Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 02:14 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If we don't have any evidence for a thing, why would we pick any answer at all? If you don't know, isn't the only honest answer "we don't know"?

Its dishonest to claim ignorance, when a wealth of information is available to make up ones mind.


What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous successive, slight modifications?” Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the [core] parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.


But today, there are many such cases observed in nature.

High information content machine-like irreducibly complex and interdependent structures, of which photosynthesis, the eye, the human body, nitrogenase, the ribosome, the cell, rubisco, photosystem II, the oxygen evolving complex etc. are prime examples, are commonly found in nature.
Since Evolution is unable to provide a advantage of adaptation in each evolutionary step, and is unable to select it, 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.

For certain phenomena -- especially functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [[FSCO/I] -- the only empirically observed adequate causes are intelligent ones.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 02:52 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Its dishonest to claim ignorance, when a wealth of information is available to make up ones mind.

What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous successive, slight modifications?” Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex.

And by the looks of things, you think that a false dichotomy ("it either evolved or is irreducibly complex!") is a "wealth of information," do you?

I don't. I'm sorry if it seems dishonest to factor in nuance to you, but I'm not nearly so brash as to automatically exclude even the possibility of other options, nor am I willing to commit the huge argument from ignorance of asserting that because I can't see how a specific thing could have evolved right at this moment, therefore it's irreducibly complex, either.

If you think repeating a pair of logical fallacies constitutes real information worthy of advancing a position on, then it may be too late for you.

Quote:By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the [core] parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

... At its current function, which isn't the only function that such a system might have, or have had. It's not like this is new information, this is exactly the argument that caused irreducible complexity to lose in court, when the so called irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum was proven to be reducibly complex, so long as you don't baselessly limit the system to only its current function.

Are you asserting that an evolving system could not grow into, or out of, a given function? What would you base that on? You are aware, of course, that we see that all the time, in vestigial organs, just to name one example?

That's all we really need, you know: you can't rely on the fact that the current function of a system would be rendered impossible with the removal of its component parts in a world where we know for a fact that new functions are added and removed in conjunction with evolving components. Even if your dichotomy was legitimate, which it isn't, then you could not base your acceptance of one prong of it on the seeming impossibility of the other, because it's easily possible, and I would argue probable, given your ignorance of basic science, that there are other factors earlier in the organism's evolutionary tree that resolves the issue. That one factor is not sufficient to accept intelligent design, given the nuances of evolution.

Quote:Since Evolution is unable to provide a advantage of adaptation in each evolutionary step, and is unable to select it, 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.

Okay, look: if you're not even going to understand the thing you're disagreeing with, we're done here. Evolution does not only select for advantageous adaptations, it also selects for any adaptation that isn't outright fatal to the organism, especially in cases where an organism has an advantageous adaptation that outweighs the neutral or negative other adaptations it has. Or did you think that organisms could only have one adaptation at a time? Did you perhaps think that humans have no persistent negative adaptations that were nevertheless selected due to their proximity to other, more advantageous adaptations?

Quote:Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.

How did you determine that the information was "specified"?

Quote:Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.

If you really want to go down that route, then: Premise Three: Intelligent causes have not been demonstrated to have the power to produce life from non-life, therefore intelligent design is falsified.

Quote:Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.

... Assuming you're willing to argue from ignorance to get there, in the absence of any positive evidence. Funny how you keep skipping that part: you cannot reach a positive argument from zero, by only subtracting. "Evolution could not do this," is not justification for intelligent design, and it's all you have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Esquilax's post
19-08-2015, 02:54 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 03:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 02:29 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:49 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  And all the while still ignoring the very strong possibility that the first cell was likely to be metabolism-first rather than RNA-first.

This is because it makes GE's entire argument based on the difficulty of explaining how an RNA-first cell came into being completely and utterly irrelevant if shown to be true.

Only someone that does not know the implications could possibly make such a uninformed assertion.

The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
Leslie E Orgel†

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...mal-genome

Although metabolism-first avoids the infeasibility of forming functional RNA by chance, "replication of compositional information is so inaccurate that fitter compositional genomes cannot be maintained by selection and, therefore, the system lacks evolvability (i.e., it cannot substantially depart from the asymptotic steady-state solution already built-in in the dynamical equations). We conclude that this fundamental limitation of ensemble replicators cautions against metabolism-first theories of the origin of life" [44]. Concerning the chemical cycles required, "These are chemically very difficult reactions ... One needs, therefore, to postulate highly specific catalysts for these reactions. It is likely that such catalysts could be constructed by a skilled synthetic chemist, but questionable that they could be found among naturally occurring minerals or prebiotic organic molecules. The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to 'life-like' complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most non-enzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own"

1. First of all, we have demonstrated most of his dishonest quotes are out of context, so cannot be trusted in any way. He's a fucking liar, and has shown it over and over here.
2. IF they are in context, they commit the fallacy of "argumentum ad vericundiam", as he is attempting to use their authority to argue for a position that is outside the mainstream opinions of those in the field, thus are not considered authorities in their field.

He basically doesn't know how science works.




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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-08-2015, 03:06 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 02:29 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own"

This is something that you should pay attention to, since it outright destroys all of your arguments.

(19-08-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:14 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  If we don't have any evidence for a thing, why would we pick any answer at all? If you don't know, isn't the only honest answer "we don't know"?

Its dishonest to claim ignorance, when a wealth of information is available to make up ones mind.

That wasn't the question. Esquilax is, quite correctly, pointing out why the argument from personal ignorance is a fallacy. You are the one committing the fallacy.

Even if you could conclusively refute the theory of evolution, you would not be one step closer towards proving a creator.

(19-08-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous successive, slight modifications?” Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex.

Begging the question again.

You must establish that irreducible complexity exists before you can use it as evidence. You have thus far failed spectacularly in every attempt to do so.

(19-08-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the [core] parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

That is not what "irreducibly complex" means.

(19-08-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  High information content machine-like irreducibly complex and interdependent structures, of which photosynthesis, the eye, the human body, nitrogenase, the ribosome, the cell, rubisco, photosystem II, the oxygen evolving complex etc. are prime examples, are commonly found in nature.

I have personally pointed out to you, repeatedly, that we know how the eye, along with many of your other supposedly irreducible systems, evolved.

(19-08-2015 02:32 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.

False. The entire field of information theory refutes this fact.

This has been pointed out to you before.

"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
[+] 6 users Like Unbeliever's post
19-08-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 03:06 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You must establish that irreducible complexity exists before you can use it as evidence.

Irreducible complexity is not the evidence. Its the inference.

I infer irreducible complexity based on the scientific evidence .

Here a little collection of ic systems i described so far:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/...ex-systems
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 07:40 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 07:27 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Irreducible complexity is not the evidence. Its the inference.

I infer irreducible complexity based on the scientific evidence .

It's not even an inference, it's an argument from ignorance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Esquilax's post
19-08-2015, 08:20 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 07:27 PM)Godexists Wrote:  Irreducible complexity is not the evidence. Its the inference.

I infer irreducible complexity based on the scientific evidence .

No, you don't. You assert irreducible complexity based on your lack of understanding of the topics being discussed, along with your pre-existing bias towards any answer that reaffirms your religious beliefs.

You have never produced so much as a single piece of evidence for irreducible complexity. Half of the systems you list in your link have been shown to be reducible on these very forums. I know, because I was the one who showed you that. Quite a few can be shown to be reducible by a quick Google search; even assuming that there are any left, and that research has not yet turned up any clues as to how they reduce, you still haven't produced any evidence in favor of irreducible complexity. All you've done is committed the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

Again.

"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
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
19-08-2015, 09:55 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
So if I'm following this "inference" concept of GE's, ID/IC works like this:

Systems we don't yet know how to describe in their multi-path route to evolving = Irreducibly Complex.
They say: "Proof that these systems could never evolve by natural means."

Systems we used to hear were Irreducibly Complex but turned out to be explainable later = NOT Irreducibly Complex.
They say: "Oh, those never were. Um, we didn't really mean it when we said they were proof that they could not happen by natural means!"

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 10:01 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
(19-08-2015 09:55 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Systems we used to hear were Irreducibly Complex but turned out to be explainable later = NOT Irreducibly Complex.
They say: "Oh, those never were. Um, we didn't really mean it when we said they were proof that they could not happen by natural means!"

Well, no. He continues to claim that they are irreducible anyway, despite having the evidence regarding their evolution pointed out to him previously. The eye and cardiovascular system are two examples of things he keeps bringing up despite, again, me personally showing him that we know how they evolved.

"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
19-08-2015, 10:13 PM
RE: Rubisco is the most important enyzme on the planet.
Unbeliever - I'm just getting over a (n intelligently-designed) migraine... I can't afford to be facepalming as much as your response requires. But you're right. *sigh*

Facepalm

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: