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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 06:36 AM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

No. It didn't have to be a motor before. It can change to become what it is now.

Here's a definition of evolution.

Change over time.

That's all evolution is.

Languages evolves. Life evolves. Code evolves. The internet evolves.




posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 06:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi
a reply to: TerryDon79

Addressing the bacteria, indeed they are adapting to their environment.


There you go.

Thanks for agreeing IC is bunk and evolution happens.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi

originally posted by: trollz
Your entire argument is thrown out the window at the acknowledgement of other creatures existing without those characteristics. There are birds that can't do what the woodpecker does. There are creatures that can't fly. There are creatures without brains or hearts. There are single-celled organisms and bacterium...
So, if you're claiming evolution can't be real because the woodpecker can't exist without its unique characteristics, I'll say you're wrong. We just don't call the other birds woodpeckers.


Different creatures have different genepools and different origins. Im not putting forth the notion that all creatures orginate from one creature, which you seem to be doing.

Why not? That's what evolution says (it just doesn't say what that single source was). Why would you ignore a part of the argument to pitch your own argument? Wouldn't that be disingenuous?
edit on 8-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

Fun fact: If you don't believe in evolution then you also don't believe in modern medical science, because modern medical science wouldn't be possible if evolutionary theory was false.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi

No. It didn't have to be a motor before. It can change to become what it is now.

Here's a definition of evolution.

Change over time.

That's all evolution is.

Languages evolves. Life evolves. Code evolves. The internet evolves.

Why don't you tell him about penguins, ostriches, emus, and other flightless birds? Those are great examples of animals having a certain body part that doesn't serve its traditional function. Penguins practically "fly" through the water with how they use their wings.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He's probably have a a heart attack if he learned about them.

Or the caterpillar. Changing from one animal into another? That MUST be the devils work.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Noinden




If the argument is to hold true, that something (God, God like aliens etc) created life. Then something must have designed the designer. That is the logical and honest answer. If you answer no to that, then life must have been able to begin, with out a creator.


Completely silly argument, unless you have difficulty getting your head around infinity, the source of energy lives outside of space-time.


True. Alt the Properties to Our and Our universes existance comes from that infinite Source.

We would not have existed if the singularity did not containe the Properties which we are made up of. Our universe would not be as it is today if these Properties were not exactly as is.

I gues our universe Works much like the Flagellum. It would not work unless all the Properties were present and set up exactly as is. And guided by a universal Law....a set of instructions. A set of instructions science can not ignore ever.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Lol. I hope he never visits a zoo. The penguin/puffer exhibit was always one of my favorites. Watching them swim through the water with their wings is cool as #.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I've never seen a penguin.

Just little dudes and dudettes in dinner suits.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

See, here is the crux. You say it didn't have to be a motor prior to it being a motor. All these parts individually serve no purpose, the parts have to be in their current configuration to have purpose. This is irreducible complexity at it's core.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi
a reply to: TerryDon79

See, here is the crux. You say it didn't have to be a motor prior to it being a motor. All these parts individually serve no purpose, the parts have to be in their current configuration to have purpose. This is irreducible complexity at it's core.

But with a motor, humans built that motor with the intention of making a motor. Animals and life in general aren't assembled the same way motors are assembled, so the very notion of even comparing the two methods of development is absurd to begin with.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: cyberjedi

IC is about taking 1 part away and it's no longer a thing.

So far, I've proven you can take parts away and it's still a thing.

Take a mousetrap. Take away a part and it's no longer a mousetrap. But the individual parts can, for instance, be made into a tie clip.

IC is total bunk. You even admitted evolution happens which disproves IC as a thing.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough, so you ,way back, have lineage with mice, ants, birds, horses, seems credible.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi

IC is about taking 1 part away and it's no longer a thing.

So far, I've proven you can take parts away and it's still a thing.

Take a mousetrap. Take away a part and it's no longer a mousetrap. But the individual parts can, for instance, be made into a tie clip.

IC is total bunk. You even admitted evolution happens which disproves IC as a thing.


But it does not apply to everything.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi
a reply to: Phantom423

Thank you for your input. Now you among others have claimed to hold good knowledge on evolution, then, explain it to us, in layman terms. And then, tell us your views on irreducible complexity.

But truly this thread is about the following,

I say, here's a video about irreducible complexity, and it puts forth a bacterial motor with alot of parts, and that motor could only work with all of its parts in that particular configuration, and all parts have to be present. Evolution would suggest (and correct me if im wrong) that this motor has developed itself among the ages, to finally reach its current configuration. So the current motor would have had to have had previous versions that worked, and from there on it would upgrade. But when taking the components from the motor, it would not work in any other configuration then the one it currently has.

So what is the solution to this question?


Facilitated variation. I don't have time right now to write up a detailed explanation, but will do so later on today. There is ample research which demonstrates that irreducible complexity (as described by the ICR article) probably doesn't even exist in nature.

In biology, the structure-function relationship is not static or fixed. The structure may define the function, but the structure can vary without modifying the function to any great extent. The example of the mouse trap is static and fixed. Biological systems are not.

Anyway, as I said, I will put together the research and evidence later on. I hope you read it - that's usually the problem - no one reads the research in detail to understand how things work and why they work.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi

IC is about taking 1 part away and it's no longer a thing.

So far, I've proven you can take parts away and it's still a thing.

Take a mousetrap. Take away a part and it's no longer a mousetrap. But the individual parts can, for instance, be made into a tie clip.

IC is total bunk. You even admitted evolution happens which disproves IC as a thing.


But it does not apply to everything.


Such as?



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are missing the point entirely.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi

IC is about taking 1 part away and it's no longer a thing.

So far, I've proven you can take parts away and it's still a thing.

Take a mousetrap. Take away a part and it's no longer a mousetrap. But the individual parts can, for instance, be made into a tie clip.

IC is total bunk. You even admitted evolution happens which disproves IC as a thing.


But it does not apply to everything.


Such as?


On what scale do you want it?



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: cyberjedi
a reply to: TerryDon79

You are missing the point entirely.



The only ones "missing the point" are the ones who think everything started the way it is now. Even though it's been proven otherwise.

I don't even know why you're still debating, you already agreed evolution happens. Evolution nullifies IC.



posted on Sep, 8 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

On behalf of all those reading, we thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join