Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

originally posted by: Noinden

(a) The idea of irreducible complexity was debunked decades ago.

What? By who? or what evidence? There are countless examples of irreducible complexity in all organisms. What's transcription without translation? What's actin without myosin? What are arteries without veins? It is irreducibly complex. No matter how much barcs wants to put on caps lock and blindly ridicule it. And as much as you want to say it was disproved, it just goes to show you still don't understand what it even means.

The idea does not take into account its own flaw. Who designed God?

Erroneous. But if you want an answer, God always existed, and by-passes the necessity of creation. But irreducible complexity insists that biology must have been a created, the same way a clock requires a creator, because it could not come to be by sequential additions - all components must be present for it to function properly.

(b) You and your ilk ignore or misrepresent what is presented here. The evidence is freely available to be tested. Avaliable to all. You just choose not to test the data.

The data is tried and tested:

1) organisms cannot change into other organisms (evolve), despite countless attempts in labs across the world for over 100 years
2) No complete transitional fossil between some theorized ape-like creature and humans has ever been discovered
3) Dinosaurs co-existed with humans, have been carbon-dated between 4,000-40,000 years old, and their bones also contain soft-tissue

etc, etc, etc, etc

Game over, says the science.

a reply to: cooperton

We have had this argument many times. Every time I post the evidence. Every time you ignore it.

So here are the basics.

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.


The moment you say God always existed. You lost. Prove it.

Then you did the "Dinosaurs co-existed with humans" and linked to your article, and creationist site. Which has also been debunked. The scientist involved lied.

So yes game over, your game. You are incapable of discerning the quality of data you quote. You go back to "God did it".

Which God?

Prove it was that diety. Oh and since you like empirical evidence. Use that.

originally posted by: Noinden

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;

Any example mechanisms that are testable in a lab?

2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;

How does a muscle unit work without one of the following: actin, myosin, titin?
How does oxygen delivery work without one of the following: Heart, lungs, blood vessels?
How does the electron transport chain work without on of the following: kreb's cycle, Complex I, II, III, IV, and a electrochemical gradient?
How does walking work without: legs, feet, nerves, and muscles?

I could go on and on.

3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.

You have faith that is the case, but where is the empirical evidence for systems gradually accumulating functions without the requirement of the whole intact?

The moment you say God always existed. You lost. Prove it.

Again, you attacking theological assertions does not help the case of evolution. I only inserted that tid-bit in case you actually wanted an answer to your question. Evolution is not possible. There doesn't even need to be an alternative hypothesis for us to let go of a theory that is a sunken ship.

Then you did the "Dinosaurs co-existed with humans" and linked to your article, and creationist site. Which has also been debunked. The scientist involved lied.

How was it debunked? what was wrong with his methods? Where did he go wrong? Did you know that it was two accredited AMS labs that tested their samples? These labs routinely decontaminate the sample also... so that is no excuse.

a reply to: cooperton

Like I said, you do not understand how this works.

I am not attacking theological assertions. I am saying to be non hypocritical you must treat all statements equally. OR you are biasing the argument.

Which God?

How did it do it?

Prove it. Empirically.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton
I am not attacking theological assertions. I am saying to be non hypocritical you must treat all statements equally. OR you are biasing the argument.

Again, disproving evolutionary theory does not require an alternative theory. So evolution is wrong, regardless of the validity of what I am about to say, but here goes my best attempts to explain the inexplicable...

Which God?

The Most High God, originator of all things. Source of all laws, intermediate powers, intermediate gods, creatures, and matter. Idealized by the human archetype, yet transcendent of even the greatest human conceptualization.

How did it do it?

How did you dream last night? You don't know, but it happens. If you can spontaneously dream up a vast world of people and scenery both realistic and abstract, despite not knowing how you're doing it, how much more easily could a transcendent Being be able to spontaneously manifest creations according to mathematically predictable laws and patterns?

Prove it. Empirically.

Phi, pi, the genetic code, the consistency of planetary orbits, and the mathematically predictable laws that cause the perpetuity of biology and the cosmos. Laws are only enacted by intelligent beings, laws do not simply come to be by random chance. There is no evidence that laws can be created by anything other than a rational being. Therefore, these laws that govern all things must have been put forth by the Rational Being which created all things.

a reply to: cooperton

conceptualization

This is always lost to the typical evolutionist, every single argument on every single facet of the discussion.
It's like trying to converse with a person with a completely different language, ours is a spiritual language and theirs is a humanist language, we are never going to understand each other.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

lol... conceptualisation... imagination you mean.

It really isn't lost on scientists at all... it is used daily to conceptualise hypotheses, and further scientific inquiry. Incrementally turning philosophy into facts through observation and experimentation.

... but conceptualisation by itself is not facts... you need some rigorous repeatable proofs before concepts become facts. It's funny to me that you think that repeatable scientific research is open to conceptualised interpretation... that would be philosophy dude.

I love me some philosphy, and I love me some science... but I don't conflate the two... which you and supporters of creation do!!!

Are we talking science or philosophy here?... or some undefinable mish-mash of the two... commonly known as pseudoscience?

a reply to: Noinden

Let’s be honest you are a stranger who masquerades as a scientist here, I’m not your neighbour and you can prescribe to supposition conjecture and hearsay all you want and call that evidence like the rest of your kind who are so thick headed you actually believe what you are told because it’s some guys best guess based on tidbits of so called evidence
which in the end is just a guess...
You can mock my God all you want because I believe you are a nutter, after all you believe your goddess spoke to you and called you the be her priest...
I don’t know whats funnier about you the fact you pretend to be a scientist, that your faith in evolution as undeniable,
Or that you suffer from delusions believing your god talks to you...
How could anyone take you seriously?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

isnt all language human language ?

a reply to: sapien82

Perhaps you missed the subtlety of the term "humanist language"

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma

Zephaniah 3:9

For then I will restore to the peoples the pure language that they may all call upon the name of the LORD to serve him with one consent.

The pure language isn't any human dialect but a spiritual one as it was in the ancient days of the Israelite's so it is today, this language helps a person gain perspective of the reality of truth.
Then as Jesus said "Then you will experience for yourselves the truth, and the truth will free you.” in this case a freeing us from false scientific concepts of the origins of all species of this planet including us.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I understand that you were referencing spiritualism and humanism and the language that operates within each subject

however what I am talking about is that all language , being a description of one slice of the same cake

David Bohm in his book Wholeness and the implicate order, suggests that we divide everything in nature into categories and subjects to better understand natural phenomenon and in doing so dilute the whole image by simply looking at one small part rather than looking at it as a whole .

Isnt all of these subjects and the divisons across ideology all just trying to explain the same thing from a small window

Isn't it funny that creationists never respond to posts that definitively refute their delusions... rather they ignore them and go back to square one, as if their simpleton ideologies heven't been completely blown out of the water.

Creationism... the cult of perpetual delusion.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

"Creationism... the cult of perpetual delusion"

"Evolutionism.....the cult of perpetual delusion"

It's all perspective and personal philosophy/idealogy, after 25 pages of science posted for both sides that's the real bottom line here.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: puzzlesphere

"Creationism... the cult of perpetual delusion"

"Evolutionism.....the cult of perpetual delusion"

It's all perspective and personal philosophy/idealogy, after 25 pages of science posted for both sides that's the real bottom line here.

Reality the illusion

hahahah


However I think the major difference is that with the evolutionary theory at least science will attempt to refine and update their answer ad infinitum until evolution could be pinned to a natural law if at all possible

where as creationism simply stops at "god did it "

without looking into the how or why .

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
The "appeal to complexity" attack is a very weak argument in of itself, it's one of those talking points that seems to score points but really doesn't.

Because it's not an argument! Things are complex therefor god??? Go ahead and prove that with testable evidence LOL! You guys just love to repeatedly fail over and over. You literally convince nobody with your weak pretentious nonsense.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
The "appeal to complexity" attack is a very weak argument in of itself, it's one of those talking points that seems to score points but really doesn't.

Because it's not an argument! Things are complex therefor god??? Go ahead and prove that with testable evidence LOL! You guys just love to repeatedly fail over and over. You literally convince nobody with your weak pretentious nonsense.

Yep, you can't have parts coming together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks without intelligence.

It's not my job to prove this can't happen. People who are saying random mutation can perform this magical feat need to provide evidence.

We know intelligence can bring together different parts to fit together in complex ways to carry out a specific task. We see it in cars, planes, houses, machines in a factory and more.

We don't see snowflakes encoded with instructions on how to build an igloo, a snowman or ice sculptures.

If you're going to claim that random mutations can naturally build parts separately that just magically come together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks, then you have to provide evidence.

How did DNA evolve? How did it naturally encode information then naturally build parts through random mutations that builds the machinery to decode this information?

We know nature can give us beautiful designs like the snowflake but the snowflake isn't encoded with information to build an igloo and also encoded with the information to build the machinery to decode this information.



Why would random mutations create any parts that work together to carry out specific tasks?

a reply to: neoholographic

Why would random mutations create any parts that work together to carry out specific tasks?

Because if they didn't do so the population would not survive.

Goodman Noinde,

Why dont you post your credentials but exclud your identity.

Same with Goodman Pete, Goodman Barcs, Goodman Phage, Goodman puzzlesphere, etc.

When challenged state something complicated that only a learned one would understand. That can be verified from a legit website.

All the posts that do not offer a legit rebuttal, then their posts should be marked "Thread Diversion".

Why dont the mods delete unconstructive posts?

a reply to: Skyfox81

So basically censor other opinions, your new around ATS, the MODs don't do that unlike other forums.

Another poster asked
"How did DNA evolve ?"

The science claiming to explain it, is just an opinion as well.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Akragon

Hell no. Posts like that are more for lurkers and people on the fence who are capable of thinking independently. I have zero expectation the the individual I was replying to would even understand it if they were to read all of it. But you already knew that haha!

Well I for one have always appreciated you, Noinden, Barcs, and others whose names escape me at the moment, and the detailed posts you all make. I find them very interesting, even though I don't always fully understand some of the more technical stuff. Definitely can't say I haven't learned anything from them. I know it's like beating your head against a brick wall talking to some of these guys (the non fence sitters truly stuck in there ways ones) but your knowledge bombs don't go completely unheard!