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: 82
16
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You just don't get it. YOU"RE the one making the claim that evolution is a fabricated science. I've presented you with one paper whose references contain enough data to convince a jury of 12.

Once again, you have NEVER addressed the real science. You simply throw the ball back across the net and hope that no one knows what's you're doing. I know what you're doing and so does every other person on this board who understands how science works.

If you disagree with any or all of the paper, it's incumbent on YOU to come up with the data to refute it.

That paper has been cited 200 times by other scientists. I guess they're all wrong too. You have your work cut out for you.

Here is a list of the citations:

scholar.google.com...,29&sciodt=0,29&hl=en
edit on 30-11-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

This is a link to Dr. Peter Parham's lab at Stanford. Would you like to discuss his paper with him?

web.stanford.edu...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

The key word there is adaptation...
A genetic pre possibility...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

HE refused to focus on a single paper. When he can do that. I will do that. HE was shown a paper and begged off. Thus the ball is in his court.

As for the rest of your post. You have clearly not read anything any of us posted. I've posted direct evidence of speciation in this thread.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: peter vlar

I have yet to see you say you are wrong...
So I guess I just don't believe you...


So you've read every post I've written in nearly 8 years? You've followed me around academia throughout every class, lecture, dig and on through the cleaning and measurement of remains? I'm wrong often and use those moments to learn from.



You are not as smart as you believe...


I'm smart enough to know when I have erred



I'm not scared of being wrong...


You certainly won't admit when you are, or when you just don't know something but rant away nonetheless.


And please don't be sorry for me... I disrespect patronization...


That's unfortunate that you don't have any respect for yourself as you patronize every person you engage with. Unless of course they too have no understanding of evolutionary theory and dispute it with as much fervor and willful ignorance as you put forth.

The real irony is that if they stuck you, cooperton and whereislogic in the same room to discuss Christianity, the 3 of you would be in an all out war within 15 minutes because each of you has completely different interpretations of Christianity
edit on 30-11-2017 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

You didn't read the definition. Try again.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
No no no, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. We are NOT supposed to assume it is true until proven otherwise, that is the obligation of those making the claim. And there is no evidence to prove that statement, it is a baseless assumption:


LMAO! The experimental data IS the proof. The burden of proof for evolution has been met a million times over. You just hate it and don't want it to be factual, but have no argument against the experiments, so you fail. Plus one single paper doesn't prove the entire theory of evolution. All of the evidence together does. Thanks for proving that you lied about your credentials. I was hoping you'd do that on your own.
edit on 11 30 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Well t o be fair Barcs, he would have had to read anything any of us have posted, to have seen the data. Similarly he'd need an education in the Sciences to be able to see that the proof is there.

He also would have to understand that while the burden of proof is indeed on the claim maker, these threads all start with a creationist saying evolution is wrong. QED the burden of proof is to disprove evolution, not prove it



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

cooperton,

I want to submit that I agree with what you say concerning the burden of proof. What I do disagree with is how you employ it.

We are talking about a giant who dunnit puzzle. So, we have to come up with
1. hypothesis.
2. time line
3. evidence that fits it.
4. test
5. observation that fits it.

So, when new evidence comes in, we first hold it against our theory. If that fits, we move on. if it does not fit, we look at two things:
1. the evidence
2. the theory.

ad infinitum.

I know you do understand this to be a work in progress. It may perhaps sound condescending but I mean no condescension because there are also people reading here who have different qualifications than yours ..

If you then claim a certain piece of evidence does not fit in or is not proof of .... YOU have to come up with reason for it to be so. Otherwise you are just trying to float a balloon. It is ok to say: I don't know or, I will take a few days to think this through.

As towards which system has prevalence to be used, I can only say I am sure you wish to argue from a creator point of view. And I have to admit: it is a powerful point of view. Hence we have adopted the idea of falsification.

That is why, at the outset of an alternative view towards God did it, Darwin and Co had to go through many years of research and framing of ideas before the theory of evolution was put forward. And since that time, scientists have differed of opinion as to how the process of evolution has taken place. Many in your neck of the religious woods have taken disagreement on details as meaning the whole theoretical framework can be thrown out.

This is a bit akin as saying the creator did it, but we disagree as to how and when exactly (is Hislop right or wrong?) and therefore God does not exist.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You just don't get it. YOU"RE the one making the claim that evolution is a fabricated science. I've presented you with one paper whose references contain enough data to convince a jury of 12.

Once again, you have NEVER addressed the real science. You simply throw the ball back across the net and hope that no one knows what's you're doing. I know what you're doing and so does every other person on this board who understands how science works.

If you disagree with any or all of the paper, it's incumbent on YOU to come up with the data to refute it.

That paper has been cited 200 times by other scientists. I guess they're all wrong too. You have your work cut out for you.

Here is a list of the citations:

scholar.google.com...,29&sciodt=0,29&hl=en


Don't go giving me more homework. Respond to the points I made already. You said the article you were giving would give proof of evolution, but it is lacking empirical evidence to support its claims. Start with giving empirical evidence for this statement:


These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago



originally posted by: Barcs
one single paper doesn't prove the entire theory of evolution. All of the evidence together does. Thanks for proving that you lied about your credentials. I was hoping you'd do that on your own.


If the first didn't suffice, bring on the next paper then. It's a house of cards. It will fall eventually. There is no foundation of empirical evidence to support such claims.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle

HE refused to focus on a single paper. When he can do that. I will do that. HE was shown a paper and begged off. Thus the ball is in his court.


I made a preliminary response. Check page 81 at the bottom. Let me know if you find any answers to the questions I posed so far.


originally posted by: Yvhmer
a reply to: cooperton

If you then claim a certain piece of evidence does not fit in or is not proof of .... YOU have to come up with reason for it to be so. Otherwise you are just trying to float a balloon. It is ok to say: I don't know or, I will take a few days to think this through.



Thank you for your continually cordial responses. Demonstrating evidence for another theory has its own battle. For now, if there is a faulty theoretical framework, it must first be dismantled before we can build a new. Evolutionary theory has a couple marks in its Achilles heel - our ancient ancestors indubitably saw dinosaurs, there are countless examples of this to make it beyond a reasonable doubt. There is also soft tissue found in dinosaur remains, and preliminary C-14 dating that indicates they are between 4,000-40,000 years old. IF this is true, then we will find that the pre-existing "evidence" for evolutionary theory to be like swiss cheese, abundant with holes. Surely enough there is no empirical foundation for this theory, but rather, mounds and mounds of theoretical assumptions that are self-amoric. Just like in a 16th century Christian community you would imagine everyone would be positively reinforcing eachothers notions about the Good nature of God.

As has been shown so far... I have been demonized, called names, told I don't have a scientific degree, which I do, all because I don't believe in evolution. It is this type of Spanish-Inquisition-style witch hunting that has prevented any sort of empirical progress towards a better understanding of ourselves through science, because all evidence contrary to the evolution fantasy is dismissed, buried, or the goalposts of evolution change. So when reading these papers, and you see a statement like:


These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago


You can't just blindly accept such a bold statement, even though, as Phantom says "its in the experimental data". You have to address the statement by the empirical evidence that they are basing it from. To do such is true science.
edit on 30-11-2017 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No, I won't continue to swamp you with the facts. You don't understand science. You can't read the data. All you have is verbal garbage.

Give it up. You've been run over by a train so many times it's a wonder you're still standing.

Everything a sane person needs to support evidence for evolution is contained in that paper and the references. You're not capable of analyzing the data which we knew all along anyway.

You've proved my point.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Well my first comment would be: You clearly know nothing about Bioinformatics
Very clearly you don't know the methodology.

You turned this into another Gish Gallop. You made comments, which require proof. Provide said proof.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

No, I won't continue to swamp you with the facts. You don't understand science. You can't read the data. All you have is verbal garbage.

Give it up. You've been run over by a train so many times it's a wonder you're still standing.

Everything a sane person needs to support evidence for evolution is contained in that paper and the references. You're not capable of analyzing the data which we knew all along anyway.

You've proved my point.


I'm glad I took the time to max out the allowed length on my post to make a preliminary response to the article. Knowing full well that you wouldn't respond to it, you were just trying to make me go fish. I would love to continue to debate the article, but if you instead wish to pout and call me names I suppose there is nothing I can do to intelligently respond to that.


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Well my first comment would be: You clearly know nothing about Bioinformatics
Very clearly you don't know the methodology.


Do tell what empirical evidence you believe I misinterpreted in my analysis. I am open to debate.



You turned this into another Gish Gallop. You made comments, which require proof. Provide said proof.


I spoke very matter-of-fact about adaptive immunity. It is what it is. Whenever you would like to actually discuss the article I am here.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton




I'm glad I took the time to max out the allowed length on my post to make a preliminary response to the article. Knowing full well that you wouldn't respond to it, you were just trying to make me go fish. I would love to continue to debate the article, but if you instead wish to pout and call me names I suppose there is nothing I can do to intelligently respond to that.


I'm not debating with you. You haven't presented any evidence which is contrary to the paper or the references. When you do that, then there's room for a debate.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Stop being obtuse. I have posted empirical evidence here on a number of occasions. You and your friends, are refusing to acknowledge it. thus you are not open for debate.

Again, you are using logical fallacies to cover, that you are not in any way shape or form educated in the sciences involved.

As you are denying evolution, the burden of proof belongs to you neighbour.



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 08:57 PM
link   
So when are any of you actually going to show any semblance of evidence against the irreducable complexity of molecular machines?

Evolution can't begin to explain them for without any part they have no function or purpose... They would never followed evolutions path to ever have been selected to be passed on because of it...

It is however a huge indicator that intelligence was a factor in the design for function...

We are talking about motors for bacteria...

Without these motors the bacteria themselves would have little to no function...
It is logical to assume these motors therefore always existed in bacteria...

Of course the flagellum can be altered take Miller's needle which was derived by removing proteins from the flagellum... Several problems exist besides the ability for co opting to have anything to do with the flagellum construction...
The most obvious was manipulation this did not occur naturally...
Second the needle was no longer a mode for transportation...
Thirdly the needle was therefore needing the flagellum to proceed it which does nothing to explain the complexity of the flagellum itself...
Finally the genes expressed by both is the clearest indicator because the flagellum genes proved to be older than those of the needle...
Lastly the encoded instructions for the flagellum are inherent and fully self assembled thanks to highly intelligent blueprints...
There is no margin for error...
The only explanation mankind has for programming is intelligence...
The irreducable complexity of the flagellum remains unexplained... Unless you are fine accepting assumption as your proof...
Now this is ok because it does not dismiss evolution entirely nor does it say intelligent design does not allow for evolution...
What it does truly seem to say though...

Is Intelligent design is evident and allows for evolution...

All of this is odds based too much has to be done just right to to allow for accidental assembly through natural selection...

This is why I say both arguments are linked not unrelated...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Perhaps Richard Dawkins says it best...
I'm assuming the evolutionist crowd to be rather familiar with him...

Genes ARE digital information

Biology has become information technology
Genes ARE absolutely central to biology
Genes ARE coded information
The majority of DNA is programs that send instructions to protein coding genes
An organism is a survival machine for self replicating coded information

As far as is fully understood digital information is ALWAYS a product of intelligence

As far is known said self replicating organisms assumed to be the earliest examples of life are derived through intelligence...

Now those are not his exact words but awful close to the best of my memory...



posted on Nov, 30 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
I purpose an entirely new approach has to be taken to actually deduce the truth of existence and its origins...
If indeed these so called scientists whom dwell amongst us numb skulls are what they claim to be they should be the first onboard to form a new theory...

I'm pretty sure a good place to start would be to stop putting up a wall between things that are linked in reality...
edit on 30-11-2017 by 5StarOracle because: Word



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

We did tens of pages ago. You need to prove your theory now. Who created your little deity for example. Irreducible complexity after all



posted on Dec, 1 2017 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Sorry neighbour. I am fine with science as it is and so are my Gods of worship.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join