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: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Ahh and here we have the old chestnut of "evolution must be wrong because it does not explain how life started". Let us ignore that the theories of evolution (I use the plural, as the theory has evolved) have never concerned themselves with the "how life started" and did its job and stuck too "how life changes". You know evolution meaning a process of change and all.

Where is logic indeed, not that post of yours




posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

But ofcourse, it's my comprehension issue, how could it be anything else.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi
a reply to: TerryDon79

But ofcourse, it's my comprehension issue, how could it be anything else.


Do you actually know what IC is, or did you just stumble upon it?

I'm thinking you just happened upon it and don't really know what it is, otherwise you would have understood that both the dog and the lungfish points I have given completely destroy IC. And the lungfish also reinforces evolution too. A double whammy!
edit on 692017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: whismermill
Perhaps you missed this part or didn't notice it was a logical requirement for a proper comparison between the storyline and what we're observing regarding Paramecium bursaria and Zoochlorella...

...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.

i.e. what you mentioned regarding Paramecium bursaria and Zoochlorella is not quite the same thing as the storyline in the so-called "endosymbiont hypothesis" as described above* is it? *: regarding what is emphasized as the important part of the storyline to check for, also by use of the phrase "not only" to indicate there's a more or equally important part of the storyline that needs to fit our observations for the storyline to become a possibility or a plausible suggestion (after that we'll still need to figure out if that is actually what happened, but that's the next question)

That's what I meant with "That doesn't stop people from pretending and claiming that there is so-called "evidence" for this storyline and myth though...". Apples and oranges, they aren't the same fruit. It's not what I called "proper evidence" in my commentary earlier, "evidence that makes sense logically. Not leaving out or downplaying inconvenient details using every propaganda technique I've ever read about...". Such as the details that I bolded now, which are conveniently left out of the presentation and discussions regarding Paramecium bursaria, Zoochlorella and their supposed relation to the endosymbiont 'hypothesis' (myth), especially the last bit: "... also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated."
edit on 6-9-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
I see you're still preferring your standard straw man argument and twisting routine. It was the evolutionist and biologist Alexandre Meinesz who used the word "evolution" btw in the title of his book about how life started. Not me. As most evolutionists do when talking or writing about that subject. And I was directly responding to things said by a fan of evolutionary philosophies and myths like the one called "the chemical evolution theory of life" (quoting the prominent influential evolutionary philosophers Haldane & Oparin) a.k.a. "the hypothesis of abiogenesis" (quoting the prominent influential evolutionary philosopher Huxley, a.k.a. Darwin's Bulldog). I didn't even use the word "evolution" on its own (standalone) or the term "theory of evolution" or "theories of evolution" (which you are still not clear on it seems, in your explanation of why you use "theories" in plural you call it a "theory" again when you say "the theory has evolved", is it too much to ask to make up your mind what you wanna go with?). I used the term "evolutionary philosophies" once in that comment you were responding to. Cause I know which routine and game people here wanna play with the word "evolution" or the term "the theory of evolution" ("the theory" as you described it).

And I'd like to point out that it was the fan of evolutionary philosophies as well as Alexendre Meinesz that was entering your figurative 'no-go'-zone in the standard routine of argumentation and useless superficial debate (staying on the surface with standard back and forth argumentation arguing about something that should be obvious to anyone willing to be honest about how the word "evolution" and the verb "evolve" is or has been used by evolutionists like Alexandre Meinesz, Haldane & Oparin or Huxley & Darwin, or by those responsible for what school text books say or used to say as quoted below):

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



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

It is not a straw man argument. Just as the term evolutionist is only something creationists use.

Evolution has never dealt with the "How life started" question. Its not what it describes.

You are the one setting up a straw person, because you can't refute the fact biological evolution is demonstrably true.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

All quite logical, but that won't stop the evolutionist crowd from coming in and claiming you don't understand science. Even quantum physicists and molecular biologists argue for a creator, a designer, but some cannot accept.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Individuals can argue all they like. It does not mean they are correct. I'm (as I will keep reminding people, least the atheist label be thrown about again) a Pagan Polytheist and a professional scientist. My spirituality should hold no place in my job, nor my job in my spirituality.

Now to correct something you wrote. It is SOME quantum Physicists and some molecular biologists who say they see the need for a creator. Not all of them, lets not imply that eh?

I'd also add, most of the people advocating ID/Creationism do not indeed understand science. Or they'd stump up the evidence that can be peer reviewed. I certainly don't bring my own UPG to the table and say "there its proven, there are many gods".



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
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?


I think there are many too.

Before religious texts like the Bible were written, alien lifeforms visited Earth and were seen as "gods" by the more primitive humans.

They will be back.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: kyleplatinum

Hint they never went anywhere (the Gods that is). I'm not really in agreement over aliens = the gods. But to each their own UPG.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: whereislogic

It is not a straw man argument. Just as the term evolutionist is only something creationists use.

For everyone who doesn't want to fall for this standard routine of argumentation, click the link that I now provided when using the word "evolutionist" cause Noinden is being incredibly predictable, it is a standard routine I've observed many times now after all. If you click the link, you can see who is really using that term "evolutionist(s)".

Propagandistic arguments without reason just work so well, that's why they're so popular and used so much. Not worth any more of my time though. Noinden clearly has no intention of making honest rational and reasonable comments about this. It's a propaganda routine he's more interested in. Which has great effect on readers, but no use for anyone wanting to be reasonable about this subject.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

From the dictionary. You know what one of them is, right?


evolution
ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n,ˈɛvəluːʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"early ecologists were not interested in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, progression, expansion, extension, unfolding


So it's how things (and in this discussion, life) changes. Not how it started.

But I don't expect a JW to understand basic things. They're only good at twisting things and lying. Here, this site will help you understand your cult better.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

It is predictable, because I am telling the truth. You Creationists always try to argue based on a non sequitur. So one more time with feeling.

Biological evolution is the process through which the characteristics of organisms change over successive generations, by means of genetic variation and natural selection.

Do you see "the origin of life" mentioned in there? No.

Evolution's etymology is via the Latin evolvere to the Latin evolutio "to unroll". It is generally meant to denote "the gradual development of something".

To insist, something is not what it really is, is as I said a non sequitur.

You and your little creationist team, can play the shifting goal post game. But we are all onto you.

Argue against evolution based on what it is, not what you want it to be.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I think they think dictionary is the Devils work (just like Science is Satan's White Rose
)



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

I think they think dictionary is the Devils work (just like Science is Satan's White Rose
)


I'm probably the devil too. Or possessed. Or some other weird thing I've been called on here lol.

Actually, you should go read one of the threads Chester was on. He called me religious because I said hell lol.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

No I am the Devil, or I work for the man (man) or ....


I've been in those threads, he stalked me to another one to argue that I'd misspelled gnoses (plural of gnosis) and that its not English (guess what its in the dictionary) ... sad really really sad



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Yeah, I saw that.

There's nothing funnier than an angry Abrahamic religion believer. You can almost feel the heat coming through from their anger lol.



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Not that this thread is showing that.

I mean for Gods (plural) sake. Evolution in no way invalidates deity. Unless you are a young earther that is
Start of life? Sure that is going to ruffle feathers, but change of life? Not sure why the hate? OR are they still upset we are related to apes?



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

IMO, IC is yet another Creationist argument not all that different from the "God of the Gaps". The root of the entire argument is "We don't know how something works" or "We don't know" therefor "God".

In this case it's "We can't understand how something so complex came to evolve so it must be Creation by God."

But not knowing how something happens isn't an answer to something else. It's just not knowing the answer. It doesn't mean that something very complex couldn't have become that way very slowly over time. It just means you don't know how. Which is perfectly rational since we aren't smart enough to know everything and even what we do know only goes back some odd thousands of years. Most our advancements in learning even less than that.

Also, we have somewhat recently learned that very simple process can and do create complexity which we are unable to predict. Very simple algorithms in a feedback loop over many iterations do this and is a relatively new and interesting type of mathematics.

But basically, IC seems to me like someone is saying, "Because I don't know the answer of how something works, I then know the answer to how it works."



posted on Sep, 6 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I've never understood the evolution vs god arguments. They make no sense. Why couldn't anyone's god or gods have started life and left evolution to do its thing?

I tend not to get involved in the start of life things. Too many unknowns and just as many hypotheses.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join