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: 22
27
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
I told you that I wasn't going to discuss anything that didn't have references. You gave three references but never explained why those papers are either wrong or support your position.


You let the white coats think for you. The fact you don't even acknowledge an opinion that is outside of a peer-reviewed journal shows how indoctrinated and myopic your worldview is. Discuss the empirical science with me. I don't need a journal article agree with my interpretation, because I use journal articles for empirical evidence.

Which is why I said if there is any empirical science wrong in my post, then point it out. Otherwise, debate with counter-evidence and logical conclusions. What I said about 2,3-BPG is true in regards to acclimating to varying oxygen levels. So how would an organism already have the enzyme to form this if it were not venturing into high altitudes? How would an enzyme over 750 base pairs long be coded for by random chance? How would it get regulated properly? How would it 'know' and have the right sensory input to realize the body is in varying oxygen conditions?

These are the questions you have to answer to prove evolution is even possible. It is an irreducibly complex dilemma, again, and again, and again. Every aspect of biology proves the sequential modification theorized in evolution to be impossible.


originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton
You had better call them and tell them that you think two different genomic evolutionary solutions to low oxygen environments is all a fuss about nothing.


In your words, what are the two different genes that came to be in those two populations? Not gonna let you go on this one. You need to realize how underwhelming their results really are.
edit on 7-8-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
I told you that I wasn't going to discuss anything that didn't have references. You gave three references but never explained why those papers are either wrong or support your position.


You let the white coats think for you. The fact you don't even acknowledge an opinion that is outside of a peer-reviewed journal shows how indoctrinated and myopic your worldview is. Discuss the empirical science with me. I don't need a journal article agree with my interpretation, because I use journal articles for empirical evidence.

Which is why I said if there is any empirical science wrong in my post, then point it out. Otherwise, debate with counter-evidence and logical conclusions. What I said about 2,3-BPG is true in regards to acclimating to varying oxygen levels. So how would an organism already have the enzyme to form this if it were not venturing into high altitudes? How would an enzyme over 750 base pairs long be coded for by random chance? How would it get regulated properly? How would it 'know' and have the right sensory input to realize the body is in varying oxygen conditions?

These are the questions you have to answer to prove evolution is even possible. It is an irreducibly complex dilemma, again, and again, and again. Every aspect of biology proves the sequential modification theorized in evolution to be impossible.


What are you talking about? What empirical evidence to support which one of your positions?

You know you're full of blubber and a few more things.

As I said, if you want to discuss the merits of an article relative to your position, that's fine. You can't even articulate your own position or opinion.

You lost. I won.

Over and out. And done.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
You can't even articulate your own position or opinion.


No you just don't understand the intricacies of biology.



You lost. I won.

Over and out. And done.


Thanks to puzzlesphere, I know you are committing an "appeal to complexity", where you don't understand the details of what someone is saying, so therefore conclude it must be wrong.

Disappear phantom.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Evolution to us humans is just as accurate as Our observable timeline is……And our timeline is far from very accurate.

It is very easy for our scientific community to use the timeline to explaine its scientific probabilities. Who are we to argue any of this...?



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton


You are aware that the gene that allows Tibetan’s to easily acclimate to higher elevations is a direct result of Denisovan admixture right? The gene in Andean populations developed independently from those of Tibetans. Wouldn’t it have been easier for an omnipotent deity to just include that gene throughout the entirety of his creation?





Please don't confuse him with the facts!

What you posted is very interesting, however. Do you have a link to an article about the independent development of the Andean gene? It sounds like evidence for common ancestry but evolutionary uniqueness in different populations.




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...




Humans living at high altitude (≥ 2,500 meters above sea level) have acquired unique abilities to survive the associated extreme environmental conditions, including hypoxia, cold temperature, limited food availability and high levels of free radicals and oxidants. Long-term inhabitants of the most elevated regions of the world have undergone extensive physiological and/or genetic changes, particularly in the regulation of respiration and circulation, when compared to lowland populations. Genome scans have identified candidate genes involved in altitude adaption in the Tibetan Plateau and the Ethiopian highlands, in contrast to populations from the Andes, which have not been as intensively investigated. In the present study, we focused on three indigenous populations from Bolivia: two groups of Andean natives, Aymara and Quechua, and the low-altitude control group of Guarani from the Gran Chaco lowlands. Using pooled samples, we identified a number of SNPs exhibiting large allele frequency differences over 900,000 genotyped SNPs.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The answer to you challenge against me is defined in Peter’s post above. Significant differences between the two populations.

Again, 2,3-BPG is present in all mammals, so is by definition PRE-HUMAN. It is not exclusive to high altitude populations at all, and is just as prevalent as a mechanism in pregnant woman as it is in mountain gorillas or Andean farmers or even the rats in your city’s sewer system.

Your use of half-learned chemistry and biology is as ignorant as you are arrogant.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

For someone who has claimed a background in science, Coop really does not do research. several of us have been asked to explain 2,3-BPG by himk, given the same answer, and he keeps asking.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: neoholographic

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.


Faith in a God is zero evidence. So with 360,000+ species of beetles we either have evolution or God really really loves beetles, which one is it? You also keep trying to match the "why" with the "how" as in evolution only tries to explain the how with intelligent design or not. If your argument is intelligent design made tiny machines that has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution says that with those tiny machines you can make any kind of life and that is what we see, that is what evolution is all about. Evolution does not suggest where your tiny machines came from, and so the debate between intelligent design and randomness is a very different.


BTW thinks for the bold type... My very imperfect evolutionary eyes thank you.
We have 360,000+ "species" of beetle that have adapted to different environments. Congratulations. You have stated an example of adaptation.
Where is the proof of Macroevolution (Please do not give the worn out line that Micro and macro are the same. Clearly they are not. One can be observed as adaptation, the other never has).
You see, we have been breeding bacteria and fruit flies in the lab for decades. We have put them under all kinds of stress and environmental issues......
What have they shown us? That they will adapt to survive. Not once have we seen anything but bacteria and fruit flies be produced from these millions of generations in the lab.
Using this as an example we can dispute common decent.
They always say that there is evidence..... Where?
All we have is speculation and wishful thinking.
DNA as Evidence?
It could just as easily be explained by saying it is the language of creation. That a Creator used a common language to produce life.
There is no more evidence for one over the other because Evolution does not deal with the origins of species, therefore evolution or evolutionist has no say in the matter.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

The answer to you challenge against me is defined in Peter’s post above. Significant differences between the two populations.


It's the same gene. They are describing SNPs, which are points along the gene where a single nucleotide has changed to another nucleotide in the nucleic acid sequence. It is the same gene in both serving the same function. SNPs are essentially alleles - variants of the same gene.



It is not exclusive to high altitude populations at all, and is just as prevalent as a mechanism in pregnant woman as it is in mountain gorillas or Andean farmers or even the rats in your city’s sewer system.


That's what I said with my very first post. It is epigenetic... it turns up or down depending on altitude but is always present in the genome.

What are you arguing?


originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerraLiga

For someone who has claimed a background in science, Coop really does not do research. several of us have been asked to explain 2,3-BPG by himk, given the same answer, and he keeps asking.


are you drunk?

I was the first to summarize the function of 2,3-BPG multiple pages ago: link

I was asking questions to people who were posting stuff they did not understand. It was a leading question so they would realize the paper did not say what they believed it did.

For example, terraliga thought that paper presented meant that the functions necessary for altitude acclimation came to be twice independently in two parts of the world, but it wasn't. It was showing the rates of SNP allele frequencies among the same gene.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You and your little coven, have repeatedly tried to bring up 2,3-BPG as if its some big bit of evidence. Everytime you are shown to not know your arses from your elbows.



posted on Aug, 7 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Both claim the science is over the others head and they don't understand it. Why is this claim often leveled against those presenting scientific data, that throws shade on the concept that are trying to espouse.

Maybe just maybe it is possible they don't fully understand the scientific data that puts into question what they believe.

Cogitative dissonance is a very powerful thing it will not allow the first domino to fall because they know what happens if it does, truth is irrelevant to them. It actually reminds me of a group of people that were alive in the first century and denied something else.

Over the years there have been ATS posters who are atheists, but their same critical mind that wrote off religion as bunk have done the same to evolution.
Why ?
Because they studied the science behind it all with a critical and intelligent open mind.

They came to a correct conclusion, but it's not an appeal to complexity for them, they aren't sure. They might think life was put here by an advanced civilization, or seeded so to speak, for them it's not God or evolution, but something else.
edit on 7-8-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




life was...seeded so to speak


Panspermia is a distinct possibility.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




They might think life was put here by an advanced civilization, or seeded so to speak, for them it's not God or evolution, but something else.


Do seeding or creation by God preclude evolution?
edit on 8/8/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

No, there are significant differences in two different genes, not just variations in one gene - but even if that were true it would still be significant evidence of two paths to solve one problem at the genomic level. This is proof that evolution is fact, however much you belittle it.

Earlier you posed the question of which came first; the gene to utilise low oxygen content or humans who ‘wished to go up a mountain’ to use your phrase. This is is nothing to do with humans, it is a mammalian adaptation and pre-dates humans by several million years. What is remarkable is that humans were able to call upon this adaptation when we required it and alter our genome accordingly.

I can assure you that it is not me who misunderstands science, it is you. You are the one who twists facts to suit your own end. You are an abhorrent abuser of facts and truth.

Rest assured, you will be going to your hell.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I’m not a huge fan of Wikipedia, but for the sake of cooperton and his creation groupies I’ve included the link here:
en.m.wikipedia.org...

For goodness sake read it. It explains in relativity simple terms the difference between the THREE different ways in which humans have adapted to live in high altitude, low oxygen environments.

cooperton will argue that the change is in only one gene, but that is a blatant and ignorant lie. For you coop-groupies, do you believe this one half-educated person or the whole of academia, including several teams of research scientists who have made this research their life’s work?

Read the Wikipedia page, do more research and then choose to support this charlatan.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
As I have said before, Cooperton is a fraud. He's tried every trick in the book to make a living out of this garbage to include crowdfunding -

Lol wait, what?



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Please stop giving your opinion. Remember, if you actually believed in atheism, you would know that nothing you do matters, because eventually all consciousness returns back to nothingness without a trace. So your opinion is meaningless, according to your own religion. Be a good adherent and stop barcing.

Life is what we make it. The things we do, do matter. It doesn't matter if there is nothing after death. I don't know that there isn't but you know, that's one of the things that keeps me going. If this is all there is, then I'm going to enjoy it. Make friends, love family, live on in memory. Until I die and find out (or not) what is (or isn't) next, what else is there to do? Just because people like me don't believe in a gods or the like, doesn't mean we live cold empty meaningless lives.



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




They might think life was put here by an advanced civilization, or seeded so to speak, for them it's not God or evolution, but something else.


Do seeding or creation by God preclude evolution?

Unless Evolution can show how life began, how life during the cambrian explosion seems to have showed up fully formed with NO signs of Evolution, then yes. It would seem so.
edit on 8-8-2019 by Quadrivium because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

First off, let me point out how my posts have been ignored like the plaque. This is because a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy and the only interpretation of evolution that matches the evidence is a Modular Interpretation which is an Intelligent Design interpretation of evolution.

It's obvious why Darwinist want to fall into this debate because it's a clear example of what I call Evolutionary BS. Let me define Evolutionary BS before I proceed.

Evolutionary BS - It's a syndrome associated with Darwinist that shows the ad hoc nature of a natural interpretation of evolution. Anything can be explained with a mixture of convoluted nonsense and a million qualifiers throughout the dissertation of pure BS.

The Wikipedia article and the papers it connects to are ripe with evolutionary BS along with your post.

Here's a prime example. The Wiki article says this:

This special adaptation is now recognised as an example of natural selection in action.[3] The adaptation account of the Tibetans has become the fastest case of human evolution in the scientific record, as it is estimated to have occurred in less than 3,000 years.[4][5][6]

The special adaption? What's a special adaption? Why did this special adaption occur at this time? I know why, evolutionary BS. You can't explain how natural selection can account for this fast adaption, so insert the "SPECIAL ADAPTION."

Please explain how this special adaption works step by step and why did this special adaption occur at this point. What exactly is this magical special adaption?

I guarantee you, if a study comes out in a year or two that says this couldn't have occurred in less than 3,000 years, evolutionary BS will kick in and you will hear something like this.


Well, when humans left Africa, there was a gene that shielded them from the underground UV radiation that may have originated in the rocks of nearby mountains so a less than special adaption occurred prior to the human population leaving Africa therefore it's not 3,000 years but 7,000 years we think.


Darwinist will then accept this as a scientific fact that can't be questioned. Again, evolutionary BS.

When you look at how they talk about natural selection, they endow it with all the hallmarks of intelligence. Natural selection occurs after the fact. It selects nothing. It just says one trait will survive over another trait via reproduction after the traits have reached the environment. Again, it selects nothing.

As I have shown, these parts are a product of Intelligent Design that work together in complex ways to carry out specific tasks. When these systems reach the environment, they adapt.

We see from extremophiles that life can exist in some extreme conditions. This has nothing to do with natural selection and everything to do with the design of parts that work together in a modular architecture as pointed out earlier. No Evolution Needed.

Let's look at the article that Wiki linked to. Here's the abstract:

High-altitude hypoxia (reduced inspired oxygen tension due to decreased barometric pressure) exerts severe physiological stress on the human body. Two high-altitude regions where humans have lived for millennia are the Andean Altiplano and the Tibetan Plateau. Populations living in these regions exhibit unique circulatory, respiratory, and hematological adaptations to life at high altitude. Although these responses have been well characterized physiologically, their underlying genetic basis remains unknown. We performed a genome scan to identify genes showing evidence of adaptation to hypoxia. We looked across each chromosome to identify genomic regions with previously unknown function with respect to altitude phenotypes. In addition, groups of genes functioning in oxygen metabolism and sensing were examined to test the hypothesis that particular pathways have been involved in genetic adaptation to altitude. Applying four population genetic statistics commonly used for detecting signatures of natural selection, we identified selection-nominated candidate genes and gene regions in these two populations (Andeans and Tibetans) separately. The Tibetan and Andean patterns of genetic adaptation are largely distinct from one another, with both populations showing evidence of positive natural selection in different genes or gene regions. Interestingly, one gene previously known to be important in cellular oxygen sensing, EGLN1 (also known as PHD2), shows evidence of positive selection in both Tibetans and Andeans. However, the pattern of variation for this gene differs between the two populations. Our results indicate that several key HIF-regulatory and targeted genes are responsible for adaptation to high altitude in Andeans and Tibetans, and several different chromosomal regions are implicated in the putative response to selection. These data suggest a genetic role in high-altitude adaption and provide a basis for future genotype/phenotype association studies necessary to confirm the role of selection-nominated candidate genes and gene regions in adaptation to altitude.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

First sign of evolutionary BS:

Although these responses have been well characterized physiologically, their underlying genetic basis remains unknown.
Off the top they tell us, "the underlying genetic basis remains unknown."

This means that everything that follows is basically ad hoc BS but of course it will be the Gospel truth to Darwinist.

Here's the next line of evolutionary BS.

We performed a genome scan to identify genes showing evidence of adaptation to hypoxia. We looked across each chromosome to identify genomic regions with previously unknown function with respect to altitude phenotypes.

Do you know how big the genome is? How can you not find genomic regions to fit any narrative after you admitted that the underlying genetic basis remains unknown? At this point, you can find anything to support your narrative. It's a crap shoot.

Here's more. First I have to say the Bible had to be talking about a natural interpretation of evolution when it says a strong delusion will occur. This is just obvious nonsense that's pure fantasy but because evolution is used to prop up peoples atheism and materialism, they accept nonsense because without it their belief will crumble.

In addition, groups of genes functioning in oxygen metabolism and sensing were examined to test the hypothesis that particular pathways have been involved in genetic adaptation to altitude. Applying four population genetic statistics commonly used for detecting signatures of natural selection, we identified selection-nominated candidate genes and gene regions in these two populations (Andeans and Tibetans) separately.

What in the Sam hell is this?

Signatures of natural selection? What exactly are these signatures and explain exactly how these signatures are naturally selected. They identified:

SELECTION NOMINATED CANDIDATE GENES AND GENE REGIONS!

Selection nominated? This is just away to say we don't know if these genes or gene regions have anything to do with the underlying genetic basis which remains unknown but we nominate these regions with a little hocus pocus like "Special Adaption" and viola, Darwinist have turned BS into scientific fact.

The article talks about "Positive Selection." This is just more ad hoc nonsense. CONT'D
edit on 8-8-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2019 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

You said:

What is remarkable is that humans were able to call upon this adaptation when we required it and alter our genome accordingly.

Let's be precise here. When you say humans were able to call upon this adaption, you mean the human genome right or are you talking about the phenotype? I need to pin down precisely what you mean because Darwinst float more than Ali.

How do we call upon an adaption? How do we know this adaption will be the adaption that's need to survive in this environment. Exactly how many adaptions did we try or did we make a b line to the right genes and gene region?

Let's go back to "positive selection." Here's more:

How does the organism know it needs a positive solution in the set of genes where the nucleotide changes occur? Walk me through the process of this positive selection.

Humans try to live in high places, they keep dying out, some barely survive but against all odds they find the right set of genes through random mutations and this special adaption kicks in and in less than 3,000 years, Viola!, they thrive in high altitudes.

Give me the highly technical version without a thousand qualifiers. Point to the research that qualifier free and contains no evolutionary BS.

Of course Coop is right. Why wouldn't you see variations of this gene. The Wiki article you posted to says this:

The genes (EPAS1, EGLN1, and PPARA) function in concert with another gene named hypoxia inducible factors (HIF), which in turn is a principal regulator of red blood cell production (erythropoiesis) in response to oxygen metabolism.[58][59][60] The genes are associated not only with decreased haemoglobin levels, but also in regulating energy metabolism.

This points to a modular interpretation of evolution.

How did genes EPAS1, EGLN1, and PPARA evolve the function to work in concert with a gene named hypoxia inducible factors? Again, walk me through the step by step process or were these genes DESIGNED to work in concert with each other?

You talk about genes developing different pathways to do the same thing, but that's exactly what you see with intelligent design. I write code and different languages can carry out the same function in different ways. You want this redundancy because R may work better in some cases than Python and vice versa.

The reason a Designer would do this is because earth isn't the only environment. Look at all the planets and different environments. Why would there be a singular pathway to an end result when you're designing a code that will have to adapt to different environments?




top topics



 
27
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join