Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: whereislogic

I will comment, when you properly cite your sources I know this has been covered, and this was not from an actual scientific paper. Thus cite, and I will comment.

originally posted by: Barcs

Irrelevant BS.

Dude. Seriously. Any of us would love to actually talk about the mechanics of evolution, but every time we suggest the incoherencies in the theory, you all just call it BS, or call us scientifically illiterate. I don't think you guys are capable of engaging in logical discussion regarding the mechanics of evolution without resorting to insult-bot.exe

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: whereislogic

I will comment, when you properly cite your sources

I know this has been covered, and this was not from an actual scientific paper. Thus cite, and I will comment.

No you won't. You will just call it a fallacy without explaining why. That is the only response I have ever gotten from any of you. "that can't be true, it demonstrates evolution is false". Again, we can't win because you think you can't lose. Yvhmer is the only one so far who has actually responded intelligently without implementing insult-bot.exe

I dare you to actually engage in scientific discourse.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic
Since "Onychonycteris finneryi" is claimed to have no sonar and echolocation system, why are they classified as "bats"?

From wiki for Onychonycteris finneryi:

However, an independent evaluation of the Onychonycteris reference fossil in 2010 provided some evidence for other bone structures indicative of laryngeal echolocation, raising the possibility that Onychonycteris finneyi possessed the ability to echolocate after all.[5]

Ah, so scratch the argument that these are ancestors to bats that have no sonar and echolocation systems. And scratch off that question, now no longer relevant. I guess I was justified in mentioning "that are not bats" in my related line of inquiry. Bats evolved from ....? (fill in an organism that is not a bat and does not have a sonar and echolocation system; something a little more serious than panprimates, something one can evaluate if it would fit in the description "clear transitions...and all the steps in between", all the way to plankton according to peter vlar). Or perhaps we can get an estimate how many different organisms (that need to be represented by fossils) that would be? a 1000? 5,000? We're just talking about the first one here yet, not asking for all of them at once. But 1 is better than 0 but still less than the 3 proposed by Miller in that old debate about whale evolution. Which already was a bit laughable to present as an 'I got you now'-moment and also doesn't quite fit the "clear transitions...and all the steps in between" description. Are the makers of the video about whale evolution vs the actual fossil evidence misrepresenting the situation when they are describing that "for them [scientists who support evolution] the fossil evidence is so convincing, the evolution of whales is offered as one of the best fossil proofs for the theory of evolution"? Is that really presented as the best they've got? The 3 Miller used? Or including the one shown in the diagram in the video as well (I can count 4 in that diagram, can't see if it continues further)?

Am I being unreasonable to expect at least a 100 fossils from different organisms being listed in that teaching diagram if you're going from a hyena-like animal to whales and want to describe or present it as "best", or "clear transitions....and all the steps in between"? Well, personally, I feel requesting "all the steps in between" is a bit unreasonable, I think a hundred should suffice to start contemplating the possibility that it might have happened that way along that lineage, but then it wouldn't help if the ones presenting teaching diagrams would do the following:

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

Source: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

Cause that means I can't trust them to be honest about the subject. So who's to say the fossils they're using aren't faked or misrepresented as explained in the video, here it is again:

Regarding the comment made below about "primates", I beg to differ if you just change it to "Panprimates" (which are still primates; but after all, we are talking about a fringe fan of evolutionary philosophies that likes to make his own version of the storyline here, but the others are doing the same thing, there's just more of them so they get to diss the one whose site I was quoting from before, mostly because he was also quoting other fans of evolutionary philosophies about the subject there):

a reply to: cooperton

How would you know>? None of you cite sources. Or link sources.

So when you and your friends play by the rules, I shall as well.

a reply to: whereislogic

Out of curiosity, can you cite any sources that are not the Johovas Witnesses?


But lets start with that so called "paper" you cited.

It is wrong on a number of levels

Common Decent predates Darwin as an idea. Pierre Louis Maupertuis for example suggested it o ver 100 years prior to Charlie Darwin.

DNA (via RNA) codes for proteins (and RNA enzymes) is ubiquitous. The Ocam's razor would thus mean, a common source for this. QED Common decent.

Add to that, that the same code (same 4 nucleic acids) are used in DNA (and RNA except a nucleic acid different). Again Ocam's Razor would imply common decent.

Codons (the nucleic adic codes for amino acids) are likewise ubiquitous, which is unlikely for convergent evolution.

Then there is the fact that the chirality of biological molecules is the same. You only have L-Amino acids being used by life.

Phylogenetic trees (which also predate Darwin), especially now that we can sequence genomes, provide great statistical correlation, to what we see in the fossil record. Oh and for the record, the genetic study of Whales, agrees with the ideas we have regarding their evolution. Try reading some genetics papers. Not your JW rags.

So when you can find scientific papers to back your claims, we can talk more. Till then, have fun

Like a feather in the wind,
I rise from the dead.

Coomba98
(Your female friendly companion)

So far the objections to evolution don't amount to much.

Evolution doesn't happen because...Jehova.
Evolution doesn't happen because...cars have designers.

The process is observable. The fossil record, genetics and geographic distribution are observable. God is not. There is no other supportable explanation, we evolved from earlier forms.

It might have been understandable in bygone eras to disbelieve the obvious. Not any longer, not in this day and age.

Jehova and cars are both indirect outcomes of biological/human evolution. The problem humans are having results from evolution itself. Intelligence has far less effect on our modern survival rates and intelligent people breed less. In many ways we are circumventing natural selection, as any caring society should. Our accumulated knowledge is great in this modern age, yet we have mistaken this for intelligence. We are not only being dumbed down en masse, our brains are shrinking, our IQ points are dropping. It looks like our species is becoming more stupid.

We don't yet know our true origins and when we do it will possibly be far more amazing than the man made fairy stories. While there could be "something" behind it all, there are no religious gods like Jehova any more than there are Leprechauns in the garden. Get over it.

"The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

Carl Sagan


www.smithsonianmag.com...

a reply to: Noinden
And as soon as you tell me what organism bats evolved from that isn't a bat in the definitive manner that peter vlar put it "clear transitions...and all those steps in between" you are warranted to respond to my comment about bats that you're doing now (or "we can talk more" as you put it). So unambiguous, not a maybe this organism, maybe that organism, not a bunch of convenient changes to the storyline or a couple of alternate versions being presented ("no single tree topology", quoting from the article further below). Let's start with the first step in between plankton and bats, top-down (going back in time from bats to an organism that isn't a bat). And let's see if we can get more than the 3 or 4 proposed for whales by Miller and the teaching diagram concerning whale evolution as used in the relevant videos about that subject. If we want to confirm peter vlar's claim regarding the fossil record, someone should be able to provide me with fossils for "all those steps in between", so if his claims regarding the fossil record are true, someone also should be able to give me at least a ballpark number as to how many fossils for different kinds of organisms we're talking about from plankton to bats, and from plankton to whales. And then a nice picture that shows me "all those steps in between" with links to pictures of the fossils being a nice way to support the claims in the picture (or pictures if it doesn't fit into 1). And I would not expect evolutionary philosophers to make statements about evolutionary "pre-bat" ancestors as made in the videos about bats that I've been sharing. I was all excited about the claim that we can see clear transitions in the fossil record and all the steps in between. Hoping I would get to see the fossils for all these steps in between plankton and bats, plankton and whales, plankton and humans (seeing that peter vlar started with plankton).

Man, 75 bucks for his book, I guess he doesn't care much about the bible verse discussed in the video about "thirty identifying marks...." that says "We are not peddlers of the Word of God as many men are". Still bringing up some valid issues.

Let's have a closer look at genetic comparisons:

...conflicting genealogical histories often exist in different genes throughout the genome.
...
With the increasing abundance of molecular data and the recognition that evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns[1–8], it is becoming increasingly feasible to implement multilocus approaches to phylogenetic inference. Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids[9–11], pines[12], cichlids[13], finches[14], grasshoppers[15] and fruit flies[16] have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates.
...

Source: Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent. (James H. Degnan and Noah A. Rosenberg, published 2009 in Trends in ecology & evolution: pdf full article)

a reply to: whereislogic

This is funny a lack of evidence is deemed proof of god. But the bad part is evidence can be found later making these claims look stupid.These creationist web sites need to update their material more often it makes them look like fools making false claims. But biggest thing is just because there is a lack of evidence at the time doesnt disprove the theory.

www.theguardian.com...

pterosaurheresies.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: whereislogic

The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking (brochure)

Oops, he's actually talking about this brochure at the end:
Was Life Created?

I just needed an excuse to link the other one for those nagging about not leaving links.

a reply to: cooperton

Dude. Seriously. Any of us would love to actually talk about the mechanics of evolution, but every time we suggest the incoherencies in the theory, you all just call it BS, or call us scientifically illiterate. I don't think you guys are capable of engaging in logical discussion regarding the mechanics of evolution without resorting to insult-bot.exe

That's because you never show any evidence for your position. You have no citations. You have no experimental data that validates anything that you post.

The "mechanics" have been published in hundreds of papers. Yet you still can't respond intelligently to a single paper which contained enough data in the references to convince the Pope.

You've been run over by a truck enough times that it's really about time you took a look at the hard data. When you can challenge the hard data with hard evidence, then you have something to talk about. In the meantime, it's all verbal garbage.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic
But biggest thing is just because there is a lack of evidence at the time doesnt disprove the theory.

Your biggest thing, point or argument seems a bit standardized and repetitive, must have seen it about a dozen times lately on this forum. Also heard a variant* of it at 0:15 in the scene below (*: meaning there's no need to point out that it's not the same, but I guess that won't stop anyone from doing so if they feel so inclined to make an argument of the sorts 'that's not what I or he was doing' but dressed up with a reference to supposed mountains of evidence in other places which in reality is a house of the same type of cards once someone wants to discuss the actual facts and get to the bottem of the matter and not conveniently staying at the surface encouraging a superficial view pointing at mountains of evidence from a distance or distract people with joker cards that look really fancy and beguiling with sophisticated argumentation and technical terms from so-called "peer reviewed" articles filled with propaganda and fancy storytelling designed to convince and intrigue the biased beholder who wants his ears to be tickled, possibly followed by 'that's what you're doing'; psychological projection, also something I spoke about on pages 46-49):

I can't say I feel much different than Kyle about it. I guess we will have to wait another 150 years for the "clear transitions" of just the first step "in between" bats and plankton (top-down, starting with bats) that peter vlar claimed we could see in the fossil record when he said "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between....". Or till hell freezes over. Just keep telling yourself there's only a small gap in knowledge regarding the origin of a few organisms when a few of the other ones have at least a good "bedtime story"-line that still fails miserably in the test for detecting propaganda described in the article in my signature (like the one about the evolution of whales that I shared videos about that nobody here wants to say something about either other than making the standard arguments that don't address any of the facts discussed in those videos and look like they want to distract any potential reader of this thread as best they can from thinking about those facts).

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”—Henry Gee, evolutionary paleontologist, senior editor of Nature magazine

Propaganda isn't instructive Mr. Gee. Oh, and why do you give these bedtime stories your stamp of approval so that from hence on they are treated as (Holy) peer reviewed (Scripture) by those who think that as soon as an article gets printed in your magazine it's worth reading and taking seriously? I guess I'll have to wait till hell freezes over for an honest answer to that question as well.

Here's some more stuff those who prefer their ears being tickled don't want to think about, no need to watch beyond 8:42 (or get distracted by it) and when the subject comes up, do try to resist the false contradictory* argument that 'evolution has no direction' (*: just think about going from unicellular organisms to multicellular organisms, from "plankton" to humans, using peter vlar's starting point, or prokaryotic organisms to eukaryotic organisms, is that "no direction"?). It's also relevant to the topic of "punctuated equilibrium" and "jerky" as opposed to "gradual evolution" (and the things I've been saying about it on pages 46-49 and this comment or this comment for example:

originally posted by: cooperton
Dude. Seriously. Any of us would love to actually talk about the mechanics of evolution, but every time we suggest the incoherencies in the theory, you all just call it BS, or call us scientifically illiterate. I don't think you guys are capable of engaging in logical discussion regarding the mechanics of evolution without resorting to insult-bot.exe

Then why didn't you address the rest of the post? I explained why it's irrelevant BS and you frigging ignored it! You are being super dishonest here, picking out one line and pretending like it's my main point or the only thing I said. You do this this dishonest crap all the time, though, so I'm not surprised. Keep painting your false narrative to make us look bad. It's the only argument you have.

Every person I have seen that has tried to convince people that evolution is false also tries to convince people that "god did it".

There is extremely strong evidence for evolution and zero evidence for "god did it". Even if they can convince others that evolutionary evidence isn't strong enough it will not help them recruit new believers in god. They will only succeed in creating super skeptical people.

a reply to: whereislogic

This so called scientist is insane he implies we cant create new species. And new species could never occur through mutations problem is weve all ready done this.


io9.gizmodo.com...

a reply to: whereislogic

Nerighbour

That is not my area of expertise. Just because we don't have a complete fossil record, does not mean that it did not occur however. Genomic analysis certainly gels with what the fossil record shows. In that, they evolved from a non flying mammalian ancestor, unknown.

DO you understand fossils are rare finds?

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
So far the objections to evolution don't amount to much.

Evolution doesn't happen because...Jehova.
Evolution doesn't happen because...cars have designers.

The process is observable. The fossil record, genetics and geographic distribution are observable. God is not. There is no other supportable explanation, we evolved from earlier forms.

It might have been understandable in bygone eras to disbelieve the obvious. Not any longer, not in this day and age.

Jehova and cars are both indirect outcomes of biological/human evolution. The problem humans are having results from evolution itself. Intelligence has far less effect on our modern survival rates and intelligent people breed less. In many ways we are circumventing natural selection, as any caring society should. Our accumulated knowledge is great in this modern age, yet we have mistaken this for intelligence. We are not only being dumbed down en masse, our brains are shrinking, our IQ points are dropping. It looks like our species is becoming more stupid.

We don't yet know our true origins and when we do it will possibly be far more amazing than the man made fairy stories. While there could be "something" behind it all, there are no religious gods like Jehova any more than there are Leprechauns in the garden. Get over it.

"The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

Carl Sagan


www.smithsonianmag.com...

This predicament will be solved by the advent of superintelligence. Able to master the intricacies of molecular replication and thus outbreed even the insects.

Human flesh will give way to evolution's final solution, the birth of the perfect race.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
...
Here's a text that uses the verb "lying" (no implications regarding anyone, just a useful text for consideration).

Proverbs 14:5-7

5 A faithful witness will not lie,

But a false witness lies with every breath.

6 The scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none,

But knowledge comes easily to the person with understanding.

7 Stay away from the foolish man,

For you will not find knowledge on his lips.

Fool: Insight, Volume 1

...
The fool despises wisdom and discipline. (Pr 1:7) [whereislogic: discipline is connected to reproof] Instead of heeding counsel, the fool continues walking in a way he considers “right in his own eyes.” (Pr 12:15) He is quick to take offense and bursts out in disputing. (Ec 7:9; Pr 20:3)
...
Answering a fool in harmony with or “according to his foolishness” in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument puts the one so doing in agreement with the fool’s unsound reasonings or ways. In order not to become like the fool in this respect, we are counseled by the proverb: “Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness.” On the other hand, Proverbs 26:4, 5 shows that answering him “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous, and showing that his own arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn can be beneficial.

Bringing us back to:

"This has been stated ad infinitum by myself, Peter Vlar, Barcs and others: NO EVIDENCE, NO SCIENCE."

Quoting Phantom423 and referring to my commentary about it on page 48, first comment there.

And now also my last comment on this page or the 2nd comment, recommending to have a look at the first video in the 2nd comment or another look if someone has been able to resist their conditioning and blatant demonstrations of everything I discussed regarding being either a victim of propaganda or deliberately using these propaganda techniques from pages 46-48, but it still didn't register on the first attempt to take in knowledge about the subjects I was responding to in that comment; what he claimed and argued regarding "Common Decent" (Descent), similarity, "Ocam's razor", "Phylogenetic trees...provide great statistical correlation, to what we see in the fossil record.", "the genetic study of Whales, agrees with the ideas we have regarding their evolution." and the paintjob+psychological projection demonstration "Try reading some genetics papers. Not your JW rags.

So when you can find scientific papers to back your claims, we can talk more."

Note the paper I cited regarding the phrase "no single tree topology predominates", "conflicting genealogical histories often exist in different genes throughout the genome.", "With the increasing abundance of molecular data and the recognition that evolutionary trees from different genes often have conflicting branching patterns[1–8]..." and "Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids[9–11], pines[12], cichlids[13], finches[14], grasshoppers[15] and fruit flies[16] have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single [evolutionary] tree topology predominates."

Which also contradicts peter vlar's claim: "Looking at the fossil record shows clear transitions from cytoplankton up through todays organisms and all those steps in between....". In particular the bolded word (if you ignore for a moment that he was only talking about the fossil record; which would be another nice distraction from the points I'm making). There are many different versions of the storylines involving evolutionary trees (both in paleontology as genetics), to describe that as "clear" is inaccurate. Not to mention everything I already mentioned about the supposed existence of fossils for "all those steps in between". It's a lie/falsehood and peter vlar is not going to admit to it anytime soon. Too busy with the red herring debates and standardized 'stay at the surface' arguments like all the silent agree-ers I spoke about on pages 46-48.

But of course, that's not tickling the ears of some people, we'll just shove that aside as quote mining or irrelevant to "modern evolutionary synthesis" again. Let's not look back at wat Noinden claimed and argued for in comparison with the video I shared with Dawkins lying about it and showing where this conditioning and brainwashing comes from. The expert propagandists. Most of their victims seem to be commenting here but occasionally it seems it's as deliberate as Dawkins, Krauss, Hitchens, Atkins, Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, Henry Gee and the others themselves. Sometimes it get's pretty tricky to tell the difference as it gets more and more excessive and unreasonable. Oh and the other videos in that comment are not there for nothing either, it allows a genuine truthseeker to get a look at the facts that these people don't want you to think about or realize their relevance to their storytelling and exposing their propaganda techniques (especially when looked at in conjunction with the information in the article in my signature and the preceding page of the page that is linked).

In case you missed it, how can you have "Phylogenetic trees...[speaking about those evolutionary trees based on genetic data]..provide great statistical correlation, to what we see in the fossil record." when "no single [evolutionary] tree ... predominates" based on genetic comparisons? (and this would be a good moment to have another look at the other videos in between to look at the actual data in comparison with the claims). And the situation is the same in paleontology (as you can discover from the citations at the top of page 47 and elsewhere, like the videos I've been sharing), also no single evolutionary tree proposed, nothing is presented as definitive/clear/unambiguous either (see video about "Divergent/Convergent/parallel/Preadaptive/etc." for relevant information). Maybe this, maybe so, whatever, long live 'science does not deal with absolutes', screw the facts, things that are absolute/factual/conclusive/definitive/correct, without error, well, unless they're useful to our marketing campaign as half-truths or with a little distortion and twisted logic here or there: "The Greatest Show on Earth" (part of the title of one of Dawkins' books).

a reply to: whereislogic

Not seeing anything of interest or on topic there

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
So far the objections to evolution don't amount to much.

Evolution doesn't happen because...Jehova.
Evolution doesn't happen because...cars have designers.

The process is observable. The fossil record, genetics and geographic distribution are observable. God is not. There is no other supportable explanation, we evolved from earlier forms.

It might have been understandable in bygone eras to disbelieve the obvious. Not any longer, not in this day and age.

Jehova and cars are both indirect outcomes of biological/human evolution. The problem humans are having results from evolution itself. Intelligence has far less effect on our modern survival rates and intelligent people breed less. In many ways we are circumventing natural selection, as any caring society should. Our accumulated knowledge is great in this modern age, yet we have mistaken this for intelligence. We are not only being dumbed down en masse, our brains are shrinking, our IQ points are dropping. It looks like our species is becoming more stupid.

We don't yet know our true origins and when we do it will possibly be far more amazing than the man made fairy stories. While there could be "something" behind it all, there are no religious gods like Jehova any more than there are Leprechauns in the garden. Get over it.

"The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”

Carl Sagan


www.smithsonianmag.com...

This predicament will be solved by the advent of superintelligence. Able to master the intricacies of molecular replication and thus outbreed even the insects.

Human flesh will give way to evolution's final solution, the birth of the perfect race.

Very good point xenogears. Whether that will really happen, I don't know, but it is probably our only hope. One day we might well merge with superintelligent machines. If we do manage to find a super advanced race of aliens, there is a chance that they will have gone through what we have and might have chosen to become silicon based.