Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Phantom423

I know how the science of evolution works...
You find a pig tooth and build a model and call it a human ancestor...
Or maybe a little primate and add on a pair of human feet and call it a human ancestor...
Or perhaps draw fake pictures of embryos...

That's about right... right?
Oh I know....
Maybe you pretend something was a turtle that never would be?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
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.

What makes you think there as a first cell?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

I know how the science of evolution works...
You find a pig tooth and build a model and call it a human ancestor...
Or maybe a little primate and add on a pair of human feet and call it a human ancestor...
Or perhaps draw fake pictures of embryos...

Ignorance has many faces.

a reply to: Phantom423

That's what God sent Darwin to say remember?

a reply to: Phantom423

Are you trying to tell me you are two faced?

a reply to: dragonridr
Peter Vlar might have an objection to sharing videos, oh wait, yours are fine, they're singing the party line. Just like the videos that have been shared by the ones on your bandwagon so far in this thread that Peter Vlar or others on that bandwagon had nothing to complain about in true hypocritical style.

The behaviour of its adherents, still the biggest piece of evidence against evolutionary philosophies and mythology. Most noticeable on sites like ATS and youtube, where it's almost always amateur (propaganda) hour.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

Are you trying to tell me you are two faced?

Not sure what you're implying. Whatever it is, it's irrelevant. You don't understand science because you're locked up in the black box of Creationism. You never ask a question. You only make statements. That's not only ignorance, it's arrogance.

a reply to: cyberjedi

Irreducible complexity is a nice idea. It forces questions as to HOW certain functions came about by the forces of natural selection.

That said it also has a major flaws: it presupposes function. take away function and the system fails. This is a Newtonian approach to quantum physics ....
The other flaw is it argues from an already established function, instead of considering alternative function. enter the flagelum ....
But to give an example: color vision or monochrome in a south american moneky. A miscopy is responsible for the rise of multi color vision. instead of one color, a particular monkey sees 2 colors. It means it can respond differently to mating rituals. That in turn may influence behavior of the group or intragroup behavior. Apparently, color vision seemed to be favored since it survived the Darwinian selection process.

yes, 13 years ago this was news pushed by a certain religious inclined group (Wedge) so that kids in science class could be forced to eat this stuff. it is not science because it is falsified. Rehashing it does not make it science. see Dover schoolboard trial. There is even a documentary about it.

a reply to: Yvhmer

So what do you propose was the function of a sperm cell before it had it's flagellar motor then?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Yvhmer

So what do you propose was the function of a sperm cell before it had it's flagellar motor then?

How do you know there was ever a sperm without flagellum? What came first - the sperm cell or the flagellum?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: dragonridr

So sperm were once non functional?
How did things pro create?
Shut up...
Nice videos...

You really suck at biology dont you? The same way flowers and algae does. Gametes dont all have tails that was caused by competition. In fact inanimals not all sperm cells perform the same task you have blockers,runners and killers. This is biology 101 where have you been?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Yvhmer

So what do you propose was the function of a sperm cell before it had it's flagellar motor then?

My god your stupid same purpose please go educate yourselgon gametes.suggest strting with pollen and use yourgrey matter.

originally posted by: dragonridr

your stupid... please go educate yourself

you're* stupid... please go educate yourself

a reply to: Phantom423

Once again it's evolution which explains the complexity away by making the assumption of at some point not having these highly advanced motors...

a reply to: Yvhmer
And it's totally no coincidence that the judge of that trial was a Lutheran, a church that is OK with the teaching of theistic evolution and therefore has a stake in the debate and how people see the subject will influence church attendance and membership (if people notice that they're wrong in their position...they might be wrong concerning other subjects involving theology as well). And don't mind that he was appointed by Bush, such a trustworthy clique of people that never has political or financial motives to do anything. Some people just keep on taking their information about reality from MSM like PBS and Nova while making comments on a conspiracy website possibly agreeing with some people's negative description of the MSM. Marketing: something I know a little about. Whether you're marketing yourself to further one's career as judges and politicians like Donald Trump do, or marketing a product that you can make a career out of, such as evolutionary philosophies. Marketing also has a lot to do with the concept of propaganda and human psychology (especially making good use of the patterns in human psychology).

Darwin's only degree was a Bachelor of Arts in the Divine Studies (theology). A well-trained Trinitarian philosopher capable of marketing himself as someone who knows what they're talking about and is worthy to listen to (marketing books as well, or other written material). He fits right in there with Bishop Berkeley, tar-water salesman (snake-oil salesman) that impressed so many people causing them to drink tar water for their health for multiple centuries (which causes symptoms similar to carbolic acid poisoning but that fact didn't stop any of his admirers, they even named a whole town after the guy in the US, including its university, Berkeley University).

Kangaroo courts debating straw man versions of an argument aren't that useful other than providing evidence of a political and/or financial marketing agenda anyway (it's a better career move for Judge John E. Miller to side with the Darwinist inquisitors; it's more popular among the right people, 2/3 on ATS if the polls are accurate):

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Phantom423

Once again it's evolution which explains the complexity away by making the assumption of at some point not having these highly advanced motors...

?

originally posted by: Phantom423

?

Proponents of evolution scrutinize how theists explain things away by "God did it", while at the same time they use a similar statement "evolution did it"... followed by an imaginary explanation of how, for example, a caterpillar would have managed a mutation that would suffice it to liquefy itself in a cocoon, grow wings, and fly away.

a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly...
That's how evolutionists attempt to explain away the the irreducible complexity of the flagellar motor that it evolved into existence...
And that the necessary parts that make up the motors preexisted before they were motors then decided to become the motors...
Except that does nothing to explain how those purposed 30 odd pieces of proteins magically fit together in shape and chemical makeup...
The truth is they have all the information always have and are self replicating...
This is irreducible complexity...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

?

Proponents of evolution scrutinize how theists explain things away by "God did it", while at the same time they use a similar statement "evolution did it"... followed by an imaginary explanation of how, for example, a caterpillar would have managed a mutation that would suffice it to liquefy itself in a cocoon, grow wings, and fly away.

Your thinking is very obviously flawed. First, the explanation that "God did it" requires no evidence. It has no evidence.
Second, the explanation "evolution did it" is not imaginary. There's a process in place which has been elucidated, albeit you never bothered to even try to understand it.

The difference is process. The difference is evidence. The difference is you don't have a clue.