Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: peter vlar
Peter,
The science behind macro evolution is made to fit the theory.

I think it's also important to note that you keep saying we've never seen speciation beyond the species level. Well no duh... That's what speciation is. You're not going to see a change in class, order, family, phylum, domain or kingdom. That would falsify evolution.

Can you define Macroevolution?
How do you explain the diversity we see today within the different classes? At some point in the early history of life, there had to be a common ancestor according to evolution.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Again, macro evolution can not explain how we get the diversity we see today.
Saying that the "mutations" in any given type lead up to macro evolution, over millions of years, is ridicules and it can not be proven.

And yet the theory of evolution is contingent on such an extrapolation. They can say genetic similarities prove it, but genetic similarities would obviously occur between similar looking organisms in a spirit-based creation model. They can say the fossil record proves it, but there are countless examples of soft tissue in dinosaurs, human footprints in dinosaur strata, human depictions and descriptions of dinosaurs, etc, that throw this idea out the window. But as long as kids are forced "100s of millions of years old because we said so", we will rarely make any real scientific progress regarding our origins because the old dying dogma refuses to let go of an obsolete material reductionist theory. Darwin himself said if it turned out that human organ systems were interdependent of eachother, that his theory would be impossible.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium
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.

You are just making stuff up. That isn't what I'm saying or what evolution says. Bacteria is one of the top taxonomic ranks, it has to go through FAR more changes to become a different Domain than the amount of changes that need to pile up for a species to change.

Ok, lets suppose for a moment that you are correct, after all the research done on fruit flies and bacteria, where has it ever been observed that you had a change in types? The fruit fly is still a fly. Bacteria? Still bacteria. Again, macro evolution can not explain how we get the diversity we see today.
Saying that the "mutations" in any given type lead up to macro evolution, over millions of years, is ridicules and it can not be proven.

What is a "type"?

a reply to: dragonridr

Yeah I know. He's just being difficult. This is how these conversations always go. The creationists are super stubborn and pretend like there is no evidence (because they didn't look) and the people on the side of science beat their heads against a wall repeating the same things ad nauseum.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Again, macro evolution can not explain how we get the diversity we see today.
Saying that the "mutations" in any given type lead up to macro evolution, over millions of years, is ridicules and it can not be proven.

And yet the theory of evolution is contingent on such an extrapolation. They can say genetic similarities prove it, but genetic similarities would obviously occur between similar looking organisms in a spirit-based creation model. They can say the fossil record proves it, but there are countless examples of soft tissue in dinosaurs, human footprints in dinosaur strata, human depictions and descriptions of dinosaurs, etc, that throw this idea out the window. But as long as kids are forced "100s of millions of years old because we said so", we will rarely make any real scientific progress regarding our origins because the old dying dogma refuses to let go of an obsolete material reductionist theory. Darwin himself said if it turned out that human organ systems were interdependent of eachother, that his theory would be impossible.

If animals were created we wouldnt get near the match we do. It appears at least 20 percent of our DNA just has no use. Previous coding that was switched off. Like usgrowing a tail for example. Or my favorite people who are born with gill slits.

a reply to: dragonridr

IF anything were created, we would NOT get transcription errors, anatomical screw ups, or vestigil bits and pieces. But we do. SO either the creator is a sloppy workman OR there is no creator.

This does not invalidate the idea of deities, just creation by them.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

Does conscious self-awareness (the facility for abstract thought) have mass? Is it "material?"

a reply to: Noinden

Exactly... We wouldn't be studying SNP's were life magically proofed into existence. Yet here we are and SNP's are an important area of study for evolutionary biologists.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Noinden

Exactly... We wouldn't be studying SNP's were life magically proofed into existence. Yet here we are and SNP's are an important area of study for evolutionary biologists.

You mean like the big bang?

a reply to: peter vlar

Exactly, though there is more money in selling the measurment of non coding SNPs to tell people their ancestry (and not being quite truthful) than there is in the study of many diseases/conditions due to SNPs

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

Does conscious self-awareness (the facility for abstract thought) have mass? Is it "material?"

Yes, neurons are very much material.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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

Does conscious self-awareness (the facility for abstract thought) have mass? Is it "material?"

Yes, neurons are very much material.

But is a neuron "thought" itself? No.

a reply to: The GUT

Are you sure? Can you prove otherwise?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: The GUT

Are you sure? Can you prove otherwise?

More importantly not only is there no scientific evidence that neurons are "thoughts/consciusness," I don't beleieve anyone in academia is asserting they are. Each stored thought a neuron? Doesn't make sense.

Which part of the neuron would be "thought" itself; the the soma, dendrites, or axon?

Quantum mechanics and concepts edge ever closer to the metaphysical. You'll catch up.

a reply to: The GUT

Can you show that with out a neuron, thought happens? You made a statement, now provide the proof. That is how this works. Least you are working from a place of belief.

originally posted by: dragonridr

If animals were created we wouldnt get near the match we do.

Why would you say that? Of course they would. For example, Of the three, which would you expect to have similar coding:

Macbook Pro, Macbook Air, garage door opener.

It appears at least 20 percent of our DNA just has no use.

Just because science has not found a use for particular strands of DNA does not mean they are useless. Have you not looked into the history of science where the theory and ideology is constantly changing? It was common belief at one point that neurogenesis was impossible past adulthood. Surely enough, test some monkeys in a natural environment rather than a cage and eureka! Neurogenesis.

Previous coding that was switched off. Like usgrowing a tail for example. Or my favorite people who are born with gill slits.

But that's not how the genetic code tends to work. Alterations in a genetic sequence changes the protein structure... There is no particular protein or gene that causes a tail to grow or not. Yet many apprentice evolutionists are eager to wave that magic theoretical wand and make up whatever story they want.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Neanderthal and H. Sapiens are both the descendants of H. Heidelbergensis. H. Sapiens in E. Africa and Neandertal in Europe and Western Asia. It's not that difficult to actually engage in a modicum of due diligence and learn something about what is actually stated in scientific literature.

Show the evidence for all these statements. You and the scientific community make countless assumptions as long as they fit the old model.

So the fossil evidence at Atapuerca of remains that show very clearly transitional morphological features ranging from the average H. Heidelbergensis to varying degrees of transition to H. Neanderthalensis at the time frame in which we would expect to see this based on calculated mutation rates and the Radiometric dates of older Heidelbergensis and more recent Neanderthal should just be ignored in your world right? We see the same thing at sites in East and Southern Africa showing transitional morphologies between Heidelbergensis and H Sapiens. But no... It never happened right?

You come in here mocking people as per usual, it would be great if you could engage in friendly debate.

I engage in friendly debate all the time. You're the one who calls me a zealot teaching a perverse theology that poisons the minds of children. But I need to engage in friendly debate? Leave it to a creationist to ignore anything that is supposedly taught by Christ!

The phenotypic differences in humans and their skeletons do not prove that there was a sequential evolution...

They do when those cranial and post cranial differences change at a measurable rate over time with no over lap.

Even mongoloid, caucusoid and negroid skulls have remarkable differences. Surely you wouldn't say one is evolved...

I would say that they have adapted to their individual ecological niches and that they have incorporated morphologies from other hominids through admixture events which is supported by genetics and the fossil record.

Such is the basis of eugenics, racism, etc. Your perverse theology also implants meaninglessness into the minds of young kids, which is a true travesty. "you're the descendants of a mutant apes"... such thinking is the seed for total destruction of self-realization.

Your level of hypocrisy is hilarious... You call me out for mocking you and your lack of understanding of science and then claim that I have a perverse theology that teaches lies to children. And you expect people to have a friendly debate with you when this is your standard in every thread regarding evolution that you have posted in. I'm sorry, but you are willfully ignorant and would know a fact if it gave you a lap dance such is the degree of cognitive dissonance you suffer from.

Adaptation is NOT proof of evolution - these mechanisms were always present in organisms to allow for changing conditions.

Adaptation is just one aspect of evolution, not the sole evidence in favor of it.

Genetic similarities among phenotypically similar organisms is NOT proof of evolution - it's intuitive that similar organisms have similar coding.

You're making this up as you go right?

The fossil record is flooded with examples that ruin the possibility of evolution - human and dinosaur tracks in the same strata,

Ironic that you demand citations from me yet throw out nonsense willy nilly without an iota of support for it. There are no human and dinosaur tracks in the "same strata". And if you're trying to use the Paluxy River to support your claim then quit while you're ahead because this has been explained by multiple people over literally dozens of threads in ATS alone.

soft tissue in dinosaur bones,

Fossilized soft tissue, it's not still soft or pliable. And fossilized soft tissue in no way invalidates or falsifies evolution.

young ages of dinosaur bones, coal and diamonds from C-14 dating,

When supporters of "creation science" have to lie and use obfuscation to get samples that were illegally obtained under false pretext, I wouldn't call that good science.

polystrate fossils (forests that are vertically preserved in rocky strata), etc.

You do realize that using that term shows that you don't understand the science and you're simply copy and pasting information from ICR or AIG right? "Polystrate Fossil" is a made up term invented by creationists and only appearing in their literature. It's not a term used in Geology. These fossils are actually well understood and have been since written about at least as early as 1868. It's not in "rocky strata" as you claim, they are almost always in a Sedimentary layer. Do,you understand what that means?

But when this evidence comes out it is thwarted because people have devoted their entire lives with the assumption that evolutionary theory is true, and they cannot even consider the possibility that it may be wrong.

On the contrary, we are taught to entertain the notion of being wrong and are constantly challenged on our ideas. The difference is that we support our positions with facts instead of copy and pasting from a source that feeds into our confirmation biases. An anthropologists, we have to think for ourselves, use our own words and do the work in the field and the research. We don't copy and paste incorrect information and made up concepts because we can't accept that evolution is a natural biological process, we welcome challenges if people can use facts. You haven't done that anywhere that I have seen.


I'm still waiting for you to show me who made the claim that Neanderthal are a link between apes and modern humans. Can you support that statement? Or were you just making it up as well?

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: peter vlar
Peter,
The science behind macro evolution is made to fit the theory.

Please, enlighten me with some examples then

I think it's also important to note that you keep saying we've never seen speciation beyond the species level. Well no duh... That's what speciation is. You're not going to see a change in class, order, family, phylum, domain or kingdom. That would falsify evolution.

Can you define Macroevolution?

I don't define it because in Anthropology there is no distinction between micro and macro. They're the same process.

How do you explain the diversity we see today within the different classes? At some point in the early history of life, there had to be a common ancestor according to evolution.

Adaptation to Eco specific niches. Though as you've used incorrect and made up terms in a couple of posts, I have to winder exactly what you mean by "different classes".

a reply to: The GUT

The Big Bang didn't magically poof anything into existence. But that would require enough interest in the topic to actually read up on it to know that nobody in physics claims that there was nothing and then there was something. Add in the fact that Cosmology has nothing to do with the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and you're just tossing out a giant strawman.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Your level of hypocrisy is hilarious... You call me out for mocking you and your lack of understanding of science and then claim that I have a perverse theology that teaches lies to children. And you expect people to have a friendly debate with you when this is your standard in every thread regarding evolution that you have posted in. I'm sorry, but you are willfully ignorant and would know a fact if it gave you a lap dance such is the degree of cognitive dissonance you suffer from.

If evolution is right and life is a meaningless accident then nothing matters, not even your opinion because all will end in nothingness anyway. So if you truly believed in evolution you wouldn't share your opinion with anyone. But, if there is a greater Truth to be realized in this life, then you are endangering their soul from realizing this Truth, and instead ensnare them in a net of material-reductionism. It was correctly said about your type:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law... You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are...You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."