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.

 

Irreducible Complexity Theory - Was nature designed?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: How much brain do you require? a single neuron???


For example....

Where the hell is his brain?

Same guy and its reported as "he has NO brain"!!!

Reports of others including a guy with IQ 125!!!

Do these people fit the STANDARD definition of having a brain. I think NOT!
Does this qualify them as NOT HUMAN??? Again where do we draw the line?

So please define what you mean by BRAIN. How much brain can be cut out and cast away without affecting our humanity or its own ability to be classified as an IC brain. Same for the eye! Is a single light/dark receptive cell the bare minimum or what about a hand? a digit and opposable thumb? [Note I am not against IC I just want to know what the demographic is and where the lines are! for example I provided info concerning the base functionality of existence...at this quantum scale everything is IC! ]

Please also try and answer some of my questions that I posted above under a P.S. in this post such as "What if we could keep peoples heads alive in a jar like on Futurama. Would these disembodied talking heads be not human???"

Personal Disclosure: Concerning Springless mousetraps.....

Original mousetrap:



Springless version:





Mousetraps IC without the spring??? Nope sorry. You might have been right if you disregarded the platform instead of the spring!




posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Explanation: How much brain do you require? a single neuron???


Do these people fit the STANDARD definition of having a brain. I think NOT!
Does this qualify them as NOT HUMAN??? Again where do we draw the line?

So please define what you mean by BRAIN. How much brain can be cut out and cast away without affecting our humanity or its own ability to be classified as an IC brain. Same for the eye! Is a single light/dark receptive cell the bare minimum or what about a hand? a digit and opposable thumb? [Note I am not against IC I just want to know what the demographic is and where the lines are! for example I provided info concerning the base functionality of existence...at this quantum scale everything is IC! ]


Just to clarify, where did you see me state the Brain is IC? I NEVER did. If there is one neuron left, you haven't completely removed it have you? If you're going to argue, argue about what was said, not what you make up.



Please also try and answer some of my questions that I posted above under a P.S. in this post such as "What if we could keep peoples heads alive in a jar like on Futurama. Would these disembodied talking heads be not human???"


Quite possible they may be considered human. What does this have to do with IC? I never claimed the human body was IC either. Again, putting words in my mouth.




Mousetraps IC without the spring??? Nope sorry. You might have been right if you disregarded the platform instead of the spring!


This is a ridiculous argument. I'm talking about with the ORIGINAL parts, not modifying it so it can work with string. Wow. You're missing the whole point of IC. That's like saying a car will work with the engine and transmission removed if you replace the engine with a pedal system, flintstone style. If you're going to argue about IC, look up the definition first, or at least familiarize yourself with the concepts.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Have you ever played Jenga?
You build blocks on top of each other and then take them out one by one until they fall.
Someone without enough knowledge of blocks may look at the tower and say "this must have happened all at once. It could not have been a process, as the whole thing would collapse without any one of the prior blocks."

I know the analogy doesn't completely fit, but I always think of it when I see creationists arguing about this very thing, who don't understand the process of evolution.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Have you ever played Jenga?
You build blocks on top of each other and then take them out one by one until they fall.
Someone without enough knowledge of blocks may look at the tower and say "this must have happened all at once. It could not have been a process, as the whole thing would collapse without any one of the prior blocks."

I know the analogy doesn't completely fit, but I always think of it when I see creationists arguing about this very thing, who don't understand the process of evolution.


Well see Truth, that's where you are assuming. I do understand what the Theory states the processes are. We can speak on any process you'd like, I think I can hold my own. I know the explanations scientists give, doesn't mean I believe them though. Understanding and believing are 2 different things.

I think the Jenga thing is a bad example, I'm not talking about things that "look" like they won';t work. I'm talking about Complex Systems that will lose their function if a part is removed.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ok then, I guess there's nothing to discuss if you've heard the explanations and simply refuse to believe them.
I should have known
...



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ok then, I guess there's nothing to discuss if you've heard the explanations and simply refuse to believe them.
I should have known
...


Should have known what? I'm not entitled to beliefs? Or are they only right if they are the same beliefs as yours? Or only if they follow the status quo? Sorry, it doesn't work that way, or start a communist nation and dictate the peoples beliefs if that's how you want it.

I live in a free country, I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Should have known what? I'm not entitled to beliefs? Or are they only right if they are the same beliefs as yours? Or only if they follow the status quo? Sorry, it doesn't work that way, or start a communist nation and dictate the peoples beliefs if that's how you want it.

I live in a free country, I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone.



Lol, of course you're free to believe whatever you want, that's not what I'm saying.
This is what I see:

Jim: Why does the moon orbit around the Earth?
Bob: Because of the gravitational pull, Jim.
Jim: I don't believe that.
Bob: Ok then.
Jim: But how is it possible for the moon to orbit the Earth? Seems impossible to me.
Bob: I already told you.
Jim: Yeah, but I don't believe the explanation you gave. Let's discuss further.


Guess which one you are
.

I just don't understand presenting something as a problem when you already know there's a solution but you merely wish to ignore the solution to present a problem which isn't a problem when looking at the solution...

[edit on 28-3-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Should have known what? I'm not entitled to beliefs? Or are they only right if they are the same beliefs as yours? Or only if they follow the status quo? Sorry, it doesn't work that way, or start a communist nation and dictate the peoples beliefs if that's how you want it.

I live in a free country, I don't have to justify my beliefs to anyone.



Lol, of course you're free to believe whatever you want, that's not what I'm saying.
This is what I see:

Jim: Why does the moon orbit around the Earth?
Bob: Because of the gravitational pull, Jim.
Jim: I don't believe that.
Bob: Ok then.
Jim: But how is it possible for the moon to orbit the Earth? Seems impossible to me.
Bob: I already told you.
Jim: Yeah, but I don't believe the explanation you gave. Let's discuss further.


Guess which one you are
.

I just don't understand presenting something as a problem when you already know there's a solution but you merely wish to ignore the solution to present a problem...


Well first off my names Mike not Jim. Second I have no problem with the Law of Gravity.

Third, they have never provided a testable solution. Only explanations, big difference. Just to clarify I hope you aren't claiming I don't believe in Evolution as a fact, because I do. It's certain parts of the Theory I have a problem with, not all of it. Like birds turning into lizards, stuff like that. Sure we can artificially switch genes off and on to get them to grow teeth, etc, but it's never been observed in nature, not once. Hope that clarifies the part I have a problem with.

Whats with the Ad Hominem arguments? Stick to the discussion and quit insulting peoples beliefs, like they have anything to do with it.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Well first off my names Mike not Jim. Second I have no problem with the Law of Gravity.


Methinks you missed the point I was trying to convey...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Third, they have never provided a testable solution. Only explanations, big difference.


Of course.
There are explanations.
So the problem isn't a problem in light of an explanation which explains that it was never a problem to begin with...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Just to clarify I hope you aren't claiming I don't believe in Evolution as a fact, because I do. It's certain parts of the Theory I have a problem with, not all of it. Like birds turning into lizards, stuff like that. Sure we can artificially switch genes off and on to get them to grow teeth, etc, but it's never been observed in nature, not once. Hope that clarifies the part I have a problem with.


Yeah, I understand.
You believe God zapped us here and then micro-evolution took place.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Whats with the Ad Hominem arguments? Stick to the discussion and quit insulting peoples beliefs, like they have anything to do with it.


What the...
Where did I insult your beliefs?

I'm pointing out how strange it is to present a 'problem' and then when solutions are presented choosing not to believe them, and then acting as though there's still a problem.
Of course you can choose not to believe them, but just because you choose that doesn't magically make the explanations to the supposed problem disappear.

People are going to continue to say "this is how" and your response will be "I don't believe it. What else you got?".
There's no point...



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


It's not a solution to the problem. 1 + 1 = 2, that has a solution. An explanation is not a solution, it is an educated guess based on observations. Big difference, like I said earlier.

Your belief in the "common ancestor" is the same as mine in God, there is no proof of either.

Saying "You believe God zapped us here" is insulting, because it's NOT what I believe.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
It's not a solution to the problem. 1 + 1 = 2, that has a solution. An explanation is not a solution, it is an educated guess based on observations. Big difference, like I said earlier.

Your belief in the "common ancestor" is the same as mine in God, there is no proof of either.


Of course.
But you're acting as if there is no way that an irreducibly complex organ could have evolved.
There are explanations.
So there's no problem to begin with...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Saying "You believe God zapped us here" is insulting, because it's NOT what I believe.


Do you believe he gathered the dust of the earth and changed the molecular structure and then caused it to exist as a life form in an instant in time?

Personally I think it's easier to say "zapped"...

I meant no offense.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Of course.
But you're acting as if there is no way that an irreducibly complex organ could have evolved.
There are explanations.
So there's no problem to begin with...


You say there is no problem, I say there is. That's opinion, it isn't related to facts.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Of course.
But you're acting as if there is no way that an irreducibly complex organ could have evolved.
There are explanations.
So there's no problem to begin with...


This area is just another that shows the intellectual dishonesty of creationists. Firstly, they state that IC systems could not have evolved, all that's needed is to show how it is possible, which has been done numerous times. Then, when we do actually show how it has happened, we get more obfuscation.

For example, Behe in his article with Snokes labelled binding sites IC and clearly stated this article was meant to be an example of the problem evolution has with IC. Even though the article was trashed, not long after this fantastic article was published...


Science 7 April 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5770, pp. 97 - 101
DOI: 10.1126/science.1123348
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation
Jamie T. Bridgham, Sean M. Carroll, Joseph W. Thornton*
According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element's function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system—the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor—evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor's affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex.


...which basically resurrected ancient genes and demonstrated how the later IC binding site evolved.

Then Behe et al. whined that this wasn't an IC system, although binding sites were not long before this study. These dudes are full of crap. And I would expect the same here, they say they want more than possibilities, but when presented with observations it's the old creationist jig.

ABE:

See, told ya so
V V

[edit on 28-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


mel,

I'm not being intellectually dishonest at all. They can show there is a possibility of this occurring. There is a possibility of ANYTHING occurring, big deal, I can write code to show you anything in a simulation.

Why do you insist on lumping all Creationists together anyway? We don't all have the same beliefs at all.

Scientists are just as guilty, they have been coming up with explanations specifically tailored to disprove Creationism. Is this a part of the Scientific Method? This is also intellectual dishonesty.

Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to prove ID or Creationism. I'm trying to open up discussion, two sided discussion.

As you're aware I believe in a large part of Evolutionary Theory, don't try to skew what I say and claim I'm trying to be dishonest. IC shows it's a possibility that ID'rs are right. Same thing, just a possibility.

I'm searching for answers, just like everyone else, including scientists.



Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation—recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex.


This is a perfect example of nature not showing them anything. They are artificially introducing amino acid changes into a sequence. They haven't observed this happening in nature. They are just playing with the code to get what they want. It doesn't show that this occurs in nature, only in a lab with scientists exploiting molecules to show how it's possible, if ID'ers tried to get away with stuff like this they'd get jumped on by science.

[edit on 28-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, that's not entirely correct. The "Development of a simple theory..." is sort of a "here's how to do it" for high school students.


You never ask questions until you observe something. What's there to question if nothing has been observed?


I think you may be viewing things from your own experience (or perhaps we're just mutually mis-explaining the same thing to each other.) There are literally unlimited questions that can be asked without an initial observation -- such as one answered this week about transitional fossil forms in octopi. Or how you can multiply one series of infinite things by another (not a senseless question, I assure you, and one that has quite a few implications.)

(trimming some discussion to get to the meat...)




I never stated humans were IC, I did say parts of them are though. Also I made it very clear in my OP that I didn't think everything in nature was IC, did you read the OP?


Yes, I did. However, you said you were throwing down the gauntlet (not in so many words) and that we couldn't argue from various sources such as talkorigins.

So I'm asking, "what is irreducibly complex" because the examples you gave seem flawed. For example, if I lengthen (or shorten) the rotor on the flagellum (or stiffen it), I've changed it and it's not the same. Is this a new "irreducibly complex" structure or what? If a new one is born with a shorter or longer flagellum, is this new structure "irreducibly complex?"

And if it does get modified and fits the rule of "irreducibly complex" ... then did it just sort of poof into existence? Is there something out there creating each of the millions of variations on moving flagella (the type you called irreducibly complex) or... how do you account for so many types?



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Is there a mechanism that you can add to the flagellum which would make it perform a different function altogether? Likewise, if you take away a part of the system, will it again be able to perform a different function?

OP, have you considered that bacteria have been evolving for around 4 billion years, and that certain mutations may have resulted in a bacteria with a flagellum like part that served another purpose besides that of locomotion? Could they have once been used as rudimentary sensors? Or to attach a bacteria to an object?

Also, when talking about bacteria, the process of evolution and mutation is drastically faster than that of larger organisms, such as humans.

It seems fallacious that you insist that the function now performed by the flagellum is the function that it has always performed.

Thinking like that, I can see why one would insist on an intelligent creator. You seem to presume that current functions must have always been around, which also seems to be completely ignoring the process of evolution in the first place. It's no surprise then, that ID would be your next argument.

Something else to consider:

Vestigial organs: Possible remnants or possible precursors?

Junk DNA: Possible leftovers, or possible potential?

You may what to think outside of the box a little more because God is certainly at the very center of the box.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
This is a perfect example of nature not showing them anything. They are artificially introducing amino acid changes into a sequence. They haven't observed this happening in nature. They are just playing with the code to get what they want. It doesn't show that this occurs in nature, only in a lab with scientists exploiting molecules to show how it's possible.


This is exactly what Behe wanted to see. Exactly.


Well, yes, of course that's exactly what I ask of Darwinian claims -- a mutation-by-mutation account of critical steps (which will likely be very, very many), at the amino acid level...And not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.

Bozo Behe

A step-by-step demonstration by mutation of how a real-world IC system would have evolved. The paper also outlines selective pressures, the problems for the organism, and timescale. The only thing is doesn't focus on is population size, which is a minimal problem.


if ID'ers tried to get away with stuff like this they'd get jumped on by science.


Just doing science would be a start.

Keep the dancing up, though. Such intellectual dishonesty in creationists is expected. And clearly demonstrates why replying to you is barely worth my time. Whammy II.

[edit on 29-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Hi again B.A.C. may I just ask a question please, why are you still looking to argue against anything that is not of the same belief system of your own?

What are you hoping to achieve? Please don't say knowledge, because your constant attempts at pointing out holes in understanding will not lead to knowledge, merely an understanding of areas in which we do not possess an understanding.

Do you not realise as well, if you are trying to make people subscribe to your beliefs you are merely driving them further away as you constant petty pointing towards holes proves nothing other than many religious peoples inability to accept others as openly as atheists do?

I'm yet to see a fact from you, merely a continued, repeated pointing towards lack of understanding in sciences. Get some facts...

You're really making religion look a joke to many outsiders, we want to progress not dwindle on insignificant issues of 'hey you don't know this, so your wrong! nur nur!'


Edit; OmegaLogos hit the nail right on the head that shows the clear floor and oversight in many of your attempts to knock anything other than you own beliefs in saying "Is a single light/dark receptive cell the bare minimum or what about a hand?"

[edit on 29-3-2009 by MrAnonUK]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
I don't know why the religious types even try debunking evolution , all the do is send the atheist into a ravenous feeding frenzy , they love it .



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join