Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

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!

This is what you need to understand about this forum: When people make statements like this "Another poster asked "How did DNA evolve? The science claiming to explain it, is just an opinion as well.", it reinforces anyone who's on the fence about the science of evolution. The blatant stupidity is obvious.

A lot of people watch this forum, including educators (some at my personal request). Every time one of these stupid posts appears, or Cooperton or Neo&*((()) post their brand of bogus science that has no evidence, someone is watching. The more they post, the less likely it is that their crap science will be included in a school curriculum.

It's important to keep the ball rolling. So keep on keepin' on!

Here's a few pictorial reminders of previous epic conversations:









Reverse engineering the hero of mankind (this is real, folks!):



The latest Creationist textbook - not to be missed!


This poor man probably needs a slug of Pepto Bismol every time he sees the crap they are unloading in his name

a reply to: Phantom423

They keep pepto in heaven?

Must be the wine eh

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Phantom423

They keep pepto in heaven?

Must be the wine eh

I'm sure that turning water into wine was a lot more fun than watching these idiots try to screw up science.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'm sure that turning water into wine was a lot more fun than watching these idiots try to screw up science.

What part of science did I screw up? Where did I get empirical science wrong? I think you just don't like the conclusions. I am waiting on your response from a couple pages back

You still never responded to this:

originally posted by: cooperton

peptide bonds are by definition non-spontaneous, because they require ATP... Spontaneous reactions don't require external energy. Non-spontaneous reactions do. A Peptide bond is a dehydration synthesis reaction:

"A dehydration synthesis is an endergonic (or 'energy in') type of reaction that cannot take place without the input of energy from somewhere else. It is non-spontaneous, and by the second law of thermodynamics will not take place on its own."

source

Since peptide polymerization is non-spontaneous, it could not have arisen outside the bounds of the DNA genetic code. Therefore all biochemical functions involving multiple proteins (mostly all of them), are then irreducibly complex.

a reply to: cooperton

His answer is "you are wrong because you don't understand the science like I do".

He can't challenge your factual science with science, instead he posts insulting memes, a sure sign that somebody just lost the argument.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Half the people debunking creationist lies/misconceptions in this forum, are actual scientists. Not armchair scientists, but real ones with degrees, working in their various fields. I find the memes amusing but don't think they are necessary here. But then again, neither is the same old creationist rhetoric.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Half the people debunking creationist lies/misconceptions in this forum, are actual scientists. Not armchair scientists, but real ones with degrees, working in their various fields. I find the memes amusing but don't think they are necessary here. But then again, neither is the same old creationist rhetoric.

I have a double degree in neuroscience and chemistry. Intelligent design is a must. over 100,000,000,000 neurons wired intricately together with over 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells are required to allow you consciousness. If you think that just happens by random chance, then that is more faith than the religious faithful have.

a reply to: cooperton

I agree with what you are saying here, except I would alter it a little to say instead...
to allow your consciousness to interface correctly for full range of functionality...

a reply to: cooperton

It didn’t start that way though, did it cooperton? Brain sizes have grown from a few dozen neurons to many billions over several hundred million years - and you should know that if your degrees are genuine.

Your appeal to complexity style of writing makes something very possible sound impossible. It’s not the science that’s wrong, it’s you. And you know it.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

It didn’t start that way though, did it cooperton? Brain sizes have grown from a few dozen neurons to many billions over several hundred million years - and you should know that if your degrees are genuine.

So if I give my garage door remote a few hundred million years i'll eventually get a macbook computer?

It’s not the science that’s wrong, it’s you

Point to the science that you think I got incorrect and explain in your own words why you think it is wrong. Don't just make generic statements without examples.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: cooperton

I agree with what you are saying here, except I would alter it a little to say instead...
to allow your consciousness to interface correctly for full range of functionality...

Agreed. From my best judgement, It is not the brain that is giving consciousness, the brain is just the conduit for consciousness to have its expression.

a reply to: cooperton

I have a double degree in neuroscience and chemistry

Thank you for finally telling us that, because some posters on ATS have said you are uneducated and know nothing about how science really works.

The fact is for the first time on ATS they have seem to have met their educated intellectual match, and they don't know what to do about it, they are just used to dealing with guys like me. In fact it concerns them so much the one poster says he has asked other scientists/educators to look on in this thread.
I appreciate this discussion very much, it is helping people see that there really are other possibilities.
Hopefully it sparks more sincere research from them to investigate what you are talking about.

a reply to: cooperton

One thing I know for certain is, I'm not going to claim to know beyond doubt how anything, everything, "started", came into existence. Maybe it always existed. Who am I to know? We are able to ask questions and have things we strive to understand. What is existence, we ask? Where did it all come from? Random chance, or something more? I am open to "something more", playing a role. I am convinced religion doesn't have the grand answer, any more than opposing sides do. All sides have their various types of evidence, but your type take the cake. Your type thinks they already have all the answers. Goddidit, and then you go from there. Your heart has been hardened against rationale and logic. For you, there is no "I don't know". Religion is the reason the creationist/ID crowd can't wrap their head around evolution. It's their faith that keeps them willfully ignorant. How do you claim to know that a different religion doesn't have it right, and yours is wrong? Because it says so? Just like many others say so. ..well.. if you say so.

a reply to: cooperton

Let me understand this; you are equating a mass-produced electronic device to natural organic organisms and you are asking why the device does evolve in the same way? I think you’ve just let yourself down.

The part which you got wrong (for the third or fourth time I’ve told you, let alone anyone else) is that you are using a fully developed and evolved organ or component and asking how that could be. Your ignorance and blind faith in creation simply will not let you see that the organ has evolved to be that complex - it didn’t start that way.

Did you obtain your degrees or did you just turn up to lectures? I simply refuse to believe you actually have them.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Your ignorance and blind faith in creation simply will not let you see that the organ has evolved to be that complex - it didn’t start that way.

Do you have any evidence that random mutations can maintain an increasing neuronal mass and also organize them into coherent ratios and structures within the brain? This mutation would also have to have modulating mechanisms so the new neuronal mass wouldn't be easily excited (epileptogenic), or too difficult to excite (dead). This requires a vast network of intricately placed GABA neurons (they're the main inhibitory neuron). Without these, neuronal circuits have no control.

So how do you suppose a mutation would be able to correctly wire all of this? Especially in light of the fact that no mutation is known to be able to grow stable brain mass.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

One thing I know for certain is, I'm not going to claim to know beyond doubt how anything, everything, "started", came into existence. Maybe it always existed. Who am I to know? We are able to ask questions and have things we strive to understand. What is existence, we ask? Where did it all come from? Random chance, or something more? I am open to "something more", playing a role. I am convinced religion doesn't have the grand answer, any more than opposing sides do. All sides have their various types of evidence, but your type take the cake. Your type thinks they already have all the answers. Goddidit, and then you go from there. Your heart has been hardened against rationale and logic. For you, there is no "I don't know". Religion is the reason the creationist/ID crowd can't wrap their head around evolution. It's their faith that keeps them willfully ignorant. How do you claim to know that a different religion doesn't have it right, and yours is wrong? Because it says so? Just like many others say so. ..well.. if you say so.

The main thing I have claimed to know on this thread is that evolution is not possible. I have presented many observable examples from throughout biology to demonstrate that random chance could not have orchestrated the creation of the multi-functional systems involved in even the most simple biological organisms.

admitting to not know is a step in the right direction. If you 100% think evolution is true, you will attempt to fit all observable evidence into that myopic bubble... But once you discard it and consider broader implications, then you can start to put together the bigger picture.

It is good to be a child of the Creator of the universe. I know this because our oldest Brother who conquered death told us so. He came without any mistake and was killed because he did not compromise that truth. Embrace the good news. Start behaving accordingly.

a reply to: cooperton

I feel I sounded a bit harsh in my post and would like to apologize for being antagonizing. We're just going to disagree on the subject, and that's fine. At the end of the day, I hope all is well.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: cooperton

I feel I sounded a bit harsh in my post and would like to apologize for being antagonizing. We're just going to disagree on the subject, and that's fine. At the end of the day, I hope all is well.

No need to apologize, I do appreciate it though.

I wish you well also.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

We are mostly all strangers here neighbour. Its the internet.

However I am a scientist, as several posters here, who could research have found out

It comes down, to the fact that you can't compete on facts. So you attack the person.

a reply to: Skyfox81

Because if post my credentials but excldue my identity. I will be accused of them not being my own. On top of that I have left enough tidbits for people to find me. People from ATS have visited my LinkedIn and contacted me.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Half the people debunking creationist lies/misconceptions in this forum, are actual scientists. Not armchair scientists, but real ones with degrees, working in their various fields. I find the memes amusing but don't think they are necessary here. But then again, neither is the same old creationist rhetoric.

I have a double degree in neuroscience and chemistry. Intelligent design is a must. over 100,000,000,000 neurons wired intricately together with over 1,000,000,000,000 supporting glial cells are required to allow you consciousness. If you think that just happens by random chance, then that is more faith than the religious faithful have.

I have a double degree in neuroscience and chemistry.

Bullsh&&(())(&*&^^%t

You have no degree from any recognized, accredited university. Stop the lying.

a reply to: Noinden

Which fact are we talking about here?
The fact you are pretending to be something you are not?
The fact you claim your goddess speaks to you?
The fact you are a narcissistic and use the biblical definition of neighbour when addressing myself and others here as if we are somehow in dire need of your assistance?
Or the fact that you are a strange stranger?

You keep also insisting how others here have found you and contacted you to support or substantiate your claim that you are what you claim to be...
But the fact is I have never seen any of them to be forthcoming and say they know who you are...