All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2015, 10:08 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 08:32 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is literally no difference between "micro-evolution" and evolution as understood by the scientific community,

you dont say, LOL........ Laugh out load Drinking Beverage

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...etics#3674

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."

pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 10:19 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
GE still posting walls of text and thence running. *Sigh*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2015, 10:23 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 10:08 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Stephen C Meyer

You will note that Stephen Meyer is not a biologist. He is, in fact, rather an idiot, with no idea of what the modern theory of evolution actually entails.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
13-09-2015, 10:45 PM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 10:08 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 08:32 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is literally no difference between "micro-evolution" and evolution as understood by the scientific community,

you dont say, LOL........ Laugh out load Drinking Beverage

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...etics#3674

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."

pg. 204

Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development.

Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." 1

Neo-Darwinism lacks an explanation for the origin of organismal form precisely because it cannot explain the origin of epigenetic information.

110 % False. Proof that this idiotic fool has no clue what he's talking about. Epigenetics determines what "switches" on and off genes. There is no missing explanation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
14-09-2015, 01:45 AM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2015 01:48 AM by Mathilda.)
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.

We've discussed this and again you just ignored the answers. Proof that you are trolling and not interested in discussing anything but just want to push your beliefs This is why you should be banned. But to repeat ourselves:

No biologist uses the words macro evolution. They all recognise that evolution takes small changes and over many generations these cumulate into large changes. We have asked you before but you do not even attempt to answer it:

What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
14-09-2015, 01:47 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(13-09-2015 10:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(13-09-2015 08:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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 ihttp://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-The-Transport-of-Proteins-into-Mitochondria-is-a-irreducible-complex-system?pid=834141#pid834141nfluences 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.


You're repeating yourself. Let me repeat myself in response:

(17-08-2015 06:14 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Utter bollocks contrary to the entire scientific literature on the matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:06 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(14-09-2015 01:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  No biologist uses the words macro evolution.

No kdding. REally ?? Laugh out load

only at the proceedings of national academy of sciences, if you google, there are 57 thousand results...LOL

https://www.google.com.br/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=...+evolution

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/238.abstract

Family level phylogenies reveal modes of macroevolution in RNA viruses
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:09 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
(14-09-2015 01:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?

for example, this :

http://www.icr.org/article/mutation-fixa...evolution/

and, from my last article :

This is one more great example of a amazingly complex molecular machine, that will operate and exercise its precise orchestrated function properly ONLY with ALL components fully developed and formed and able to interact in a highly complex, ordered , precise manner. Both, the software, and the hardware, must be in place fully developed, or the mechanism will not work. No intermediate stage will do the job. And neither would snRNPs (U1, U2, U4, U5, and U6) have any function if not fully developed. And even if they were there, without the branch-point-binding protein (BBP) in place, nothing done, either, since the correct splice site could not be recognized. Had the introns and exons not have to emerge simultaneously with the Spliceosome ? No wonder, does the paper : " Origin and evolution of spliceosomal introns " admit: Evolution of exon-intron structure of eukaryotic genes has been a matter of long-standing, intensive debate. 1 and it concludes that : The elucidation of the general scenario of evolution of eukaryote gene architecture by no account implies that the main problems in the study of intron evolution and function have been solved. Quite the contrary, fundamental questions remains wide open. If the first evolutionary step would have been the arise of self-splicing Group II introns, then the question would follow : Why would evolution not have stopped there, since that method works just fine ?


There is no credible road map, how introns and exons, and the splice function could have emerged gradually. What good would the spliceosome be good for, if the essential sequence elements to recognise where to slice would not be in place ? What would happen, if the pre mRNA with exons and introns were in place, but no spliceosome ready in place to do the post transcriptional modification, and neither the splicing code, which directs the way where to splice ? In the article : ‘JUNK’ DNA HIDES ASSEMBLY INSTRUCTIONS, the author, Wang, observes that splicing "is a tightly regulated process, and a great number of diseases are caused by the 'misregulation' of splicing in which the gene was not cut and pasted correctly." Missplicing in the cell can have dire consequences as the desired product is not produced, and often the wrong products can be toxic for the cell. For this reason, it has been proposed that ATPases are important for ‘proofreading’ mechanisms that promote fidelity in splice site selection.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Still waiting for your answer GE

(14-09-2015 01:45 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What mechanism is in place to stop small changes from accumulating over many generations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2015, 06:23 AM
RE: All cellular functions are  irreducibly complex
Come on, Angelo, get the fuck out of here. Anybody on this board who gives a fuck has researched the qualifications of Intelligent Design and thus found them non-existent. You're all over the place with your cherry picked so called "support." Rana doesn't even support ID, Meyer is a flake, and I'm wondering what Dale Dickinson would say to your shameless use of his credentials to promote this scattershot nonsense. As for drive-bys, they're just gonna snicker at the insults and keep on keeping on.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: