Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Quadrivium

No we have observed a new species (several). Nice try. But that was a poor attempt at semantics. Surely you can do better

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Clearly according to creationists, it is because Gods sucks at making things.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Sure, except you are trying to use semantics to argue against the facts.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Sure, except you are trying to use semantics to argue against the facts.

a reply to: Quadrivium

No in your own words. Show how we (scientists) have stopped doing such.

And go....

Titin is a muscle protein that has a nucleotide sequence of around 80,000 base pairs. Since evolution is theorized to work in a piece-by-piece mutative manner, this would mean that this enormous protein sequence would have had 10s of thousands of fortuitously perfect mutations all the while remaining a selectable protein in the gene pool despite being totally useless until it reached its functioning length of apporximately 80,000 base pairs.

This is an example of irreducible complexity - titin needs all of its base pairs in order to be a viable useful protein... Not to mention it needs the necessary direction to be organised properly in muscle tissue, and regulatory factors so it is not under or overexpressed - and titin is totally useless without the other necessary muscle proteins all working in perfect synchrony with each other and the nervous system.

a reply to: cooperton

Yet you are dodging the fact that your irreducible complexity (to not be a pseudoscience load of dingos kidneys, or hypocritical intellectual masturbation, take your pick) requires God to have a creator.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Yet you are dodging the fact that your irreducible complexity (to not be a pseudoscience load of dingos kidneys, or hypocritical intellectual masturbation, take your pick) requires God to have a creator.

You're like a shadow claiming that 3-dimensional objects cannot exist, not knowing that your 2D existence is reliant on the 3D working with the light. God is not limited to time or space. This is the point of Alpha-Omega: The beginning and the end, the total encompassment of time.

Clearly according to creationists, it is because Gods sucks at making things.

Initially all was perfect until humans strayed from the original plan. Because we continue to act unnaturally, unnatural things (disease) happens to the human body.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

No we have observed a new species (several). Nice try. But that was a poor attempt at semantics. Surely you can do better

And here I was thinking we were going to have a nice discussion.
Ok....my fault...i forgot I need to go slow.
Yes there is speciation. That proves adaptation within a species. That does not explain the diversity we see today in all classes, phylum and kingdoms. We have never observed a change in classes.
Explain what "semantics" you are referring too.

a reply to: cooperton

You don't read do you.

I am religious. I happen to be Polytheistic and you monotheistic.
I beleive in many Gods.

I also have seen that evolution is the most likely cause of speciation.

Thus, you can blame the Debil or whatever. It does not prove that evolution is impossible. That is a gnosis of yours.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Ooo ad hominem how predictable.

YOU need to show that evolution could not occur. I've posted some evidence (I did not post the scientific papers, as I don't know if you have access to them, to refute).

Clearly you think you have a point. Show it. With evidence. Not a creationist site either thanks.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

I am religious. I happen to be Polytheistic and you monotheistic.
I beleive in many Gods.

I also have seen that evolution is the most likely cause of speciation.

How could evolution account for the generation of your gods? If these gods had any sort of power, they be the ones that created matter, and not vice versa.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Ooo ad hominem how predictable.

YOU need to show that evolution could not occur. I've posted some evidence (I did not post the scientific papers, as I don't know if you have access to them, to refute).

Clearly you think you have a point. Show it. With evidence. Not a creationist site either thanks.

That is my point There is no evidence for evolution showing the amount of diversity we see today between classes, phylum and kingdoms.
Exsample: Stating that the speciation of a wolf into a dog proves that, given enough time, a fish can "evolve" into a wolf is nonsense with out any evidence to back it up.
Many have thrown out the philosophy of science just as I said before. They no longer sit and ponder the puzzle in front of them, they try to jam the pieces together like a 2 yr old.

a reply to: cooperton

You don't know Indo-European mythology very well then? Evolution would account for them. Again you confuse creation with evolution.

a reply to: Quadrivium

There is a lot of evidence for evolution . How much literature have you read regarding bioinformatics?

Dogs and Wolves are the same species technically (Canis lupus, with the dog being a subspecies familiaris ).

You are also over simplifying evolution. In no place has a scientist ever said a fish will evolve to a wolf. So I am not going to address that. Quite simply learn what evolution states.

Again, illustrate how the philosophy of science has been thrown out. Don't state it, prove it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

There is a lot of evidence for evolution . How much literature have you read regarding bioinformatics?

Dogs and Wolves are the same species technically (Canis lupus, with the dog being a subspecies familiaris ).

What was that about semantics?

You are also over simplifying evolution. In no place has a scientist ever said a fish will evolve to a wolf. So I am not going to address that. Quite simply learn what evolution states.

Perhaps you need to read up on evolution or do you believe the wolf just walked out of the ocean 700 million years ago?

Again, illustrate how the philosophy of science has been thrown out. Don't state it, prove it.

I don't have to. You are doing a fine job.

a reply to: Quadrivium

You do not understand "semantics". Your (apparent) lack of knowledge over dogs and wolves being the same species, is your problem not mine.

You are misrepresenting evolution, by implying anyone thinks fish evolved to wolves directly.

Just as you can' actually speak to your supposed point on "the philosophy" of science. You can't state it in your own words.

So clearly you are another creationist troll.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

You do not understand "semantics". Your (apparent) lack of knowledge over dogs and wolves being the same species, is your problem not mine.

You are misrepresenting evolution, by implying anyone thinks fish evolved to wolves directly.

Just as you can' actually speak to your supposed point on "the philosophy" of science. You can't state it in your own words.

So clearly you are another creationist troll.

Clearly.
Clearly, you my friend are the troll. You came to this thread with that intention in mind. Look at your post.
Clearly, you are so busy trying to prove someone else wrong that you never noticed you are proving my point time and again. You have no need for the philosophy of science because your mind is already made up. How does the scientific method apply to a theory that makes leaps and bounds, many that can not be observed.
If you were a true scientist you would questionn not take a theory at face value.
At some point a theory needs to be put away. If you have to change the science to make it fit the theory then that is a good sign the theory is no good.
Constantly you say "Evolution does not invalidate that God created life" yet constantly you mock creationist.
Your mind is firmly closed, just like you believe creationist to be.
Directly or indirectly a "fish can not evolve" into a wolf. Somewhere along the line it would have to cross over the lines between classes, phylum and kingdoms. No way around it and this has never been observed in nature. No evidence.
When you try and make it fit, when you try to jam the pieces together to fit your world view, is when you no longer care about science (or the philosophy thereof).
God created the first creatures, classes and kingdoms.
This is the only way to get around irreducible complexity and the diversity we see today.
Evolution does not cut it no matter how hard you push the pieces together they keep slipping apart.

Also, can you define "speciation"? I never claimed dogs and wolves were different species.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Neighbour. I came to this thread, as someone who is informed on evolution. You have not made a point, and it is clear you can not.

I mock creationists, as they constantly misrepresent what evolution is, as you are doing.

You keep doing so, through a constant inability to state about what evolution sis. I can thus only believe that either:

(a) You do not know
or
(b) You are unwilling to be either open or hones.

Again you've not stated what you think the "philosophy of science" is. I can only assume you can't put it in your own words. You want it to be something it is not.

Again, you can't support the idea of irreducible complexity. It is a pseudoscience, because it does not apply its own rules to the so called creator.

Like I said, I am a deeply religious individual. I am pretty sure you don't know what Senistrognata is, and would not know what the phrase Bíonn an fhírinne searbh is when applied to how you are approaching this

Like I said, yo ucame into this, in a dissembling manner.

Learn about bioinformatics and get back to me. Anyone who's done the experiments would not be a creationist .

a reply to: Noinden

Reading comprehension is a lost art. I have out lined my thoughts on the philosophy of science above.
You on the otherhand keep dodging the fact that there are parts of evolution that have no basis in science.