Author Topic: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex  (Read 5128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #145 on: January 23, 2014, 06:42:04 PM »
^^Indeed.  If you don't know, Godexists, then how can you say it was done at all?  And don't just tell us that you believe your god did it somehow.  Belief is useless in science.  Scientists don't do experiments by praying for a god to make what they want happen; they do the experiments themselves in order to see what actually does happen.  If they don't know how to do the experiments, then they don't make positive claims based on the experiments they didn't do.

i have already posted this :

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154

Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.

ii. Hypothesis:
If an object in the natural world was designed, then we should be able to examine that object and find the same high levels of CSI in the natural world as we find in human-designed objects.

iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists. When we look at natural objects in biology, we find many machine-like structures which are specified, because they have a particular arrangement of parts which is necessary for them to function, and complex because they have an unlikely arrangement of many interacting parts. These biological machines are "irreducibly complex," for any change in the nature or arrangement of these parts would destroy their function. Irreducibly complex structures cannot be built up through an alternative theory, such as Darwinian evolution, because Darwinian evolution requires that a biological structure be functional along every small-step of its evolution. "Reverse engineering" of these structures shows that they cease to function if changed even slightly.

iv. Conclusion:
Because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed.

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #146 on: January 23, 2014, 06:44:08 PM »
But you assume 'design' is there before you ever start looking, and thus lots of things seem to suggest it to you.  That's why it ends up begging the question.

How do you know ?

The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

That is not a affirmation specifically in regard of natural systems, but a general preposition.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12220
  • Darwins +268/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #147 on: January 23, 2014, 07:18:46 PM »
So a rolling pin, being simple, is exceedingly unlikely to be the product of design.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #148 on: January 23, 2014, 08:28:58 PM »
i have already posted this :

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154
And as others have pointed out, it is badly flawed.  Indeed, I'll point out its most fatal flaws myself, in this post.

Quote from: Godexists
Basic Intelligent Design:

i. Observation:
The ways that intelligent agents act can be observed in the natural world and described. When intelligent agents act, it is observed that they produce high levels of "complex-specified information" (CSI). CSI is basically a scenario which is unlikely to happen (making it complex), and conforms to a pattern (making it specified). Language and machines are good examples of things with much CSI. From our understanding of the world, high levels of CSI are always the product of intelligent design.
This 'observation' doesn't define "complex-specified information" in any meaningful or useful manner.  It states that complexity means that something's unlikely to happen, which is a singularly useless definition.  The chances of winning the jackpot in a Powerball drawing are approximately 174 million to one; does that make a Powerball drawing complex?  It also does not give us any idea of how high the odds need to be in order to make it 'unlikely'.  Furthermore, it then states that specified means it conforms to a pattern, which isn't much better.  A snowflake, a sand dune, a wave, soap bubbles, and naturally-occurring crystal formations all conform to patterns.  Are they specified?

On top of that, it only gives us examples of things that, presumably, have high "CSI", such as language and machines.  What it does not give us are examples of things that do not have high "CSI", therefore we have no effective way to decide what doesn't have high "CSI".  The definition of high "CSI" is purely arbitrary, as well; it does not tell us how much "CSI" exists in language and machines, as opposed to other things, therefore we cannot generalize it to assign "CSI" values to various things.  These problems effectively make the whole concept of "CSI" unfalsifiable, because it can be redefined according to the whim of the person defining it.

What that means is that the other three things you listed (hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion) are completely worthless, because they rest on a premise that cannot (currently) be falsified.  Because the scientific method relies on the concept of falsification, you cannot run the concept of intelligent design (as written here) through the scientific method.

How do you know ?

The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

That is not a affirmation specifically in regard of natural systems, but a general preposition.
How do I know?  Because your statement, "the more complex something is, the more likely it is a product of design", does not actually tell us anything useful.  It simply asserts that as complexity increases, the probability of design increases.  It does not give any way to determine an actual relationship between complexity and design, or to determine if something is a false positive (complex things that are not designed) or false negative (simple things that are designed).  The only thing it allows is for you to arbitrarily declare that complex things are designed without doing any work to prove it.

That's why I called it begging the question.  You aren't actually determining whether it is designed or not.  You're just assuming that it was.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11857
  • Darwins +298/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #149 on: January 23, 2014, 09:17:47 PM »
What you quoted just sounds like the old argument that biological organisms are too complex to occur naturally in nature.

thats exactly right !!

Oh well that’s disappointing. I was hoping you had something new.
Anywho carry on.


It's always the same story, just a different version of it. Never think otherwise.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #150 on: January 24, 2014, 06:46:31 AM »
This is a little tiresome but...

If there is so much intricate design in nature that had to be designed by a great Designer, then the Designed is more complex than anything we have talked about. I would say, therefore, that the Designer is also something that had to be designed.

So, Godexists, who designed the designer?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6572
  • Darwins +509/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #151 on: January 24, 2014, 09:15:43 AM »
iii. Experiment:
We can examine biological structures to test if high CSI exists.
All things are made of atoms, etc. Any arrangement of atoms is "complex[1]" You do not seem to realise that even your fingernails are not artificially reproducible by mankind.

You seem to think that some tribal god of a Bronze-Age culture[2] knows something about molecular biology, when it is patently obvious that Yahweh is as simplistic as those who worshipped him. And this is no coincidence: gods cannot know more than men because men invent gods.
 1. i.e. hard to understand if you don't bother studying science but, instead, like pulling fairytales out of your ar*e.
 2. that is who you mean by "designer", isn't it?
RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable. Ambrose Bierce

Offline shnozzola

Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #152 on: January 24, 2014, 10:00:51 AM »
More evolutionary science:

One of the more complicated looking metabolic pathways of life is the Krebs (TCA) cycle.  The Krebs cycle makes ATP inside the mitochondria.

Here it is, at risk of helping the intelligent design proponents  :) :



Quote
The Krebs cycle takes place in the mitochondrion.  Eukaryotes got mitochondria in an interesting way—via endosymbiosis.  A close relative of the Rickettsia bacterium (the bacteria that cause Typhus, among other things - it's in the picture at the bottom, with a partial early-evolution version of the kreb cycle) invaded (or was eaten by) our ancestor—and wound up living permanently inside another organism.

Now, here is a cell diagram of a single celled amoeba like we all have seen in a microscope looking at pond water. You can see the mitochondria inside:






Now, finally, for creationists, here is a picture (yes-bad, took forever from f*ing pdf, powerpoint, blah blah blah) from an interesting power point presentation showing the evolution of the TCA cycle through lower to more advanced life.


- the yellow arm is "our" Krebs (TCA) cycle

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/lessonsummary.php?&thisaudience=13-16&resource_id=429
(-yes, Berkeley - those godless liberal commies - that's why its so dry out there.  :( )
« Last Edit: January 24, 2014, 10:14:48 AM by shnozzola »
“I wanna go ice fishing on Europa, and see if something swims up to the camera lens and licks it.”- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #153 on: January 24, 2014, 11:07:04 PM »
.  Eukaryotes got mitochondria in an interesting way—via endosymbiosis.

there are good reasons to doubt about mitochondria endosimbymbiosis :

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_the_origin_o054891.html

one amongst other reasons are :

Even though some shared characteristics may be found, we have to realize that bacterial and eukaryotic membranes are fundamentally different. It seems virtually impossible to change all fundamental bacterial membrane characteristics and replace them with a eukaryotic counterpart without loosing membrane integrity. The differences between the membranes of mitochondria and the cell walls of bacteria make the endosymbiotic theory mechanistically difficult. It seems quite clear that bacterial membranes do not change easily into other membranes, and frankly I don't see any scenarios in which to change all these membrane components without drastically affecting fitness.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #154 on: January 25, 2014, 01:06:27 AM »
So, if complex things must be designed.

Who designed god?
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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #155 on: January 25, 2014, 01:37:51 AM »
there are good reasons to doubt about mitochondria endosimbymbiosis :
Frankly, this is nothing more than "I don't see how it could happen" again, and proceeding on the assumption that it couldn't have.

Quote from: Godexists
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/on_the_origin_o054891.html

one amongst other reasons are :

Even though some shared characteristics may be found, we have to realize that bacterial and eukaryotic membranes are fundamentally different. It seems virtually impossible to change all fundamental bacterial membrane characteristics and replace them with a eukaryotic counterpart without loosing membrane integrity. The differences between the membranes of mitochondria and the cell walls of bacteria make the endosymbiotic theory mechanistically difficult. It seems quite clear that bacterial membranes do not change easily into other membranes, and frankly I don't see any scenarios in which to change all these membrane components without drastically affecting fitness.
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.  Furthermore, you are forgetting that mitochondria live inside eukaryotic cells, and thus do not need the same level of protection as ordinary bacteria do.  So there is no reason at all to conclude that their cell membranes couldn't have changed over time to what they are now, since mitochondria are protected by the main cell membrane.

Honestly, Godexists, you just keep pulling these poorly-reasoned creationist ideas out from other websites and dump them on us.  We poke holes in them, then you find other ones.  It's kind of tiresome to keep hearing what amounts to the same arguments over and over again, especially when all of your previous ones keep getting flattened.  And you're still just as insistent on intelligent design now as you were when you first appeared on this website.  It's like you haven't even bothered to listen to the arguments anyone else has presented, yet you still expect us to listen to the arguments you plop down and don't even defend.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #156 on: January 25, 2014, 06:42:08 AM »
Its impossible..... seems to be Godexists main claim.

Look, Godexists, if you had lived at the same time as Marie Curie and someone had said to you that you could look inside a body and see the bones, what would you have said? Yes, quite right, 'that's impossible' yet with Marie Curie's discovery we can now all see bones clearly via Xrays.

Perhaps if you had lived at the end of the 1800s and someone said to you that you might one day travel to the USA in just a few hours. What would you have said. yes, you've got it, 'that's impossible' yet now it is routine.

The point is that because we don't know something now, does not mean we won't in the future. Incredulity at nature is fine - nature is an amazing thing - but to say 'that's impossible' is likely to be only the start of you looking even more silly some years down the like. You know - like Harold Camping. For you to say something is impossible you are going to need positive evidence not just a' well, I can't see how it can happen' type of answer.

Of course you could tell us about the experiments ongoing to discover the designer and then we might take some interest....
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #157 on: January 25, 2014, 07:22:59 AM »
  It's like you haven't even bothered to listen to the arguments anyone else has presented, yet you still expect us to listen to the arguments you plop down and don't even defend.

How about you ? Are YOU bothering about my arguments ?

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #158 on: January 25, 2014, 07:26:37 AM »
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.

Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ? 

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #159 on: January 25, 2014, 07:58:45 AM »
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.

Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ?

I am unaware of any scientific evidence that shows something is impossible - at least the sort of things we have been talking about. Care to elaborate on such things?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #160 on: January 25, 2014, 08:11:11 AM »
Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ?

The phrase "virtually impossible" refers to an incredibly improbable event.

Note that if something has a sliver of probability, it can occur. (examples include monkeys writing Shakespeare, which is very well possible, but very improbable.)

Another well used one is the virtual impossibility of hitting a specific blade of grass when playing golf.

But due to the scientific method, it has been proven that evolution occurs.
God otherwise...not so much.
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 wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #161 on: January 25, 2014, 08:25:54 AM »
In the UK, it is virtually impossible to win the National Lottery - the chances of picking the right numbers are about 14 million to 1. Guess what... most weeks at least one person manages it and wins the prize and sometimes more than one. Very long odds does not mean something won't happen.

In the case of abiogensis and evolution, we have to remember the time-scales involved. It is not just a few years. It billions of years! In that length of time all sort of unlikely events happen. Yet no god does. odd...
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #162 on: January 25, 2014, 08:33:06 AM »
In the case of abiogensis and evolution, we have to remember the time-scales involved. It is not just a few years. It billions of years! In that length of time all sort of unlikely events happen. Yet no god does. odd...

In the case of both evolution and abiogenesis, both have occurred in labs.

Which i think is a rather good piece of evidence.
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 Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #163 on: January 25, 2014, 09:14:24 AM »
But due to the scientific method, it has been proven that evolution occurs.

what has been proven, is adaptation to the environment based on pre-existing genome information, which permits such adaptation, and speciation, which however is not equal the arise of new traits, like wings, or legs etc.

Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, 2005

the amount of information required to transform a single-celled organism into a human being would be greater than the information required to transform the manufacturing plant for a Little Red WagonTM into the Star Ship Enterprise — complete with warp drive engines and holodeck! Can natural selection, acting on accidental changes to the assembly directions of the little red wagon, accomplish this transformation?
Natural selection is similar to the quality control department at the wagon assembly plant and our genetic code is similar to a document containing the entire manufacturing process for the red wagon. Everything needed to manufacture the wagon, including the specifications for all of the materials of construction…all of the individual components…the processes needed to manufacture them…all of the metal press specifications…all of the robotics and programming language…the assembly instructions…the paint specifications…the employee benefits manual… EVERYTHING needed for the wagon’s construction needs to be attached as a manual to the bottom of the wagon. The next wagon to be produced must use only the information in the existing wagon to make the next copy. The quality department (natural selection) can only see the finished wagon, not the enormous amount of information in the manufacturing manual (the genetic code of the wagon). The question is: can random changes in the assembly manual (the genetic code) allow the quality control department (natural selection) to transform the little red wagon into a better wagon and ultimately into the USS Enterprise?
The amount of information contained within the simplest single cell organism (similar to the information required to build a wagon assembly plant) would fill a small library. Suppose you started with a perfect set of instructions in this library and randomly changed hundreds of individual letters throughout the instructions. Very few of these changes would be critical for assembly or cause a faulty wagon which the quality control department (natural selection) would reject. It is far more likely that almost all of the random changes (these are called mutations in living organisms) would result in no noticeable change and the wagons would roll off the assembly line with mistakes in their manuals intact — to be used in the creation of the next generation of wagons. This next generation would then have another set of barely noticeable mistakes added, one random letter mistake at a time. Given enough generations of the wagons, and with every increasing letter-by-letter mistake in their assembly manuals; eventually the point would be reached when wagons could no longer be produced from the instructions because there are so many tiny mistakes present. Large mistakes can be eliminated by natural selection, but not the small mistakes because, one wrong “letter” at a time, they are essentially undetectable in the final product. Yet, in the end they will drive the manufacturing process to extinction the same way one rust molecule at a time will destroy a car. This is exactly what is happening to the human genome at an alarming rate. Thousands of tiny mistakes are building up with each generation.
It would seem that neither mutations, nor natural selection, can remotely justify the dogmatic belief in evolution as the explanation for either life’s development or its origin.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1258
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #164 on: January 25, 2014, 09:20:16 AM »
"It seems virtually impossible" is not a good reason to dismiss it essentially out of hand.

Of course it is. Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end.

fixed that for you
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #165 on: January 25, 2014, 09:20:39 AM »
what has been proven, is adaptation to the environment based on pre-existing genome information, which permits such adaptation, and speciation, which however is not equal the arise of new traits, like wings, or legs etc.

What a lie.

Bacteria, and insects have evolved new genes allowing immense resistance to toxins.

Also to note, speciation IS evolution.

Even humans have a 1.9% (roughly) mutation in genes per generation. That alone IS evolution.

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 wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #166 on: January 25, 2014, 09:28:31 AM »
J C Sandford is and associate of Behe so is hardly expected to come up with anything that supports the consensus position on evolution.

Added to that, a lot of words are nothing more than idle chat until they are supported by experimental data showing those words to have any useful meaning. I look forward to seeing that. The trouble is the ID science brigade work on the basis of a lot of words and we hope no one notices what is going on. If Sandford had worked this way on his main job he would not have been in it for long.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #167 on: January 25, 2014, 09:33:05 AM »
Thought i might as well post my sources.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/antibiotics/resistance.htm
/\
Detailing mutation of genes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Complex_biological_molecules_and_protocells
/\
Detailing protocells that have been made in labs.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19213_7-animals-that-are-evolving-right-before-our-eyes.html
/\
Detailing modern examples of evolution. (yes, i know cracked is a humor site, but it is also full of facts.)

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 Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1258
  • Darwins +95/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #168 on: January 25, 2014, 09:36:02 AM »
Stuff from Dr. J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy: The Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, 2005

So, did Sanford provide any peer-reviewed statistical analysis for these claims?  If not, he's just speaking out his bunghole.
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #169 on: January 25, 2014, 10:09:24 AM »
How about you ? Are YOU bothering about my arguments ?
I'm rebutting them, aren't I?  Meaning I'm showing why they're wrong, instead of just repeatedly insisting that they are.  And I acknowledged a few things you said that were correct.  But your responses usually boil down to saying, effectively, "prove that it isn't irreducibly complex", which is just shoddy logic, since you can't prove anything in the absence of evidence.

That's what I keep saying - there's no evidence that actually supports the idea of an intelligent designer, and there's quite a lot of evidence which argues against it, such as "design flaws" that make sense as part of the process of unguided evolution, but that would be immensely stupid for an actual designer to do.  I mean, imagine if someone designed a spacesuit which had food come down the air tube.  All it would take is the air tube getting plugged up with food gunk, the person wearing it would suffocate, and the person who designed it would get fired and probably sued.  Yet we see exactly that in humans - food and air come in through the same tube, at least partway, and as a result, thousands of people choke to death every year on food.

More to the point, that's (presumably) the same entity which came up with ATP synthase, at least according to you.  According to intelligent design 'theory', the same entity which came up with, say, ATP synthase also came up using the same tube for food and air.  ID advocates who are in awe of the "intricate complexity" of ATP synthase strangely never seem to mention things like the same tube being used for air and food, or any of the other egregious examples that represent bad or stupid design.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #170 on: January 25, 2014, 10:19:27 AM »

That's what I keep saying - there's no evidence that actually supports the idea of an intelligent designer, and there's quite a lot of evidence which argues against it, such as "design flaws" that make sense as part of the process of unguided evolution, but that would be immensely stupid for an actual designer to do.  I mean, imagine if someone designed a spacesuit which had food come down the air tube.  All it would take is the air tube getting plugged up with food gunk, the person wearing it would suffocate, and the person who designed it would get fired and probably sued.  Yet we see exactly that in humans - food and air come in through the same tube, at least partway, and as a result, thousands of people choke to death every year on food.
.

Hey, don't be mean. You're not supposed to be looking at the 'design flaws'.  This ID thing is more like a conjuring trick where the audience are encouraged to look one way whilst the trick is done another. Godexists is trying to get us looking hard at flagellums (though he deems to have forgotten those lately) and the ATP stuff so that we don't notice the problems of external genitalia (easily damaged!) all the problems of putting waste exits next the birth canal, due to infection risk and all that. Once we start noticing that, we might lose attention to the ATP thingy and realise the unlikelihood of a designer getting intricate motor design just right and wrecking the overall design with a blind spot right in the centre of the eye! Whoops! I did just stop looking for a moment.

OK, eyes back on ATP!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4755
  • Darwins +540/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #171 on: January 25, 2014, 10:32:59 AM »
Of course it is.
I'm really starting to get tired of you blithely asserting that things you believe are true (which is bias - you aren't even willing to consider that someone else might have a point most of the time unless you agree with it) and then accusing other people of bias.  Haven't you realized yet how this arrogance makes you look?

Quote from: Godexists
Unless, you are biased towards your preconceived wishful thinking of the existence of no God, and so support  pseudo-science. Then you will keep to a hypothesis, even if the scientific evidence shows the impossibility of given idea, and leads to a dead end. How would your argumentation be, if i would support  things, that are " virtually impossible "  ?
I'll give you credit for a bit of cunning, at least; I can see what you're aiming for with posts like this.  Your intent is to make other people react badly, so you can dismiss what they say without giving it any consideration, also known as ad hominem tu quoque.  Too bad for you that it isn't going to work with me.  I might be getting tired of your attitude, but it'll take a lot more than this to actually wear down the patience I've cultivated for situations such as this.

What I'm questioning, since you don't seem to have realized it, is your characterization of something as being "virtually impossible" when you aren't qualified to judge the odds against it.  In short, it's your incredulity that I'm criticizing - your willingness to discard explanations that don't fit what you already believe because you believe that they're not possible.  "I do not see how it could have happened, therefore it's impossible" is the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.

Your own inability to understand something has no bearing on how likely it is.  Indeed, that very inability makes it far less likely that you could accurately assess that something, because you simply don't have the knowledge to support any conclusions you might come to.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #172 on: January 25, 2014, 10:39:40 AM »
Godexists,

how about if you comment on how your idea of ID works with the badly designed parts of the human body. Some of them have been mentioned above. For an idea (well perhaps a hypothesis if it is better thought out) to have explanatory power it s going to have to explain all of its domain and not just little bits. People ahve pointed out difficult bits for Evolution and for Abiogenesis but that is not enough. ID, after all, is supposed to explain the 'creation' of life and all the life forms as I understand it. So, how does it explain just plain bad design?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Godexists

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Darwins +0/-65
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The cell, information rich, and irreducible complex
« Reply #173 on: January 25, 2014, 11:21:47 AM »


Bacteria, and insects have evolved new genes allowing immense resistance to toxins.


thats called micro evolution.