Intelligent Design isn’t intelligent

[The Barbarian]

[The term is irreducible complexity.

Which has been observed to evolve through ordinary evolutionary processes.

Phospholipids form bilayers let's except time. Where do the phospholipids come from?

Phospates and lipids, both of which form abiotically.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707008216

Irreducible complexity. You have to have all of the parts all of the subsystems pre assembled before.

So let's look at an actual system that's irreducibly complex. A regulated enzyme system must have three elements present to work; the substrate, the enzyme gene, and a regulator. The regulator permits formation of the enzyme only in the presence of the substrate. If any of these are missing the function does not work. And yet, this system was observed to evolve.

You need protein and jeans 2 code 4 enzymes that make phospholipids.

Nope. They form abiotically.

Natural selection may be able to work on fully functioning single celled organisms.

That's your other error. If, as Darwin supposed, God just poofed the first living things into existence, evolution would look exactly as it does now.

But the claim of irreducible complexity is that evolution can't manufacture all of the separate subsystems separately because there would be no survival value, or survival survivability in the separate subsystems separately.

So how did that enzyme system evolve? Someone was watching, so we know. First, the enzyme evolved by modification of a copy of an existing enzyme. Then the regulator evolved afterwards.

And then, all three elements were necessary, even if only two were necessary at first.

The claim is you get down to a level where the jump from organic chemistry 2 living bio chemistry is a quantum leap.

And now you know better.

According to Lee Strobel and J Warner Wallace and John Lennox and other such authors.

Strobel is a mathematician, and didn't know about the way this happens. He's not a biochemist, so he has an excuse. What about the other two?

 

[The Barbarian]

https://www.discovery.org/multimedi...e-book-of-nature-and-the-first-mathematician/

The story of Kepler is instructive. His religious ideas led him to the idea that planets moved around the Sun in circles according to specific ratios related to Platonic solids.

When he finally got Tycho's data, and got to work, he failed repeatedly. The data just wouldn't fit. But then the scientist in him overpowered the mathematician, and he concluded that his religious belief in circular orbits was wrong.

And only then did he realize that orbits are ellipses, with the sun at one of the foci. And from that we have Kepler's laws which are still useful in planetary science. He followed the course of the great Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo, who wrote that we must be open to the possibility that we have scripture wrong, when new knowledge so indicates.

The Discovery Institute doesn't want you to know about that, of course.

 

[The Barbarian]

It means that at some point the evolutionary process regarding man took a wrong turn. After millions of years of change we are only able to survive by destroying the planet and ourselves.

No, that's not required for survival or even for comfortable living here. Greed and indifference is the problem, not evolution.

It seems that evolution has provided a death wish for us.

Nature is not to blame for our failure to use our heads.

 

[NBB]

Doesn't matter.


Evolution never makes anything from zero.



No, it's not. Maybe it would be helpful for you to learn what it is, before telling us about it.



Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random.

Amoeba to human is practically building from zero don't tell its not.
Is what evolutionists say... that Darwin was wrong and added mutation that is random.

 

[tas8831]

Strobel is a mathematician,

It is worse than that - he is a journalist.

 

[tas8831]

It means that at some point the evolutionary process regarding man took a wrong turn. After millions of years of change we are only able to survive by destroying the planet and ourselves. It seems that evolution has provided a death wish for us.

Weird how a guy that rejects evolution nevertheless blames it for the world's ills instead of blaming the being he declares to be the Master of the Universe...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Greed and indifference is the problem, not evolution.

But evolution claims responsibility even for human thought.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Weird how a guy that rejects evolution nevertheless blames it for the world's ills instead of blaming the being he declares to be the Master of the Universe...

God: Master of the Universe
Satan: "God" of this world.

It all makes sense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian mentions that evolution never makes something from nothing. It always modifies something already there.

Amoeba to human is practically building from zero don't tell its not.

A eukaryotic cell is very, very complex, a huge step up from prokaryotic cells. So you're way off on that one. Learn about it here:
Difference Between Prokaryotic Cells and Eukaryotic Cells (with Comparison Chart and Explanation of organelles) - Bio Differences

Is what evolutionists say... that Darwin was wrong and added mutation that is random.

Two major errors there:
1. Darwin never said mutations were random. He never knew about mutations, because he didn't know about genes.

2. Darwin pointed out that changes in organisms were acted upon by natural selection, which is not random.

If you doubt this, show us any step between a single-celled eukaryote and a human that would be impossible for evolution. What do you have?

 

[The Barbarian]

But evolution claims responsibility even for human thought.

Which means humans are capable of acting rationally. We just don't want to, much of the time. And that is a religious issue, the Problem of Evil.

 

[NBB]

Barbarian mentions that evolution never makes something from nothing. It always modifies something already there.



A eukaryotic cell is very, very complex, a huge step up from prokaryotic cells. So you're way off on that one. Learn about it here:
Difference Between Prokaryotic Cells and Eukaryotic Cells (with Comparison Chart and Explanation of organelles) - Bio Differences



Two major errors there:
1. Darwin never said mutations were random. He never knew about mutations, because he didn't know about genes.

2. Darwin pointed out that changes in organisms were acted upon by natural selection, which is not random.

If you doubt this, show us any step between a single-celled eukaryote and a human that would be impossible for evolution. What do you have?

I didn't say darwin knew about mutations, i said evolutionists say he was wrong and added the mutation part.

Now add a brain to one of those amoebas, and all the organs, and bones and everything it doesn't have, pretty much building from zero

All the steps are impossible, since evolution can't build throwing random bits at death, is like a program coded to make random changes making something useful after a while.

Nobody is going to convince the other of anything here, so im offffff...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Which means humans are capable of acting rationally. We just don't want to, much of the time. And that is a religious issue, the Problem of Evil.

I'm hanging all of it around their neck.

 

[The Barbarian]

I didn't say darwin knew about mutations, i said evolutionists say he was wrong and added the mutation part.

No, that's not what you said. As you now realize, evolution is generally not random.

Now add a brain to one of those amoebas

And we'd have an improved creationist. On the other hand, the next step would be multicellularity. And we have very good evidence for that in the form of existing transitional forms. Would you like to learn about that?

(Barbarian asks what steps between a single-celled prokaryote and humans is impossible)

All the steps are impossible

Nope. Amoebae of some species are transitional between single-celled and multicelled organisms. They are called slime molds. Choanoflagellates are single-celled eukaryotes which are genetically very close to sponges. Some colonial choanoflagellates are very much like sponges.
Choanoflagellata - microbewiki

Try again?

since evolution can't build throwing random bits at death,

As you now realize, Darwin showed that it's not random. That's why it increases fitness by adding new traits, or removing unfavorable ones.

is like a program coded to make random changes making something useful after a while.

Engineers to that now. They are called "Genetic Algorithms"; they copy evolutionary processes, to solve problems that are not accessible by design. It depends on random change plus natural selection. That's the part that has you confused. Natural selection is not random.

Nobody is going to convince the other of anything here, so im offffff...

Next time, learn a little about the subject, so you're not embarrassed again.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm hanging all of it around their neck.

I thought all Protestants believed in God. Sorry

 

[NBB]

No, that's not what you said. As you now realize, evolution is generally not random.



And we'd have an improved creationist. On the other hand, the next step would be multicellularity. And we have very good evidence for that in the form of existing transitional forms. Would you like to learn about that?

(Barbarian asks what steps between a single-celled prokaryote and humans is impossible)



Nope. Amoebae of some species are transitional between single-celled and multicelled organisms. They are called slime molds. Choanoflagellates are single-celled eukaryotes which are genetically very close to sponges. Some colonial choanoflagellates are very much like sponges.
Choanoflagellata - microbewiki

Try again?



As you now realize, Darwin showed that it's not random. That's why it increases fitness by adding new traits, or removing unfavorable ones.



Engineers to that now. They are called "Genetic Algorithms"; they copy evolutionary processes, to solve problems that are not accessible by design. It depends on random change plus natural selection. That's the part that has you confused. Natural selection is not random.



Next time, learn a little about the subject, so you're not embarrassed again.

As a catholic you should learn that God made us, not evolution alone.

Also:

In a genetic algorithm, a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions. Each candidate solution has a set of properties (its chromosomes or genotype) which can be mutated and altered; traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s and 1s, but other encodings are also possible.[3]

Evolution has no such things as 'candidate solutions' the solutions must be made from scratch.

 

[NBB]

No, that's not what you said. As you now realize, evolution is generally not random.



And we'd have an improved creationist. On the other hand, the next step would be multicellularity. And we have very good evidence for that in the form of existing transitional forms. Would you like to learn about that?

(Barbarian asks what steps between a single-celled prokaryote and humans is impossible)



Nope. Amoebae of some species are transitional between single-celled and multicelled organisms. They are called slime molds. Choanoflagellates are single-celled eukaryotes which are genetically very close to sponges. Some colonial choanoflagellates are very much like sponges.
Choanoflagellata - microbewiki

Try again?



As you now realize, Darwin showed that it's not random. That's why it increases fitness by adding new traits, or removing unfavorable ones.



Engineers to that now. They are called "Genetic Algorithms"; they copy evolutionary processes, to solve problems that are not accessible by design. It depends on random change plus natural selection. That's the part that has you confused. Natural selection is not random.



Next time, learn a little about the subject, so you're not embarrassed again.

God put a soul in you in a body that he had a clear picture of how was to be made by him. Once you learn that you are going to back off of that arrogant attitude.

 

[The Barbarian]

God put a soul in you in a body that he had a clear picture of how was to be made by him.

Of course. The issue is you don't approve of the way He did it. Once you learn that you might be less inclined to arrogance.

You thought you had a bullet-proof argument; it fell apart on inspection. Getting upset and abusive isn't going to help.

 

[The Barbarian]

As a catholic you should learn that God made us, not evolution alone.

Of course He did. You're just unhappy with the way He did some of it. Our bodies are formed naturally, as He does most things in this world. Our souls are given directly by God. If you're a Catholic, you should know this.

In a genetic algorithm, a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions. Each candidate solution has a set of properties (its chromosomes or genotype) which can be mutated and altered; traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s and 1s, but other encodings are also possible.[3]

Evolution has no such things as 'candidate solutions'

Of course it does; they are called "organisms." Evolution isn't about the origin of life; it's about how living populations of organisms change over time. Darwin supposed that God just created the first living things, but if they were brought forth from the earth, as Genesis says, evolution wouldn't be different in either case.

the solutions must be made from scratch.

Nope.

 

[NBB]

Of course He did. You're just unhappy with the way He did some of it. Our bodies are formed naturally, as He does most things in this world. Our souls are given directly by God. If you're a Catholic, you should know this.

In a genetic algorithm, a population of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem is evolved toward better solutions. Each candidate solution has a set of properties (its chromosomes or genotype) which can be mutated and altered; traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s and 1s, but other encodings are also possible.[3]



Of course it does; they are called "organisms." Evolution isn't about the origin of life; it's about how living populations of organisms change over time. Darwin supposed that God just created the first living things, but if they were brought forth from the earth, as Genesis says, evolution wouldn't be different in either case.



Nope.

So, if God made us with evolution, should evolution be credited alone for us? like every evolutionist does, or the credit should be given to God that put everything in order and going and planned before? you don't have a bit of disagrenment with evolutionists that say evolution did it all alone? because if God planned for evo to happen beforehand, he is the one responsible and the credit should go to him, evo is just an anecdote, and not our origin.

I disagree that the solution are not made from scratch, evolution can't choose from a piece of liver and other of brain, it has to came up with them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I thought all Protestants believed in God. Sorry

I do. I speak of evolution sarcastically. So if evolution is true religious belief is part of it, by their own admission.