Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Quadrivium

There is a significant difference between a Christian and a creationist. The former tend to be objective and open to reason; the latter are ideological fundamentalists.

Um.....NO.
Christians are Creationist.

The reason I wrote that is to illustrate that undertaking and understanding many strands of science you have to apply the methodology of evolution and adaptation. It is this fundamental basis that genetic research into cellular disease and abnormalities can be understood and combatted. To deny it would be to invalidate the last 60 years of research and applied medicine.

Again, NO.
you have to apply the methodology of adaptation.

Taking what you are saying at base level is exactly what I wrote. You are denying almost everything that may exclude the work of your god, in which case a prayer is all that you need.

Um.....what is did you think I was saying? Did you confuse my post with another?

a reply to: TerraLiga

You will remain a laughing stock until you spend your time proving your theory than trying to disprove other’s.

That works both ways.
Evolution does not deal with the Creation.
Evolution can not answer the question: "Why is there something, instead of nothing?"
Evolution does a very poor job of explaining anything beyond adaptation ( I refer to adaptation in this regard as the act of becoming better suited for ones environment, many will say "that's what Evolution is", but by using adaptation alone I remove all the needless baggage brought on with the rest of the theory. Like Macroevolution).

originally posted by: TerraLiga
DNA kills creationists.

Ok....
That may be the most moronic statement you have said up to this point.
If you believe this you do not understand DNA.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
DNA kills creationists.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Ok....
That may be the most moronic statement you have said up to this point.
If you believe this you do not understand DNA.

It's a bit short-sighted at the very least. Famous scientist Richard Feynman left this note on a blackboard shortly before his death: “What I cannot create, I do not understand.”(1) His candid humility is refreshing, and his statement, obviously true in the case of DNA. Scientists cannot create DNA with all its replication and transcription machinery; nor can they fully understand it. Yet, some assert that they know that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents. Does the evidence really support such a conclusion?

Some learned men have decided that the evidence points the other way. For example, Francis Crick, a scientist who helped to discover DNA’s double-helix structure, decided that this molecule is far too organized to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to the earth to help get life started here.(2)

More recently, noted philosopher Antony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50 years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81 years of age, he began to express a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. Why the change? A study of DNA. When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists, Flew reportedly answered: “That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle . . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads.” (3)

So, where does the evidence lead? Imagine that you found a computer room in the heart of a factory. The computer is running a complex master program that directs all the workings of that factory. What is more, that program is constantly sending out instructions on how to build and maintain every machine there, and it is making copies of itself and proofreading them. What would that evidence lead you to conclude? That the computer and its program must have made themselves or that they were produced by orderly, intelligent minds? Really, the evidence speaks for itself:

One science book calls the efficient packaging system shown at the start of the video above “an extraordinary feat of engineering.”(4) Does the suggestion that there was no engineer behind this feat sound credible to you? If a museum had a huge store with millions of items for sale and they were all so tidily arranged that you could easily find any item you needed, would you assume that no one had organized the place? Of course not! But such order would be a simple feat by comparison.

Context for the video above:

Protein synthesis (DNA transcription and translation)

Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomes in a manner so efficient that it has been called a “feat of engineering.”

Question: How could such order and organization arise by undirected chance events?

Fact: DNA’s capacity to store information still has no equal in today’s computer age.

Question: If human computer technicians cannot achieve such results, how could mindless matter do so on its own?

Fact: DNA contains all the instructions needed to build a unique human body and maintain it throughout life.

Question: How could such writing come about without a writer, such programming without a programmer?

Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read, and proofread by a swarm of complex molecular machines called enzymes, which must work together with precision and split-second timing.

Question: Do you believe that highly complex, highly reliable machinery can come about by chance? Without solid proof, would not such a belief amount to blind faith?

Oh, but there is no evidence for creation, programming and engineering, right? And all this is evidence for evolution (the notion that it all came about by undirected chance and accidents) instead? Common Sense—Why So Uncommon?

Common sense seems to be so lacking in today’s world that an observant man once noted, ‘Common sense, in truth, is very uncommon.’

References:

1. No Ordinary Genius​—The Illustrated Richard Feynman, edited by Christopher Sykes, 1994, photo with no page number supplied; note caption.

a. New Scientist, “Second Genesis​—Life, but Not As We Know It,” by Bob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://​www.newscientist.com/​article/mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.

2. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence​—A Philosophical Inquiry, by David Lamb, 2001, p. 83.

3. Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.

4. Life Script, by Nicholas Wade, 2001, p. 79.

a reply to: peter vlar
It's not that uncommon for educated people (with PhD's for example) to refer to so-called "evolutionists" as "Darwinists", "neo-Darwinists" or "Neo-Darwinians" (especially if they hold to the notion of common descent by gradual evolution, or otherwise described as by a gradual accumulation of numerous, successive, slight inheritable changes or modifications, paraphrasing Darwin). Even encylopedias do it. The Encyclopedia of Religion (originally published in 1987) candidly admits: “Religious leaders have called for violent attacks of other religious groups repeatedly in Near Eastern and European history.”

This encyclopedia reveals that violence is an integral part of religion, by saying: “Darwinists are not alone in accepting conflict as necessary for both social and psychological growth processes. Religion has served as an endless source for conflict, for violence, and, thus, for growth.”

Btw, from a biblical viewpoint violence cannot be justified on the basis that it is necessary for growth, for this would go contrary to a well-known principle laid down by Jesus Christ when the apostle Peter tried to protect him. Peter “reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest and took off his ear. Then Jesus said to him: ‘Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.’”—Matthew 26:51, 52; John 18:10, 11.

Violence directed against individuals—whether they are good or bad—is not the way of love. Thus, people who resort to violence belie their claim to be acting in imitation of a loving God. Felt like I needed to correct the false statement in that encyclopedia that conflict and violence are a source for growth (or even the implication that they are necessary as many evolutionists claim, which is the impression that encyclopedia seems to give as well, probably especially to those already inclined to agree with it). I could elaborate further as to why it isn't a source of growth, but it's too off-topic. I'll leave it at that.

“Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruit flies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.”

Richard B. Goldschmidt (Ph.D., field: genetics)

a reply to: whereislogic

The whole point behind the introduction of the word "evolution" in biology by Darwin was to argue that it was natural or caused by (the forces of) nature (and chance).

Darwin used the word "evolution" certainly. He DID NOT introduce it to biology. It was in use long before Darwin was even born. Long before.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
It's not that uncommon for educated people (with PhD's for example) to refer to so-called "evolutionists" as "Darwinists", "neo-Darwinists" or "Neo-Darwinians" (especially if they hold to the notion of common descent by gradual evolution, or otherwise described as by a gradual accumulation of numerous, successive, slight inheritable changes or modifications, paraphrasing Darwin). Even encylopedias do it. The Encyclopedia of Religion (originally published in 1987) candidly admits: “Religious leaders have called for violent attacks of other religious groups repeatedly in Near Eastern and European history.”

What a load of crap. Do you know what other “evolutionists” refer to me as? A paleoanthropologist. Not. Darwinist, not a neo-Darwinist. And as usual, you utilize the oldest source material possible. 1987 is hardly on the cutting edge of recent scientific developments.

This encyclopedia reveals that violence is an integral part of religion, by saying: “Darwinists are not alone in accepting conflict as necessary for both social and psychological growth processes. Religion has served as an endless source for conflict, for violence, and, thus, for growth.”

None of this has anything to do with the post that you seem to think you’re replying to and I’m not sure how you get from my explanation that “Darwinist” is an archaic anachronism and why the term is entirely obsolete. I’m not sure why you put this level of effort into a discussion pertaining to semantics instead of discussing the threads topic.

Btw, from a biblical viewpoint violence cannot be justified on the basis that it is necessary for growth, for this would go contrary to a well-known principle laid down by Jesus Christ when the apostle Peter tried to protect him. Peter “reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest and took off his ear. Then Jesus said to him: ‘Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.’”—Matthew 26:51, 52; John 18:10, 11.

Once again, you ignore the topic and deflect with a religious tirade. Why?!

Violence directed against individuals—whether they are good or bad—is not the way of love. Thus, people who resort to violence belie their claim to be acting in imitation of a loving God. Felt like I needed to correct the false statement in that encyclopedia that conflict and violence are a source for growth (or even the implication that they are necessary as many evolutionists claim, which is the impression that encyclopedia seems to give as well, probably especially to those already inclined to agree with it). I could elaborate further as to why it isn't a source of growth, but it's too off-topic. I'll leave it at that.

Finally, we agree.... you’re way off topic and pushing a narrative from a 32 year old encyclopedia s if it is the one and only source of knowledge in the world and there are a lot of people who push a lot of stupid ideas. Claiming that idiots who are proponents of the MES want to kill because evolution demands it to improve fitness of a species is one of the more mind blowing head scratchers I’ve seen today. At least you didn’t cite Watchtower or JW.org!

“Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila [fruit flies], in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.”

Richard B. Goldschmidt (Ph.D., field: genetics)

You have got to be kidding me... you’re citing a guy who has been dead for over 60 years as if he had any awareness of the advances that have been made in his own field in the first 20 years after his death let alone today’s ability
To extract ancient genetics from extinct species and sub species. It’s like you don’t even try and just copy and paste the first thing that looks like it supports your position. It doesn’t. Goldschmidt would be singing a very different tune had he known of the Lenski experiment amongst many others.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: whereislogic

The whole point behind the introduction of the word "evolution" in biology by Darwin was to argue that it was natural or caused by (the forces of) nature (and chance).

Darwin used the word "evolution" certainly. He DID NOT introduce it to biology. It was in use long before Darwin was even born. Long before.

Concepts like evolution and taxonomy have existed since at least Aristotle so they predated Darwin by nearly 2500 years yet somehow he is the boogey man to the children of young earth creationists? Logic isn’t really their strong suit though. You

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: TerraLiga

You will remain a laughing stock until you spend your time proving your theory than trying to disprove other’s.

That works both ways.
Evolution does not deal with the Creation.
Evolution can not answer the question: "Why is there something, instead of nothing?"
Evolution does a very poor job of explaining anything beyond adaptation ( I refer to adaptation in this regard as the act of becoming better suited for ones environment, many will say "that's what Evolution is", but by using adaptation alone I remove all the needless baggage brought on with the rest of the theory. Like Macroevolution).

It’s not evolution’s job to ‘deal with the creation’ - which, by the way, I understand you mean the beginning of biological life, not religios Creation. Evolution tries to explain the progression and diversity of species.

Again, evolution does not attempt to answer philosophical questions either. To explain something instead of nothing is esoteric, not demonstrable fact.

If only you could get your sciences correct while presenting your evidence or counter-claims I think we could move along much quicker.

Evolution (by natural selection) tracks inherited changes through the biology of the organism. It covers a wide range of competitive changes to an organism usually over a vast period of time.

Adaptation is how an organism changes to suit its immediate environment, like food sources or climate or conditions. It’s usually very specific and can happen through isolation of a species, for example.

None of these explains how (or why) biological ‘life’ began, neither do they exclusively explain the divergence of a new species, although both can act independently or together to create a new species within its own genus, or as a subspecies. To explain how the higher order classifications came about you have to go back much further in time - millions of years further back.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
DNA kills creationists.

Ahh yes, because in your view, a genetic code somehow disproves a Coder.

Wake up.

a reply to: TerraLiga

If only you could get your sciences correct while presenting your evidence or counter-claims I think we could move along much quicker.

Evolution (by natural selection) tracks inherited changes through the biology of the organism. It covers a wide range of competitive changes to an organism usually over a vast period of time.
Adaptation is how an organism changes to suit its immediate environment, like food sources or climate or conditions. It’s usually very specific and can happen through isolation of a species, for example.

Please read your reply to me.

Now read this again:

Evolution does a very poor job of explaining anything beyond adaptation ( I refer to adaptation in this regard as the act of becoming better suited for ones environment, many will say "that's what Evolution is", but by using adaptation alone I remove all the needless baggage brought on with the rest of the theory. Like Macroevolution).

You actually agreed, said almost the exact same thing.
Microevolution- adaptation that can be observed.
Macoevolution- leaps and bounds to try and make the theory of evolution work.

My descriptions explain exactly what evolution and adaptation are. They are different in the scales they apply to.

Speciation, on the other hand, is entirely different, as is yet another term - biogenesis, which tries to explain the beginning of biological life. Many creationist and others confuse all four terms into one single process, but they are all very distinct.

I believe (but I may be wrong) that speciation above genus has not happened for several millennia, but should a mass extinction event take place it would be at that time we would probably see something new in the higher classifications, assuming we survive the event. Going back through geological records there seems to be an ‘explosion’ of new species after environmental catastrophes. Some of the most eventful and significant have been after the first snowball Earth, the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere and several massive meteor strikes, most notably the Chicxulub event that eventually gave rise to mammals which eventually led to us. I know you’ll contest that, but the evidence is on my side I’m afraid.

Ultimately it doesn’t matter what you or I believe. I know my side is an incomplete voyage of discovery and I’m very much looking forward to the journey.

a reply to: TerraLiga

As am i.
I often say:
All we KNOW today is but a DROP in the OCEAN of knowledge yet to learn.

a reply to: Quadrivium

As I often say:

Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we don't know anything.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Quadrivium

As I often say:

Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean we don't know anything.

How can you be sure? Unless you know everything.
What we "know" often changes over time.

a reply to: Quadrivium

How can you be sure? Unless you know everything.

I know my name. I know that, if I spill my drink, the ice cubes will accelerate at 32 ft/sec2. While I may not know precisely "why", I know they will. And I have a lot of experience.

What we "know" often changes over time.

Theories sometimes change, indeed. When new data is presented. A theory is, after all, an explanation for data. General relativity for example (see above). A theory which fits all available data and has no (none) data which contradicts it.

a reply to: Phage

I concede.
You should at least know your name.

a reply to: cooperton

Organisms develop traits because they want them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: FlyingFox

Organisms develop traits because they want them.

Then why can't I just grow wings?

a reply to: Bluntone22

He couldn't have just existed.

And yet with out a creator that is exactly what you suggest we did.

You can't have it both ways and for you to suggest that all the random
against the odds infinite happenings just happened? To allow life on this
planet with no intelligence involved is more likely? Then I'm afraid you
are completely delusional if not truly biased. You are ridiculous either way.