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: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh I understand it all to well, you just can't detect a sardonic comment.
I thought the wink at the end gave it away.
Anyways......

Listed as stage 2 of 10 of the evolutionary process, although that itself is subject to debate within the evolutionary community, but that qualifies as at least part of the "start" to me.

Tetrapods


The proverbial "fish out of water," tetrapods were the first vertebrate animals to climb out of the sea and colonize dry (or at least swampy) land, a key evolutionary transition that occurred somewhere between 400 and 350 million years ago, during the Devonian period. Crucially, the first tetrapods descended from lobe-finned, rather than ray-finned fish, which possessed the characteristic skeletal structure that morphed into the fingers, claws, and paws of later vertebrates. Oddly enough, some of the first tetrapods had seven or eight toes on their hands and feet instead of the usual five, and thus wound up as evolutionary "dead ends."


You asked for it.......



edit on 20-7-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh I understand it all to well, you just can't detect a sardonic comment.
I thought the wink at the end gave it away.
Anyways......

Listed as stage 2 of 10 of the evolutionary process, although that itself is subject to debate within the evolutionary community, but that qualifies as at least part of the "start" to me.

Tetrapods


The proverbial "fish out of water," tetrapods were the first vertebrate animals to climb out of the sea and colonize dry (or at least swampy) land, a key evolutionary transition that occurred somewhere between 400 and 350 million years ago, during the Devonian period. Crucially, the first tetrapods descended from lobe-finned, rather than ray-finned fish, which possessed the characteristic skeletal structure that morphed into the fingers, claws, and paws of later vertebrates. Oddly enough, some of the first tetrapods had seven or eight toes on their hands and feet instead of the usual five, and thus wound up as evolutionary "dead ends."


You asked for it.......




Sorry, but that's not what the basis of evolution science is about. It's certainly a step in the evolutionary process and there is enough evidence in the fossil record to say it's part of the story of evolution. But it's not the foundation of evolutionary science.

You took an excerpt which appeared in a number of commercial articles and used it to prove a point. But it doesn't prove anything unless you understand the basis for the science and why examples of "slimy creatures" coming out of the water taken out of context is disingenuous at best. This is what YouTube scientist and Coop do all the time - take something out of its real context and make any kind of hash out of it. That's ignorance. That's fraud. That's perpetrating a lie. If that satisfies your curiosity about evolution, then that's your problem. You belong in that crowd.


The foundation of evolution is common ancestry.




All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organization: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADPH and others as energy sources. Analysis of small sequence differences in widely shared substances such as cytochrome c further supports universal common descent.[22] Some 23 proteins are found in all organisms, serving as enzymes carrying out core functions like DNA replication.The fact that only one such set of enzymes exists is convincing evidence of a single ancestry.[1][23] 6,331 genes common to all living animals have been identified; these may have arisen from a single common ancestor that lived 650 million years ago in the Precambrian.[9][10]







The genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into amino acids, and hence proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria and archaea to animals and plants.
The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of universal common descent.[22] The way that codons (DNA triplets) are mapped to amino acids seems to be strongly optimised. Richard Egel argues that in particular the hydrophobic (non-polar) side-chains are well organised, suggesting that these enabled the earliest organisms to create peptides with water-repelling regions able to support the essential electron exchange (redox) reactions for energy transfer.[24]








P.S. And to date, there's no third party guy in the sky orchestrating any of these processes It's nature in its most natural form. And self assembly, which has been demonstrated a zillion times is how nature builds its components. The guy in the sky never shows up during these experiments. Isn't that strange??? YouTube scientist and the other ignoramuses will give you many examples like smart phones and vacuum cleaners ad infinitum to show that self assembly can't exist. But they can't do that with biological organisms because it has been done hundreds of times in the lab and is ubiquitous throughout nature.

YouTube scientist and Coop have an agenda. Watch out for your pocketbook.



edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Also, if you recall, I asked you to post from a biology textbook or a peer-reviewed research article. You did neither. Rather, you posted from a commercial article which was not meant to explain the basis for the science. You've fallen into the trap of YouTube scientist and Coop - deflect from the real question and don't talk about details.

This is a statement made by the National Science Teachers Association on the subject of evolution:




NSTA offers the following background information:

The Nature of Science and Scientific Theories Science is a method of testing natural explanations for natural objects and events. Phenomena that can be observed or measured are amenable to scientific investigation. Science also is based on the observation that the universe operates according to regularities that can be discovered and understood through scientific investigations.Explanations that are not consistent with empirical evidence or that cannot be tested empirically are not a part of science.

As a result, explanations of natural phenomena that are not derived from evidence but from myths, personal beliefs, religious values, philosophical axioms, and superstitions are not scientific. Furthermore, because science is limited to explaining natural phenomena through testing based on the use of empirical evidence, it cannot provide religious or ultimate explanations. The most important scientific explanations are called “theories.” In science a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses (NAS 1998). Theories are powerful tools. Scientists seek to develop theories that are firmly grounded in and based upon evidence; are logically consistent with other well-established principles; have been tested in diverse settings and against diverse data; explain more than rival theories; and have the potential to lead to new knowledge. The body of scientific knowledge changes as new observations and discoveries are made. Theories and other explanations change. New theories emerge, and other theories are modified or discarded. Throughout this process, theories are formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power.





Evolution as a Unifying Concept

Evolution in the broadest sense leads to an understanding that the natural world has a history and that cumulative change through time has occurred and continues to occur.
If we look today at the galaxies, stars, the planet Earth, and the life on planet Earth, we see that the natural world today is different than in the past: galaxies, stars, planets, and life forms have evolved.


Biological evolution refers to the scientific theory that living things share ancestors from which they have diverged; it is sometimes called “descent with modification.”


Biological evolution also encompasses a range of mechanisms that cause populations to change and diverge over time, and include natural selection, migration, and genetic drift. There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place. As such, evolution is a unifying concept for science.

The National Research Council’s Framework for K–12 Science Education recognizes that there are crucial core ideas in the sciences that “have application across all domains of science” and that should be emphasized in classrooms to “prepare students with sufficient core knowledge so that they can later acquire additional information on their own” (NRC 2012, pp. 30–31). This report concludes that “the core ideas in the life sciences culminate with the principle that evolution can explain how the diversity that is observed within species has led to the diversity of life across species through a process of descent with adaptive modification” (NRC 2012, p. 140). The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is based on the Framework and also emphasizes evolution as a unifying concept because of its importance across the disciplines of science. Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized.


There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has and is occurring. There is debate, however, about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations.


In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation.





Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.




edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

So there you have it. I answered my own question because you didn't (or couldn't). This is the how and the why evolution is taught in schools. It's the proper way of presenting the true nature of science itself because, as the article above says:



Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.


The cult of Creationism cannot do that now and never will be able to do that. All they have are people like YouTube scientist and Coop who attempt to grab the attention of people in the hope of convincing them that their line of crap makes sense.

Analytical thinking is not one of their strong points. If you buy into their garbage, you and only you are responsible for your ignorance.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423
It was a Coles notes answer for fun, man you are little slow on catching on to my posting style.

But thank you for posting the total complexity of the issue being discussed......the real start of the evolutionary process is abiogenesis. Many disagree based on semantical differences of perspectives based on scientific definitions and that's fine if you need a psychological crutch to protect your intellectual position. BUT if you are intellectually honest you will understand you need them both not just to defend evolution but the total ideology being discussed. Actually for those of us that believe in creation it includes everything, it's a total concept of ideology, with many scientific titles that have little relevance to a person with faith in God.

Here is the everything, some of which you mentioned in your post.







In my discussion with evolutionists over the years they like to discuss and argue over the last box but stay far away from the first two, it's totally intellectual jiggery-pokery at it's very worst.




Scientific disciplines with a historical component, such as astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology, cannot be taught with integrity if evolution is not emphasized......theories and other explanations change. New theories emerge, and other theories are modified or discarded.

This sounds perfectly normal to somebody that wants to believe in evolution, but literally every evolutionary piece of science can change if peer reviewed papers/studies are endorsed by their colleagues. That's like saying because CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS all reported the same news it must be true.


edit on 21-7-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




.the real start of the evolutionary process is abiogenesis


No it is not. Abiogenesis refers to the initiation of life. Evolution refers to the development of that life. They are two entirely different sciences.

Sorry if I miss your nuances. I tend to stick to the facts.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




BUT if you are intellectually honest you will understand you need them both not just to defend evolution but the total ideology being discussed. Actually for those of us that believe in creation it includes everything, it's a total concept of ideology, with many scientific titles that have little relevance to a person with faith in God.


There is no "ideology" being discussed. It's a discussion of scientific facts. Believing in creation is perfectly fine. No one objects to religious beliefs. But religious beliefs are not facts. There is no evidence to back up any single religious belief. Religion is not science. It's not testable, it's not measurable.

But what is being discussed by YouTube scientist and the Coop is not religion. It's a cult. It tries to rewrite science to their own fraudulent beliefs. They have no evidence, experiments, research or anything related to science. It's merely mouthing off on topics that neither one of them understand or care to understand.

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




In my discussion with evolutionists over the years they like to discuss and argue over the last box but stay far away from the first two, it's totally intellectual jiggery-pokery at it's very worst.


I have no idea which "evolutionists" you're talking to. Those boxes don't mean much. There's no detail.

You know you're creating a story around your own opinion with absolutely zip evidence. If you think that the science of evolution is false, then post something that disproves that science. As I've challenged others, pick out any one of the thousands of research papers in peer-reviewed journals and discuss why it's wrong. Pick any topic in evolutionary science and discuss why it's incorrect, producing the evidence to back up your case. When you can do that, then you're talking the science, not the fantasy. So far, you're in fantasyland - which is fine with me. Just don't pretend you understand the science - because you don't.




edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423



Abiogenesis refers to the initiation of life. Evolution refers to the development of that life. They are two entirely different sciences.


Here is another illustration I know you won't get it, because your logic on this topic is.....well just blocked.
Wheels are different than the frame of the car yet they are required for the car to move forward, they are an integral part of the vehicle and it's ability to move. Similarly evolutionary dogma is stuck in place without abiogenesis it can't move ideologically forward and obtain more believers without it.



Evolution is just like this car without wheels if you don't answer the abiogenesis question sufficiently, useless and not going forward.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


“no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”

Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz - How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses

The complex molecules in the simplest living thing cannot reproduce alone. Outside the cell, they break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules. For example, enzymes are needed to produce a special energy molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), but energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. Similarly, DNA is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Also, other proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins.


edit on 21-7-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You're entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't work. It's two separate areas of research. But think what you will.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Science has never said that life came from nothing. Science doesn't make the claim that life came about spontaneously or otherwise. Your friend is making it up as he goes along.


edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I think you need to get a real science education before you pursue this any further. You apparently have no idea what science really says vs what your random posts say. Either you have empirical evidence for your position or you don't.
If you do, then post it.

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
You don't know enough about biology then.


Says the guy that thinks the inability to remove the human heart and survive it, proves that the heart could not have slowly developed over time. LMFAO!!!!

It is well known how the eye developed. You are just listing complex modern organ systems and pretending that they couldn't form incrementally from a much more simple version of it. It's downright dishonest and fallacious, as I clearly proved and demonstrated.



You don't know enough about biology to have a conversation with. Your crass attitude is also really, really obnoxious.


More irony at its finest. Every time I refute your false claims, you come back with personal attacks. I explain every flaw in your logic and break down your misunderstandings and you pretty much ignore it all. We know the game, Mr Hovind. Your crusade is failing.

My "attitude" comes from explaining this stuff to YOU SPECIFICALLY dozens of times, and you poopooing it all away by finger waving rather than evidence or testable data. The same cycle repeats in every conversation with you. Post ignorant claim, get refuted, accuse the person that debunked you of being biased or not understanding, ignore the counterpoints, then repeat original ignorant claim.

edit on 7 21 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


Science doesn't make the claim that life came about spontaneously or otherwise.


Ah now we get to your real beliefs; biogenesis...that's cool.

I also enjoy how the theory of "spontaneous generation" was just scraped when biologists realized it was impossible, yet how close is that concept within the science to abiogenesis ?
edit on 21-7-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423


Science doesn't make the claim that life came about spontaneously or otherwise.


Ah now we get to your real beliefs; biogenesis...that's cool.

I also enjoy how the theory of "spontaneous generation" was just scraped when biologists realized it was impossible, yet how close is that concept within the science to abiogenesis ?


I don't have a clue what you're talking about - and neither do you. Biogenesis? Science NEVER said any of these things.
Please post a CREDIBLE, AUTHENTIC textbook or peer-reviewed article that states what you're claiming.

I think you have a big problem with the English language. Once again,

1. Science has never claimed that life developed spontaneously.
2. Science has never claimed to know how life came to be on this planet.

You must be colluding with YouTube scientist and the Coop on the side to come up with this sort of crap.

Get an education. At the very least, you'll time will be taken up with a worthwhile endeavor.


edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




I also enjoy how the theory of "spontaneous generation" was just scraped when biologists realized it was impossible, yet how close is that concept within the science to abiogenesis


Where have you ever read about the theory of "spontaneous generation" in credible scientific literature???????

You're making it up as you go along. And you're taking your clues from the lame, lazy and crazy crowd. Good luck with that.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
You may not know what microtubules are but they are the fundamental units which form filaments.

This lecture describes how it works:



Pay attention as to how the experiment works. If you don't understand it, look up the paper.



"A number of factors regulate the dynamics of microtubule formation however the primary determinant of whether microtubules grow or shrink is the rate of GTP hydrolysis, a factor that is both intrinsic and essential to filament assembly"

Primary source
secondary source

This isn't bare-bones self-assembly, it requires other biological processes, in this case energy derived from GTP hydrolysis. Not to mention you need tubulin dimers for this process to take place:



These tubulin subunits do not self-assemble, they require tRNA translation and mRNA transcription to be created by the cell and also the DNA segment that codes for its proper sequence. That is irreducible complexity.

So the dilemma still remains. This research you posted, if anything, further demonstrates the depth of the irreducible complexity of these components.
edit on 21-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Garbage analysis.



posted on Jul, 21 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


I don't have a clue what you're talking about - and neither do you. Biogenesis? Science NEVER said any of these things.

And you accuse me of not knowing or understanding, too funny.


Biogenesis is any process by which lifeforms produce other lifeforms. For example, a spider lays eggs that become other spiders. This premise historically contrasted with the ancient belief in spontaneous generation, which held that certain inorganic substances, left alone, give rise to life (such as bacteria, mice and maggots) in a matter of days. The premise of biogenesis had been suspected long before being definitively demonstrated.


I am sorry your elite education never taught you the difference between Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, you paid good money for it....it should have taught you that. But maybe the professors presumed you already knew from your high school education so they left it out of the curriculum. I highly recommend a simple high school coarse on biology that includes a module on the biology of Biogenesis.
edit on 21-7-2019 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join