Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Heissonear]

Just because you are ignorant on the science doesnt make it irreducible complex.

Your belief does not trumph reality.

Calling someone ignorant of science is a debator who tries to exalt himself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

not realy. a minimal olfactory system require at least 2-3 parts: a smell receptor, a connection to the nervous system and a system that can interpret it for the creature. so its irreducibly complex just from the start.

They're just another type of sensory nerve. The brain can adjust to process novel sensory nerve inputs in a matter of days or weeks in a single individual (e.g. tongue vision), let alone over evolutionary timescales.

If you can articulate clearly the particular step you think is a problem, we may be able to explain it for you.

 

[Speedwell]

The correlations from mineral processes to biochemical processes has been magnified by godless scientists.

What has mineral-based chemistry born? Non-life.

But grand faith in biochemistry has hearld unending advancements in Life forms.

Mineralized materials and functional sysytems and their evolution through natural processes equals evolution of a carborator to fuel injection. And much more, like crankcase fuel aspiration in two-strokes.

Mineralized materials has a grand evolution. But only through intervention of intelligence.

Biochemical developments have the same need of intelligence intervention.

But those of belief in what is still conjecture based see a dream and call it reality.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mineral chemistry." Do you mean inorganic chemistry? Or all chemistry other than biochemistry?

This may help: The 5 Main Branches of Chemistry and What Each Involves

 

[xianghua]

They're just another type of sensory nerve. The brain can adjust to process novel sensory nerve inputs in a matter of days or weeks in a single individual (e.g. tongue vision), let alone over evolutionary timescales.

If you can articulate clearly the particular step you think is a problem, we may be able to explain it for you.

how the first olfactory receptor evolved and how many amino acids changes we need to evolve it? also: does it function by itself or we need at least another part to make it functional?

 

[VirOptimus]

Calling someone ignorant of science is a debator who tries to exalt himself.

Its just the truth, supported by every post made by the poster.

 

[Aman777]

Its just the truth, supported by every post made by the poster.

It's you who is the debater who tries to exalt himself by calling others ignorant of Science. I agree that you do this with almost all of your posts. Try to do better.

 

[Heissonear]

I'm not sure what you mean by "mineral chemistry." Do you mean inorganic chemistry? Or all chemistry other than biochemistry?

This may help: The 5 Main Branches of Chemistry and What Each Involves

I stated it right the first time. Do you need help guides to understand science domains? Even by use of different terms?

The focus of the post was ignored.

Intelligence has to intervene in mineral-based chemical processes and developments like carburation. And crankcase massflow fuel transfer in ported 2-stroke systems.

The same applies to organic chemistry. The bio form is through intelligence intervened occurrence.

It is man who has envisioned bio occurs from organic compounds by natural processes, even olfactory system development in complex lifeforms. They wish.

 

[Heissonear]

how the first olfactory receptor evolved and how many amino acids changes we need to evolve it? also: does it function by itself or we need at least another part to make it functional?

You just proposed a dilemma that cannot be challenged.

The land of gaps is where evolution lives.

Orchestrating complex biological systems like eyes and olfactory is beyond natural processes acting on biomolecules.

 

[Speedwell]

The same applies to organic chemistry. The bio form is through intelligence intervened occurrence.

Yes, that is your assertion. The problem is, that no one has demonstrated a mechanism by which this can occur. On the other hand, the assembly of complex biochemical systems by stochastic processes is rests on a sound mathematical basis and is well-evidenced. All you have is an assertion. It's all very well to say that "intelligence intervened" but how did it intervene? When? What is your evidence for these occurrences?

My take on it is that intelligence set it all up and it works just fine without further periodic intervention.

 

[MaudDib]

If I viewed you as a credible source, I would hear you out. But I'm afraid I dont.

The point is that structures of the flagellum, are homologous with independent structures that are in fact functional without needing to be part of a flagellum.

Much like how a feather can have a function and purpose without needing to be part of a wing. While all feathers are not identical (homologous structures are part of different systems which serve different purposes and have different parts), this doesn't change the response. And no you can't remove a cars engine and expect it to still run.

What this means is that individual parts of the flagellum may have evolved for purposes unrelated to a flagellum. Just as feathers may initially evolve for warmth rather than for flying as part of a wing.

If you have a logical argument against this, you're welcome to raise it.

If there was no feasible explanation for why feathers might exist (aside from being for flight), we might consider a wing irreducibly complex. But observing homologous feathers im non flying animals (like an ostrich) indicates that they could evolve for purposes other than for being part of a wing used for flight (flagellum), even if an ostriches feathers are not perfectly identical to eagle feathers which are used for flight.

The flagellum is reducible into independent homologous parts that are functional in varying systems.

The key word you keep on using is 'may'.
Showing something to be logically possible is very different from it being actually feasible.

All you have is speculation, not a shred of evidence.

In fact, i now have to adopt new beliefs in order to accept your hypothesis, namely that these systems are made up of independent homologous parts that were functional in some other way before... I'm sorry, without evidence, this is contrived.

And it looks like you cling to that blind faith quite dearly.

Oh dear. What were you thinking i wonder.

 

[Job 33:6]

The key word you keep on using is 'may'.
Showing something to be logically possible is very different from it being actually feasible.

All you have is speculation, not a shred of evidence.

In fact, i now have to adopt new beliefs in order to accept your hypothesis, namely that these systems are made up of independent homologous parts that were functional in some other way before... I'm sorry, without evidence, this is contrived.

And it looks like you cling to that blind faith quite dearly.

Oh dear. What were you thinking i wonder.

The argument of irreducible complexity with respect to the flagellum is a logical argument. Therefore, it is logic with is used to deny it. Its not like Michael Behe ever presented evidence that the flagellum couldnt have evolved. He proposed a logical argument against it.

The argument suggests that...in this particular system, individual parts cannot function independently. As the popular example goes, a mouse trap cannot function without a spring used to flip the trap. You take one piece away and the mouse trap then serves no function and no purpose. This was Behes analogy.

In a logical sense, the response is well, the spring can function independently as a spring in other things, or as a spring on its own, as an independent homologous structure.

Now beyond the logical response, we ponder the question of if such homologous structures do in fact exist as independent parts.

It is actually a known fact that the flagellum is made up of independent homologous proteins that are functional in other ways.

This was all laid out in the dover trials in which Behe's argument lost in court. Not only do scientists reject his ideas, but independent lawyers do too.

And Ken Miller is correct in that, really homologous structures shouldnt be functional at all as independent parts if irreducible complexity were true. It defeats the purpose of something being irreducibly complex, if you can in fact logically reduce it into parts and still find functionality in those homologous parts.

 

[MaudDib]

The argument of irreducible complexity with respect to the flagellum is a logical argument. Therefore, it is logic with is used to deny it. Its not like Michael Behe ever presented evidence that the flagellum couldnt have evolved. He proposed a logical argument against it.

The argument suggests that...in this particular system, individual parts cannot function independently. As the popular example goes, a mouse trap cannot function without a spring used to flip the trap. You take one piece away and the mouse trap then serves no function and no purpose. This was Behes analogy.

In a logical sense, the response is well, the spring can function independently as a spring in other things, or as a spring on its own, as an independent homologous structure.

Now beyond the logical response, we ponder the question of if such homologous structures do in fact exist as independent parts.

It is actually a known fact that the flagellum is made up of independent homologous proteins that are functional in other ways.

This was all laid out in the dover trials in which Behe's argument lost in court. Not only do scientists reject his ideas, but independent lawyers do too.

And Ken Miller is correct in that, really homologous structures shouldnt be functional at all as independent parts if irreducible complexity were true. It defeats the purpose of something being irreducibly complex, if you can in fact logically reduce it into parts and still find functionality in those homologous parts.

Lol this is all funny.

Let’s unpack this carefully.

The logic you are talking about re Irreducible complexity is predicated on something tangible and real, a prerequisite to doing science, whereas your logic is based on speculation.

You were committing the straw man fallacy right there, textbook style.

The Dover trials? Lol. That lawyer was the best advertisement for ID and we thank him for his silliness.

Because up until that point only ONE paper on ID had been published in a peer review journal.

Today we have now surpassed ONE HUNDRED published papers on ID having been published in peer review journals.

Which part of the following is hard to digest I wonder:

The theory of evolution is a reconstruction of past events based on inference when surveying the evidence.

ID is scientific in deducing when a mind was behind an event.

Nuff said.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Lol this is all funny.

Let’s unpack this carefully.

The logic you are talking about re Irreducible complexity is predicated on something tangible and real, a prerequisite to doing science, whereas your logic is based on speculation.

You have that round the wrong way. What is the tangible, real evidence that the flagellum was designed? There isn't any, so it is 100% speculation. However, there is tangible and real evidence that the flagellum's constituent parts can function separately.

You were committing the straw man fallacy right there, textbook style.

You might want to find out what a straw man fallacy is. It isn't what you appear to think.

ID is scientific in deducing when a mind was behind an event.

ID is neither scientific nor able to deduce when a mind was behind an event.

If you think otherwise, please demonstrate your claim. Nobody has managed to do so thus far, so fame awaits.....

 

[USincognito]

The logic you are talking about re Irreducible complexity is predicated on something tangible and real, a prerequisite to doing science, whereas your logic is based on speculation.

Is this gaslighting or a Jedi mind trick? Either way it's a fail.

The Dover trials? Lol. That lawyer was the best advertisement for ID and we thank him for his silliness.

It showed ID wasn't ready for prime time and was little more than Creationism in a lab coat, ref. "cdesign proponentism". Behe came off pretty bad, and yet here he is 13 years later promoting another popular press book where he argues against atheism. Because the dirty little secret that he accepts evolution and common ancestry is well known by now and his real objections are to "Darwinism" by which he means atheism or naturalism.

Because up until that point only ONE paper on ID had been published in a peer review journal.

Today we have now surpassed ONE HUNDRED published papers on ID having been published in peer review journals.

Publishing garbage in pay to print journals or articles about genetic "complexity" in the Journal of Urban Planning is not impressing anyone other than the folks who are impressed by erstaz credentials.

 

[Job 33:6]

"You have that round the wrong way. What is the tangible, real evidence that the flagellum was designed? There isn't any, so it is 100% speculation. However, there is tangible and real evidence that the flagellum's constituent parts can function separately."

Precisely.

The argument of irreducible complexity suggests that if you take one part from a whole system, that the individual proteins and groups of proteins would be non functional, thus defeating natural selections ability to "select" for them.

Behe uses the analogy of a mouse trap, in that if you take parts out of the mouse trap, the trap would no longer be functional and thus, could not be selected for, as it would serve no beneficial function.

But in reality, individual groups of proteins that make up the flagellum do serve alternative functions. And in serving alternative functions, can be selected for without necessarily having the goal of ultimately forming a flagellum.

--------------------------------------------------------
Ken Miller is also correct in suggesting that if irreducible complexity were a true description of the flagellum, then in reality, we should not be able to find functionality in the individual parts of the flagellum if they do not collectively makeup a flagellum.



The same thing could be said for an eagles wing. An eagle needs feathers to fly, as well as hollow bones. And without feathers or hollow bones, an eagle could not fly. Therefore, one might suggest that an eagle wing is an irreducibly complex system, because it couldnt evolve one part without the other while simultaneously holding functionality of those individual parts. Ie, there is no functionality or purpose for feathers if the bird cannot yet fly (it doesnt have hollow bones), therefore there is no reason for natural selection to promote the existence of feathers.

But in fact, feathers serve alternative functions. For example, an ostrich cannot fly but it has feathers. The feathers keep it warm, they keep their eggs warm, they use feathers to scare off enemies by making themselves look larger, they might use them for displays during mating practices etc.

So feathers as a part of a wing, much like individual parts of the flagellum, serve purposes beyond being for flight or for the construction of a flagellum. They can therefore be selected for, thus the wing and flagellum are not irreducibly complex.

And thats just the way it is.

 

[Job 33:6]

Lol this is all funny.

Let’s unpack this carefully.

The logic you are talking about re Irreducible complexity is predicated on something tangible and real, a prerequisite to doing science, whereas your logic is based on speculation.

You were committing the straw man fallacy right there, textbook style.

The Dover trials? Lol. That lawyer was the best advertisement for ID and we thank him for his silliness.

Because up until that point only ONE paper on ID had been published in a peer review journal.

Today we have now surpassed ONE HUNDRED published papers on ID having been published in peer review journals.

Which part of the following is hard to digest I wonder:

The theory of evolution is a reconstruction of past events based on inference when surveying the evidence.

ID is scientific in deducing when a mind was behind an event.

Nuff said.

100 papers for a single scientist would be an inpressive feat. Even for 2 scientists. But 100 papers for an entire organization is really just an embarassement. Especially when many if not all of the papers do not directly support ID. Many of which are probably in other fields of study as well or are published in questionable journals.

But you're welcome to share some. I read GSA all the time, haven't seen any articles on YEC in my life.

 

[SkyWriting]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

If you take the view that God knows the position of each electron, then the evolution problem fades away.

Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Romans 8:28
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

Jeremiah 32:27
“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?

Luke 12:7
Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

 

[SkyWriting]

So I'm must making up the laws of inheritance attributed to the rediscovery of Mendel's paper? No law of thermodynamics?



Darwinian isn't a term Creationists made up, the Modern Synthesis is often called neodarwinism, because it's inextricably linked to the philosophy of Charles Darwin originating in his book On the Origin of Species. He said and I quote:

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin)​

Now, if you believe that, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition', then you are Darwinian in your worldview. These two worldviews would appear to be mutually exclusive. To date I have nothing but problems with every aspect of universal common descent and at the heart of this philosophy I see the core problem being naturalistic assumptions.

I have a feeling that Darwin considered all his theories to be of divine source, but figured he'd get published more by not bringing it up.

 

[DogmaHunter]

where to start? here is one example. the olfactory system need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore it cant evolve stepwise.:

You say "therefor", but "irreducible complexity" nonsense has been exposed as the argument from ignorance / incredulity that it is, multiple times now.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Things as chemically-systematically-neurologically complex as olfactory systems do not even come close in complexity to carburetor to fuel injection development.

So why didn't cars independently evolve such (rather than rely on the itelligence of man)?

Because cars don't reproduce with variation and aren't in competition with peers over limited resources.

What magic does biochemistry have?

Reproduction with variation followed by competition over limited resources.
And there's nothing magical about that. Complex, specialised and efficient systems are the inevitable outcome of this process. Well, that, or extinction.