence, that haven't been falsified (despite having the possibility). This would better describe a "theory" in the scientific sense. It is anything but a "guess" or "opinion" the way these things are used colloquially. You seem to be misapplying certain terms in a way that is misleading.


Not at all. I know what the terms mean, and I also know how often someone who is very pro-evolution will claim it's all proven, beyond doubt, no questioning allowed. Look at any of dozens of threads on this site alone for proof of that!

Real science, I agree, does not say anything is set in stone. Honest scientists know that what they believe today can be shown to be false tomorrow.

As for that rabbit fossil? Likely bury the evidence.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Funny you should talk about honest scientists. Every time I post (hi I'm a scientist) I mention that we don't have belief, we have data. In that, what we study is dependent on the evidence. IF the evidence changes, in a verifiable manner, we change the theory (when we have one).

So evolution fits the data.

Here is the telling thing. Anyone who has worked with scientists (specifically academic ones), knows that that they almost never agree on anything. Thus if something earns the title of "theory" then it is something they can't argue about.

Quite simply YOU are building up a strawman argument.

Your God has no proof either nor do my many Gods.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




But anyway, I seem to have found my way into a den of wolves again. I'm out. Peace.


The "den" is of your own making. You never substantiate your claims. If you want people who believe you without question then start your own religion. Then you won't have to engage in dialogue where you are asked to support your statements. You'll have a captive audience.

It's too bad because I always thought you were smart. You do a lot of research, but you draw conclusions that you don't want challenged. We build on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. An open mind isn't afraid of challenges. In fact, an open mind welcomes the challenges and is willing to discuss. That's where you fall short. It's too bad, really.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I've always found this "Den" to be more of a place some creationists come to post their ideas, in hope of arguing with people who are not creationists.

I guess it is a perspective thing?

I've always asked for evidence when they make claims. I wish one of them would be willing to do so, and discuss it. I like that sort of thing.



posted on Oct, 10 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
notice that the mind is so complex that it can even convince itself it is meaningless, as demonstrated by those vehemently arguing that we are chaotic mutant pond scum. Free will at its finest. and as always, there are biological consequences for those who stray from natural law.


Nah, it's doubtful that anyone really has even that in the way religions claim we do. It's never been demonstrated, everything points to the opposite.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

People who are self righteous don't require evidence for their beliefs. That's why none of them would make it to first base as scientists. The learning curve is not their thing.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Which is always ammusing, they accuse us (Scientists) of being self righteous. Sure some scientists are, but the requirement of evidence tends to humble you. Anyone who's started Postgraduate research, quickly looses any idea they know it all



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Take it easy. That unnatural high blood pressure is bound to lead to some cell replication errors due to the excitotoxic brain activity you were exhibiting while writing that paragraph.

But anyway, I seem to have found my way into a den of wolves again. I'm out. Peace.


High blood pressure? How can you say that when I'm laughing my ass off as I type it? I thought putting LOL at the beginning would clue you in. Your analogy was flawed, end of story, don't blame me.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
Not at all. I know what the terms mean, and I also know how often someone who is very pro-evolution will claim it's all proven, beyond doubt, no questioning allowed. Look at any of dozens of threads on this site alone for proof of that!


Dozens of threads with people being idiots and denying science is not proof that there are doubts to evolution. That is called religious fundamentalism where you take a literal translation of the bible and deny everything that conflicts without reason. The evidence itself is enough to show that it's valid and since none of you creationist folk have ever once attempted to debunk the hard evidence, it goes without saying that evolution is verified by science. You guys don't have an argument against it at all besides blind denial of scientific research.



posted on Oct, 11 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

It doesn't seem like there is much doubt about evolution from either side.

The scientific community understandably accepts evolution as a common fact because it is a fact. The theory part that religious people dislike ie. "common descent" is so overwhelmingly supported by evidence from every relevant field of science, that it is the only viable explanation.

The religious fundamentalists simply reject evolution (often quite emotionally) and always will while they hold such fundamentalist beliefs. Evolution brings conflict re their favourite fairy story. Unfortunately for them the facts do seem to indicate we really closely related to, and basically are a species of those "dirty damned apes!" ourselves. Seems they don't like it much.

They much prefer the belief humans are special this way, and that a magical and invisible being simply *poofs* complex biological species into existence "as is". If you believe strongly enough, it must be so lol.

Has there ever been a thread on these boards where genuine and honest doubts were raised about evolution based on the science itself, rather than being motivated by religion? I can think of one where a member claimed humans were genetically manipulated (the aliens), they at least brought up some interesting points. Usually it's just the same old religious apologetics.



edit on 11-10-2017 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

High blood pressure? How can you say that when I'm laughing my ass off as I type it? I thought putting LOL at the beginning would clue you in.


in context, your Caps lock LOL is more like an exasperated laugh rather than the healthy laughing proven to relieve all sorts of stress and what not.



Your analogy was flawed, end of story, don't blame me.


Where is the flaw? Do you not believe in cars or mitochondria? Or do you not understand how they both rely on the combustion of macromolecules to create energy? Or do you think it is flawed simply because my conclusion disagrees with your beliefs?


originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
a reply to: Barcs

The scientific community understandably accepts evolution as a common fact because it is a fact.


It is this type of chauvinism that has anchored the scientific community in a meaningless dead end in the labyrinth of life
edit on 12-10-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton


here is the flaw? Do you not believe in cars or mitochondria? Or do you not understand how they both rely on the combustion of macromolecules to create energy? Or do you think it is flawed simply because my conclusion disagrees with your beliefs?


The flaw is that it's not a car!! It's not even close to the same thing. Your examples are laughable. You don't have a single point about evolution or the evidence all you can say is that "oh this kind of looks like this". Just stop.







 
11
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join