Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
it's unfathomable that this machine "gradually evolved" because all parts of it are useless without the whole molecule.
science "thinks" ATP synthase evolved in 2 or 3 ways.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase#Evolution_of_ATP_synthase
Claims of irreducible complexity almost all fall into the camp of "We already have a pretty good idea of how this evolved".
Nope, I didn't. Where is the evidence in the link? Reference something. Your attitude is, here's the haystack, find the needle when the needle may not even exist.
Can YOU actually provide some semblance of evidence, some paragraph, some quote....something....anything? A link is simply more evasion from you.
In other words, the link you gave does NOT have evidence, only a series of guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's, our 'best guess. That's not evidence based on the scientific method, you know.
This is why you refused to quote from the link, choosing instead to respond with the find the needle in the haystack response when in fact you knew, but wouldn't admit, there's no needle to find.
my presence in this thread is in relation to the claim that boxcar2d mimics biological evolution.
boxcar2d does not simulate biological evolution in that it simulates none of the biomolecular processes involved.
no one has demonstrated it even APPLIES to evolution for the same reason.
as far as design goes, i can see how some people would conclude some of this stuff appears designed.
ATP synthase for example, here we have a bonefide molecular machine complete with a rotor, a stator, and a connecting shaft.
this machine use hydrogen ions falling down a potential gradient to produce energy for the cell.
this turns a rotor that transforms ADP into ATP.
it's unfathomable that this machine "gradually evolved" because all parts of it are useless without the whole molecule.
the number of genes required must also be quite large.
this is basically my entire stand when it comes to evolution.
quite simply, it is NOT what you think it is.
i have done exactly that.
i guess you missed the posts where i linked to papers that state MA experiments show a linearly decreasing fitness with accumulating mutations, or the paper that show gene trees and species trees rarely align, or the paper that outright states all of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been overturned or replaced.
maybe you missed the sources that say the modern synthesis is dead, or where chinese scientists are having difficulty getting published in western media.
science "thinks" ATP synthase evolved in 2 or 3 ways.
thinking is a whole different animal than knowing.
we know what the structure of DNA is, we think we know how life evolved.
the first is a fact, the second has so far been unsolvable despite the best efforts of science.
as you can see, having a "pretty good idea" is worthless.
evolution is filled to the brim with "we think".
How do you define design? Perhaps that might help us better communicate our positions?
Well that is fortunate as ducky clouds are not in the same category as what we are discussing.
Well that is great, please provide how scientifically one would objectively demonstrate deliberate design? What evidence would show deliberate design in living organisms?
Or it would show that our intelligence is not as good as God's. You make the unfounded assumption that evolution produces the molecular machines alone and that is not in evidence.
Evolution's mechanisms do not provide evidence that they produced the design we observe in living systems. What mechanism would produce such a system as the systems known to exist in the simple bacteria for instance?
You're asking me to define your position? You're the one proposing the idea - you should be able to define it.
Um, that's your job. You are the one proposing the idea - it's your job to present the evidence and determine what that evidence is.
Here we go again shifting the burden of proof. We've been talking about your claims for design and how they could be presented scientifically. So far, you haven't shown that they can be. If you want to believe for religious reasons that God designed all life - go right ahead, I don't care, you can believe whatever you want. When you start trying to introduce those ideas as science, that's where the difficulties arise. You still haven't presented any evidence for design nor any mechanism behind that design. I still fail to see how your design claims can be presented scientifically.
evolution in action:
the human brain.
here we have a computer that expends a few watts, weighs roughly 3 pounds, and operates at around a few hundred hertz.
and it completely eclipses the largest, fastest supercomputer man can design.
DNA.
here we have one of the densest storage mediums known to man, one that completely outstrips even blu-ray DVDs.
ATP-synthase.
here we have an energy producer that operates on the principle of hydrogen ion potential gradients.
to expect me to believe that this stuff bootstrapped itself out of a pond a goo is beyond laughable.
This is a very minimal run down of the ATP Synthase and doesn't address many of the problems presented in those "good ideas" of how this evolved.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase#Evolution_of_ATP_synthase
Claims of irreducible complexity almost all fall into the camp of "We already have a pretty good idea of how this evolved".
This is a very minimal run down of the ATP Synthase and doesn't address many of the problems presented in those "good ideas" of how this evolved.
I don't think whois means he doesn't understand evolution, his assertions are not based on his knowledge of evolution but his bias towards naturalism and anti-theism colors his expertise.When people start to say that Professor Dawkins doesn't understand evolution, they are pretty much done.
It's like saying that Stephen Hawking doesn't understand physics.
I never claimed to, you are pretending again that I am misrepresenting those people I have quoted which is not true. I have always stated that they observe the appearance of deliberate design and conclude that evolutionary processes produced that appearance.You haven't presented a single mainstream scientist that thinks "deliberate design" is observed.
How sweet.If it gets closed, I'll personally open a new one, just for you.
I don't think whois means he doesn't understand evolution, his assertions are not based on his knowledge of evolution but his bias towards naturalism and anti-theism colors his expertise.
I never claimed to, you are pretending again that I am misrepresenting those people I have quoted which is not true. I have always stated that they observe the appearance of deliberate design and conclude that evolutionary processes produced that appearance.
Your explanations are bunk.Not a single time have I called you a liar or dishonest without going out of my to explain why.
Ironically, I'll again call you dishonest for pretending that that isn't true.
Why?The quotes you gave did not support your argument in any sense.
Which is always bunk based on the fact that disagreeing with you means we are dishonest in some way.I don't call people liars or dishonest simply for not agreeing with me.
I always explain these accusations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?