Irreducible complexity and Evolution

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

You can believe that until proven otherwise just like with the appendix if you wish...

the appendix is still mostly useless... it produces white blood cells...

it also has an enzyme that was "designed" for digesting plant matter, which is poisonous to us now.. and is literally a time bomb if it gets infected which will ultimately kill you IF left untreated by.... "science" lol

thats some great designing right there

a reply to: Akragon

Pffft you should stop already...

The Appendix has a higher purpose...
Researchers have deduced that the appendix is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut... So when the gut is affected by diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines... Good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy..

a reply to: 5StarOracle

just noticed this from one of your edits...

Do you believe mutations add new information?
Irreducable complexity says it doesn't...

obviously... we can see it clearly

bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics over time... that would be adding new information

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Pffft you should stop already...

The Appendix has a higher purpose...
Researchers have deduced that the appendix is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut... So when the gut is affected by diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines... Good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy..

web Md eh...

Sure lets go with that...

a reply to: Akragon

Point mutations are not going to create new information as in a set of lungs in a grilled creature...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Point mutations are not going to create new information as in a set of lungs in a grilled creature...

why would that be?

IF an organism is better suited to breathing air as opposed to getting oxygen from water?

a reply to: Akragon

I think I read that on NBC...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

I think I read that on NBC...

Well at the very least we know that you read things outside of Ken ham

a reply to: Akragon

Because the complexity of the coding required to develop lungs from point mutations would be impossible...
Besides most point deviations that do add tid bits of information usually reverse themselves...
That too is due to irreducable complexity...

a reply to: Akragon

I don't follow Ken ham but I find it rather interesting that Richard Dawkins now believes in intelligent design...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Because the complexity of the coding required to develop lungs from nothing would be impossible...
Besides most point deviations that do add tid bits of information usually reverse themselves...
That too is due to irreducable complexity...

the coding?

why would it be impossible? Doesn't it say "all things are possible with God"

hmmm...

said organisms already need oxygen, they merely found a better, easier way to get it... there is an abundance of it on land... not so much in water

perhaps you should take a look at how gills work, as opposed to lungs... oh, and im pretty sure theres a fish that has lungs...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

I don't follow Ken ham but I find it rather interesting that Richard Dawkins now believes in intelligent design...

You post from his sites

a reply to: Akragon

What posts are those? I've never been on his sites

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

What posts are those? I've never been on his sites

anything from Answers in Genesis, or the other one... International creation science or something like that...

all Ken Ham...

And theres a few others...

a reply to: Akragon

I'll have to say you would know better than me cause I've never been to any of those either...
Fish that respirate with a swim bladder don't have lungs... ancient fish that appear to have lungs can't breathe... And they have not evolved since the time of dinosaurs... that's been a very long time hasn't it?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

I'll have to say you would know better than me cause I've never been to any of those either...
Fish that respirate with a swim bladder don't have lungs... ancient fish that appear to have lungs can't breathe... And they have not evolved since the time of dinosaurs... that's been a very long time hasn't it?

k..

Im fer bed... i work in 6 hours ffs

nice chattin with ya though... i'll leave ya to the wolves

a reply to: Akragon

Ok they won't have any real answers either...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

Because the complexity of the coding required to develop lungs from point mutations would be impossible...
Besides most point deviations that do add tid bits of information usually reverse themselves...
That too is due to irreducable complexity...

So you're another one who knows what's possible and what isn't. How much time did you spend in the lab to figure that out?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Akragon

So then... what programmed the first cell?

Now this has to be the stupidest question in the history of this board. You present yourself as knowing something about the science (not). But don't have a clue as to how it works.

a reply to: Phantom423

So what programmed the first cell?
How did this first cell have all the information needed to not only function itself but lead to all other life?
This first cell which was created from inorganic matter...
That cell which Darwin mistakenly perceived as a blob of carbon...
That cell which was irreducably complex.