All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 04:22 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  GE, you are actually worse than Behe.

i take that actually as a compliment. thanks Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 07:50 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 04:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  We still know - not "think", not "believe", not "make the preliminary conclusion that", know - that evolution happens, and there is no biological system which has been shown to be impossible to form through the process.

We still know - not "think", not "believe", not "make the preliminary conclusion that", know - that flying teapots happen to fly around saturn, and there is no flying teapot been shown that is impossible to fly around saturn. Bowing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 07:52 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Quote:On the side of evolution, we have literally millions of confirmed cases.

micro evolution, yes.

macro evolution, not even one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 08:22 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2015 08:26 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 07:52 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:On the side of evolution, we have literally millions of confirmed cases.

micro evolution, yes.

macro evolution, not even one.

Given that microevolution has been observed, why do you think that macroevolution is unlikely?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 08:32 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 07:50 PM)Godexists Wrote:  We still know - not "think", not "believe", not "make the preliminary conclusion that", know - that flying teapots happen to fly around saturn, and there is no flying teapot been shown that is impossible to fly around saturn.

This is completely nonsensical.

(13-09-2015 07:52 PM)Godexists Wrote:  micro evolution, yes.

macro evolution, not even one.

There is literally no difference between "micro-evolution" and evolution as understood by the scientific community, save that creationists assert - without any supporting evidence - that there are ill-defined, arbitrary, largely incoherent limits on what micro-evolution can do.

That aside, yes, there are millions of cases of what you would classify as "macro-evolution" documented as well. Anatosuchus is just one of the more famous examples.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
13-09-2015, 08:35 PM (This post was last modified: 13-09-2015 09:51 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 07:52 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:On the side of evolution, we have literally millions of confirmed cases.

micro evolution, yes.

macro evolution, not even one.

Exactly right, but you have no clue how evolution works. There is ONLY "micro" evolution. Small incremental changes.
You are a fool, GE. It's a false and ignorant dichotomy.

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
13-09-2015, 08:52 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 11:20 AM)Godexists Wrote:  This is what actual scientists comment about my op.

Dale Dickinson: Loved this post when I read it. I have a PhD in genetics and molecular biology and did two postdocs on cell signaling. The more I got into complex molecular and signaling cascades the more I came to believe that evolution was an absolute farce. Almost any change in DNA sequence (assuming at a locus that effects functional RNA production in some fashion) has a deleterious impact. While a positive impacts do come along, they are very, very rare, and given simple probability theory, could not account for irreducibly complex structures such as the spliceosome or signaling pathways with multiple levels of control and cross-talk.

We're going to need a source for this. Otherwise, it's hearsay. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 08:56 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
My cellular service is irreducibly complex. I just want to call a local number, but my cellular carrier wants me to dial the area code all of a sudden. I used to be able to just dial the last 7 digits. And that contract that comes with cell service--one should not require a law degree in order to enter into an agreement for cell service. Now that, my friends, is an irreducible complexity I could do without.

Ohh...this is a creationist thread? Well, might as well post nonsense in response to nonsense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like BryanS's post
13-09-2015, 09:42 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 08:56 PM)BryanS Wrote:  My cellular service is irreducibly complex. I just want to call a local number, but my cellular carrier wants me to dial the area code all of a sudden. I used to be able to just dial the last 7 digits. And that contract that comes with cell service--one should not require a law degree in order to enter into an agreement for cell service. Now that, my friends, is an irreducible complexity I could do without.

Ohh...this is a creationist thread? Well, might as well post nonsense in response to nonsense.

I have a feeling GE is stymied by voicemail. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 10:05 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 08:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 07:52 PM)Godexists Wrote:  micro evolution, yes.

macro evolution, not even one.

Given that microevolution has been observed, why do you think that macroevolution is unlikely?

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ution#1982

Micro evolution and speciation is a fact. Macro change from one kind to the other in long periods of time, the change of body plans over a long period of time, is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Show me some examples of observed facts; please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) , like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, wings, eyes, lungs, gills, sexual gender, transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, the arise of photosynthesis and nitrogenase in cyanobacteria; something that we merely don't have to just put blind faith in?

Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218:

Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note:

Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved."

John Lennox : There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur, or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none is supported by pertinent experiments or calculations… despite comparing sequences and mathematical modelling, molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.

James Shapiro, a biochemist at the University of Chicago, also admits that there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system; only a variety of wishful speculations. Even the highly critical review of Behe by Cavalier-Smith concedes Behe’s point that no detailed biochemical models exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: