Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 27238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #464 on: October 23, 2013, 09:07:54 PM »
mm, here's the shortest answer I can give you that (hopefully) still makes some sense for a novice:

Mutation - think random (this is the part that people start getting twisted up over), possibly beneficial, and possibly not.

Heritable traits - characteristics that can be passed on to the next generation.

We, as in non-scientist people, notice evolution when the trait is external and beneficial, or when we say "oh, you have your mothers eyes". Science-y folks see a great deal more, as they have fancy tools that my Bio prof won't let me play with.

The mutation doesn't manifest after the organism has been  "born" if the mutation is heritable, but that still doesn't mean that it's beneficial - ear lobes attached closely to the skull versus not closely is an example of a heritable trait; so is eye color. This gets into genetics and is beyond our scope for now.

Here's a simple explanation of how natural selection works (this is what we're actually talking about):
1. More organisms are born than can survive.

2. Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents. Every batch of offspring contains a natural range of genetic variation. Genetic variation is produced in several ways, as discussed below.  Changes in the genetic code, most of the time, are either harmful to an organism or neutral to it. However, there are rare instances where such changes can be helpful to the survival of an organism. Changes in the genetics of a species can bring about physical changes which give a survival advantage to the species, allowing it to continue when other species cannot.

3. Nature "selects" the characteristics that are most effective for the conditions, and that species survives. Selective forces drive physical change. Selective forces are not "forces" like gravity, but factors that effect how many organisms live and how many die.  The reason lions are so fast and powerful is that their prey is so swift and elusive.  (Because any slow and weak lions would not be able to survive long enough to reproduce).  The reason antelopes are so swift and elusive is because lions are so fast and powerful.  (Because any slow antelopes, and any that lack the instinct to run in a zig-zag pattern, would not survive long enough to reproduce.)   There are other types of selective forces: climate changes and food supply changes will eliminate any organisms which aren't well suited for survival; sexual selection is the reason male peacocks have enormous tail feathers, and why deer and moose have huge antlers-- peacocks with small feathers and moose with little antlers don't get to mate with the females.  Selective pressure is any factor that makes it hard for some organisms to continue surviving, and rewards any advantage that some organisms may have been born with.

4. Over millions of years, successive generations of genetic variations, which give survival enhancements, bring about new species. Thousands of generations of small changes result in a species that can look very different from the one that it came from.

NOTE:  Species evolve-- individual organisms do not. Creatures don't "change" from one thing into another... they remain as they were born. Organisms do not choose to evolve-- favorable traits are chosen by the survival of the creature; less efficient characteristics are eliminated by the deaths of organisms. Within a species, there is a predictable range of possible traits, and a guaranteed chance of random mutations. Any trait that provides a survival advantage is preserved into the next generation, but a trait that is harmful to an individual results in the death of that individual.
Lifted directly from: http://www.evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html

Hope this helps.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #465 on: October 23, 2013, 09:11:20 PM »

@Jaime

I will have to research your assertion re:  blood clotting cascade


I will have to guess the answer to your "research" before you do it. After a great deal of mental effort lasting several seconds, you will decide that you don't like it.

Actually, I believe he will research it but only by the Christians who denounce it, if there are any, and not by anyone else.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #466 on: October 23, 2013, 09:35:36 PM »
lol,  Jaime,  nobody is saying evolution is about losing a part.
No, you mean you aren't.  People who actually understand evolution know that it can sometimes get rid of something that had a use at some point in the past, but doesn't now (or is redundant).  As I just said, evolution just focuses on what enhances survivability of a species long enough to reproduce.

Quote from: DrTesla
The point is that IF a system were to lose a part,  the remaining parts ought to have some type of functionality in relation to the end state system functionality.  In a IC system,  the remaining parts would have no functionality when the 1 part is removed.  The whole system fails at once, so how could the system been produced in a gradual way if all it takes is 1 part not working for the whole thing to shut down completely.  In other words, the entire group of parts had to come together at once and be assembled in a logical way to work with each other to fulfill the function of the system. 
You are thinking about it backwards in time - i.e., an organism that had evolved some complex organ losing a part of that organ and suddenly losing the function that organ provided.  But evolution actually works forwards in time, by a slow, gradual addition of functionality.  The development of a complex organ (such as the eye) does not require all of the parts to be there at the same time, put together like a machine or else they won't function.  It simply requires that the prior, less-evolved structures fulfilled a function of some kind.  It can be a less effective form of the function that the more-evolved structure fulfills, or it can be some other function entirely.

That happens because the genome acts like a blueprint.  It holds the genetic codes which ultimately produce the various structures an organism has.  If the genome is altered, though mutation or recombination, then the structures can be altered as well.  That means you aren't dealing with an existing organism, with already-grown parts, most of the time.  You're dealing with offspring which have the blueprints for altered structures, which it then grows.  So instead of growing merely light-sensitive 'eyes' that just react to the presence or absence of light, it might grow dimpled 'eyes' that allow it to determine a rough direction of where the light is coming from.

The question is not whether an existing organ is irreducibly complex.  The question is whether the genome can produce a working organ.  Because all organisms produce offspring by literally growing them from the ground up.  The various organs in the new organism aren't constructed like machinery, with every piece having to be exactly in place beforehand or else it won't work right.  They're grown according to the instructions in the genome, which means if the organism's genome is slightly different than its parent(s), then the organs are based on the new genome's code.  If the new code results in an organ that has improved functionality, then the organism probably has a survival advantage and thus is more likely to reproduce, which means that the new code persists.  It only matters whether the new genetic code can produce a working organ, and if so, whether that organ is better or worse than the original.  If it's worse (for example, the new code produces an eye that happens to be missing the retina), then it's generally disadvantageous and the organism is not as likely to survive.  But if, instead, the new code results in an improvement (say it produces an eye that has a retina which focuses light better), then you have an incremental evolutionary improvement in the eye, which gets conserved.

Quote from: DrTesla
it seems like we continue to talk past each other.
No, I am having no trouble understanding your points, I just don't agree with them.  My disagreement doesn't mean that you're talking past me.  You, however, seem to be consistently misunderstanding or simply not getting what I'm trying to say.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2723
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #467 on: October 23, 2013, 10:32:00 PM »
"Thanks, I was wrong, I've learned something."

LOL

I don't think a human has ever done this.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #468 on: October 23, 2013, 11:51:07 PM »
I would be surprised if he comes back. It seems he knows his precious hypothesis is about to be ripped to shreds. But...maybe...?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12463
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #469 on: October 24, 2013, 12:26:03 AM »
I would be surprised if he comes back. It seems he knows his precious hypothesis is about to be ripped to shreds. But...maybe...?

He's got to research...you know, like I said, find the evidence by the guy who is only reliable to his viewpoint.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #470 on: October 24, 2013, 03:17:01 AM »
Regarding Ken Miller, who I think is pretty easy to discredit: <snip>

You appear to insist on appealing to the authority of Michael Behe, who is pretty discredited himself.

Further, Behe is moving the goalposts, and in doing so, asserts that "Darwinists" such as Begley and Miller are moving the goalposts by sticking to his original claim, to whit, that if but one component were removed from a system, it would render it non-functional.

"Non-functional" does not mean "incapable of performing the same function, only more primitively". There is no reason why structures in an organism can't be co-opted - if the result works, that's all that matters. Natural selection does not entail some predefined goal.

Behe states that: "Miller's argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That's it!" Behe omits to mention that that is all that is required as a foil to Behe's own argument. Behe's further argument - to the effect that Miller did not go on to show that natural processes did result in the flagellum being what it is.

This gets to the heart of the intellectual dishonesty implicit in this kind of argument. Essentially, it goes like this:
(a) assert that a system is IC.
(b) point to a component that looks IC.
(c) when counterpoints are raised that indicate that the component is not IC, point to another component.
(d) repeat (c) until you run out of components.
(e) demand that your opponent demonstrate how the system was arrived at through purely natural processes, and claim victory ("he still hasn't explained how Darwinian processes can arrive at this organism!") unless your opponent can provide a complete map of the system's development.
(f) repeat steps (a-e) until you run out of systems.

This is "IC-of-the-gaps". It is essentially a massive game of Whac-A-Mole™ that has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with trying to discover anything useful about how organisms work or how they might have come to be the way they are, and certainly nothing to do with discovering truth.

When he later says that "the function of a pump has essentially nothing to do with the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion device", I have to wonder about his knowledge of such devices. Rotary pumps and rotary propulsion devices both have a rotary motor; and as such there is a very clear relationship between them.

lol,  I guess i'm going to have to give up.    It just seems like if a system would become non-functional if 1 part was not there,  then there was never any beneficial random mutation that nature could have selected to lead up to that end state.  There needs to be a beneficial function of some sort for nature to select throughout the process of Darwin evolution.  That is what Behe is getting at.    Otherwise , the entire system has to be assembled at once and obviously that sounds like intelligent design.

DrTesla, I am guessing this means we aren't going to see you post again. If you are honest and open and genuinely willing to learn about this stuff, then do a bit more research on the Websites people have provided here. The central premise of Behe's claims is flawed, as I explained earlier: it does not take into account substitutions and deletions, but rather simplistically assumes a process of cumulative addition (it has to, since that is the only means by which his argument, that the subtraction of a part renders a system inoperable, could even remotely be considered valid).

In short, Behe is wrong, his arguments are discredited, and if you want to find out why then you need to stop sipping the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis Kool-Aid™ and do some work to try to understand the actual science.

And though you may not post again, I nevertheless have to ask: why is it so important to you to try to discredit evolutionary Theory?
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #471 on: October 24, 2013, 03:42:11 AM »

What we are saying is the structure needs all its parts to work.

Who is this WE ? Are there two of you writing this rubbish or have you been instructed to come here and write it?

Does this sound suspicious to anyone?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #472 on: October 24, 2013, 04:03:06 AM »
^^  :laugh: Well I have been itching to ask DrTesla when he first met Behe ...
Git mit uns

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #473 on: October 24, 2013, 04:12:05 AM »
Who is this WE ? Are there two of you writing this rubbish or have you been instructed to come here and write it?

Does this sound suspicious to anyone?

Maybe he has a tulpa?
I kid, i kid.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #474 on: October 24, 2013, 01:59:23 PM »
I think some of you  have argued that evolution leads to irreducible complexity by subtraction from another more complex system. 

Consider this:  "Complexity by Subtraction," they argue that rather than being built up as normally imagined by Darwinists, from simple to complex, evolution may happen the opposite way. Starting out with something highly complex, there follows a loss of complexity, and you end up with an evolutionary product that is simpler and more streamlined. Where did you get the highly complex beginning? That must remain the usual free gift. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/complexity_by_s071281.html#sthash.QMSOHPh6.dpuf
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #475 on: October 24, 2013, 02:03:00 PM »
I think some of you  have argued that evolution leads to irreducible complexity by subtraction from another more complex system. 

Consider this:  "Complexity by Subtraction," they argue that rather than being built up as normally imagined by Darwinists, from simple to complex, evolution may happen the opposite way. Starting out with something highly complex, there follows a loss of complexity, and you end up with an evolutionary product that is simpler and more streamlined. Where did you get the highly complex beginning? That must remain the usual free gift. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/complexity_by_s071281.html#sthash.QMSOHPh6.dpuf


You've clearly been missing the point many of us have been making all along (that, and you've been practicing the fallacy of Moving the Goal Post). IC becomes meaningless if you attempt to switch the definition of it midstream. Changing from "remove one part and the thing doesn't function at all" to "remove one part and the thing doesn't function as that part" is not a problem for evolutionary science. It's weird that you can't see that. If a part cannot function "doing that job" (just another job), then IC doesn't do anything it was intended to do (i.e. - pose a challenge to evolution).
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 02:07:55 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #476 on: October 24, 2013, 02:04:34 PM »
I think some of you  have argued that evolution leads to irreducible complexity by subtraction from another more complex system.

I've postulated that it could do so. Since claims of IC systems have, thus far, not stood up to critical scrutiny, the point is rather moot.

Quote
Where did you get the highly complex beginning?

Straw man. By what token do you assert that a predecessor with an additional, redundant, component is "the beginning"? This is getting beyond silly, DrTesla.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #477 on: October 24, 2013, 02:04:42 PM »
Ken Miller didn't prove Behe wrong on the irreducible complexity of blood cascade.  Behe only argued part of the cascade was irreducibly complex.   He did not include the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways that are less well understood.   Miller found a lifeform with no intrinsic pathway and the blood clotting cascade still works but that had nothing to do with the part of the cascade that Behe said was irreducible complexity. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #478 on: October 24, 2013, 02:06:10 PM »
I think some of you  have argued that evolution leads to irreducible complexity by subtraction from another more complex system. 

Consider this:  "Complexity by Subtraction," they argue that rather than being built up as normally imagined by Darwinists, from simple to complex, evolution may happen the opposite way. Starting out with something highly complex, there follows a loss of complexity, and you end up with an evolutionary product that is simpler and more streamlined. Where did you get the highly complex beginning? That must remain the usual free gift. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/complexity_by_s071281.html#sthash.QMSOHPh6.dpuf


You've clearly been missing the point many of us have been making all along.

Obvioulsy,  I don't see how you can say an IC system evolved from a more complex system whithout explaining how that system got complex in the first place.  we would need a biological example of this it would seem.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #479 on: October 24, 2013, 02:07:32 PM »
I think some of you  have argued that evolution leads to irreducible complexity by subtraction from another more complex system. 

Consider this:  "Complexity by Subtraction," they argue that rather than being built up as normally imagined by Darwinists, from simple to complex, evolution may happen the opposite way. Starting out with something highly complex, there follows a loss of complexity, and you end up with an evolutionary product that is simpler and more streamlined. Where did you get the highly complex beginning? That must remain the usual free gift. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/complexity_by_s071281.html#sthash.QMSOHPh6.dpuf

-100000 for not thinking
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #480 on: October 24, 2013, 02:08:25 PM »
ok, let us try to curtail the rhetoric type of posts and stick to the facts.  Just the facts.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #481 on: October 24, 2013, 02:11:17 PM »
ok, let us try to curtail the rhetoric type of posts and stick to the facts.  Just the facts.

If we stuck to just the facts (i.e. not falsehoods), we'd have to delete most of your posts from this thread.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #482 on: October 24, 2013, 02:11:36 PM »
I think some of you  have argued that evolution leads to irreducible complexity by subtraction from another more complex system. 

Consider this:  "Complexity by Subtraction," they argue that rather than being built up as normally imagined by Darwinists, from simple to complex, evolution may happen the opposite way. Starting out with something highly complex, there follows a loss of complexity, and you end up with an evolutionary product that is simpler and more streamlined. Where did you get the highly complex beginning? That must remain the usual free gift. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/complexity_by_s071281.html#sthash.QMSOHPh6.dpuf


You've clearly been missing the point many of us have been making all along.

Obvioulsy,  I don't see how you can say an IC system evolved from a more complex system whithout explaining how that system got complex in the first place.  we would need a biological example of this it would seem.


Your failure to understand what is being stated here is astounding. Have you even considered looking at the other side, instead of just reading from your bias? The simple fact is, you don't know the science. Simply put: You-are-ignorant. And your ignorance of the science, and what it states, is the complete cause of your absurd attempts here to 'bring down' evolutionary science.


Again, if you attempt to change the definition of IC (as your little buddies have) then IC becomes toothless to accomplish what you want it to.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 02:14:30 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #483 on: October 24, 2013, 02:15:30 PM »
Obvioulsy,  I don't see how you can say an IC system evolved from a more complex system whithout explaining how that system got complex in the first place. 

If you'd done the homework I gave you in replies #306 - 308 on gene duplication and redundancy you would've understood how this works and you wouldn't be slapping cream pies in your own face like this  &)

If you can't find the humility required to learn I can't help you.
Git mit uns

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #484 on: October 24, 2013, 02:17:28 PM »
DrTesla, are you also a proponent of ID? If so, why?

Still waiting for an answer to this, DrTesla. Gonna start smiting you pretty soon.

Last chance before the smiting starts.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #485 on: October 24, 2013, 02:18:02 PM »
I think some of you  have argued that evolution leads to irreducible complexity by subtraction from another more complex system. 

Consider this:  "Complexity by Subtraction," they argue that rather than being built up as normally imagined by Darwinists, from simple to complex, evolution may happen the opposite way. Starting out with something highly complex, there follows a loss of complexity, and you end up with an evolutionary product that is simpler and more streamlined. Where did you get the highly complex beginning? That must remain the usual free gift. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/complexity_by_s071281.html#sthash.QMSOHPh6.dpuf


You've clearly been missing the point many of us have been making all along.

Obvioulsy,  I don't see how you can say an IC system evolved from a more complex system whithout explaining how that system got complex in the first place.  we would need a biological example of this it would seem.


Your failure to understand what is being stated here is astounding. Have you even considered looking at the other side, instead of just reading from your bias? The simple fact is, you don't know the science. Simply put: You-are-ignorant. And your ignorance of the science, and what it states, is the complete cause of your absurd attempts here to 'bring down' evolutionary science.


Again, if you attempt to change the definition of IC (as your little buddies have) then IC becomes toothless to accomplish what you want it to.

IC isn't trying to do anything...It is merely an observation of the state of a system, in that if one part was not there, it would fail.   
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #486 on: October 24, 2013, 02:18:49 PM »
Obvioulsy,  I don't see how you can say an IC system evolved from a more complex system whithout explaining how that system got complex in the first place.  we would need a biological example of this it would seem.

Many animals have evolved to become simpler. So what?

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. The fact that many animals have become simpler should tell you that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #487 on: October 24, 2013, 02:19:35 PM »
Obvioulsy,  I don't see how you can say an IC system evolved from a more complex system whithout explaining how that system got complex in the first place. 

If you'd done the homework I gave you in replies #306 - 308 on gene duplication and redundancy you would've understood how this works and you wouldn't be slapping cream pies in your own face like this  &)

If you can't find the humility required to learn I can't help you.

You've never explained how that is related to the origin of a IC system.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #488 on: October 24, 2013, 02:20:45 PM »
Obvioulsy,  I don't see how you can say an IC system evolved from a more complex system whithout explaining how that system got complex in the first place.  we would need a biological example of this it would seem.

Many animals have evolved to become simpler. So what?

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. The fact that many animals have become simpler should tell you that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

If there was no such thing as IC then Darwins would not be proposing things like complexity by subtraction to account for IC.  Does that make sense?   It seems like Darwins are not all on the same page?
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1790
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #489 on: October 24, 2013, 02:21:18 PM »
Again, if you attempt to change the definition of IC (as your little buddies have) then IC becomes toothless to accomplish what you want it to.

Are you referring to skep### and Prejah? Am I the only one who thinks that at least two of the three are connected IRL? The timing of their arrivals made me giggle and picture them huddled in a basement somewhere, plotting a strategy to prove to us how wrong we are.  ;D

Don't know it there's any truth to it, I don't particularly care even, it just amused me.

Edit: typing
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 02:23:44 PM by Jag »
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #490 on: October 24, 2013, 02:21:41 PM »

IC isn't trying to do anything...It is merely an observation of the state of a system, in that if one part was not there, it would fail.

This statement, once again, shows even more of your ignorance of the science (and perhaps dishonesty of IC proponents). Have you read Darwin's Black Box? It clearly has a purpose. You are attacking the wind! It makes no difference "if you remove one part". Nowhere does evolution state what you think it states. Again, you are just ignorant of evolutionary biology. Plain and simple.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12290
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #491 on: October 24, 2013, 02:22:59 PM »
If there was no such thing as IC then Darwins would not be proposing things like complexity by subtraction to account for IC.  Does that make sense?   It seems like Darwins are not all on the same page?

Holy shit, there's a bunch of Darwins running around?  I mean, I know a guy who named his son Darwin, but that's the extent of it.  What are their last names?  Or if that's their last name, what're their first names?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #492 on: October 24, 2013, 02:23:28 PM »

IC isn't trying to do anything...It is merely an observation of the state of a system, in that if one part was not there, it would fail.


This statement, once again, shows even more of your ignorance of the science (and perhaps dishonesty of IC proponents). Have you read Darwin's Black Box? It clearly has a purpose. You are attacking the wind! It makes no difference "if you remove one part". Nowhere does evolution state what you think it states. Again, you are just ignorant of evolutionary biology. Plain and simple.

Man is always ignorant of something.  I am not unique in that regard.

I came here to disabuse myself of ignorance because surely Darwins are right since it was taught in science class.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla