Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Noinden

Who created your little deity for example. Irreducible complexity after all

Depends on who you ask...

Christians would say He always was...

Gnostic thought on said subject is a little different...

Understanding the Indescriblable

a reply to: Noinden

Refuted irreducable Complexity?

I believe you imagined you did or that you really want to believe that you did...
But you didn't...

Asking who created God again?
You are incapable of understanding because you assume first then believe your own lies...

You keep asking that like it makes sense and is plausible...

When in reality for my God to have been the Creator of the Universe...
He would have to have existed before it's creation...
Be eternal... in other words always was...
Time... or the illusion of time...Is in other words a product of his creation...Seeing as he would have to exist before his creation...He therefore existed before time itself...

I bet you still can't comprehend that though...
He is beyond any possible boundary limitation law rule etc...
He is God you are not...
stop picturing yourself as his equal and ASSUMING
You understand his nature...

On Gods complexity...
He is however irreducable but not because of the need of a designer instead because of perfection...
Therefore also beyond evolution...

Creation is his Creation... get it?
He existed before that...
No need for a creator of the Creator...

a reply to: cooperton

To be fair , I see every reason to remain civil, although I may be pointy from time to time. But, with a sense of humor and the joy in exchange of viewpoints/ debate even, goes a long way. And I am also very conscious about the fact that our common knowledge is still a work in progress. If we only look at the road we have traveled as a human species, in particular our western civilization. in 500 years, from geocentric flat earth to quantum physics ... hahaha, I sometimes try to imagine the face of the geniuses of those days, if they ever got a chance to instantly be transfered in this day and age, simply observe the fact that people from all walks of life can take part in these kind of discussions which content goes way beyond any imagining.

Agreed, internet access is quite helpful, and without it , it would have been a lot more difficult if not improbable.

It is not the first time somebody pointed me in the direction of the work of mr. Mark Armitage in connection to soft tissue in a horn of a dino of 68 million years ago. FHere is the link
Since he has a personal website, I thought I read his view on the matter first:

See my published article (yes, young earth creationists DO publish their young earth findings in reputable international journals...) on soft bone in a Triceratops horn fossil collected at the world famous Hell Creek Formation in MT last year: www.sciencedirect.com... Soft tissues in a highly vascular horn, exposed to water, mud and plant roots, and who knows how many billions of microbes does NOT stay soft and stretchy for 65 million years. Face it folks - the earth is young and evolution is a fairy tale for grownups.

Right. First of all, he conveniently left out the aging issue, as that would have impeded the publication of the paper. And in his particular paper no dating method is mentioned. I find that peculiar, as they do references others who have made similar finds, but not dating? Perhaps it is a matter of kicking in open doors as the find itself is embedded in a lager mass of evidence already known. I am supposing here, so ... it may be different. That all aside:

Let's first focus on the environment in which this happens:
1. in 2013 he publishes (completed in 2012) his paper jointly with kevin Lee Anderson.
2. get's fired in 2014
3. sues in 2015 because of wrongful termination, case is settled for 400K without admission of wrongdoing.
Interestingly this is not how the story gets told. What is told is that he sued a university for not being able to promote his young earth creationists views and therefore won the suit and was awarded 400K.

Side note: as a parttime employee at the time, and he level of his pay, it was minus legal fees quite a reasonable compensation. Whatever. What is interesting is how fact is spun. There is no need for such bias. Yet, is it presented as a huge victory for justice (in relation to YEC)

Having said that, let's look inside his paper.

The aim of this paper was to examine fresh fossil specimens of adult supraorbital horn and rib remains of T. horridus for the presence of soft tissues and to characterize any soft tissues found

Hurrah, they found some!

Horn anatomy has been rarely studied, thus much remains to be known about their structure...... provides
additional insight into the nature of fossilization, and extends our understand- ing on the prevalence of preserved original dinosaur tissue......What is not made clear by Kaye et al. (2008) is the mechanism by which microbes might replicate stellate and oblate osteocytes .... What is also not clear is how such biofilm structures could themselves survive the ravages of time, as once produced other microorganisms could begin to digest even these.

Good to know there is a good reason for publishing this paper and pointing to areaś of further inquiry. And quoting Schweitzer et all point to further areas of inquiry.

So, what this paper actually says is: we still do not understand how softtissue can survive the test of time, when this softtissue is not a residue by microbes. That's all folks!

Returning to Mr. Armitage happy camper proclamation, I am afraid that he superimposed his own conviction onto the paper without indicating that it is his own opinion/ conviction. The reasoning most probably will be something like this: it cannot stand the test of time, so science is wrong/ God did it.

So, Schweitser has his work cut out for him then, yes? And really yes. Not even a year later: Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules

Ok, so in the interest of readibility, and because I am a little bit short on time a the moment, I am going to refer you to www.livescience.com... under the title: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Schweitzer and her colleagues first raised this question in 2005, when they found the seemingly impossible: soft tissue preserved inside the leg of an adolescent T. rex unearthed in Montana.

(My goodness .... even evolutionary biologists publish young earth creationists papers. [/light sarc] ;-))

"The problem is, for 300 years, we thought, 'Well, the organics are all gone, so why should we look for something that's not going to be there?' and nobody looks," she said.

Notice the honest admission of blindspot.

In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

As you can see, it is a work in progress. And no, what you claimed is not what the paper of Armitage says and, after I have read the latest paper, when I obtained it, I hope I can report progress en route to falsification of your default position.

So, this brings me to another case of the blues for you: why reference a personal opinion that demonstrably (apparently I need to check the paper) has been or is in the process of being falsified?

Granted, it is a year later. Would it not have been scientifically and morally just to rectify? Or would you allow a falsified view (an untruth, a lie) stand?

Again, as I said before: IC poses a challenge to the theory of Evolution because it can come up with something that is not easily explained. It keeps the discussion on edge, so to speak. But I also feel that this default position also causes the God=default party to rest on it's laurels once such tiny little bit of improbability is found. What it should be doing is trying to falsify the default assumption! And then it would add to the body of knowledge in a positive way.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'm not debating with you. You haven't presented any evidence which is contrary to the paper or the references. When you do that, then there's room for a debate.

When the paper makes outrageous claims like:

These genes arose by duplication of an ancestral KIR gene in a non-placental mammal ~140 million years ago

And cites a contemporary study of cattle. It is hard to present evidence against a claim not backed by evidence. You probably didn't even read through your own paper, it wouldn't be surprising, most people don't read all the books in their library. That paper makes some far-fetched extrapolations. The most concerning thing is the blind belief in whatever a peer-reviewed journal article will say. Dogma.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Stop being obtuse. I have posted empirical evidence here on a number of occasions. You and your friends, are refusing to acknowledge it. thus you are not open for debate.

I was referring to the article when I said it was lacking in empirical evidence. It makes the occasional factual claim, and then extrapolates it to say evolution must have been responsible for it.

Again, you are using logical fallacies to cover, that you are not in any way shape or form educated in the sciences involved.

Where is my logic unsound? You erroneously say i'm uneducated in the sciences because I don't agree with evolution. That is cult-like behavior. "Believe or be excommunicated".

As you are denying evolution, the burden of proof belongs to you neighbour.

The fact is evolution has never been proven, so the burden of proof still remains on those wishing to prove evolution. When evidence is given about how evolution couldn't have happened - i.e. dinosaur/man co-existence, C-14 dates on dinosaurs, the presence of soft tissue in dinosaurs, etc - they simply refer back to the mounds of theoretical research that continually quacks "evolution did it". Yet when we seriously analyze these research articles we realize they are a house of cards

originally posted by: Yvhmer
a reply to: cooperton
Again, as I said before: IC poses a challenge to the theory of Evolution because it can come up with something that is not easily explained. It keeps the discussion on edge, so to speak. But I also feel that this default position also causes the God=default party to rest on it's laurels once such tiny little bit of improbability is found. What it should be doing is trying to falsify the default assumption! And then it would add to the body of knowledge in a positive way.

Certainly. Just like we can put too much faith in a government, we can put too much faith in the scientific community. There are plenty of extraneous interests that prevent governments from properly governing and scientists from properly conducting science. Note the response of the scientific community to the soft tissue. Initially they called MAry Schweitzer a lying hag, until it was indisputable that soft tissue appears often in the dinosaur remains.. So they continued to back track, and now they are running with the story that soft tissue can preserve for 68 million years. It is this sort of refusal to admit they may be wrong on a mass scale that prevents the actual progress of science.

I don't wish to replace science with "God did it", I just think a step in the right direction would be to stop the government curriculum from teaching our kids that they are meaningless mutant monkeys, especially since it is not proven yet, and is apparently very flawed.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
So when are any of you actually going to show any semblance of evidence against the irreducable complexity of molecular machines?

As soon as you give an example of something that has been PROVED to be irreducibly complex. Unfortunately you do not have that, you just have claims from AIG that appeal to ignorance. IC is a fake concept that only applies to hand assembled products of technology (NOT LIFE ITSELF), it doesn't counter anything about gradualism and incremental changes, it's just a buzz word based on circular logic.

Offer your proof or shaddup about IC.

originally posted by: Barcs

As soon as you give an example of something that has been PROVED to be irreducibly complex.

An eye can't work without a retina, a lens, etc. The hypothalamus is useless without effector organs. Testes are meaningless without seminal vesicles. arteries are worthless without veins. Bones are worthless without ligaments to hold them together. Muscles are worthless without tendons to hold them to bone. The musculoskeletal system does not work without functioning muscles, bones, tendons, and ligaments.

And that's just on the organ level. When you reduce in size to the molecular level there is continual irreducible complexity. Actin is useless without myosin in muscle fiber. A gene is useless unless there is a polymerase protein; polymerase proteins need to be coded for by a gene - this is a perfect straight-forward example of irreducible complexity. endogenous dopamine production is erroneous without dopamine receptors. Complex I, complex II, complex III and complex IV are all necessary for ATP production - if you are missing one the process cannot work and the organism can't create energy.

mostly all processes in humans from the molecular to the organ level are irreducibly complex and will not function properly unless the whole is intact.

a reply to: cooperton


The entire post is nothing but an argument from incredulity fallacy. You've not provided anything that remotely resembles evidence to support your position, let alone explain WHY your argument has merit. You simply make the claim that it is so, therefore it must have been created. It's entirely devoid of logic and it's arguments like this that others pisters have called into question the validity of our education because anyone with a degree from an accredited school would at least be able to formulate an argument without resorting to logical fallacies. I don't have time right now, but I will be back later to explain why irreducible complexity as presented by Behe, is entirely premised on a mountain of fallacies entirely devoid of logic.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton


The entire post is nothing but an argument from incredulity fallacy. You've not provided anything that remotely resembles evidence to support your position, let alone explain WHY your argument has merit. You simply make the claim that it is so, therefore it must have been created. It's entirely devoid of logic and it's arguments like this that others pisters have called into question the validity of our education because anyone with a degree from an accredited school would at least be able to formulate an argument without resorting to logical fallacies. I don't have time right now, but I will be back later to explain why irreducible complexity as presented by Behe, is entirely premised on a mountain of fallacies entirely devoid of logic.

In the meantime take out one of the gears from your clock, or remove one of the atria of your heart. See how well it works. Can you find me myosin that suffices for muscle without actin? Or a gene that works without its proper regulators? The fact is you will argue any logical assertion that debunks your material reductionist mythology.

originally posted by: cooperton



Certainly. Just like we can put too much faith in a government, we can put too much faith in the scientific community. There are plenty of extraneous interests that prevent governments from properly governing and scientists from properly conducting science.

Absolute Bull S# and anyone who has ever done any work in any scientific discipline knows that your assertion is pulled directly out of your derrière. For your ASSumption to be true, then every scientist on the face of the earth crossing multiple disciplines would have to be in on the scheme to perpetuate it.

Note the response of the scientific community to the soft tissue. Initially they called MAry Schweitzer a lying hag,

Do you have a citation for anyone calling Dr. Schweitzer a lying hag? Or are I making this up as well?

until it was indisputable that soft tissue appears often in the dinosaur remains..

Yeah... that's how things work. You don't accept something right off the bat without independent verification and duplication of the results. The more you rant, the more difficult it becomes to give you the benefit of the doubt about your claims of being a chemist.

So they continued to back track, and now they are running with the story that soft tissue can preserve for 68 million years.

For the umpteenth time, permineralized soft tissue doesn't mean that it was in the same condition ad your soft tissue is inside of your bones. Something new was learned and you refuse to accept it unless you can somehow spin it to fit into your narrative which is hilarious considering you continue to claim that any peer reviewed paper presented is fundamentally flawed because it was written under the assumption that evolution is true (despite your refusal or inability to falsify the data)yet your own approach to the entire discussion is from the assumption the evolution is a lie and that your own specific version of creation I should true. Yet that irony is entirely lost on you.

It is this sort of refusal to admit they may be wrong on a mass scale that prevents the actual progress of science.

Except that there is no refusal to admit error. Aspects of all scientific disciplines are constantly updating their knowledge when new discoveries are made. You're completely contradicting yourself simply because you want the admission to be that the earth is only 6000 years old and that we were just plopped here via magic. In the above scenario involving Dr. Schweitzer, once the data was reviewed, paleontologist worldwide admitted that they were wrong to assume that soft tissue protected inside long bones couldn't permineralize. That's how this whole thing works... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dr. Schweitzer made the extraordinary claim and supported it with extraordinary evidence. Just like when Clovis First was overturned after decades, Pleistocene admixture events were finally accepted because of genetic evidence because morphological evidence wasn't considered enough, Denisovans and Floresiensis, Homo Naledi... those are just prominent examples from the last 15 years and only in paleoanthropology.

I don't wish to replace science with "God did it",

Except that is exactly what you're doing. And trying to claim otherwise is a bold faced lie and everyone participating in this thread knows it.

I just think a step in the right direction would be to stop the government curriculum from teaching our kids that they are meaningless mutant monkeys, especially since it is not proven yet, and is apparently very flawed.

The government doesn't teach that we are mutant monkeys. It's increasingly difficult to take you at all seriously when you're arguing against a position that ou clearly don't understand even the most basic aspects of. And if you do understand that the above isn't actually what I say taught and you are purposely misrepresenting things then I'll refrain from sharing my true thoughts on that because I would prefer not to get myself a posting ban. It's sad that supposed Christians have to resort to outright lies and blatant misrepresentation in an effort to dispute things they are either incapable of or unwilling to properly understand. I'm sure Jesus would be quite proud of your tactics. The only flaws I see here are in your arguments that have zero evidence supporting them. But then again, conjecture and hyperbole by their very nature don't require anything resembling support.

a reply to: cooperton

No, the fact is that when im done hanging out with my daughter, I will use facts to demonstrate why your logical fallacies are just that... fallacies. You're a massive hypocrite Cooperton. You rant and rave about how any evidence provided to you is wrong because it was written under the assumption that evolution is true. Your reply to me demonstrates that your preconceived notions and blatant confirmation bias blind you from being able to entertain the possibility that you're wrong and instead resort to further ad hominem attacks. You've got nothing to support your assertions. Not even logic.

You have
provided nothing resembling a logical assertion debunking anything. And material reductionist mythology? Is that seriously the best argument you have? You have no clue what you're talking about and haven't presented an original thought in 83 pages. Just the same recycled garbage from the same creationist websites and the same tired tripe that proves you have zero education in any scientific discipline. The only other option is that you are a professional liar purposely misrepresenting science. Either way, giving you the benefit of the doubt isn't really an option any longer. I tried and I really wanted to, but the level of hypocrisy you utilize to maintaining your fragile, tenuous grasp on your narrative is mind boggling.

a reply to: Barcs

The proof is simple and don't pretend you don't understand the irreducable complexity of the flagellum...its just that... irreducable...
The belief you have that it could be is not demonstrated anywhere...
Attempts and assumptions have been made claiming it so...
But the fact remains it is a system untouched by evolution and to say previous parts existed before hand is also a fallacy for there is no evidence to support it and evolution through random selection is impossible because previous parts would have had no function or purpose alone...
Instead it is a system free from outside influence as it constructs itself to serve an exact purpose...
The same ability it provides for movement is also the same as it is now as it would have been from the very beginning...
Explain to me how there once was no need for movement?
How did any of these other bits and pieces you assume existed before hand that had no means of propulsion ever even bump into each other?

a reply to: cooperton

I dont know if your aware of this but are eyes arent designed well for land animals. In fact if god designed them he screwed up because we have to dealwith distortions caused by light passing through a liquid. And are retinas are backwards meaning we have a blind spot where the nerve attaches. A god surely wouldnt design this but evolution explains it. In evolution you judt cant toss out something and start over you have to change what you all ready have. So are vision is poorly designed if you believe it was created even now us lowly humans are trying to redesign the eye to overcome these mistakes.

a reply to: dragonridr

Photoactive chemical reactions are devine.
Don't you know. He made it so, so it is.

a reply to: dragonridr

God would do that to limit your perception...
Too much too soon would simply overwhelm the senses...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Can God make a stone so large that he cannot lift it?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

a reply to: Phage

Yeah that could be it...
Maybe they are divine though...

a reply to: Phage

Who am I to question God's abilities?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: dragonridr

God would do that to limit your perception...
Too much too soon would simply overwhelm the senses...

So god wants us to have poor vision to save us? Seriously? You keep saying these things prove they were created and yet it was a terrible job. But evolution shows why thousands of changes occured and why us poor land animals got the short end of the stick. Are eyes were designed to work underwater and had to adapt for use on land.


Here she studies human evolution perhaps you can learn something.

a reply to: Phage

I'm not the one who keeps injecting God into the conversation...
Aside from intelligent design or need for a creator...
Without all the pieces no true picture will develop...