Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: kennyb72

Whatever. (200 thousand seemed strange to me too but the time frame wasn't the important thing.)

Again, I'm reading it. Aside from some specifics I get what it's saying and will continue reading it.

From what I grasp so far asking you for anything is pointless anyway and I have to do it myself, so I guess this ends our conversation for now.

Maybe you'll hear from me again in the future though.

a reply to: mOjOm

From what I grasp so far asking you for anything is pointless anyway and I have to do it myself, so I guess this ends our conversation for now.

It is a law of life, the law of self development. Nothing is attained during a life beyond that we have worked out for ourselves. You will see for yourself, what is correct and what is incorrect in modern science. If I had been a scientist in this life, this would be the foundation on which I would base all of my scientific understanding, it is a vast body of work and at no point does it contradict itself.

It is the truth.

I sincerely hope you get something out of it mOjOm, it ended my search for the truth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic

Lol. You find a surgeon who doesn't believe in evolution and that suddenly disproves my point about modern medicine being founded on evolution?

Really, that's the arg. ad hominem you wanna go with? He doesn't believe in evolution? That might work amongst fans of evolutionary philosophies who will burn anyone who doesn't want to jump on their bandwagon at the stake of public opinion but for me it only provides more reasons for what I mentioned before:

My nr.1 reason for not believing evolutionary philosophies are factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive/true:

the way of arguing and talking about it by those adhering to these unverified philosophies/ideas and storylines.

I think someone who is a professor of neurosurgery, working and teaching at a medical school, does brain research and performed over 4000 brain operations is quite capable and qualified for speaking on the subject of whether "evolutionary biology" is important to modern medicine or not, using Michael Egnor's terminology in for example his conclusion:

Evolutionary biology isn’t important to modern medicine.

But it's not like he's the only one or that those making money on evolutionary philosophies promoted and marketed as "evolutionary biology" or "evolutionary theory" aren't acknowledging the same thing in other words with their unreasonable bias still shining through in the way they say things about this or related subjects...

...
While advertising a 2007 conference focusing on "Evolutionary Biology and Human Health," the American Institute of Biological Sciences claimed: "Principles and methods of evolutionary biology are becoming increasingly important in many aspects of health science, among them understanding the human genome, the normal functions and malfunctions of human genes, and the origin and evolution of infectious diseases" (2007 [May]. BioScience 57[5]:456).

But biologist Peter Armbruster, while sympathetic, had to splash cold water on such enthusiasm: "Evolution receives scant attention on the U.S. Medical College Admission Test (the MCAT) and almost no coverage in medical school curricula, a situation with a pervasive canalizing effect on undergraduate biology curricula in the United States. The status quo was challenged in 1991 when G.C. Williams and R.M. Nesse published a paper with the optimistic title 'The Dawn of Darwinian Medicine.' Seventeen years later, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the sun has been rising only slowly. . . . one of the central arguments of evolutionary medicine has always been that evolutionary concepts should be emphasized in the education of clinicians. Unfortunately, this proposition has not been well received by medical schools thus far, probably in part because evolutionary insights have led to relatively few clinical applications" (2008 [Aug.]. "The sun rises [slowly] on Darwinian medicine." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23]8]:422).

Pennsylvania State University chemist Philip S. Skell, a member of the (U.S.) National Academy of Sciences, wrote an article titled "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology" (2005 [Aug. 29]. The Scientist 19[16]:10). ... Skell stated: "... Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."

...

Columbia University evolutionist Walter Bock, reviewing a book by Ernst Mayr (This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997), criticized Mayr as follows:

"Unfortunately, the book's discussion of functional biology—a major part of biological activity—is largely lacking. This is the result partly of Mayr's desire to cover what he considers to be the core of biology, namely that part of the biological sciences falling under the heading of organicism, and partly of considerations about the structure and length of this work. Functional biology is restricted mainly to the eighth chapter, "'How?' Questions: The Making of a New Individual," but even this chapter deals largely with evolutionary matters. Other material on functional explanations originally included in the manuscript was omitted at the last minute.

"Clearly no explanation in biology is complete in the absence of an evolutionary explanation that holds for all levels of biological organization including the molecular and cellular. Yet functional explanations are essential prerequisites for any evolutionary explanation, a fact that has been ignored by most evolutionary biologists. Moreover, the statement Mayr quotes from Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," is simply not true. Functional explanations in biology, even in the complete absence of any evolutionary consideration, make a great deal of sense, as is apparent every time you get a diagnosis from your doctor about what ails you. These diagnoses may not be complete biological explanations, but they do make sense and are of much concern to you, the patient." ["The Preeminent Value of Evolutionary Insight in Biological Science." American Scientist 86(2):1, 1998 (Mar/Apr)]

Additional note: Confirmation of Peter Armbruster's comment (cited in the main article above) appeared in a more recent piece by science reporter Elizabeth Pennisi, "Darwinian Medicine's Drawn-Out Dawn" (Science, Vol. 334 [Dec 16, 2011], pp. 1486f.). There appears to be some hopeful (for evolutionists) signs but the reality is — as the title indicates — that change is not happening quickly.

"In their 1991 paper in the Quarterly Review of Biology, Williams and Nesse urged medicine to embrace evolutionary thinking. . . .
"Twenty years later, there are signs that Williams and Nesse's ideas are getting traction. . . . But it has been a long slog to get to this point, and proponents say there is still a long way to go. . . .
". . . even now, 'there are some people who think it's just a series of "just so" stories,' says Peter Gluckman of the University of Auckland in New Zealand, who wrote the first medical textbook on evolutionary medicine. 'Evolution has been resisted fiercely' by the medical profession, says Gilbert Omenn, a physician and human geneticist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. . . .
". . . it's unlikely that medical schools will provide entire courses in evolutionary medicine, given the already-intense course load students face. And the idea that students would get a strong grounding in evolutionary medicine as pre-meds has recently taken a hit: The proposed 2015 Medical College Admission Test actually contains much less evolution than the 2009 report [by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute] recommended, [Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen] Stearns says."
...

Source: Is Evolution Really So Central to Biology?

a reply to: Phantom423

Did you send them a letter that all the science was incomplete and misinterpreted?

I am sorry, I mistook you for a scientist.

originally posted by: cooperton
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.

This guy has a stab at the issue starting around 2:04 (there are some inaccuracies in the introduction so I don't recommend that part to those who are only interested in finding something to argue about without having to consider the problem of the subject of "interdependence" for wishful speculative storylines invoking a step-by-step evolutionary process as is still being done by all arguments and so-called "refutations" of this subject otherwise referred to as "irreducible complexity" that I've seen here in this thread or elsewhere).

a reply to: whereislogic

Your kidding right? Im going to assume your to smart to believe that just bacause you believe something it has to be true. This was the basis of his argument. If your going to post crazy people at least find interesting ones. Heres one this lady thinks fossils are fire breathing dinosaurs

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: cooperton

Talk about acting intellectually superior. May we fetch your slippers for you oh wise one???

It's not nice to bad mouth your ancestors ya know.

which was my point - it is a dishonor to presume our ancestors were mutant monkeys. This is a postulate of the theory of evolution.

Especially when all you have to offer is a story about being made from mud into a complete human

Every night in your dreams you create countless humans... How much more could a Being that exists beyond the limitations of time be able to create humans? Your material reductionist religion is mental poison and prevents people from realizing who they are.

then being too bad to keep around so you were expelled to suffer for all time on your own. All this from a supposed Loving Father who also might send you to an eternal hell in the afterlife as well. All this based on a bunch of even older and other various myths which rely on people not only handing them down through time but actually getting them right and not lying.

If you are the meaningless progeny of mutant monkeys and life is meaningless why even waste your breathe / typing your opinion? since that too would be meaningless?

originally posted by: whereislogic

Source: Is Evolution Really So Central to Biology?

Yeah exactly^. "Scientists" don't realize that not a single observation in the biological world is reliant on the theory of evolution for its validity. Adaptation is a perfect example of irreducible complexity - you need to be able to sense the environmental cue and then illicit a productive response, yet how could both the sensor and the effector have culminated through piecewise mutation? One is certainly useless without the other and this is the basis of the irreducible complexity argument. Studying the empirical evidence without bias is how I got to my conclusions of the impossibility of evolution, yet they are so chauvinistic they think that anyone without their same train of thought must be blind and ignorant.

It's quite ironic that quantum physics disproved material reductionist philosophy back in the early 1900s, yet it still plagues the world today.

originally posted by: cooperton

which was my point - it is a dishonor to presume our ancestors were mutant monkeys. This is a postulate of the theory of evolution.

It's not a dishonor at all to presume my ancestors were what they were. Only someone trapped in having to please their ego would feel the need to presume their ancestors were perfect beings and most loved beings of the source of all creation. I mean get a grip on yourself man. You must really think you're something special and it's made your arrogance unbearable.

I see no shame in assuming my ancestors came from humble beginnings and had the strength and courage to survive life's pitfalls and provide me with a chance of life. I don't have to make up stories about my lineage being royal or divine in order to be ok with myself for who or what I am.

Every night in your dreams you create countless humans... How much more could a Being that exists beyond the limitations of time be able to create humans? Your material reductionist religion is mental poison and prevents people from realizing who they are.

My dreams are creating humans huh??? I'm sure you have some way of verifying that too right??? Or is it like everything else you seem to think you know and supported by nothing??

It no wonder we don't agree on anything. You seem to be living in a world of your own make believe fantasies rather than anything close to reality.

I don't have a material reductionist religion either. Now you're trying to play make believe with me too and even asserting what I believe. But I won't let you do that because I'm not playing make believe with you. You can do that for yourself all you want if that's what you desire, but you don't control me or get to lie about me on my behalf. That is where your fantasy world stops. You can go play fantasy land by yourself, because I'm not playing that game.

If you are the meaningless progeny of mutant monkeys and life is meaningless why even waste your breathe / typing your opinion? since that too would be meaningless?

Ah yes, now you're trying to use another common creationist lie straw man argument. Well, I'm sorry to say that I'm familiar with that one too so you'll have to try harder. Your false claim that "Life must be meaningless" for atheists is BS. It's not my fault that you think life is meaningless without make believe authority figures telling you what is good and bad and right and wrong. Or that simply because we don't live forever that all life has no meaning. That is your failure to see meaning without someone else first commanding you to do so.

Life, even when temporary has plenty of meaning for me. In fact, by virtue of me actually having to learn for myself what life does mean for me it is that much more meaningful. You're apparently content with the meaning of life being handed down to you by some book other men have written. So I get why life seems so pointless to you. You've never taken the time or put in the effort to discover that meaning out on your own. You just adopted someone else's meaning for life because you were told to do so. Never had the courage to figure it out on your own and have it tested I guess have you. Too much work for you I guess. Well some of us aren't afraid to put in the effort. It's from our effort that we earn our rewards. You've taken the easy way and steal the rewards from other peoples efforts that came before you.

Stop trying to play make believe with my life. It's not yours to play with. Keep your fantasies contained within your world where they belong. I don't need them, nor do I want them.

a reply to: cyberjedi

Are you aware of the chemist Michael J Behe he wrote a very interesting book that essentially refutes Darwin and the theory of Evolution (or at best challenges it correctly), to quote wikipedia:

Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for his stance on irreducible complexity (IC), which argues that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.

The first book is Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution which I recommend reading however his recent work is also a great addition (The Edge of Evolution).

Personally I believe in evolution but not that its an accident rather there is an intelligent design behind it, so fundamentally powerful its beyond our comprehension and outside the realms of this universe - just thinking of some being capable of manifesting a will to realise the universe and existence we are in boggles the mind and for me refutes the silly notion that God is something limited by the fundamentals of our own corporeal body (Jesus for instance is not a God but I believe was someone who was a witness to God or this unimaginable force behind creation).

But I digress and I will leave the religious argument to the zealots.

I heard a statement recently that made a lot of sense:

"We humans witness creation, and creation witnesses us" - Quantum physics in essence, this quote was with regards to a religious discourse believe it or not.

Good day and great post OP!

originally posted by: old_god
a reply to: cyberjedi

Are you aware of the chemist Michael J Behe he wrote a very interesting book that essentially refutes Darwin and the theory of Evolution (or at best challenges it correctly), to quote wikipedia:

Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design (ID) advocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Behe is best known for his argument for his stance on irreducible complexity (IC), which argues that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.

The first book is Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution which I recommend reading however his recent work is also a great addition (The Edge of Evolution).

Personally I believe in evolution but not that its an accident rather there is an intelligent design behind it, so fundamentally powerful its beyond our comprehension and outside the realms of this universe - just thinking of some being capable of manifesting a will to realise the universe and existence we are in boggles the mind and for me refutes the silly notion that God is something limited by the fundamentals of our own corporeal body (Jesus for instance is not a God but I believe was someone who was a witness to God or this unimaginable force behind creation).

But I digress and I will leave the religious argument to the zealots.

I heard a statement recently that made a lot of sense:

"We humans witness creation, and creation witnesses us" - Quantum physics in essence, this quote was with regards to a religious discourse believe it or not.

Good day and great post OP!

Thanks i'll have a look. I am also due to read the scientific paper that has been provided a couple pages back.

I have become a great fan of the work of Neale Donald Waksch, the first book Conversations with God i like very much.

a reply to: old_god

Just some more information on Behe. He isn't exactly regarded as being very credible by too many others, even his own peers or the University where he works.

Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[3][4] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design.

He's also not as much of an Anti=Evolution stickler himself. He changes his position whenever others point out his mistakes but continues to try and push that agenda.

Unlike William A. Dembski[21] and others in the intelligent design movement, Behe accepts the common descent of species,[22] including that humans descended from other primates, although he states that common descent does not by itself explain the differences between species. He also accepts the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe.
en.wikipedia.org...

Numerous scientists have debunked the work, pointing out that not only has it been shown that a supposedly irreducibly complex structure can evolve, but that it can do so within a reasonable time even subject to unrealistically harsh restrictions, and noting that Behe and Snoke's paper does not properly include natural selection and genetic redundancy.
en.wikipedia.org...

Just something to keep in mind.

a reply to: kennyb72

You must then agree that there is the alternative possibility that ther eare no "unseen entities". I've acknowledged (and will again for the record) that "God(s) did it" is one of the possible subset of answers. But it has no evidence.

So what part am I missing? Are you calling my Polytheism fictious? Or the science? Your allegories are not evidence. I've got some too. How I came to "there are many gods" from a different place (atheism). Again they are not evidence.

a reply to: kennyb72

No it is not a silly answer. It is the logically honest one. I have no problem with infinity. You seem to have a problem with the concept of ZERO. Both are legitimate mathematical possibilites.

If God(s) did it. Whence did it/they come from? If people are going to argue "something can not come from nothing" they need to answer that.

Oh and the concept of Zero point energy shows something can come from "nothing". Quantum particles are tricksy things.

Yes in order to explain it atheists must make up stories about animals that don't exist. Just like in that bible thing

a reply to: cyberjedi

I did so. It is logically fallacious. But here have a bone:

1. Complex natural systems CAN evolve gradually through the accumulation of many small useful steps;
2. Systems claimed to be "irreducibly complex" are often NOT;
3. Even systems that ARE irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually.

Others have debunked this before I waded in. Read, watch, understand. Or go back to trolling. It is of no import to me

a reply to: old_god

He is a Biochemist not a chemist (major difference), I am both a chemist and a biochemist. They are only vaguely close.

He is basing his change of stance on having read a single popular science book. NOT on experiments, not on the data, not on peer reviewed articles, but a PopSci book. Furhter more he is a rather poor example. He could not convince a court that CI is science

Viz Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

a reply to: cooperton

Scientists" don't realize that not a single observation in the biological world is reliant on the theory of evolution for its validity.

This is about the stupidest statement you've ever made. The fossil record alone provides thousands of OBSERVATIONS that validate evolution. Thousands of experiments in comparative anatomy and DNA analysis of fossils with present day organisms have been reported in the literature. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance is another one:
"Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: Prevalence, Mechanisms, and Implications for the Study of Heredity and Evolution"
www.journals.uchicago.edu...

Aren't you paying attention? Must we repeat and repeat and repeat ad infinitum the empirical evidence for evolution? You have NEVER presented a research paper supporting your position. I guess you're the only genius who understands what you're trying to convey while the rest of us are trudging along day after day in the lab.

It is YOU who cannot validate YOUR screwed up observations.

a reply to: TheMZA

Athiests make up stories? Which Atheists would these be? I hope you are not implying only Atheists think evolution is the answer? OR that only Atheists do science? If so, go stand in the corner

a reply to: cooperton

Y'all don't understand science do you? Clearly based on this reply of yours not ...