Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium
Evolution is a theory. Just like thermodynamics, Kinetics, the SN1 and SN2 mechanisms, and gravity (which we know very little of how that happens).

come on now, we've been over this. Gravity is a law because it is repeatable and observable along with various laws of thermodynamics and kinetics. Don't try to sneak evolution in the same category as tangible working laws.

(b) Only creationists insist that evolution must cover how life started.

Because saying evolution is valid then begs the question how did life spark in the first place. You essentially are saying "a pig is flying, but we have no idea how it got there in the first place."

(c) Nucleic acids are simpler than amino acids (there are over twenty progenitor ones) or carbohydrates. As someone who has made use of them in pharmaceuticals. They are simple molecules. Want complex? Try a peptide. OR modern pharmaceuticals that require many synthetic steps. Nucleic acids have been shown to be able to be made in very simple reactions, as could have occurred on early earth.

Yes but life requires those nucleic acid sequences to be translated into proteins, otherwise it is inviable and useless. And you need proteins (polymerase, etc) to be able to translate the information from the genetic code in the first place.

When you understand chemistry and biochemistry get back to me

You think you're on a pedestal but you're hanging from a noose. You will die in your dead end philosophy, and the more you teach it the more ignorance and hopelessness you spread throughout the earth.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

No Evolution does not say that.

No where does it show or say an fish transitioning into a mammal. YOU are misrepresenting this yet again.

Who is misrepresenting?

The first fish-like animals to squirm out of the sea and onto land were pretty wild looking, new research concludes.

www.livescience.com...

If you are not going to engage in an honnest manner, I'm not going to take you seriously.

Hahahahahaha, this coming from you!

Tell you what. Post proof of how Irreducible complexity is the only answer.

I never said it was.

a reply to: cooperton

Evolution is observable too. However if your zealous religious streak is offended that you and Chimps are closely related, that is your problem.

You can beg a question, it does not mean that you must change at theory to cover something it is not concerned with. If you insist that this must happen, one could insist that gravity, and electromagnetics, thermo dynamics and kinetics are all stuck together, least they are all invalid. That is the logic of insisting if you can't prove how life spontaneously started, evolution is wrong. That is called a non sequitur, and that is a logical fallacy.

You know nothing of my philosophy neighbor. Like I said, I am a Polytheist. If you don't know what that implies about thinking (and openness of mind) then you are indeed naive. I have decided on my own that evolution is the best answer. I don't deny a multitude of deities either. OR that Magic exists.

Wander off, and fear your deity. I don't dear mine. I respect mine, and have good *ghosti with them.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Again, no where does it say fish became mammal.

Bíonn an fhírinne searbh

You claim to be a defender of your faith. Good for you. I'm a servant of my Gods, and a Scientist. My Gods of Worship have no problem with that.

You just seem to be offended with the idea that humanity is not special because of some badly edited and translated book.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

(a) There is no such thing as "evolutionists" in the sense you and other creationists use the term. Either you acknowledge a scientific theory is valid (based on the data, and that is how they are called theories.... based on data) or you actively research to see if there is a valid alternative. Evolution is a theory. Just like thermodynamics, Kinetics, the SN1 and SN2 mechanisms, and gravity (which we know very little of how that happens).

(b) Only creationists insist that evolution must cover how life started. IT always comes down too "because it should" with out a valid scientific reason why a theory needs to go beyond what it proposes to cover (The change of life).

(c) Nucleic acids are simpler than amino acids (there are over twenty progenitor ones) or carbohydrates. As someone who has made use of them in pharmaceuticals. They are simple molecules. Want complex? Try a peptide. OR modern pharmaceuticals that require many synthetic steps. Nucleic acids have been shown to be able to be made in very simple reactions, as could have occurred on early earth.

When you understand chemistry and biochemistry get back to me

In the famous words of Bugs Bunny "what a maroon".
I know evolutionists don't think they should be called evolutionists yet here you are.
When did I ever say evolution has to cover how life started. I said we have never observed macro evolution and micro evolution can't explain the diversity we see between classes, phylum and kingdows.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

Again, no where does it say fish became mammal.

Bíonn an fhírinne searbh

You claim to be a defender of your faith. Good for you. I'm a servant of my Gods, and a Scientist. My Gods of Worship have no problem with that.

You just seem to be offended with the idea that humanity is not special because of some badly edited and translated book.

Now who is being picky? I don't think you understand evolution at all. Using evolution, explain where the ancestors of mammals come from if not the sea? Any answer you give leads back to speciation above species level (macro evolution), which we have never observed.
And please stop attacking my beliefs because you are unable to prove yours.

a reply to: cooperton

I agree with all you have said here but gravity is not fully understood and there is more than one kind of gravity...

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Neighbour, I've actually been in the lab, and done experiments regarding this subject. Have you?

Not even my faith "tells me what to beleive" let alone my day job. Science evaluates the data. ANd as for my faith, buann an fhirinne (truth prevails)

Yeah so evolution just has to be a crock of you know what... Just look at all the lies it has used to promote it's position right from the get go... it just keeps getting proven wrong repeatedly then even forthright fraudulent claims have been made...
This little tidbit about truth prevailing makes me feel a little better...
And you are right truth will prevail...But not the way you portend... Evolution is doomed to conform to reality and will become a big joke for those of the future who know the truth of it...

a reply to: Noinden

Actually the brain is a computer.... your true self...
Your soul or consciousness whichever you prefer to identify your true self with is the user...

a reply to: Quadrivium

A fish cannot evolve into a wolf. There are a great many steps in between with a great many species and changes that have to occur for the prehistoric fish to one day look like wolf. Your problem and lack of understanding is with over simplifying the process. If you look at the process as is, you'll see that there is no point where science says that one day a fish stopped looking like a fish and looked like a wolf instead. In fact. That would be magical and more so proof of god because it defies all known physical laws.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Noinden

Actually the brain is a computer.... your true self...
Your soul or consciousness whichever you prefer to identify your true self with is the user...

Proof? What if consciousness is just an end result of the neurons firing in your brain and doesn't actually exist?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quadrivium
There are a great many steps in between with a great many species and changes that have to occur for the prehistoric fish to one day look like wolf.

of which there are no examples in the fossil record. They claim the supposed neanderthal is a link between apes and humans yet it has a larger cranial capacity than most contemporary human skulls. They assume evolution is true and try to fit observations into that mold, but due diligence will show you it is a house of cards. I did not get to where I am today through blind belief, I got to my non-belief in evolution through an unbiased analysis of reality.

Your problem and lack of understanding is with over simplifying the process. If you look at the process as is, you'll see that there is no point where science says that one day a fish stopped looking like a fish and looked like a wolf ...

There is no evidence that an organism's adaptation mechanisms can ever amount to macroevolution as it is defined. Just because someone does not believe evolution is true does not mean they lack understanding. You zealots are so close-minded.

a reply to: cooperton

You know it is easy to claim "there is no evidence" when you don't expend any effort to look and actually satisfy that claim.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Quadrivium

A fish cannot evolve into a wolf. There are a great many steps in between with a great many species and changes that have to occur for the prehistoric fish to one day look like wolf. Your problem and lack of understanding is with over simplifying the process. If you look at the process as is, you'll see that there is no point where science says that one day a fish stopped looking like a fish and looked like a wolf instead. In fact. That would be magical and more so proof of god because it defies all known physical laws.

I never said that was. The point I am making is that you can not observe macro evolution. Micro is at species level. Speciation is the act of one species "evolving" into a different species. Macro evolution is above the species level therefore it can not be observed and the fossil record does not support it (no matter how many times evolutionist try to force it in).
I know that a fish cannot walk out of the ocean and become a wolf. You say a fish can not evolve into a wolf. Yet this is EXACTLY what evolutionist believe their all powerful god, time and chance, did.
Philosophy of science should a mandatory class.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Macro evolution can certainly be observed. It is why we use fruit flies or bacteria to do it with. You can see hundreds of generations over a short period of time so evolutionary changes can build up. For instance. The E. Coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment has witnessed the bacteria evolve to require aerobic citrate to survive (it should be noted that E. Coli not being able to survive in aerobic citrate is a defining feature of the bacteria to separate it from Salmonella).

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Kind of a circular argument you have going on there. Remember this?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Quadrivium

I think you have your micro and macro reversed neighbor.
We have observed speciation

We have observed adaptation, nothing more. Speciation is adaptation. When we observe a Class Mammalia (mammals) change into a Class Ascidiacea (sea squirts), or likewise, then you may be on to something. As of now all you have is adaptation of a fly into a fly or bacteria into bacteria.

You do know that bacteria and flies aren't on the same taxonomic ranks correct? Bacteria is a domain rank (pretty much the top rank under Life) and flies are an order rank (much lower).

Taxonomy

Macro is ABOVE the species level. When have you ever seen flies change class, phylum or kingdom?
With your reasoning, the only way evolution (adaptation) would work is to have all the classes in place before evolution began.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I see you singled out only a small part of my argument to attack and completely ignored the meat of what I said about E. Coli. Also,

With your reasoning, the only way evolution (adaptation) would work is to have all the classes in place before evolution began.

WTF? Um... No. If you interpreted that from what I said then that is your failing, but that isn't what I suggested at all. Now, at this point, you can accept what I've just said now or you can continue to believe a lie you made up in your head. I'll let you choose.

a reply to: Krazysh0t I singled out the only part of your argument that was meaningful. Remember when I said:

We have observed adaptation, nothing more. Speciation is adaptation. When we observe a Class Mammalia (mammals) change into a Class Ascidiacea (sea squirts), or likewise, then you may be on to something. As of now all you have is adaptation of a fly into a fly or bacteria into bacteria.

You quipped back with:

You do know that bacteria and flies aren't on the same taxonomic ranks correct? Bacteria is a domain rank (pretty much the top rank under Life) and flies are an order rank (much lower).

Then two post ago you slip this in:

Macro evolution can certainly be observed. It is why we use fruit flies or bacteria to do it with. You can see hundreds of generations over a short period of time so evolutionary changes can build up. For instance. The E. Coli Long-Term Evolution Experiment has witnessed the bacteria evolve to require aerobic citrate to survive (it should be noted that E. Coli not being able to survive in aerobic citrate is a defining feature of the bacteria to separate it from Salmonella).

The E. Coli Long-Term experiment has showed that a bacteria can adapt to it's environment. It started as a bacteria and is still a bacteria.
Again, with your reasoning, the only way evolution (adaptation) would work is to have all the classes in place before evolution began.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I singled out the only part of your argument that was meaningful. Remember when I said:

Lol. Now I know you aren't interested in having a legit discussion. And here you are repeating the Bacteria is still Bacteria thing like that is something profound. For the second time in the thread bacteria is the top taxonomic rank. It is FAR above the species rank, and you clearly need to study what you are talking about some more. You don't seem to understand taxonomic ranks at all. Saying Bacteria is still Bacteria is you moving the goal posts back, since you said you wanted an example of a species evolving to be a different species and not a domain evolving into a different domain.

Please attempt to understand the difference between a Domain rank and a Species rank before continuing this discussion. For one, a species can evolve to be a different species and still maintain the same domain. Rather easily. The ancestral great apes evolved to be humans and both them and us are in the eukarya domain. There are only three domains (that we've classified), by the way.

a reply to: Krazysh0tYou are the one moving the goal post. Evolution can not show where bacteria has ever been anything except bacteria. For evolution to have happened, the way you think, flies, bacteria or whatever would have to cross a magical bridge somewhere to explain the diversity of life we see today. Again, there is not any evidence of macro evolution, only species adaptation.