It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

The Process of Evolution is evidence of irreducible complexity

page: 3
16
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 05:50 PM
And since I don't expect either one of you to actually READ the paper (we don't do that - could be dangerous - we might learn something), read the outlined descriptions below. Now don't disappear into the ether - that's dangerous too! If you can't figure it out (jeez, maybe we shouldn't go there), make a call to your local grammar school and ask for a consultation with a 6th grader - I think they should be able to handle it.

posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 05:56 PM
Here's an interesting talk from Big Think by Professor Geoffrey West. It's called:

Universal Mathematics: All Life on Earth Is Bound by One Spooky Algorithm

Here's some of what he says from the description:

So perhaps the most well known of these is the scaling of metabolic rate. And metabolic rate is maybe the most fundamental quantity of life because metabolic rate simply means how much energy or just how much food does an animal need to eat each day in order to stay alive. And everybody’s used to that and is familiar with that. It’s sort of roughly 2,000 food calories a day for a human being. So you can ask “what is that for different mammals?” and what you find is that they’re related to one another in a very simple way despite the fact that metabolism is maybe the most complex physical chemical process in the universe. It’s phenomenal because metabolism is taking essentially almost inorganic, something that’s inorganic an making it into life.

And so here’s this extraordinary complex process and yet it scales in a very simple way. And you can express it in English, it can be expressed quite precisely in a very simple mathematical equation but in English it’s—roughly speaking—that every time you double the size of an organism from say two grams to four grams or from 20 grams to 40 grams or 20 kilograms to 40 kilograms or whatever and just doubling anywhere.

Instead of what you might naively expect—double the size, you double the number of cells roughly speaking; therefore, you would expect to double the amount of energy, the amount of metabolic energy you need to keep that organism alive because you have twice as many cells—Quite the contrary you don’t need twice as much. Systematically you only need roughly speaking 75 percent as much. So there’s this kind of systematic 25 percent, one-quarter “savings.”

He talks about this scaling that you find throughout nature. He talks about how if this was random, you would see a random distribution of these things.

Here's the interesting part. In the video he says, SOMEHOW NATURAL SELECTION HAS BEEN CONSTRAINED BY SOME UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES! This starts at 5:55 in the video.

This is exactly what I'm saying. It is constrained by the intelligent design of the genetic code!

He says Natural Selection somehow did this and all I can do is

This is what I mean when I say a natural interpretation is a fantasy because it has to turn natural selection into magic.

Natural selection is nothing. It doesn't select anything. It blindly happens after the fact. It happens after these traits reach the environment.

The designed genetic code puts constraints on what outcomes can occur. It codes for 20 amino acids and codes for a sequence that folds into proteins and not all sequences fold into proteins so you don't just get a factorial of 20.

This is simply AMAZING and destroys any notion of a natural interpretation of evolution.

Say if Poker organisms evolve on earth. I design the Poker genetic code in a way that says only 5 card combinations that are 2 pair through to a straight flush will be the only combinations that reach the environment, this means natural selection can only work with the combinations I allowed by the design to reach the environment.

So you can have:

straight flush-3 of a kind-3 of a kind-full house trait reach the environment

2 pair-flush-four of a kind-3 of a kind trait reach the environment

straight flush-full house-four of a kind-straight flush-full house trait reach the environment.

Now, natural selection just says that when these traits reach the environment some of them will be more beneficial to an organism in the environment over others. The traits that are more beneficial will be reproduced more and spread throughout the population.

So when you look at that last Poker trait, it might be rare at first but if it's more beneficial it will be reproduced and spread throughout the population more than other traits.

THIS IS ALL NATURAL SELECTION SAYS IT"S NOT MAGIC!

We're designed by intelligence. The genetic code puts constraints on natural selection. In my poker example, there's around 2.4 million 5 card combinations that can occur that give you 1 pair and no pair hands but my design will not allow those combinations to reach the environment making natural selection more efficient. IT"S THE SAME WITH THE GENETIC CODE!
edit on 29-6-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 05:58 PM

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Why don't you read the article and the references? You really need help to figure out where the fossils are?

I'm not paying 30\$ to be underwhelmed by a couple bones that are assumed to be transitional fossils. You were the one who posted the link, if you have access to the article post the pictures of the bones here. If you don't have access, then I'm curious why you were even using it as a reference if you didn't look at the empirical data yourself. It indicates you blindly believe whatever the paper says, without discerning it on your own.

Exactly, quoting a source that you have to pay to read and that you haven't even paid for is just silly. If you have access and it supports your argument, which there's a 0% chance that it does, still present something.

And to you, the biggest stuffed shirt of them all, you really do need a new hobby. What do you do at night - look in the mirror and tell yourself how right you are, how smart you are, that you're a brilliant, undiscovered, unappreciated scientific analyst? You're smoking too much of that "stuff".

posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 06:02 PM

Sorry about the cheeseburger example (my bad). I should have said chow mein or won ton soup - it is China after all!

posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 06:13 PM

Change the subject - what an original tactic. Hop, skip, jump, hide - you're fooling no one.

Hey don't forget about Fibonacci - he was an expert on evolution too. At least he could read.
edit on 29-6-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 10:35 PM

originally posted by: Phantom423

You and the OP claim to be "scientists" - but you don't even know how to find a research paper!

Two Early Cretaceous Fossils Document Transitional
Stages in Alvarezsaurian Dinosaur Evolution

sci-hub.se...

Don't bother to respond - I already know the response:

"But, but, but... they didn't find the whole, intact dinosaur eating a cheeseburger while playing chess!!! -- Therefore, we say NO EVIDENCE!!!"

You two stuffed shirts need to take up a hobby other than science - how about a new cheeseburger recipe!!

you seem to be an intelligent person, but can you please answer me this very simple question before I dismantle this so-called evidence of "Transitional Stages in Alvarezsaurian Dinosaur Evolution".

I agree these are evidence for biological evolution but can they also be interpreted in another way? Or are they locked for one interpretation only - i.e. for evolution only?

Think care carefully before you answer.

posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 07:47 AM

Think care carefully before you answer.

Now you're thinking like a scientist (Hallelujah!). Yes, of course, you can speculate and come up with alternatives to the conclusion of the article. But here's the catch: You need to produce the evidence that supports your case. So how would you do this - for one thing, you would have to take the spectroscopic and microscopic data in the article, study it, and see if your hypothesis could possibly contradict the hard evidence (hard evidence is data that's collected and measured with calibrated instruments - at least in this case it is).

Alternatively, you could propose some other mechanism that resulted in the authors' interpretation of this find. For instance, if your hypothesis suggested that this fossil really belonged to another genetic group and, therefore, did not represent a transitional fossil from this species, then you would seek to produce the evidence by a number of means - i.e. - DNA evidence (if available), dating data (maybe another perfectly valid dating test shows different results??), geological evidence (the consequences of earthquakes and other natural phenomenon). Or something that I haven't thought of but perhaps you thought of which is testable. The operative word here is TESTABLE. If you want to engage in a discussion of the SCIENCE, then whatever you're discussing has to be TESTABLE. Because that's what science is - it's about measurements, tests and validation.

So yes, you're absolutely correct to say that there could be other interpretations. But it is incumbent on you to challenge the current evidence with something that can be measured and tested. It's equally incumbent on the authors to rule out other possibilities. That means they had to do a thorough search of the literature, compare their results to similar studies on other fossils, check (and recheck) the calibration of their instruments, consider opinions of other scientists who may not agree with their interpretation - that's what a real scientist does.

edit on 30-6-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 05:59 AM
As per my expectations, neither Coop nor Neo respond to the truth. Ignorance as a way of life is dangerous to one's mental health. Just a reminder - consider how this guy turned out.

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 02:20 PM

originally posted by: Phantom423

Most of the remains are missing. Just as you would expect. Evolutionary theory only thrives in ambiguity and speculation

originally posted by: Phantom423
As per my expectations, neither Coop nor Neo respond to the truth. Ignorance as a way of life is dangerous to one's mental health. Just a reminder - consider how this guy turned out.

It's called a weekend. I tend to not spend much time on my computer during those times.

Your evidence was sparse anyway. Not enough to determine anything in my opinion, but I'm sure you'll believe whatever the white coats say.
edit on 1-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 02:40 PM

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Most of the remains are missing. Just as you would expect. Evolutionary theory only thrives in ambiguity and speculation

originally posted by: Phantom423
As per my expectations, neither Coop nor Neo respond to the truth. Ignorance as a way of life is dangerous to one's mental health. Just a reminder - consider how this guy turned out.

It's called a weekend. I tend to not spend much time on my computer during those times.

Your evidence was sparse anyway. Not enough to determine anything in my opinion, but I'm sure you'll believe whatever the white coats say.

Just as I said - you never read the article. Nor did you even notice where the specimens are housed. Of course, you, the great wizard of evolution and science in general, expect that no one notices. You need more than a weekend, buddy.

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 02:44 PM

Why don't you write them a letter and let them know where they've failed. Isn't it about time you challenge authors who contradict your expert opinion? Don't forget to include all the references to your publications on the subject - it's truly amazing that these authors had the audacity to report research that has generated such negative assertions.

My, my - please do write them a letter. Don't forget to use Neo as a reference. That will get their attention!

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 03:01 PM

originally posted by: Phantom423

Why don't you write them a letter and let them know where they've failed. Isn't it about time you challenge authors who contradict your expert opinion? Don't forget to include all the references to your publications on the subject - it's truly amazing that these authors had the audacity to report research that has generated such negative assertions.

My, my - please do write them a letter. Don't forget to use Neo as a reference. That will get their attention!

appeal to authority fallacy. You assume because they are an "authority" on the topic, that they must be right. But explain in your own words why you think those bones are sufficient to warrant the declaration of a transitional species of dinosaurs. This would seem hard considering most of the bones are missing, for all they know, given the (lack of) evidence, it's the same exact species.

posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 04:37 PM

Because to the extent that scientific instrumentation allows us, the data match the observations. That's why.

posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 02:19 AM

First off, I've been away for awhile in heated debates over NBA free agency. I'm just glad it's over and Kawhi didn't join Lebron on the Lakers. So now I return to see you doing a happy dance over nothing. This doesn't refute anything I've said, in fact it bolsters my argument.

First off, I never said anything about transitional fossils. Why wouldn't the designed genetic code allow for transitional fossils? How does this support a natural interpretation of evolution?

Nothing new is being created. You have a genetic code of 20 amino acids that are translated and transcribed into a PP sequences that are allowed by the code. Mutations occur that can modify the code based on the environment and copying errors. Let's look at an example:

Pakicetus is an early ancestor to modern whales and they were land animals. One common feature is nostrils and we have them to. For some reason, people make a big deal as to where these nostrils are placed. It's meaningless when it comes to this debate.

This isn't creating anything new. The Designed genetic code allows for nostrils to be a feature in an organism. This isn't any transition due to natural selection, it's a modification of features that reach the environment that are allowed by the designed genetic code.

Explain to me why nostrils being in 3 different places supports the fantasy of a natural interpretation of evolution. There nostrils, not nostrils becoming some new body part. Nostrils, feet, hands, fingers veins, nails, hair and more are all things designed by the genetic code. Modifications of these traits occur when they reach the environment in order for the organism to survive but a nostril is still a nostril whether it's on the front or the back of the skull.

The paper you quotes supports what I'm saying.

Mosaic Evolution

As phylogenetically, temporally, and morphologically transitional forms, the two new alvarezsaurians illuminate the pattern, pace, and timing of evolution of the bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton [35], and particularly the forelimb (Figure 3). Our analysis shows that alvarezsaurian skeletal evolution occurred in a somewhat modular manner, with different skeletal parts being modified at different evolutionary rates. The presacral and sacral vertebrae were evidently modified earlier than the caudal vertebrae, and the pectoral girdle and forelimb earlier than the pelvic girdle and hindlimb, implying a general pattern in which anterior parts of the skeleton were modified earlier than posterior parts. To some degree the tail, pelvis, and hindlimbs acted as an integrated locomotor unit in non-avian dinosaurs because of the role of the caudofemoralis muscle in femoral retraction [36], and patterns of alvarezsaurian skeletal evolution suggest that this locomotor unit might have been relatively conservative in evolutionary terms

sci-hub.se...

This is the beauty of the DESIGN of the code.

This is like a modular home. Where you create different parts of the modular home that are designed to work together.

The genetic code is designed to create these different traits at different times that can come together as different species. It's like I can take legos and create a house, a car and a plane all with the same legos.

This is evidence of INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

These different parts are designed to work together. Look at the example you quoted. It first says:

the two new alvarezsaurians illuminate the pattern, pace, and timing of evolution of the bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton

BIZARRE, HIGHLY SPECIALIZED SKELETON!

It's not bizarre when you realize these parts were DESIGNED to work together in a specialized way. There's no transition of these parts evolving and trying to work together. Where are all of the dead organisms with skeletons that are not highly specialized? Where are all of the dead organisms with these parts in a million different arrangements trying to find the specialized arrangement?

Again, these parts are all apart of an intelligent design of the genetic code that work together like a puzzle. But with this puzzle, there's no trial and error. These parts were designed to work together. Your source says:

The presacral and sacral vertebrae were evidently modified earlier than the caudal vertebrae, and the pectoral girdle and forelimb earlier than the pelvic girdle and hindlimb, implying a general pattern in which anterior parts of the skeleton were modified earlier than posterior parts.

THIS IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

A general pattern that didn't evolve, these parts came together in a highly specialized way. It's like if all of these parts evolved separately:

Spark plug

Valves

Piston

Piston Rings

Connecting rod

Crankshaft

Sump

Then all of these parts came together and formed an engine. These parts are part of a highly specialized design by intelligence to come together as an engine.

When you look at evolution, there's no evidence of these parts transitioning to work together. There's no skeletons arranged in all kinds of different ways to see which way works best in the environment. We don't see skeletons of all of these dead species with skeletons in all sorts of different arrangements as they blindly evolve.

We see a BIZARRE, HIGHLY SPECIALIZED SKELETON as described by the paper you quoted

edit on 7-7-2019 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 10:05 AM

Your analysis is similar to scrambled eggs. You can scramble the eggs any way you like but they're still eggs.

If you consider DNA as a code, all it's doing is delivering information in the form of an algorithm. DNA in and of itself does not design anything. The out put can be a familiar feature like two eyes, or it can be something entirely new as a consequence of mutation. If DNA held all the design features of all organisms on the planet, then there would be no need for RNA, mRNA or any translation whatsoever.

Genes evolve as a consequence of natural selection. It's environmental pressures that cause genetic change. DNA is not a living organism. It is a molecular construct that can change when mutations cause new information to be added or subtracted from the original structure. That's what new information is - NEW INFORMATION.

You would be correct if DNA itself never changed and simply delivered design features. But it does change. Genetic engineering is a perfect example of how DNA changes - if all DNA was set in stone, genetic engineering would not be possible because any change would be lethal to the organism.

Your analysis is typical people who start their research with a conclusion and then manipulate the available information into something that agrees with that conclusion. Science doesn't work that way. All alternatives to a process are open until evidence is found to support one over the other. In the case of DNA, there is no argument because the evidence is straight forward and obvious. You choose your own interpretation because you enter with a bias. That's fine for you but it doesn't work in the real world.

Organisms acquire new information continually. There's no evidence to the contrary. And as I said before, there's no evidence that a third party is involved in any of this. Evolution is the natural condition on this planet. Secret designers or programmers in the sky is just fantasy to fulfill a wish that isn't true.

posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 10:07 AM

Your analysis is similar to scrambled eggs. You can scramble the eggs any way you like but they're still eggs.

If you consider DNA as a code, all it's doing is delivering information in the form of an algorithm. DNA in and of itself does not design anything. The out put can be a familiar feature like two eyes, or it can be something entirely new as a consequence of mutation. If DNA held all the design features of all organisms on the planet, then there would be no need for RNA, mRNA or any translation whatsoever.

Genes evolve as a consequence of natural selection. It's environmental pressures that cause genetic change. DNA is not a living organism. It is a molecular construct that can change when mutations cause new information to be added or subtracted from the original structure. That's what new information is - NEW INFORMATION.

You would be correct if DNA itself never changed and simply delivered design features. But it does change. Genetic engineering is a perfect example of how DNA changes - if all DNA was set in stone, genetic engineering would not be possible because any change would be lethal to the organism.

Your analysis is typical people who start their research with a conclusion and then manipulate the available information into something that agrees with that conclusion. Science doesn't work that way. All alternatives to a process are open until evidence is found to support one over the other. In the case of DNA, there is no argument because the evidence is straight forward and obvious. You choose your own interpretation because you enter with a bias. That's fine for you but it doesn't work in the real world.

Organisms acquire new information continually. There's no evidence to the contrary. And as I said before, there's no evidence that a third party is involved in any of this. Evolution is the natural condition on this planet. Secret designers or programmers in the sky is just fantasy to fulfill a wish that isn't true.

posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 01:17 PM

LOL, you didn't refute anything that was said because you can't. Your own paper that you linked to supports what I'm saying. Again, it says:

the two new alvarezsaurians illuminate the pattern, pace, and timing of evolution of the bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton

It also talked about a general pattern.

The presacral and sacral vertebrae were evidently modified earlier than the caudal vertebrae, and the pectoral girdle and forelimb earlier than the pelvic girdle and hindlimb, implying a general pattern in which anterior parts of the skeleton were modified earlier than posterior parts.

You said:

If you consider DNA as a code, all it's doing is delivering information in the form of an algorithm. DNA in and of itself does not design anything. The out put can be a familiar feature like two eyes, or it can be something entirely new as a consequence of mutation. If DNA held all the design features of all organisms on the planet, then there would be no need for RNA, mRNA or any translation whatsoever.

This is just an asinine comment. The code works as a communication channel. This way it's preserved over the years. Mutations don't create anything.

The genetic code holds the information or the blueprint of life. This code is transcribed, translated then the sequence is folded into a protein. Mutations can modify the expression of the gene. I can do the same. I can modify a pair of jeans by adding graffiti or adding a tear on the jeans like some young kids do. It's still a pair of jeans after the modification just like a designed gene is still just a designed gene after a mutation.

Give me an example of how a mutation created anything new. It's just a modification of a gene encoded in our DNA. Here's more from Yockey.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Here's more:

My publications on information theory show that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods. All that can be taught in the science classroom about the origin of life is why it is unknowable and why past theories, such as chance and self-organization, had to be discarded.

First, the purpose of my paper was to give evidence why no origin of life theory based on “self-organization” was credible. “Self-organization” scenarios of the origin of life are not founded on science.

Woah Yockey!

This is intelligent design.

The genetic code is encoded with information that eventually becomes proteins. These proteins fit together like lego pieces. There's no trial and error or no evolution. These parts just fit together in highly specialized ways as the paper you quoted from stated. Again, it's like a modular house. I can create 6 or 7 parts of the house separately but when we get to the land, they all fit together perfectly because they were designed that way.

This is exactly what we see. Sometimes hundreds of proteins come together to form specialized machines that help build a protein. These parts don't come together in any natural way. When they come together, they work in a designed, specialized way. Just like when you put together toys at Christmas. A bunch of different parts that were designed to work together.

A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy

posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 02:47 PM

You're entitled to your opinion. The evidence refutes your position. When the scientific community accepts your position based on credible research, you may have something. But right now you're basing your opinion on other scientist's research. Until you or someone who agrees with you and understands the methodology goes into the lab, designs an experiment to prove your hypothesis and and gets positive results, the current model stands.

posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 03:12 PM

LOL, CHECKMATE!

Look at what you said:

But right now you're basing your opinion on other scientist's research.

Of course I am, and you're doing the same. You spent like 5 posts talking about "others scientific research." You kept going on and on about this paper.

sci-hub.se...

Sadly for you, the paper you talked about supports what I'm saying. Let me repeat:

the two new alvarezsaurians illuminate the pattern, pace, and timing of evolution of the bizarre, highly specialized alvarezsaurian skeleton

This is from the paper YOU talked about for 5 posts.

It's only BIZARRE when you believe in the fantasy of a natural interpretation of evolution.

The genetic code is encoded with information that becomes Proteins and the blueprint on the way these parts can come together in a HIGHLY SPECIALIZED WAY.

There's ZERO evidence that these parts come together in any natural way. It's like a train set. You put it together based on the instructions and it works.

When these parts come together, they work in a HIGHLY SPECIALIZED WAY that your source called BIZARRE. It's not bizarre, it's DESIGN and NO EVOLUTION NEEDED. Evolution can occur because these parts are designed to come together in HIGHLY SPECIALIZED WAYS

posted on Jul, 7 2019 @ 03:26 PM

No I'm not basing it on other scientist's work alone. I know and understand the methodology. You don't. I've been there, done that for the most part and have published utilizing many of the same methods used in those research papers. As I've suggested before, pick one of the papers and discuss why it's wrong - not your opinion - but how the hypothesis, the methodology and the results are faulty. You're great at posting jpgs, but you and the rest of your crowd never post any authentic research that backups your opinions. You have zip experience or ability to analyze one of those papers in depth.

You're also emotionally invested in the topic. So objectivity isn't going to be one of your best contributions!

edit on 7-7-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

16