The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2015, 06:14 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 04:30 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Yet you completely ignore the point that there is no difference between macro and micro evolution.

Facepalm

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.

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
17-08-2015, 06:29 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 04:30 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Yet you completely ignore the point that there is no difference between macro and micro evolution.

Facepalm

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."


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.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Facepalm

You are making the same stupid mistake (or telling the same transparent lie) that creationists/IDers all seem to make: confusing current state with past state.

Lobsters don't evolve into sharks don't evolve into dolphins don't ...

Something that wasn't a lobster or a shark or a dolphin gave rise to progeny that became these different things.

You are a delusional fool.

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
17-08-2015, 06:30 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:14 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 04:30 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  First of all, you do NOT know how macro evolution works.

The ones that make the assertion to know show only their ignorance on the matter.

NOBODY knows the mechanism of macro change.

Yes, many people do. It is change over time. You're welcome. 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
17-08-2015, 06:35 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  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.

What exactly is the mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating into large changes over time?

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
17-08-2015, 06:47 AM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 07:21 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:35 AM)unfogged Wrote:  What exactly is the mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating into large changes over time?

This. This. This.

Godexists won't be able to answer this. The most he'll be able to say is "nobody knows" but at the same time won't be able to provide any evidence that small changes do not accumulate to large changes over time.

Yet there is plenty of evidence to show that small changes do accumulate to large changes over time. Fossil records, genetic algorithms, neurophysiology and analysis of DNA are several that immediately spring to mind.

Even on this very thread I remember seeing a link to how the eye evolved. This is clear evidence that Godexists is deliberately and dishonestly ignoring evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
17-08-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:35 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 06:10 AM)Godexists Wrote:  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.

What exactly is the mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating into large changes over time?

John 3:16 Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
17-08-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
Oh look.....OP is talking about 'Kinds' now.

What's to bet they can't give a useful definition of exactly what a 'Kind' is.....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
17-08-2015, 07:11 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:56 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Oh look.....OP is talking about 'Kinds' now.

What's to bet they can't give a useful definition of exactly what a 'Kind' is.....

Laugh out load OP is claiming that "macro" evolution can't happen and talking about "kinds" in the same breath? Eish.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
All to preserve some absurd belief in the truth of a fairytale about an old man and a menagerie on a boat Rolleyes If you wanna know why aliens haven't come to Earth looking for intelligent life, look no further.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
17-08-2015, 08:14 AM
RE: The Transport of Proteins into Mitochondria is a irreducible complex system
(17-08-2015 06:14 AM)Godexists Wrote:  EVEN PROPONENTS OF EVOLUTION ADMIT TO NOT KNOWING HOW EVOLUTION SUPPOSEDLY WORKS:

“Although the vast majority of research in evolutionary biology is focused on adaption, a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., “Scaling expectations for the time to establishment of complex adaptations”, September 7, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1010836107.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/0...7.abstract
“Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds.”
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, Educational Benchmarks, (F) Evolution of Life
http://www.project2061.org/publications/.../ch5.htm#F
“Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today.”
Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History’s website, “Foundational Concepts: Evolution” page
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/geotime/mai...life3.html
“But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that’s not an easy job.”
University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_50
“Much of the recent experimental work on natural selection has focused on three goals: determining how common it is, identifying the precise genetic changes that give rise to the adaptations produced by natural selection, and assessing just how big a role natural selection plays in a key problem of evolutionary biology—the origin of new species.”
Scientific American Magazine, “The Evolution of Evolution: Testing Natural Selection with Genetics”, December 18, 2008.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=test...print=true

You Dogdamned dishonest quote-miners! I told you, jerk-off, we have Google, and we will check.

Back in context:

Quote-mine #1:
"Before natural selection is proposed as a mechanism for evolution, students must recognize the diversity and apparent relatedness of species. Students take years to acquire sufficient knowledge of living organisms and the fossil record. Natural selection should be offered as an explanation for familiar phenomena and then revisited as new phenomena are explored. To appreciate how natural selection can account for evolution, students have to understand the important distinction between the selection of an individual with a certain trait and the changing proportions of that trait in populations. Their being able to grasp this distinction requires some understanding of the mathematics of proportions and opportunities for them to reflect on the individual-versus-population distinction in other contexts. Controversy is an important aspect of the scientific process. Students should realize that although virtually all scientists accept the general concept of evolution of species, scientists do have different opinions on how fast and by what mechanisms evolution proceeds. A separate issue altogether is how life itself began, a detailed mechanism for which has not yet emerged."
(This is, by the way, a teaching guide, and not a scientific article.)

Quote-mine #2:
"Darwin’s original theory has been greatly modified over time. He did not, for example, have any knowledge of genetics as we currently understand it. Growth in our understanding of the cell and of the genetic machinery that controls cells and organisms has in turn greatly refined our understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is universally accepted among scientists as the best explanation for the relationships we observe between all living and fossil life forms. Scientists are still uncovering the specifics of how, when, and why evolution produced the life we see on Earth today. These discussions concern the mechanisms and timing of evolution, not whether descent with modification has occurred."

Quote-mine #3:
"All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists' work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?

All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
[*]Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
[*] Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
[*] How does evolution produce new and complex features?
[*] Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?"

Quote-mine #4:
"The status of natural selection is now secure, reflecting decades of detailed empirical work. But the study of natural selection is by no means complete. Rather-partly because new experimental techniques have been developed and partly because the genetic mechanisms underlying natural selection are now the subject of meticulous empirical analysis-the study of natural selection is a more active area of biology than it was even two decades ago. Much of the recent experimental work on natural selection has focused on three goals: determining how common it is, identifying the precise genetic changes that give rise to the adaptations produced by natural selection, and assessing just how big a role natural selection plays in a key problem of evolutionary biology-the origin of new species... most biologists now agree that natural selection is the key evolutionary force that drives not only evolutionary change within species but also the origin of new species. Although some laypeople continue to question the cogency or adequacy of natural selection, its status among evolutionary biologists in the past few decades has, perhaps ironically, only grown more secure."

"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
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: