All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-09-2015, 10:12 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(15-09-2015 04:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 04:24 AM)Godexists Wrote:  ah really ??

[Image: asddsa11.jpg]

you conflate micro evolution with macro evolution.

macro evolution has NEVER been observed.

No, it has, but you'll just move the goal post every time anyways.

New species of bacteria that has evolved to metabolize new molecules for energy? Not macro enough.

Ring species of various forms of animals where species A can interbreed with B, and B with C, and C with D, but once D comes into contact with A they are unable to successfully breed with one another. Nope, not 'macro' enough.

Micro evolution happens, as does macro. Unless you have evidence to show of a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating enough over time that separated populations of the same species cannot diverge enough under different selective pressures so as to become so distant that they cannot interbreed successfully, you fucking got nothing.

speciation is a fact. Even it called macro evolution, its not the issue in question. What is in question, is the arise of new body parts.

Paul Davies puts it more graphically: ‘Making a protein simply by injecting energy is rather like exploding a stick of dynamite under a pile of bricks and expecting it to form a house. You may liberate enough energy to raise the bricks, but without coupling the energy to the bricks in a controlled and ordered way, there is little hope of producing anything other than a chaotic mess.’ It is one thing to produce bricks; it is an entirely different thing to organize the building of a house or factory. If you had to, you could build a house using stones that you found lying around, in all the shapes and sizes in which they came due to natural causes. However, the organization of the building requires something that is not contained in the stones. It requires the intelligence of the architect and the skill of the builder. It is the same with the building blocks of life. Blind chance just will not do the job of putting them together in a specific way. Organic chemist and molecular biologist A.G. Cairns-Smith puts it this way: ‘Blind chance… is very limited… he can produce exceedingly easily the equivalent of letters and small words, but he becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant.’
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 10:15 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(15-09-2015 04:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 04:13 AM)Godexists Wrote:  i dont see the connection between a open thermodynamic system, and coded information. Please elucidate me. Give me some observed examples where this happened. Hobo

No wonder you spout such nonsense - you have no understanding of basic principles.

You don't understand the difference between open and closed systems, you have a basic misunderstanding of what 'information' even means, and have a muddy, even incoherent, dichotomy between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.

You can't even comprehend the science you so apishly quote. Facepalm

you are good at dodging my question, and phenomenal in strawman criticism. Congrats.

Might to answer my question ? i dont see the connection between a open thermodynamic system, and coded information. Please elucidate me. Give me some observed examples where this happened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 10:17 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(15-09-2015 07:34 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  we do have physical evidence like with fossil records etc.

Yep Laugh out load

[Image: asddsa11.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 10:30 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2015 10:35 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(16-09-2015 10:17 PM)Godexists Wrote:  [Image: asddsa11.jpg]


Okay....

Why do you post that picture and what do the numbers that have been plastered over the top actually mean?

Edit: Oooh look! A quote from a Physicist. How... quaint.

So... can you come up with any actual biology to go with your weird pictures?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(16-09-2015 10:12 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 04:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, it has, but you'll just move the goal post every time anyways.

New species of bacteria that has evolved to metabolize new molecules for energy? Not macro enough.

Ring species of various forms of animals where species A can interbreed with B, and B with C, and C with D, but once D comes into contact with A they are unable to successfully breed with one another. Nope, not 'macro' enough.

Micro evolution happens, as does macro. Unless you have evidence to show of a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating enough over time that separated populations of the same species cannot diverge enough under different selective pressures so as to become so distant that they cannot interbreed successfully, you fucking got nothing.

speciation is a fact. Even it called macro evolution, its not the issue in question. What is in question, is the arise of new body parts.

Paul Davies puts it more graphically: ‘Making a protein simply by injecting energy is rather like exploding a stick of dynamite under a pile of bricks and expecting it to form a house. You may liberate enough energy to raise the bricks, but without coupling the energy to the bricks in a controlled and ordered way, there is little hope of producing anything other than a chaotic mess.’ It is one thing to produce bricks; it is an entirely different thing to organize the building of a house or factory. If you had to, you could build a house using stones that you found lying around, in all the shapes and sizes in which they came due to natural causes. However, the organization of the building requires something that is not contained in the stones. It requires the intelligence of the architect and the skill of the builder. It is the same with the building blocks of life. Blind chance just will not do the job of putting them together in a specific way. Organic chemist and molecular biologist A.G. Cairns-Smith puts it this way: ‘Blind chance… is very limited… he can produce exceedingly easily the equivalent of letters and small words, but he becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant.’

Paul Davies? That name rings a bell.
Anyway, maybe this short video will help you.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:00 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(16-09-2015 10:12 PM)Godexists Wrote:  speciation is a fact. Even it called macro evolution, its not the issue in question. What is in question, is the arise of new body parts.

The ''arise" of new body parts ? please "elucidate me" ?
WTAF is going on here ? Did this idiot even graduate from Grade School ?
Something is not right in Denmark.

The Edge Foundation (Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll, Jeremy Bernstein, PZ Myers, Lee Smolin, John Horgan, Alan Soka) debunked Paul Davies. He's no expert on gods, thus quoting him a the argument from authority fallacy. Yet another irrelevant and inappropriate false analogy.
"Blind chance" is not true, in any way. Just proof that GE does not get probability, biology, or chemistry.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:07 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(15-09-2015 07:34 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  how do you tell the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.


Micro evolution (intraspecies adaptions- changes/deletions to existing DNA genes) is a fact.

Macro evolution (jumps to new species- via vastly more complex genes added to DNA) is a myth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:15 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(16-09-2015 11:07 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 07:34 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  how do you tell the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.


Micro evolution (intraspecies adaptions- changes/deletions to existing DNA genes) is a fact.

Macro evolution (jumps to new species- via vastly more complex genes added to DNA) is a myth.

Citation required.

Please answer the question and explain where the boundary is between species.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:20 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(16-09-2015 11:07 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 07:34 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  how do you tell the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.


Micro evolution (intraspecies adaptions- changes/deletions to existing DNA genes) is a fact.

Macro evolution (jumps to new species- via vastly more complex genes added to DNA) is a myth.

So say, all birds are one species? Eagles are the same species of bird as a Sparrow? Or, one day there were no Sparrows at all then the next day, poof! Sparrows! Millions of fully formed Sparrows!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2015, 11:39 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2015 11:49 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(16-09-2015 10:12 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(15-09-2015 04:47 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, it has, but you'll just move the goal post every time anyways.

New species of bacteria that has evolved to metabolize new molecules for energy? Not macro enough.

Ring species of various forms of animals where species A can interbreed with B, and B with C, and C with D, but once D comes into contact with A they are unable to successfully breed with one another. Nope, not 'macro' enough.

Micro evolution happens, as does macro. Unless you have evidence to show of a mechanism that prevents small changes from accumulating enough over time that separated populations of the same species cannot diverge enough under different selective pressures so as to become so distant that they cannot interbreed successfully, you fucking got nothing.

speciation is a fact. Even it called macro evolution, its not the issue in question. What is in question, is the arise of new body parts.

Paul Davies puts it more graphically: ‘Making a protein simply by injecting energy is rather like exploding a stick of dynamite under a pile of bricks and expecting it to form a house. You may liberate enough energy to raise the bricks, but without coupling the energy to the bricks in a controlled and ordered way, there is little hope of producing anything other than a chaotic mess.’ It is one thing to produce bricks; it is an entirely different thing to organize the building of a house or factory. If you had to, you could build a house using stones that you found lying around, in all the shapes and sizes in which they came due to natural causes. However, the organization of the building requires something that is not contained in the stones. It requires the intelligence of the architect and the skill of the builder. It is the same with the building blocks of life. Blind chance just will not do the job of putting them together in a specific way. Organic chemist and molecular biologist A.G. Cairns-Smith puts it this way: ‘Blind chance… is very limited… he can produce exceedingly easily the equivalent of letters and small words, but he becomes very quickly incompetent as the amount of organization increases. Very soon indeed long waiting periods and massive material resources become irrelevant.’

Hey jackass, your ignorance and personal incredulity does not constitute evidence. You're lack of imagination doesn't make something not a fact, nor does your desire to see it otherwise.

Quoting other people's personal incredulity carries the same caveats. Just because you're too stupid and unimaginative to understand it, doesn't mean your emotionally stunted pan-dimensional space wizard is therefore responsible.

Also, nice shifting of the goal-post. I fucking called it, you dumb bastard.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: