RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3654
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,21:58   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,21:34)
[quote=Occam's Aftershave,Nov. 15 2015,21:29][/quote]
Quote
The transitional fossils sequences exist


1. Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.
Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms.

2. The very fossil evidence that you claim as an evidence in support of evolution in fact defies lending a support. palentologists say that not a single fossil supports the evolution of a single species. Only three prominent sequences. (!) whale (2) horse (3) elephant are said to have been verified through fossils. But each of these sequences have been seriously questioned in literature. The fossils DO NOT SHOW a nearly continous gradation of change over long span of years. but fully developed organisms appear in the fossils entirely discrete and unique with minimal links. No explanations to the mechanism behind the morphological changes that are needed to convert a land trotting mammal to a LIVING SUBMARINE-LIKE WHALE. Questions are galore that the theory of evolution cannot answer or even explain with suiffcient evidence. 

You really don't understand how this works do you?

I once had an ID proponent try to argue that moles and certain insect could be related because the looked similar. They both have big claws on the front used for digging. Yes, let's completely ignore the VAST array of evidence that doesn't support relatedness (reproduction method, growth method, non-digging anatomy, biochemical structures, etc. etc. etc.). Let's just focus on that one thing.

Dude, the people who do this work aren't looking at a dinosaur and a bird and saying "They look similar so they must be related". There is a significant amount of work that goes into a claim like that... with significant amounts of evidence. But don't let that change your mind. I'd hate for you to actually think about evidence.

I will continue to note that you have not responded in a positive way to any of the questions I've asked.

If you need a list, I will provide it.

But again, how can you prove you are human if you don't know any of your ancestors 60 generations ago? Without that, you can't know that you aren't the result of aliens, monkeys, neanderthals, or whatever.

Yes, it's a stupid argument... and you are using the exact same argument.

About whales. Answer this question... What defines a cetacean?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,22:09   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2015,21:46)

Quote
Wrong. Abiogenesis is an extremely well studied subject. One in which every single molecule and system needed for life has been observed to occur without an intelligent agent given the right conditions.


haha. Thats precious...


Quote
Here's a hint. Even if you were to prove evolution 100% totally wrong, right now... it still doesn't make ID true.


A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011....11.html

Quote

BTW: Are you also GIBHOR, banned from the international skeptics forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him and that's not right either.

Are you also GodExists, banned from the thethinkingatheist forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him too.  


Yes, i am both.

Quote

That's true. But that has nothing to do with before there was life on Earth does it? We know that there a period with no life. And we know there was a period with life. We know that a large variety of chemical reactions results in concentrations of chemicals that can self-assemble into complex long chain structures, that even have the ability to self-reproduce.


No, we do not know that.

No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2024-t....fe#3415

OOL theorist Leslie Orgel notes that

an "RNA World" could only form the basis for life, "if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis." The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence, and much materialist philosophy: "The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear … investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.

The best claimed evidence of an "RNA World" includes the fact that there are RNA enzymes and genomes, and that cells use RNA to convert the DNA code into proteins. However, RNA plays only a supporting role in the cell, and there is no known biochemical system completely composed of RNA.

RNA experts have created a variety of RNA molecules which can perform biochemical functions through what is commonly termed "test tube evolution." However, "test tube evolution" is just a description for what is in reality nothing more than chemical engineering in the laboratory employing Darwinian principles; that does not imply that there is some known pathway through which these molecules could arise naturally.

In order a molecule to be a self replicator , it has to be a homopolymer, of which the backbone must have the same repetitive units; they must be identical. On the prebiotic world, the generation of a homopolymer was however impossible.

Steven A. Benner, Ph.D. Chemistry, Harvard, prominent origin-of-life researcher and creator of the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, was posted on Huffington Post on December 6, 2013.  In it he said,

"We have failed in any continuous way to provide a recipe that gets from the simple molecules that we know were present on early Earth to RNA."

That lead Leslie Orgel to say :

It would take a miracle if a strand of RNA ever appeared on the primitive Earth.

(Dover, 1999, p. 218).

I would have thought it relevant to point out for biologists in general that not one self-replicating RNA has emerged to date from quadrillions (1024) of artificially synthesized, random RNA sequences

How  could the first living cells with DNA-based molecular biology have originated by spontaneous chemical processes on the prebiotic Earth? Primordial DNA synthesis would have required the presence of specific enzymes, but how could these enzymes be synthesized without the genetic information in DNA and without RNA for translating that information into the amino acid sequence of the protein enzymes? In other words, proteins are required for DNA synthesis and DNA is required for protein synthesis.

This classic "chicken-and-egg" problem made it immensely difficult to conceive of any plausible prebiotic chemical pathway to the molecular biological system. Certainly no such chemical pathway had been demonstrated


Quote

What's your explanation and what is the evidence for it.

Just because something is complex doesn't mean it needs a designer. That's an anthropomorphic assumption on your part and it's a false assumption that you are NOT THINKING CRITICALLY about.


For instance, thats not how we formulate our arguments.

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.  
 
Quote

You an reject naturalism all you want. Hypocrite.


you can namecall me as much as you want. That does not make your position become more true. Provide better explanations for origins, and we talk.

Quote

But if you do, then you should be living in a cave, eating carrion and rotten fruit. But you aren't. You're enjoying the results of all that naturalistic thinking all the while complaining about it.


I dont think its the moment to elucidate the consequences of your world view on humanity.

Quote

Great. Provide the evidence that god exists and I will accept him. But it'll take a lot of evidence.


What evidence do you expect ?


Quote

Here's the deal. No one here cares about your god. And, if you use god as a basis for your science, then it can never be taught in a school. Thanks for that own goal, BTW/


Well, i believe God certainly cares about you and has shown his love to you, too. And he has proven it.... But it might come a time, when he will not care about you either, anymore, since you rejected him. But then it will be too late.  

Quote

But not ALL the time and that's where the entire argument fails.


1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.

Provide one, just ONE example of coded information arising by natural mechanisms, without intelligence involved, and you top my proof. Just one.

Code, by definition, implies intelligence and the genetic code is real code, mathematically identical to that of language, computer codes etc. all of which can only arise by intelligent convention of symbologies. The genome contains meta information and there is now evidence of meta-programming as well. Meta info is information on information and we now know the genome contains such structures. But meta information cannot arise without knowledge of the original information.Meta programming is even more solid evidence of intelligence at work.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,22:13   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2015,21:47)

Quote
"Cool. Now explain to me how biomass can remain preserved for 1bio years, LOL........"

If you think minerilization doesn't occur, you really need to learn some stuff before even attempting this.


Indeed. In these cases, it did not occur.

Soft tissue cannot remain non-permineralized for  millions of years. That adds to the C14 carbon dating evidence. The best explanation is in my view that the fossils are younger than thought for a long time.

Troy Lawrence Before the global flood, the canopy of water that once surrounded the atmosphere, shielded the atmosphere from UV and other high energy cosmic rays. Thus, the conversion of N2 to C14 was blocked, therefore, the atmosohere had trace amounts of C14 before the flood. And for this reason, C14 dating makes a dead creature that died with trace C14 appear much older than reality.

Organic preservation of fossil musculature with ultracellular detail

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....2842642

SEM images of organically preserved muscle fibres in fossils from Grube Messel.
The muscle is preserved organically, in three dimensions, and with the highest fidelity of morphological preservation yet documented from the fossil record.

All specimens are from the collections of the Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt. Samples were picked from fossils under a binocular microscope, mounted on SEM stubs, gold-coated and examined with a Hitachi S-3500N variable pressure microscope equipped with an EDAX Genesis energy dispersive spectrometer.

Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins

Low concentrations of the structural protein collagen have recently been reported in dinosaur fossils based primarily on mass spectrometric analyses of whole bone extracts. However, direct spectroscopic characterization of isolated fibrous bone tissues, a crucial test of hypotheses of biomolecular preservation over deep time, has not been performed. Here, we demonstrate that endogenous proteinaceous molecules are retained in a humerus from a Late Cretaceous mosasaur (an extinct giant marine lizard).

http://journals.plos.org/plosone....0019445

MICROSTRUCTURE AND BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF THE ORGANICALLY PRESERVED EDIACARAN METAZOAN SABELLIDITES

Journal of Paleontology, 88(2), 2014, p. 224–239
MAŁGORZATA MOCZYDŁOWSKA,1 FRANCES WESTALL,2 AND FRE´ DE´RIC FOUCHER2

http://www.monash.edu/.......4-e.pdf

The remains of marine worms ‘dated’ at 550 million years old found in Russia have been examined by a team of researchers led by Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska (pronounced approx. “mou-go-ZHAH-ta mo-chid-WOF-ska”) of Uppsala University, Sweden.3

The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation—Moczydłowska et al., Journal of Paleontology, 2014
They found that the tube casings of the seabed worm Sabellidites cambriensis were still soft and flexible. After comprehensive laboratory analysis, the researchers assessed the seabed worm’s remains to be still composed of the original organic compounds. They ruled out the possibility of modern contaminants and of preservation by various means of mineralization. In the researchers’ own words (from their Journal of Paleontology paper):

“The Sabellidites organic body is preserved without permineralization. Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary, preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics.”3

And:

“The tube of S. cambriensis was flexible, as shown by its soft deformation and preservation, and composed of fibers perfect in habit and parallel arranged in sheets, and then sheets in layers.”

Within days they were covered by sediment, perhaps stirred up by a storm—Professor Małgorzata Moczydłowska

Accompanying electron microscope photographs showed these ‘perfect in habit’ fibres to be less than half a thousandth of a millimetre wide. Yet these delicate fibres are still soft after supposedly half a billion years!?

The researchers were even able to chemically tease the fibres apart for further examination, and concluded that the structure of the fossil worm tube casing is “consistent with the ß chitin tubes of siboglinid animals”.3 In other words, the same as seabed dwelling worms such as beard worms today (see photo above). Why has there been no evolution in all that (supposed) time?

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,22:17   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,21:48)

Quote

Of course we know of the evolutionary mechanisms and have even mapped most of the major genetic changes.  Where are you getting this nonsense?


haha. the crowd here makes some funny assertions.

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....bstract
“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/publica....5.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....e3.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/evolibr....0
“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....nt=true

http://www.discovery.org/a....443

microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago declared in National Review that "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." (Shapiro 1996)
In Nature University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne stated,
"There is no doubt that the pathways described by Behe are dauntingly complex, and their evolution will be hard to unravel. . . . We may forever be unable to envisage the first proto-pathways." (Coyne 1996)

In a particularly scathing review in Trends in Ecology and Evolution Tom Cavalier-Smith, an evolutionary biologist at the University of British Columbia, nonetheless wrote, "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explanation of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity.

Evolutionary biologist Andrew Pomiankowski agreed in New Scientist, "Pick up any biochemistry textbook, and you will find perhaps two or three references to evolution. Turn to one of these and you will be lucky to find anything better than 'evolution selects the fittest molecules for their biological function.'" (Pomiankowski 1996)

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,22:19   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,21:52)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,21:47)
Feel free to substantiate your assertion.

That you can't manage a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature?

That's easy enough.  I'll just wait here while you sputter and bluster and C&P more Creationist crap without ever once making a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature.   You'll demonstrate for me.  :)

Quote

That you can't manage a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature?

That's easy enough.  I'll just wait here while you sputter and bluster and C&P more Creationist crap without ever once making a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature.   You'll demonstrate for me.  :)


ahh. So a baseless assertion after all. Thought so.... ???

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,22:22   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,22:09)

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.


Only in that it's a physical process that maps the inputs to the outputs.  It doesn't use arbitrary symbols to abstractly represent other values like communication codes do.  There is more than one definition of "code".

Quote
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.


False.  We know many natural processes that encode information with no need of external intelligence.  

Quote
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.


Since 2 is false so is your conclusion.

Quote
Provide one, just ONE example of coded information arising by natural mechanisms, without intelligence involved, and you top my proof. Just one.


I'll give you two.  Tree ring widths encode data about the rainfall conditions in the year of their formation.  The spectral lines in starlight encode data on the chemical composition of the star that produced them.

Creationist FAIL again.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2015,22:25   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,22:19)
ahh. So a baseless assertion after all. Thought so

LOL!  You're demonstrating my point with every blithering idiotic Creationist C&Ped word you post.  There's not an original thought in sight.  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Quack



Posts: 1951
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,02:41   

Patterns in nature.

Are not atoms, every single one of them, in addition to being what they are, also a 'code'?

A configuration of nuclear particles, i.e. Neutrons and Protons, and a number of Electrons corresponding to the configuration of the nucleus? That is the code, the code that allow us to determine their properties. But they are not Newtonian balls of matter.

If my understanding is correct, atoms are quantum physical objects. That they "obey the laws of QM" may be an exaggeration, There ain't no such thing as Quantum Law, is there?

But when atoms assemble, create molecules, the bigger they grow, the less they appear as QM objects, and above a certain (blurrred?) level, molecules attain full membership in the Newtonian world?

The world would be a better world without the ID camp and their obsession with codes.

I am only speculating but I am not finished studying yet.

I want to know everything but realize there's a limit to what I can master. After so many years, I still am not comfortable with relativity

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,05:31   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,22:22)

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,22:09)

1. The pattern in DNA is a code.


Only in that it's a physical process that maps the inputs to the outputs.  It doesn't use arbitrary symbols to abstractly represent other values like communication codes do.  There is more than one definition of "code".[/quote]

Thats PRECISELY what the DNA code does. It represents YOU for example.

Quote

 Tree ring widths encode data about the rainfall conditions in the year of their formation.  The spectral lines in starlight encode data on the chemical composition of the star that produced them.

Creationist FAIL again.


Thats correct. But they do not represent something else, like the DNA code does. Thats the salient thing about it. The DNA provides a codified representation as a book, a morse code, or a compunter code does.

Feel free to try again.

Fail AGAIN ? AGAIN ?? lol...... . i don

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,05:34   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,22:25)

Quote
 There's not an original thought in sight.  :D


Would you not have just superficially skipped over my answers, you would have discovered the contrary.....

  
Cubist



Posts: 476
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,06:08   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,20:58)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,20:23)
Ah, here it comes.  The demand for INFINITE DETAIL while providing exactly ZERO of his own.

Well, isnt that a prediction of the ToE, that these transitional fossils should be encountered ?

No. What ToE predicts is that "these transitional fossils" actually did exist at some time in the past. ToE is silent on the question of whether or not "these transitional fossils" should still exist in the present day; it neither mandates their present-day existence, nor forbids their present-day existence.

If you're genuinely interested in the question of what factors influence the survival of a once-living specimen over time, you should look into the scientific field of study called "taphonomy". If you are, instead, only interested in citing lack-of-surviving-fossils as a killer 'gotcha' argument against evolution… well, feel free to keep on treading the mendacious road you're already on.

Quote
Does the ToE also predict that we should find non-permineralized fossils, and collagen, and proteins preserved in fossils ?

No. Once again, you're attempting to fault evolution for its failure to provide answers to questions which are addressed by the scientific field called taphonomy.

Quote
We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems…

We "know from broad and repeated experience" that human agents "can and do produce information-rich systems", yes. To the best of my knowledge, we have no experience whatsoever of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than humans. Perhaps you'd care to cite some evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than humans?

  
Cubist



Posts: 476
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,06:19   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,22:09)
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.

By at least one definition of the word, sure.

Quote
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.

More specifically: All codes we know the origin of are designed by human beings. If you have any example of a code whose origin is known, and that origin is not a human being (or group thereof), please do cite that example.

Quote
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed…

More specifically: We have 100% inference that DNA is designed by human beings.

Quote
Provide one, just ONE example of coded information arising by natural mechanisms, without intelligence involved, and you top my proof.

Provide one, just ONE example of coded information arising from any source other than human beings.

  
Cubist



Posts: 476
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,06:26   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,22:13)
Troy Lawrence Before the global flood, the canopy of water that once surrounded the atmosphere, shielded the atmosphere from UV and other high energy cosmic rays.

Vapor canopy, eh? Interesting. YEC organization Answers in Genesis has rejected the 'vapor canopy' model; perhaps you might want to get in touch with AiG and let them know that the vapor canopy is, too, a viable candidate for the source of the Floodwaters.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,08:43   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,05:31)

Thats PRECISELY what the DNA code does. It represents YOU for example.

Only in the same way tree ring widths represent rainfall amounts and spectral absorption lines in starlight represent elements.  
Quote
Thats correct. But they do not represent something else, like the DNA code does. Thats the salient thing about it. The DNA provides a codified representation as a book, a morse code, or a compunter code does.

No, it does not.  The key here is abstraction.  Intelligently designed codes (i.e Morse) all use abstraction where arbitrary symbols (dots, dashes) represents some other quantity in order to pass a message.  There is zero abstraction in DNA --> protein.  It's an unguided, unintelligent chemical process.  There is no sender or receiver, no message passed using symbols.

Sorry, the "DNA is a code, therefore ID" argument has been dead for a decade.  Find some new stupidity to copypasta.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,08:50   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,23:13)
...
Troy Lawrence Before the global flood, the canopy of water that once surrounded the atmosphere, shielded the atmosphere from UV and other high energy cosmic rays. ...

This is physically impossible for a variety of reasons.
The most telling may be the energy impacts of such a 'canopy of water' falling to earth for 40 days and 40 nights, to such a depth that the mountains were covered.
That volume of water, falling over that time period, would release energy equivalent to multi-megaton nuclear explosions on every square meter of the planet every second over the duration of the flood.

It would be worth your while to calculate the amount of water it would take to shield the atmosphere from UV and high energy cosmic rays sufficiently to affect the N2 to C14 conversion.
Calculate the difference between that volume of water and the amount of water currently on earth.
Then calculate the energy effect of that volume of water falling over the span of the flood.

  
sparc



Posts: 1961
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,08:55   

Doesn't EN&V deserve its exclusive thread anymore?
I don't want to read Otangelo's BS when I am looking for DI's ID BS.
Thus, I suggest a separate zhread for Otangelo like those we have for Gary Gaulin and Edgar Postrado or, ideally, a common thread for the three of them to allow for some entertaining interactions.
You may move my post to the bathroom wall if it should not be appropriate.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Quack



Posts: 1951
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,10:04   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 16 2015,08:55)
Doesn't EN&V deserve its exclusive thread anymore?
I don't want to read Otangelo's BS when I am looking for DI's ID BS.
Thus, I suggest a separate zhread for Otangelo like those we have for Gary Gaulin and Edgar Postrado or, ideally, a common thread for the three of them to allow for some entertaining interactions.
You may move my post to the bathroom wall if it should not be appropriate.

A common thread? IMO a good idea, might produce some of the entertainment presently lacking from those threads.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,12:03   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 16 2015,06:08)

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 15 2015,20:23)

No. What ToE predicts is that "these  fossils" actually did exist at some time in the past. ToE is silent on the question of whether or not "these  fossils" should still exist in the present day; it neither mandates their present-day existence, nor forbids their present-day existence.


thats like putting the horse in front of the cart. So the ToE would be making absolute claims, and be  true, no matter if there is evidence to support its assertions,  or not....

Quote

If you're genuinely interested in the question of what factors influence the survival of a once-living specimen over time, you should look into the scientific field of study called "taphonomy". If you are, instead, only interested in citing lack-of-surviving-fossils as a killer 'gotcha' argument against evolution… well, feel free to keep on treading the mendacious road you're already on.


You might explain how taphonomy supports the idea that non permineralized fossils, and soft tissue, can remain preserved for millions if not hundreds of millions of years.....

Quote
We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems…
We "know from broad and repeated experience" that human agents "can and do produce information-rich systems", yes. To the best of my knowledge, we have no experience whatsoever of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than humans. Perhaps you'd care to cite some evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than humans?


Neither do we have experience that non - intelligence has EVER produced codified information..... We have imho plenty of evidence that spirits can exist without a body, which gives support to the inference that a non physical intelligent designer created the living beings on earth.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1284-n....dualism

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,12:17   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 16 2015,08:43)

Quote

Only in the same way tree ring widths represent rainfall amounts and spectral absorption lines in starlight represent elements.  


I can take the genetic code, and make exact copies through the instructions provided by it. Its like a blueprint. You can't do that with tree rings.

In human language, symbols are arbitrary. In DNA they are fixed by chemistry. This is a very big difference. By that criteria many other things are codes too: The spatial distribution of the sizes of pebbles below a rapids, the pattern and orientation of sand dunes, the layers inside a hailstone, and tree rings. All contain the transformation of one representation (time, for example) into another (tree rings). Tree rings also encode information about local climate in their varying widths. Mr. Marshall must give a formal definition of “code” rather than a series of examples that conceal significant differences.
The definition of code I have provided is sufficient and applies whether the code is arbitrary or not. Again, I define “Coded Information” as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism, which transmits a message representing an idea or plan.
If there are pebbles below a rapids, there are pebbles below a rapids. There is no coded information associated with them – unless you measure their size, in which case you have created information to describe the pebbles, based on your chosen symbols and units of measurement. Same with orientation of sand dunes, layers of hailstone. Those objects represent only themselves; there is no encoding and decoding mechanism within these material objects, such as there is in DNA. If someone says the layers of a hailstone are an encoding mechanism, I reply that there is no convention of symbols, nor is there a decoding mechanism.
The information in DNA is independent of the communication medium insofar as every strand of DNA in your body represents a complete plan for your body; even though the DNA strand itself is only a sequence of symbols made up of chemicals (A, G, C, T). We could store a CAD drawing of a hard drive on the same model of hard drive, but the medium and the message are two distinctly different things. Such symbolic relationships only exist within the realm of living things; they do not occur naturally.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,12:18   

i forgot to provide the link to the information above :

http://cosmicfingerprints.com/dna-ath....na-code

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,12:43   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:17)
...
I can take the genetic code, and make exact copies through the instructions provided by it. Its like a blueprint. You can't do that with tree rings.
...

Paying strict attention to meaning, no, you actually can't.
Giving you the wiggle room to claim that "well, under these and those conditions one can, in principle" yadda yadda yadda, gives us the same amount of room to  claim that the same holds for tree rings.

The genetic 'code' requires a vast complex of chemical 'machinery' to be transcribed.  It is part of a complex chemical system comprised of complex subsystems.  It is non-functional on its own.
Were it not, cloning would be trivial.  Transplantation of cellular nuclei would be trivial.
Genetic disease would be rare.  Transcription errors even rarer.

The claim is absurd on the face of it to all who understand anything about the actual factual nature of genes and cells.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:08   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,12:17)
I can take the genetic code, and make exact copies through the instructions provided by it. Its like a blueprint. You can't do that with tree rings.

Go ahead then.  Make a copy of a genome out of sticks and modeling clay, have it make a stick and modeling clay protein.

Put up or shut up.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:09   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 16 2015,12:43)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:17)
...
I can take the genetic code, and make exact copies through the instructions provided by it. Its like a blueprint. You can't do that with tree rings.
...

Paying strict attention to meaning, no, you actually can't.
Giving you the wiggle room to claim that "well, under these and those conditions one can, in principle" yadda yadda yadda, gives us the same amount of room to  claim that the same holds for tree rings.

The genetic 'code' requires a vast complex of chemical 'machinery' to be transcribed.  It is part of a complex chemical system comprised of complex subsystems.  It is non-functional on its own.
Were it not, cloning would be trivial.  Transplantation of cellular nuclei would be trivial.
Genetic disease would be rare.  Transcription errors even rarer.

The claim is absurd on the face of it to all who understand anything about the actual factual nature of genes and cells.

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:17)
...
I can take the genetic code, and make exact copies through the instructions provided by it. Its like a blueprint. You can't do that with tree rings.
...
Paying strict attention to meaning, no, you actually can't.


Its actually as much coded information, as a alphabet. I can even translate the information written through the alphabet, to the genetic code :

http://dulbrich.is2.byuh.edu/dna....dna


Quote


The genetic 'code' requires a vast complex of chemical 'machinery' to be transcribed.  It is part of a complex chemical system comprised of complex subsystems.  It is non-functional on its own.
Were it not, cloning would be trivial.  Transplantation of cellular nuclei would be trivial.
Genetic disease would be rare.  Transcription errors even rarer.

The claim is absurd on the face of it to all who understand anything about the actual factual nature of genes and cells.


What claim ? What good would the DNA double helix be for without the machinery to transcribe and translate it to make proteins ? So both are required. That constitutes a interdependent system. There is no reason for the DNA double helix to arise by its own. And even IF both were present, the DNA , and the transcription factors / RNA polymerase, you need also the Promoter region, and in eukaryotic cells TATA box, the sequence which provides the signal for initiation of transcription. If it were not at the right place, bye bye ....... How did it get there, and at the right place ? trial and error ?? LOL....

The cell is a gigantic interdependent and irreducible complex system.....

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:16   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:09)
Its actually as much coded information, as a alphabet. I can even translate the information written through the alphabet, to the genetic code :

http://dulbrich.is2.byuh.edu/dna............dna

(facepalm) You can take information written in the English alphabet and save it by spelling words with dog turds too.  That doesn't make dog turds be designed.

Where do the IDiots find these guys?   :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:22   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 16 2015,13:16)

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:09)
Its actually as much coded information, as a alphabet. I can even translate the information written through the alphabet, to the genetic code :

http://dulbrich.is2.byuh.edu/dna............dna
(facepalm) You can take information written in the English alphabet and save it by spelling words with dog turds too.  That doesn't make dog turds be designed.

Where do the IDiots find these guys?   :D


Of course. You can take whatever medium you wish to store information. The X of the question is not what material you use, but the special arrangement which constitutes coded information.
The 3 letter codons are genetic words, and constitute genetic information.

Where do the EvoTards ™ find these guys?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:27   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:22)
Of course. You can take whatever medium you wish to store information. The X of the question is not what material you use, but the special arrangement which constitutes coded information.
The 3 letter codons are genetic words, and constitute genetic information.

Then go ahead and make a genome out of sticks and clay and have it produce a clay protein.  Or use Lego. Or metal bits from an Erector Set.

You claim the codons are arbitrary chosen symbols so any material should work to pass the message, right?

Idiot.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:41   

I have my own thread ? Thats cool, haha.

:D

I just want EvoTard's ™ which have no education to stay away, people that cannot debate without resorting to name calling.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1774
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,13:45   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 16 2015,13:41)
I just want EvoTard's ™ which have no education to stay away, people that cannot debate without resorting to name calling.

Takes a real IDiot to whine about name calling in the same sentence he name calls.  :p

Talk about a poster boy for Dunning-Kruger.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2125
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,14:24   

ID creationism predicted that multiple sequential mutations could not happen. Falsified;

"Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin,    Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767

“It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential (21–23). The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer (24).

Multi-site mutations, functional mutations, TEN HOURS, why sequential mutations are functional, and more likely, and with medical applications.

ID Creationism insisted that the Cambrian phyla were "fully formed, and that all modern phyla were represented in the Cambrian. Falsified;

Precambrian Ediacaran/Cambrian;

Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
2013 "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity" New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

Valentine, James W.
2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

A. Yu. Zhuravlev, R. A. Wood, A. M. Penny
"Ediacaran skeletal metazoan interpreted as a lophophorate" Proc. R. Soc. B 2015 282 20151860; DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.1860. Published online 4 November 2015.

ID Creationism claimed embryology data that supported evolution was faked, and that embryology falsified evolution and supported ID Creationism. Falsified;

Ossa-Fuentes L, Mpdozis J and Vargas AO (2015). Bird embryos uncover homology and evolution of the dinosaur ankle. Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/natcomms9902

Diaz, R. E.,&Trainor, P. A. (2015). Hand/foot splitting and the ‘re-evolution’of mesopodial skeletal elements during the evolution and radiation of chameleons. BMC evolutionary biology, 15(1), 184.

http://www.science20.com/news_ar....-159819

Richards, Robert J.
2008 “The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought” University of
Chicago Press.

ID Creationism claims that nested hierarchies from DNA are because their god used "common tool kits." Falsified by hierarchies built by silenced pathological genes;

Sverdlov, ED. 2000. Retroviruses and primate evolution. BIOESSAYS Volume: 22 Issue: 2 Pages: 161-171.

Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin
"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences" PNAS 1999 96 (18) 10254-10260; doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254

Heui-Soo Kim, Osamu Takenaka, Timothy J. Crow
"Isolation and phylogeny of endogenous retrovirus sequences belonging to the HERV-W family in primates" J Gen Virol October 1999 vol. 80 no. 10: 2613-2619

ID Creationism claims complex organs cannot have evolved. Falsified by Paley's favorites;

Ivan R Schwab
2011 “Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved”  Oxford University Press

Teaford, Mark F., Moya Meredith Smith, and Mark W.J. Ferguson
2000/2006 “Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth” Cambridge University Press

The fact is that Behe's "irreducible complexity" was neither original, nor an argument against evolution;

Hermann J. Muller,
1918 "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Genetics, Vol 3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.
(This is the real source for a “irreducible complexity" argument only it was the argument for evolution. Behe was apparently unaware it was published).

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 16 2015,12:41

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2015,14:53   

Answers at Panda's Thumb

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....2;st=30

ID creationism predicted that multiple sequential mutations could not happen. Falsified;

"Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin,    Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767

“It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential (21–23). The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer (24).

Answer :

The question in demand is not if multiple sequential mutations could or could not  happen.

Mutations cannot produce new information

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1664-m....rmation


The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. For example, DNA with no function is ripe for deletion, and making proteins/enzymes that have no use until a complete pathway or nano-machine is available is a waste of precious cellular resources.

For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept. Saying a gene can be copied and then used to prototype a new function is not what evolution requires, for this cannot account for radically new functionality. Thus, gene duplication cannot answer the most fundamental questions about evolutionary history. Likewise, none of the common modes of mutation (random letter changes, inversions, deletions, etc.) have the ability to do what evolution requires.

When discussing whether or not mutations can create new information, evolutionists routinely bring up an overly-simplistic view of mutation and then claim to have solved the problem while waving their hand over the real issue: the antagonism between ultra-complexity and random mutation.

If a four-dimensional genome is hard enough to grasp, there is also a huge amount of ‘meta-information’ in the genome. This is information about the information! This is the information that tells the cell how to maintain the information, how to fix it if it breaks, how to copy it, how to interpret what is there, how to use it, when to use it, and how to pass it on to the next generation. This is all coded in that linear string of letters and life could not exist without it. In fact, life was designed from a top-down perspective, apparently with the meta-information coming first.

protein folds in general are multi-mutation features, requiring many amino acids to be fixed before the assembly provides any functional advantage.

Another study by Axe and Ann Gauger found that merely converting one enzyme into a closely related enzyme -- the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen -- would require a minimum of seven simultaneous changes,6exceeding the probabilistic resources available for evolution over the Earth's history. This data implies that many biochemical features are so complex that they would require many mutations before providing any advantage to an organism, and would thus be beyond the "edge" of what Darwinian evolution can do.

ID Creationism insisted that the Cambrian phyla were "fully formed, and that all modern phyla were represernted in the Cambrian. Falsified;

Precambian Edicaran/Cambrian
Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
2013 "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity" New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

Valentine, James W.
2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press

Answer :

http://creation.com/cambria....versity

The Cambrian explosion features such things as the sudden appearance of the phyla, strong discontinuities between the phyla, difficulties in grouping phyla according to evolutionary relationships, and the early appearance of many essentially modern traits. Special creation remains the most parsimonious explanation for the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.trueorigin.org/trilobi....yes.asp

Trilobites  appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites. How do you explain then the appearance of the most sophisticated eye ever observed in nature ?

http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/taxa.......te.html

The big problem with the earliest known trilobites, is that they are trilobites. That is to say, their earliest representatives – from the order Redlichiida and in particular the Fallotaspididae (fig. 2A) – are distinctly and emphatically trilobites, and they do not look like anything else. They provide few clues to which other arthropod groups may be their close relatives, or to their origins.

Although it is true that one or two of the Ediacaran forms such as Spriggina (fig. 2B) superficially resemble early trilobites, to date the detailed case for such an ancestry is far from compelling.

This problem is particularly galling in one respect: it has not escaped the notice of those well-known oxymorons, the creation science brigade. However, those of us with an interest in the origins of things are compensated with a fascinating puzzle.

ID Creationism claims complex organs cannot have evolved. Falsified by Paley's favorites;

Ivan R Schwab
2011 “Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved”  Oxford University Press

Teaford, Mark F., Moya Meredith Smith, and Mark W.J. Ferguson
2000/2006 “Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth” Cambridge University Press

Answer:

Eye / brain is a interdependent and irreducible complex system

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1638-e....-system

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaney....ye.html

the first step in vision is the detection of photons.  In order to detect a photon, specialized cells use a molecule called 11-cis-retinal.  When a photon of light interacts with this molecule, it changes its shape almost instantly.  It is now called trans-retinal.  This change in shape causes a change in shape of another molecule called rhodopsin.  The new shape of rhodopsin is called metarhodopsin II.  Metarhodopsin II now sticks to another protein called transducinforcing it to drop an attached molecule called GDP and pick up another molecule called GTP.  The GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II molecule now attaches to another protein called phosphodiesterase.  When this happens,phosphodiesterase cleaves molecules called cGMPs.  This cleavage of cGMPs reduces their relative numbers in the cell.  This reduction in cGMP is sensed by an ion channel.  This ion channel shuts off the ability of the sodium ion to enter the cell.  This blockage of sodium entrance into the cell causes an imbalance of charge across the cell's membrane.  This imbalance of charge sends an electrical current to the brain.  The brain then interprets this signal and the result is called vision.

Many other proteins are now needed to convert the proteins and other molecules just mentioned back to their original forms so that they can detect another photon of light and signal the brain.  If any one of these proteins or molecules is missing, even in the simplest eye system, vision will not occur

The question now of course is, how could such a system evolve gradually?  All the pieces must be in place simultaneously.  For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head?  These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what?  What benefit is that to the earthworm?  Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them.  So what?!  What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?   Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain.  So what?!  How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal?  It will have to learn what this signal means.  Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.  Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring.  If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.  All of these wonderful processes need regulation.  No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on).  If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur.  This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules - all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The fact is that Behe's "irreducible complexity" was neither original, nor an argument against evolution;

Hermann J. Muller,
1918 "Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", Genetics, Vol 3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.
(This is the real source for a “irreducible complexity" argument only it was the argument for evolution. Behe was apparently unaware it was published).



Answer :

It might not be original, but that it is a BIG blow in regard of the ToE. Oh yeah. It is !!

I have described 17 IC systems so far. Feel free to pick any of these, and refute my claim that they are IC.

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a....systems

  
  490 replies since Nov. 15 2015,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]