Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: kennyb72

It seems to me that would mean Science came to be as an alternative to Dogmatic Religion though. If Science owed it's formation to the study of Religion it would simply have just stayed Religion and not an alternate thing of it's own.

Just because Science or it's roots came from Religious Cultures or people who were Religious themselves doesn't mean much since they were all Religious cultures to start with. How could it not come from within such places when that was all there was??

Divinity, Miracles, etc. aren't based in science.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for the video and the paper you have provided. I have seen the video and am as of yet unsure if this sufficiently debunks irreducible complexity, i will look at it again tomorrow. The paper im going to read tomorrow.

a reply to: mOjOm


It appears that science has taken on the roll of dogmatic atheism and in doing so has created a dichotomy that should not exist.

If Science owed it's formation to the study of Religion it would simply have just stayed Religion and not an alternate thing of it's own

You are arguing with history.

originally posted by: cyberjedi
a reply to: Phantom423
I have seen the video and am as of yet unsure if this sufficiently debunks irreducible complexity

You can't debunk irreducible complexity. Take out a couple gears in a clock and check out how well that works. The only people who want to debunk such simple logic are those who wish to perpetuate their religion of meaningless to the world. Nothing you say or evidence you show will change their mind, they have to figure it out on their own. I would suggest leaving before it discourages you from the pursuit of knowledge. They are like 2nd graders telling the algebra student how crazy they are for using letters in their arithmetic.

Darwin himself said that if complex interdependent organs were ever shown to exist then it would totally debunk his theory - we see complex interdependence exhibited in molecules, proteins, organelles, cells, organs, and organ systems.. therefore it is impossible for these to have evolved in a piecewise fashion. I'm not here to argue I am just stating logic. They will wave the magic wand of evolution and call you names. Again, it's honestly not worth it to argue.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

a reply to: spy66

The human condition, is unique on this planet in as much that we are disconnected from our group mind, It has been designed that way so that we become individuals unaware of what we are.

We are a school yard full of powerful, immortal beings, causing all kinds of chaos because we fail to see how we are all part of the same unity.

Everything is as it should be, as science points out, evolution takes a very long time.

a reply to: kennyb72

I'm sorry but you don't get it. The video is a very simplistic explanation. The real stuff is in the research article I posted after the YouTube link. Read that and then come back and challenge the science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: cyberjedi
a reply to: Phantom423
I have seen the video and am as of yet unsure if this sufficiently debunks irreducible complexity

You can't debunk irreducible complexity. Take out a couple gears in a clock and check out how well that works. The only people who want to debunk such simple logic are those who wish to perpetuate their religion of meaningless to the world. Nothing you say or evidence you show will change their mind, they have to figure it out on their own. I would suggest leaving before it discourages you from the pursuit of knowledge. They are like 2nd graders telling the algebra student how crazy they are for using letters in their arithmetic.

Darwin himself said that if complex interdependent organs were ever shown to exist then it would totally debunk his theory - we see complex interdependence exhibited in molecules, proteins, organelles, cells, organs, and organ systems.. therefore it is impossible for these to have evolved in a piecewise fashion. I'm not here to argue I am just stating logic. They will wave the magic wand of evolution and call you names. Again, it's honestly not worth it to argue.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

You didn't read the research article either. That's par for the course, isn't it? That's how you always address a question that requires hard work, research, discussion and analysis of results. You don't do that. You open your mouth like a guppy and in goes the dogma that they feed you.

But just so I can't be accused of not trying to educate you, here's the link. If there's any rebuttal to the science, let us know. We're always prepared to listen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phantom423
the dogma that they feed you.

Here's a buffet:


"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

a reply to: cooperton

Charles Darwin reported what he saw. He didn't have sophisticated instruments, DNA analysis, genetics, and a whole lot of very smart people who studied his observations and continued on the path of further discovery. That's what science is about - research, discovery and evidence - that's it.

BTW, you followed the path of many who would like to use Darwin's letters to support their agendas. Leaving out the critical points that he made AFTER he made many of these quotes, is disingenuous in the least, and dishonest at the best.

You don't fool anyone. You never did.

a reply to: kennyb72

I don't see how anything I said is arguing with History. Religion is Religion and Science is Science. They are their own things and not one in the same.

a reply to: cooperton

That's a bad stutter you got there. You should have that checked out.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Charles Darwin reported what he saw. He didn't have sophisticated instruments, DNA analysis, genetics, and a whole lot of very smart people who studied his observations and continued on the path of further discovery. That's what science is about - research, discovery and evidence - that's it.

BTW, you followed the path of many who would like to use Darwin's letters to support their agendas. Leaving out the critical points that he made AFTER he made many of these quotes, is disingenuous in the least, and dishonest at the best.

You don't fool anyone. You never did.

Also note that Darwin's logic would extend to cells, proteins, DNA, molecules, etc which Darwin and the scientific community would have been totally unaware of in the 1850s. All these macromolecules and cellular structures also have an interdependent nature that would also "absolutely break down" the possibility of evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

Why would his logic extend to things he never knew about??

It would seem the opposite. Since if he knew about those things I'm sure it would have changed many of his ideas.

a reply to: cooperton

That's merely speculation on your part. Darwin knew nothing of the science that was to come. He made observations, assessed his data, formulated his opinion and reported on it. That's it. He could have been totally right or totally wrong or something in between. It's analogous to Leonardo da Vinci speculating on flying machines.

Your logic is flawed. You're hanging on to statements made a very long time ago that certainly initiated serious scientific inquiry. But inquiry is followed up with valid research, data, observation, interpretation - and last but not least, hard work. That's 'what you and your fellow Creationists never do. It invalidates everything you say.

Even if everything in evolutionary science turned out to be wrong in the future, at least the scientists went into the lab and did the work. What work did you do? Please - I don't want to know. I'll need a martini..............

a reply to: Phantom423

I'm sorry but you don't get it. The video is a very simplistic explanation. The real stuff is in the research article I posted after the YouTube link. Read that and then come back and challenge the science.

I don't need to come back to challenge the science, the science provides a good explanation, it is simply incomplete and misinterpreted.

I am referring to metaphysics, the part that you can't see because science is yet to develop instruments sensitive enough to to detect the presence of at least three more states of matter that exists in the physical world.

You can ignore the aether of course and call it dark matter and redefine life energies as dark energy.
There is nothing dark about either, quite the opposite.

I can assure you it is only a matter of time before we will gain empirical evidence of its existence and its function.

a reply to: Phantom423

They don't have to do any work.

Someone already did all the work for them and then wrote it in a book. All the answers they'll ever need to anything and everything all they have to do is believe what that book says. Never question it. Confess that they're unworthy and need forgiveness and believe in a specific mythical story and boom, all is solved.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

Why would his logic extend to things he never knew about??

.

Because proteins, DNA, Cells, and so forth have an interdependent nature that make it even more complex than just interdependent organ systems. Darwin thought that complex organ interdependence alone would disprove evolution, yet there is even more. complex cellular, macromolecular, etc types of interdependence that further make a step-by-step evolutionary process impossible without the whole being in place.

[url=http://cmapspublic3.ihmc.us/rid=1177386748361_297874323_12678/enzymes_27&28.cmap?rid=1177386748361_297874323_12678&partName=htmljpeg]example[/url ]

a reply to: kennyb72

Well you seem to be implying that you know all about it already.

If that's the case why aren't you solving any mysteries or making breakthroughs in Science ahead of anyone else??

a reply to: cooperton

That doesn't explain why his logic would extend past what knowledge he had at the time. If he had no knowledge of something then whatever logical statements he's making wouldn't include an thought about such things and cannot be held accountable for them.

The same goes for use now. The logic of people today should account for what we've learned in the past but can't be trusted to apply everywhere in the future because of new knowledge that we might learn. We can hope it does and in some fields it should as changes aren't likely to happen in some areas. But other areas there will be new information as time goes on.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

That doesn't explain why his logic would extend past what knowledge he had at the time. If he had no knowledge of something then whatever logical statements he's making wouldn't include an thought about such things and cannot be held accountable for them.

The same goes for use now. The logic of people today should account for what we've learned in the past but can't be trusted to apply everywhere in the future because of new knowledge that we might learn. We can hope it does and in some fields it should as changes aren't likely to happen in some areas. But other areas there will be new information as time goes on.

No comment on the interdependent nature of DNA, proteins, organelles, cells, etc?