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.
Calling someone ignorant of science is a debator who tries to exalt himself.Just because you are ignorant on the science doesnt make it irreducible complex.
Your belief does not trumph reality.
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.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.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mineral chemistry." Do you mean inorganic chemistry? Or all chemistry other than biochemistry?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.
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?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.
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.
I stated it right the first time. Do you need help guides to understand science domains? Even by use of different terms?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
You just proposed a dilemma that cannot be challenged.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?
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?The same applies to organic chemistry. The bio form is through intelligence intervened occurrence.
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.
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.
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.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 might want to find out what a straw man fallacy is. It isn't what you appear to think.You were committing the straw man fallacy right there, textbook style.
ID is neither scientific nor able to deduce when a mind was behind an event.ID is scientific in deducing when a mind was behind an event.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
where to start? here is one example. the olfactory system need at least several parts for its minimal function. therefore it cant evolve stepwise.:
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)?
What magic does biochemistry have?
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?