proving evolution is impossible with a cell-phone

xianghua · Feb 26, 2019

a cell phone need at least several parts for its minimal function. so even if we had a self replicating molecule it will not evolve into something complex like a cell-phone. the same is true for a biological system. for instance: an electric organ need at least several parts for its minimal function, as this scientist admit:

A Shocking Fish Tale Surprises Evolutionary Biologists

"Maler notes that to create an electric organ, many genetic changes have to happen — and each one on its own wouldn't seem to be advantageous for the fish"

VirOptimus · Feb 26, 2019

xianghua said:
a cell phone need at least several parts for its minimal function. so even if we had a self replicating molecule it will not evolve into something complex like a cell-phone. the same is true for a biological system. for instance: an electric organ need at least several parts for its minimal function, as this scientist admit:

A Shocking Fish Tale Surprises Evolutionary Biologists

"Maler notes that to create an electric organ, many genetic changes have to happen — and each one on its own wouldn't seem to be advantageous for the fish"

This is robot penguins all over again. Its just plain stupid.

Silverback · Feb 26, 2019

xianghua said:
a cell phone need at least several parts for its minimal function. so even if we had a self replicating molecule it will not evolve into something complex like a cell-phone. the same is true for a biological system. for instance: an electric organ need at least several parts for its minimal function, as this scientist admit:

A Shocking Fish Tale Surprises Evolutionary Biologists

"Maler notes that to create an electric organ, many genetic changes have to happen — and each one on its own wouldn't seem to be advantageous for the fish"

Irreducible Complexity, what you are describing has been around now for a long time.

Essentially, a human cell must have a minimum of parts to live, and function, once one of those parts are removed the cell dies.

The premise here is that a cell could not evolve into what it is naturally, because a cell would not be able to form without all it's parts, and therefore, it cannot divide, and reproduce.

there was a case in Kentucky concerning the teaching of intelligent design vs evolution in a public school, this was addressed to the satisfaction of a judge(s) and evolution won out. I still believe it though.

Unbelievers will never accept the things of God, and for us with faith, it does not matter what science say's

Speedwell · Feb 26, 2019

Silverback said:
Irreducible Complexity, what you are describing has been around now for a long time.

Essentially, a human cell must have a minimum of parts to live, and function, once one of those parts are removed the cell dies.

The premise here is that a cell could not evolve into what it is naturally, because a cell would not be able to form without all it's parts, and therefore, it cannot divide, and reproduce.

Which is a lame argument, unconvincing to anyone who understands how such functional complexity evolves.

there was a case in Kentucky concerning the teaching of intelligent design vs evolution in a public school, this was addressed to the satisfaction of a judge(s) and evolution won out. I still believe it though.

Unbelievers will never accept the things of God, and for us with faith, it does not matter what science say's

And in this case the discussion is about the theory of evolution, which does not rule out God's authorship of our being so the question doesn't come up.

VirOptimus · Feb 26, 2019

Silverback said:
Irreducible Complexity, what you are describing has been around now for a long time.

Essentially, a human cell must have a minimum of parts to live, and function, once one of those parts are removed the cell dies.

The premise here is that a cell could not evolve into what it is naturally, because a cell would not be able to form without all it's parts, and therefore, it cannot divide, and reproduce.

there was a case in Kentucky concerning the teaching of intelligent design vs evolution in a public school, this was addressed to the satisfaction of a judge(s) and evolution won out. I still believe it though.

Unbelievers will never accept the things of God, and for us with faith, it does not matter what science say's

Science is just a description of physical reality. Denying physical reality is a loosing battle.

xianghua · Feb 26, 2019

Silverback said:
Irreducible Complexity, what you are describing has been around now for a long time.

Essentially, a human cell must have a minimum of parts to live, and function, once one of those parts are removed the cell dies.

The premise here is that a cell could not evolve into what it is naturally, because a cell would not be able to form without all it's parts, and therefore, it cannot divide, and reproduce.

there was a case in Kentucky concerning the teaching of intelligent design vs evolution in a public school, this was addressed to the satisfaction of a judge(s) and evolution won out. I still believe it though.

Unbelievers will never accept the things of God, and for us with faith, it does not matter what science say's

actually they never prove that such a system could evolve by small steps. they just assume it. check also my signature link for evidence for design.

46AND2 · Feb 26, 2019

Would a self-replicating robot penguin be able to play Candy Crush on a macro-evolved cell phone?

Hank77 · Feb 26, 2019

"You have to simultaneously co-evolve genes that do very many different things in some kind of directed manner. It [can't just] be random," says Maler. "And that's hard to understand. They've raised the problem beautifully in this paper."

I don't think that God does anything randomly.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 26, 2019

Not this tripe again...

Ophiolite · Feb 26, 2019

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Not this tripe again...

It is interesting that repetition of the same old arguments is evidence that there are some aspects of nature that do not evolve!

USincognito · Feb 26, 2019

Silverback said:
Essentially, a human cell must have a minimum of parts to live, and function, once one of those parts are removed the cell dies.

You mean like a cell nucleus?
Whoops.
Why do mammalian red blood cells lack a nucleus?

there was a case in Kentucky concerning the teaching of intelligent design vs evolution in a public school, this was addressed to the satisfaction of a judge(s) and evolution won out. I still believe it though.

Dover, PA and the lawsuit hinged on the establishment clause and whether ID a religious proposition. The court found it was.

Unbelievers will never accept the things of God, and for us with faith, it does not matter what science say's

The fact YECs ignore the science in favor of belief is precisely why it's not taken seriously.

HitchSlap · Feb 26, 2019

xianghua said:
a cell phone need at least several parts for its minimal function. so even if we had a self replicating molecule it will not evolve into something complex like a cell-phone. the same is true for a biological system. for instance: an electric organ need at least several parts for its minimal function, as this scientist admit:

A Shocking Fish Tale Surprises Evolutionary Biologists

"Maler notes that to create an electric organ, many genetic changes have to happen — and each one on its own wouldn't seem to be advantageous for the fish"

You should look into it.

Bungle_Bear · Feb 26, 2019

Does the cell phone share a common ancestor with the robot penguin?

tas8831 · Feb 27, 2019

xianghua said:
actually they never prove that such a system could evolve by small steps. they just assume it.

The creationist never proves that evolution or abiogenesis could not happen,l they just assert it.

check also my signature link for evidence for design.

Human design, yes.

bhsmte · Feb 27, 2019

Kylie · Mar 2, 2019

xianghua said:
a cell phone need at least several parts for its minimal function. so even if we had a self replicating molecule it will not evolve into something complex like a cell-phone. the same is true for a biological system. for instance: an electric organ need at least several parts for its minimal function, as this scientist admit:

A Shocking Fish Tale Surprises Evolutionary Biologists

"Maler notes that to create an electric organ, many genetic changes have to happen — and each one on its own wouldn't seem to be advantageous for the fish"

Of course, if each of the individual parts has a function by itself, this argument is null and void.
And they do.

Honestly, this argument from you has been debunked many times. Why do you keep bringing it up?

xianghua · Mar 4, 2019

tas8831 said:
The creationist never proves that evolution or abiogenesis could not happen

its like saying that creationists never proved that a robot cant evolve naturally.

bhsmte · Mar 4, 2019

Just another day on CF!

tas8831 · Mar 4, 2019

xianghua said:
its like saying that creationists never proved that a robot cant evolve naturally.

Or apparently make sensible claims.

bhsmte · Mar 4, 2019

tas8831 said:
Or apparently make sensible claims.

Based on the track record, i wouldnt count on that.

proving evolution is impossible with a cell-phone

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

a post by Alan Smithee

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency