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.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 20
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Gods do they ever dicsus and debate. We share our site with a group of academics. They used to be part of our organization, but got hived off in a restructure. Their focus on chemistry is different to ours. As industrial chemists (Process Development in my case) we are interested in the thermodynaics, kinetics etc more than the theoretical mechanism (we like to have an idea, but in the end it just needs to happen) and of course be cause we make lots of documentation for regulatory bodies (drugs need paper trails). They want to publish.

So when we talk science at meetings .... its from different directions. However we can all talk to the science.




posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Akragon

I insist you chime in though. Don't fear being wrong, we're on an anonymous forum, it's the perfect place to make mistakes. The deeper you get, and the more you trust your self to discern on your own, the closer to the truth you will get.


I don't fear being wrong... but IF I don't know something im not going to just wing it and hope im right

let me ask you a question... IF one attends an archeological dig site... they will find that human remains can only be found so far down in the strata... they eventually disappear at a certain depth and something similar is found instead... not quite human but pretty damn close... and those slight changes increase as we go deeper into the strata... until we find remains of beings that really can no longer be described as human, yet still looking very similar

what happened to human beings in that time period... can you really say "God snapped his fingers and we appeared" via Adam and Eve?


edit on 6-8-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Again,

A natural interpretation of evolution is IMPOSSIBLE!

There's no way random mutations can produce parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. Why would random mutations produce 2 parts that are the right shape, right size and positioned in the right way to carry out a specific task let alone a molecular machine with 50 parts?

For instance, an airplane can self assemble, if the code is designed to produce airplane parts with the blueprint of an airplane. Now, when planes reach the environment, you will get different size planes ad planes in different colors, but the parts of the plane have to be designed in order to self assemble.

It's like the Researchers from M.I.T. who showed the self assembly of a cell phone. This only occurred because the cell phone parts are designed.



There's no way you can get a cell phone if you had a random parts generator. Why would the random parts generator create any parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks?

It's the same with Evolution! A natural interpretation of evolution is PURE FANTASY!



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Again, you need to prove its impossible. Saying its so, and using a mechanical argument, is not evidence on the lack of ability for something to happen.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Again, you need to prove its impossible. Saying its so, and using a mechanical argument, is not evidence on the lack of ability for something to happen.


I don't have to prove it's impossible, you have to prove it's possible if you're saying this occurred naturally. You have to show that random mutations can produce parts that are the right size, right shape and positioned at the right angles that form a whole to carry out a specific tasks.

It's simple, if you show me how random anything can create 10 parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks, then I will accept a natural interpretation of evolution.

The truth is, without design, you will just get a junk yard full of parts that will never work together.

Why would random mutations create any parts that work together in complex ways to carry out a specific task?



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes you do have to prove it is impossible. Evidence has been shown, that it is possible, that it has happened, that it still happens. The rebuttal to that is either (a) prove that the evidence shown is wrong or (b) other evidence shows that it is impossible.

Thus, prove the evidence several of us have posted in many posts here is wrong, or present new evidence proving it is impossible.

That is how it works.



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: neoholographic

Yes you do have to prove it is impossible. Evidence has been shown, that it is possible, that it has happened, that it still happens. The rebuttal to that is either (a) prove that the evidence shown is wrong or (b) other evidence shows that it is impossible.

Thus, prove the evidence several of us have posted in many posts here is wrong, or present new evidence proving it is impossible.

That is how it works.


Nope, I have been asking over two threads now for evidence that random mutations can produce parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

I've asked for evidence that shows this evolved. How can you have self assembly with parts that aren't designed to work together?

Where's the evolution? Where's these parts evolving to work together? These parts just come together and work together to carry out specific tasks. No evolution needed.

When these parts come together and reach the environment then evolution (natural selection) occurs after the fact. It occurs after the parts have been designed.

There's not a shred of evidence that random anything can produce parts that just work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

You also have the combinatorial problem. If you have a gene that's 300 base pairs long, what was the origin of information that codes for that protein and how did the sequence evolve and the non coding sequences that regulate expression?

Did 3 base pairs evolve and then the 3 base pair something was selected then 10 more base pairs magically evolved along with non coding sequences. Also how many combinations did it have to try before it found the combination we see today? Did it try a combination of all 300 sequences. How did it evolve when to stop and start? Did it stop at 240 base pairs before it reached 300?

You have the dystrophin gene that's 2.5 million base pairs long. Did evolution try a combination of all 2.5 million base pairs? Did it try 100 base pairs first and then 1,000? How did the 100 know how to code for the amino acids that would work with the sequence at 1.6 million base pairs?

Again, it's IMPOSSIBLE!
edit on 6-8-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

There's no way you can get a cell phone if you had a random parts generator. Why would the random parts generator create any parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks?

It's the same with Evolution! A natural interpretation of evolution is PURE FANTASY!



What if you had a trillion directions to go and humans just happened to be one of those trillion of directions? You have a grape vine that is 17% human DNA and every life form on earth shares like DNA, so just look at the vast difference in life and there is your answer that life is very random, billions and billions of different life random. There is nothing in life that has a processed part such as a phone or 747 has, All life has the same DNA and what makes it different from each other is the DNA sequences and the larger building blocks of chromosomes. That is it... It is actually very simple at the lowest levels.

For once instead of looking at the final product look at the start that could have and did go trillions of directions first. We are just some end produce of a very simple formula that ends up into complexity.

Also remember ANY change is evolution, so you need to say that life never changes at all to say evolution is a pure fantasy. Not even you can say that...
edit on 6-8-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

So that whole post of yours, shows you've not read any of the evidence any of us provided... *snickers*

Yeah about what I expect



posted on Aug, 6 2019 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

See mr Goebbels, there you go again, with the big lie attempt. Your home schooling has not prepared you for the real world. Just like the child abuse of Hovind being forced on your kids is stunting them.

Like I said, you don't understand Science, you do not understand empirical evidence. You ignore every single source if evidence posted. SO no, go back and read my old posts. Or admit you are trolling here.


Well win it, it’s all in your court, paste the empirical evidence
Go get them

Noindie, I can believe in God and evolution, it doesn’t phase me. I know plenty of Christians who are evolutionists, it’s not an issue
I asked for conclusive proof, just do it



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

You said:

There is nothing in life that has a processed part such as a phone or 747 has, All life has the same DNA and what makes it different from each other is the DNA sequences and the larger building blocks of chromosomes. That is it... It is actually very simple at the lowest levels.

No it's not. At it's lowest levels is where we see irreducible complexity. Random mutations cannot create parts that have the right shape, right size and positioned at the right angles to carry out specific tasks. These parts don't evolve, they're designed. You can't have self assembly with parts that aren't designed to work together. Here's more:

The ribosome is a multi-part machine responsible for translating the genetic instructions during the assembly of proteins. According to Craig Venter, a widely respected biologist, the ribosome is “an incredibly beautiful complex entity” which requires a minimum of 53 proteins. Bacterial cells may contain up to 100,000 ribosomes, and human cells may contain millions. Biologist Ada Yonath, who won the Nobel Prize for her work on ribosomes, observes that they are “ingeniously designed for their functions.”

Let me repeat:

Biologist Ada Yonath, who won the Nobel Prize for her work on ribosomes, observes that they are “ingeniously designed for their functions.”

evolutionnews.org...

INGENIOUSLY DESIGNED FOR THEIR FUNCTIONS!

Exactly what I've been saying over 2 threads. And these functions don't evolve. They work when the parts come together.

This is because this is the code. It's not like a code, it's not a metaphor, it's a code. Here's Yockey.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)


Here's more:

My publications on information theory show that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods. All that can be taught in the science classroom about the origin of life is why it is unknowable and why past theories, such as chance and self-organization, had to be discarded.

First, the purpose of my paper was to give evidence why no origin of life theory based on “self-organization” was credible. “Self-organization” scenarios of the origin of life are not founded on science.


evo2.org...

No evolution needed.

These parts are designed to work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. Here's more:


In a well-known 1998 article in the journal Cell, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Alberts explained the astounding nature of molecular machines:


[T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.

LET ME REPEAT:

[T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated MOVING PARTS[emphasis added].

evolutionnews.org...

These parts don't evolve. There irreducibly complex. Their designed to work together to carry out specific tasks.

IT"S IMPOSSIBLE for random anything to produce parts that just work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks.

edit on 7-8-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Anything that happens which science can actually prove could only happen because of scientific laws in other words be capable of happening because of design...
Prove the laws which govern oh let’s say chemical bonds for example is unintelligent and or random...



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic

No it's not. At it's lowest levels is where we see irreducible complexity. Random mutations cannot create parts that have the right shape, right size and positioned at the right angles to carry out specific tasks. These parts don't evolve, they're designed. You can't have self assembly with parts that aren't designed to work together. Here's more:


That is just some personal opinion. They need some kind of shape, shapes that matches at some level right? Give me something in life that is some kind of perfect angle/thing? There is no right size, shape etc... if it is a good trait it survive and caries on, bad traits don't. Give me a "right" example. You are looking at a cloud and seeing a bunny rabbit...



Biologist Ada Yonath, who won the Nobel Prize for her work on ribosomes, observes that they are “ingeniously designed for their functions.”

evolutionnews.org...

INGENIOUSLY DESIGNED FOR THEIR FUNCTIONS!


Actually evolution is not perfect, far from it. You can call it what works...much is very imperfect, but it works.




This is because this is the code. It's not like a code, it's not a metaphor, it's a code. Here's Yockey.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)



You keep trying to put human perspective on everything...you do know that the term "life" is just a human creation...The universe doesn't see life, it see very complex chemical reactions.

The fact that life does change all the time, it is seen and recorded 1000s of times, that fact that life changes is what drives evolution. Hell we have taken the wheel now and driving our own evolution. Humans should not live past 40, but we do... lol


edit on 7-8-2019 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

You said:

You keep trying to put human perspective on everything...you do know that the term "life" is just a human creation...The universe doesn't see life, it see very complex chemical reactions.

These aren't my words. These are Nobel Prize winning Biologist saying these things.

Yes, they have to have the right shape, size, angle and be expressed in the way that will allow the polypeptide chain to fit and fold correctly. All sequences don't fold into proteins.

Again, show me the evidence that these parts evolved.

[T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.… Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated MOVING PARTS[emphasis added].

Show me the evidence that these highly coordinated parts in molecular machines evolved? How can random mutations create highly coordinated parts? How can random mutations create any parts that work together in complex ways to carry out specific functions?

The molecular machines for protein import across the outer mitochondrial membrane demonstrate a modular structure. The apparent paradox of Mdm10, a morphology protein with a role in TOM complex biogenesis, is in fact but one of many examples in which a module of proteins can be recruited to a complex to add‐on a function. The presence of Mdm10 as a component of both the SAM complex and the Mdm10/12/Mmm1 complex can be considered in the context of the work of Gavin and colleagues, who have presented a new paradigm for the organization of eukaryotic molecular machines. Their research shows that multisubunit protein complexes are common and that protein “modules”(defined as two or more proteins found together in multiple complexes) can be recruited to a number of different complexes in order to perform a specialized function [155]; this system allows complexes to perform multiple functions. An example from this survey of yeast protein machinery is that the protein lipoamide dehydrogenase is present in two machines of similar phenotype (the pyruvate complex and the α‐ketogluterate complex) [155]. This is but one example in which a shared protein can play a wider role than the specific complexes in which it is present [155].

www.sciencedirect.com...

Exactly what I talked about with a Modular Interpretation of Evolution which is an intelligent design interpretation.

There's not a shred of evidence that these parts evolve. There like modular house designs. I can design a house with 8 separate modular parts and when these parts get to the site, I can put them all together and they form a house because that's how the parts are designed.

There's no evidence that these protein parts evolve to fit as modules with other proteins to carry out specific functions.

This is CLEAR EVIDENCE of irreducible complexity. Here's more:


Genetic information is read by RNA polymerase II (Pol II) by synthesizing messenger RNA from DNA in the process termed transcription. Transcription is triggered by the binding of transcription factor(s) to specific DNA regulatory sequences, resulting in a recruitment of Pol II to a specific gene to initiate transcription. Since transcription by Pol II accounts for biological activities in eukaryotes, elucidation of the transcription process is essential to understanding biology as a whole. Mediator is a large multi-protein complex that regulates most, if not all, gene transcription by Pol II.1 It connects activator and repressors bound as regulatory DNA sequences to Pol II and a set of general transcription factors (GTFs) that assemble at the promoter for transcription initiation1, 2. Mediator is structurally and functionally conserved in all eukaryotes3. In the yeast S. cerevisiae, where Mediator was first discovered, Mediator comprises 21 subunits with a total mass over 1 mega Daltons4, and is organized in three distinct modules, termed Head, Middle/Arm, and Tail5

One of the outstanding questions regarding the mechanisms of Mediator functions is how 21 subunits assemble together to form a large multi-protein complex stably, and how they together bring about transcription regulation. Over the years, the size and complexity of Mediator has hampered our understanding of Mediator assembly and its role in regulating transcription.


www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu...

Again, no evolution needed. These modules(parts) work together because they were designed to. Here's more:

Mosaic Evolution

As phylogenetically, temporally, and morphologically transitional forms, the two new alvarezsaurians illuminate the pattern, pace, and timing of evolution of the bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton [35], and particularly the forelimb (Figure 3). Our analysis shows that alvarezsaurian skeletal evolution occurred in a somewhat modular manner, with different skeletal parts being modified at different evolutionary rates. The presacral and sacral vertebrae were evidently modified earlier than the caudal vertebrae, and the pectoral girdle and forelimb earlier than the pelvic girdle and hindlimb, implying a general pattern in which anterior parts of the skeleton were modified earlier than posterior parts. To some degree the tail, pelvis, and hindlimbs acted as an integrated locomotor unit in non-avian dinosaurs because of the role of the caudofemoralis muscle in femoral retraction [36], and patterns of alvarezsaurian skeletal evolution suggest that this locomotor unit might have been relatively conservative in evolutionary terms

sci-hub.se...

Again, here you have parts that evolved separately but when they came together to form a "bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton."

This didn't evolve. These parts evolved seperately and came together in a highly specialized way. How can random anything create parts at different points that just come together and wotk in a "bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton?"

The Modular Interpretation of evolution is the only interpretation that matches the evidence. Here's more:

Scientist Pierre Paul Grasse said this:


‘Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? … have you ever beheld three, four or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinating effects? … These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no “cause” to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it take to build this extraordinary creature [Myrmelion formicarius]’?


I can go on forever, but here's one more:

edit on 7-8-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

In the last two decades, as a result of the great advances in structural biology and biophysics, a new understanding has emerged about the mechanical nature of the cell. We know now that this basic living unit has a modular architecture in which many of its central functions (replication, transcription, translation, splicing, protein degradation, energy generation, motility, etc.) are performed by interconnected and highly coordinated protein machines. These are assemblies of 5 or more polypeptide chains, contain various parts with specialized functions, and provide a localized environment where chemical species can interact and react in highly specific fashion. A protein machine is then a molecular “device” that, like its macroscopic counterpart, performs highly specialized functions requiring the conversion of chemical energy into mechanical work. This process—almost invariably—involves parts that move in some precise manner to produce forces, torques and displacements. Large research efforts are being directed today to characterize how these parts move, what forces and torques are generated in the process, and how is energy transformed and channeled from its chemical source (binding energy, bond hydrolysis, and chemical gradients) to its mechanical output.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Again, a Modular Interpretation which is an Intelligent Design Interpretation matches the evidence.

There's not a shred of evidence that random mutations can create modules or parts that just work together in highly specialized and coordinated ways. NO EVOLUTION NEEDED!

These parts (modules) are designed to work together. Let's break this one down:

We know now that this basic living unit has a modular architecture in which many of its central functions (replication, transcription, translation, splicing, protein degradation, energy generation, motility, etc.) are performed by interconnected and highly coordinated protein machines. These are assemblies of 5 or more polypeptide chains, contain various parts with specialized functions, and provide a localized environment where chemical species can interact and react in highly specific fashion.

MODULAR ARCHITECTURE!

Where is the evolution of these protein machines becoming highly coordinated? Where is the evolution of these parts evolving specialized functions that are highly coordinated with other parts?

Let me repeat this:

Where is the evolution of these protein machines becoming highly coordinated? Where is the evolution of these parts evolving specialized functions that are highly coordinated with other parts?

Just a little more:

A protein machine is then a molecular “device” that, like its macroscopic counterpart, performs highly specialized functions requiring the conversion of chemical energy into mechanical work. This process—almost invariably—involves parts that move in some precise manner to produce forces, torques and displacements.

When did these parts that move in a PRECISE MANNER that produces forces, torques and displacements in a precise manner that allows these protein machines to become highly coordinated?

Where is the evidence of evolution???

These parts were designed to carry out these functions. There's no evidence that these modules(parts) evolved a highly specialized MODULAR ARCHITECTURE.

Again, it's like a modular home. The parts are designed in a highly specialized way to come together to carry out a specific task.

A natural interpretation of evolution is PURE FANTASY!



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic




Again, a Modular Interpretation which is an Intelligent Design Interpretation matches the evidence.



Post at least ONE citation that endorses your claim. That's your opinion, not science that has data to back it up.

So let's see that list of citations.

You're another one who makes up as you go along. Intelligent design is YOUR conclusion, not the conclusion of the hard science.




Again, it's like a modular home. The parts are designed in a highly specialized way to come together to carry out a specific task.


And again, you've given proof positive that you understand zip about dynamic systems. Using inanimate objects to describe a living organism is about as stupid as it gets. It's illogical. But I don't expect you to see that because your preformed opinion would get in the way.

And let's not forget that you said this:






edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Here are the facts:

There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals which have published authentic research on evolution and related topics.



None of which document an unambiguous example of an organism evolving into another organism. Fruit flies remain fruit flies, mice remain mice, microbes remain microbes, finches remain finches, moths remain moths. Adaptation does not prove evolution.

Adaptation mechanisms actually disprove evolution. surprise me by not insulting me and actually engaging in this conversation. Here's my perspective on the empirical evidence:

an adaptation mechanism involves many biological facets. Most commonly, they are epigenetic. Meaning that these adaptations involve turning genes up or down to acomodate various environmental cues. Take for example altitude acclimation, which requires a protein Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to increase expression and create 2,3-BPG to allow your body to adapt to the varying oxygen levels at high altitudes. So here's the dilemma for evolution: what came first, the desire to go to high altitudes, or the presence of Bisphosphoglycerate mutase to allow altitude acclimation? Without the protein that catalyzes 2,3-BPG formation, humans cannot survive high altitudes. So if some theoretical human decided to venture up a mountain, they would die without the enzyme to form 2,3-BPG. But how would that enzyme be coded for in the human genome if it were not needed? Do you suppose the genome would just pocket this enzyme just in case it was necessary later? Such is antithetical to natural selection.

This is no easy protein to code for either. It is over 750 base pairs (DNA units) in length. So how could all of these mutations have happened to eventually create this very specific protein, when it wasn't even needed until a human decided to climb to high altitudes?

The more you critically analyze biology and check if its applicable to the theory of evolution, you realize it is an asinine theory not based in reality.tion mechanisms actually disprove evolution, but I know how much you fear debating real science with me.


I'm not letting you off the hook this time. Post a list of RESEARCH papers that include the data and lab work that support your opinion.

Once again, you only have an opinion, not hard data.

So let's have it. A list.

And remember you said this:



but I know how much you fear debating real science with me.


Real science is in the literature. It's in the research. It's in the data. When you present your "real science" the way real scientists present theirs, we'll "discuss".



edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423




When you present your "real science" the way real scientists present theirs, we'll "discuss".


Ok Professor, we are not in University writing papers to be graded on this forum, he can present the information anyway he likes. And you can take the "you must present the information this way" attitude to another forum.

What is being presented by both neo and coop is real science, sorry it's not coming in the format your brain needs it to break the cognitive dissonance.
edit on 7-8-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

As usual, you don't refute anything that's said, you just make vacuous statements like this:

And again, you've given proof positive that you understand zip about dynamic systems. Using inanimate objects to describe a living organism is about as stupid as it gets. It's illogical.

Its stupid and illogical, yet the Scientist I'm quoting are making these comparisons. This why my post are chock full of evidence that supports what I'm saying and all you provide is hyperbole. Let's highlight some of these:

[T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated MOVING PARTS[emphasis added].

evolutionnews.org...

What illogical, stupid person said this?

In a well-known 1998 article in the journal Cell, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Alberts explained the astounding nature of molecular machines:

Wow, he's really illogical. Why in the world would he use the word machine? Why in the world would he use the word factory? I remember working at a factory when I was 17. It was full of machines that were DESIGNED to carry out specific task,

WHY WOULD THIS IDIOT, who was former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, make this illogical comparison? Here's more.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)


evo2.org...

I write code mostly in Java and HTML. I'm now taking an online course to learn R Programming which is very interesting. So far, while learning programming, I have heard about codes, information, editing, redundancy and editing.

Oh, oh. Here's another illogical idiot.

Wait a minute, this ILLOGICAL IDIOT Yockey, who was one of the top specialist in bioinformatics, said these these comparisons were not analogies and metaphors, they take their meaning from information theory.

Here's more:

We know now that this basic living unit has a modular architecture in which many of its central functions (replication, transcription, translation, splicing, protein degradation, energy generation, motility, etc.) are performed by interconnected and highly coordinated protein machines.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This idiot, whose a Geneticist and a Professor at Stanford University, talked about MODULAR ARCHITECTURE. Where do we see a modular architecture? Modular homes?



Why would this idiot from Stanford say such an idiotic thing? Oh, oh, he explains why in the next line.

many of its central functions (replication, transcription, translation, splicing, protein degradation, energy generation, motility, etc.) are performed by interconnected and highly coordinated protein machines.

INTERCONNECTED AND HIGHLY COORDINATED PROTEIN MACHINES.

Why would this illogical idiot call them machines? Where do we see modules that are interconnected and highly coordinated? Oh yeah, when we build MODULAR ARCHITECTURE!

At the end of the day, it sounds like you're the illogical idiot, because over and over and over again, these people use inanimate objects that we know are DESIGNED to explain the high level of complexity we see in what the idiot from Stanford called MODULAR ARCHITECTURE WHERE MANY OF IT'S CENTRAL FUNCTIONS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND HIGHLY COORDINATED PROTEIN MACHINES!


edit on 7-8-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Phantom423

As usual, you don't refute anything that's said, you just make vacuous statements like this:

And again, you've given proof positive that you understand zip about dynamic systems. Using inanimate objects to describe a living organism is about as stupid as it gets. It's illogical.

Its stupid and illogical, yet the Scientist I'm quoting are making these comparisons. This why my post are chock full of evidence that supports what I'm saying and all you provide is hyperbole. Let's highlight some of these:

[T]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated MOVING PARTS[emphasis added].

evolutionnews.org...

What illogical, stupid person said this?

In a well-known 1998 article in the journal Cell, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Bruce Alberts explained the astounding nature of molecular machines:

Wow, he's really illogical. Why in the world would he use the word machine? Why in the world would he use the word factory? I remember working at a factory when I was 17. It was full of machines that were DESIGNED to carry out specific task,

WHY WOULD THIS IDIOT, who was former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, make this illogical comparison? Here's more.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)


evo2.org...

I write code mostly in Java and HTML. I'm now taking an online course to learn R Programming which is very interesting. So far, while learning programming, I have heard about codes, information, editing, redundancy and editing.

Oh, oh. Here's another illogical idiot.

Wait a minute, this ILLOGICAL IDIOT Yockey, who was one of the top specialist in bioinformatics, said these these comparisons were not analogies and metaphors, they take their meaning from information theory.

Here's more:

We know now that this basic living unit has a modular architecture in which many of its central functions (replication, transcription, translation, splicing, protein degradation, energy generation, motility, etc.) are performed by interconnected and highly coordinated protein machines.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

This idiot, whose a Geneticist and a Professor at Stanford University, talked about MODULAR ARCHITECTURE. Where do we see a modular architecture? Modular homes?



Why would this idiot from Stanford say such an idiotic thing? Oh, oh, he explains why in the line.

many of its central functions (replication, transcription, translation, splicing, protein degradation, energy generation, motility, etc.) are performed by interconnected and highly coordinated protein machines.

INTERCONNECTED AND HIGHLY COORDINATED PROTEIN MACHINES.

Why would this illogical idiot call them machines? Where do we see modules that are interconnected and highly coordinated? Oh yeah, when we build MODULAR ARCHITECTURE!

At the end of the day, it sounds like you're the illogical idiot, because over and over and over again, these people use inanimate objects that we know are DESIGNED to explain the high level of complexity we see in what the idiot from Stanford called MODULAR ARCHITECTURE WHERE MANY OF IT'S CENTRAL FUNCTIONS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND HIGHLY COORDINATED PROTEIN MACHINES!



As usual, it's your opinion with no data to back it up. When you have some data, let me know.




top topics



 
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join