The evolution game is up!!!

DoogieTalons

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Behe is wrong and irriducable complexity is bunkem being slowly stepped away from even the creation dataminers from for thestench it produces anytime its poked or prodded.

Show me ONE irriducable complex organism. or part, I'll show you some science that say's its not. Why do you insist on this global conspiracy do debunk creationism, it's only debunked because it's false if it were true the world would be a different place.
 
Damian

Damian

New member
bob b said:
"The modern evolutionary, synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis , for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins."

From the Wikipedia article: "The modern evolutionary, synthesis".
Click to expand...

To have pure chance events, there has to be uncaused (at least physically) events. An uncaused event is a logical absurdity. Therefore, the metaphysical naturalist is forced by the dictates of logic and his belief in materialism to subscribe to a deterministic worldview.
If determinism is true, then nothing is left to chance. Gene mutations are not random events but predetermined ones. The implication is clear. If determinism is true, human life is not an accident but a predetermined fact that could not have been otherwise.

If the metaphysical naturalist insist that the world is indeterminate, then he has to account for uncaused events.
 
death2impiety

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
DoogieTalons said:
Behe is wrong and irriducable complexity is bunkem being slowly stepped away from even the creation dataminers from for thestench it produces anytime its poked or prodded.

Show me ONE irriducable complex organism. or part, I'll show you some science that say's its not. Why do you insist on this global conspiracy do debunk creationism, it's only debunked because it's false if it were true the world would be a different place.
Click to expand...

You're irredicubly complex.
You have vital organs, an organism without a vital organ is dead by definition.

By evolutionary philosophy, everyone on of your vital organs would have had to have evolve in one quick leap, functioning perfectly along side your other organs.

As in, "organism b" lived without his lungs and now he begot "organism a" and "tada!" he has 'em. Organism b couldn't have lived without functioning lungs so you must propse some other alternative to not only how complex oxygen breathing organisms lived before lungs magically appeared, but how a complex organ like a lung miraculously formed by a genetic mishap. How did creatures live before lungs evolved?
 
Evoken

Evoken

New member
DoogieTalons said:
Show me ONE irriducable complex organism.
Click to expand...

You have been shown that already. Now show a peer-reviewed paper, that has been pusblished in a scientific journal describing the evolution of an IC structure.

Wether you like it or not, Michael Behe's claim about irreducible complexity IS a valid scientific concept and a genuine objection to evolutionary explanations.


Evo
 
SUTG

SUTG

New member
Behe's work has been obsolte for years. No-one worth their salt in the scientific world spends any time discussing behe. His works is about as relevant as phlogiston, the aether, and rain dancing. Read the transcripts of the Dover Trial. Quite embarrassing, really.
 
death2impiety

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
SUTG said:
Behe's work has been obsolte for years. No-one worth their salt in the scientific world spends any time discussing behe. His works is about as relevant as phlogiston, the aether, and rain dancing. Read the transcripts of the Dover Trial. Quite embarrassing, really.
Click to expand...


Evolutionists called Behe's IC obsolete before they ever read his work. They aren't interested in truth.

I have yet to read one rebuttal to IC that doesn't begin with a straw-man. Maybe you could present one here.
 
Evoken

Evoken

New member
SUTG said:
No-one worth their salt in the scientific world spends any time discussing behe.
Click to expand...

I guess Thornhill and Ussery are not worth their salt since they spent time discussing Behe in their paper "A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution."


Evo
 
J

Johnny

New member
Evoken said:
Now show a peer-reviewed paper, that has been pusblished in a scientific journal describing the evolution of an IC structure.
Click to expand...
Glenn R. Johnson and Jim C. Spain 2003. “Evolution of catabolic pathways for synthetic compounds: bacterial pathways for degradation of 2,4-dinitrotoluene and nitrobenzene.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 62(2-3), pp. 110-123

Glenn R. Johnson, Rakesh K. Jain, and Jim C. Spain 2003. “Origins of the 2,4-Dinitrotoluene Pathway.” Journal of Bacteriology, 184(15), pp. 4219-4232

Evoken said:
Wether you like it or not, Michael Behe's claim about irreducible complexity IS a valid scientific concept and a genuine objection to evolutionary explanations.
Click to expand...
I don't feel it's a strong idea at all because it relies on the assumption that all parts in a system always serve the same purpose. We know this is not the case. Even when I was in my senior year of high school (still an ardent YEC), I knew instantly the "work-around" would be simply to have alternate functions.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Give him a chance D2I. He can't even respond scientifically to the question of how knee joints evolved.
 
J

Johnny

New member
death2impiety said:
I have yet to read one rebuttal to IC that doesn't begin with a straw-man. Maybe you could present one here.
Click to expand...
Sure. The parts have other functions. Or there were supporting enzymes no longer present.

Example:
Our irreducibly complex cascade:
Enzyme C (which performs function X) relies on enzyme B which relies on enzyme A. Without enzymes B and A, enzyme C cannot perform the function. Without enzyme C, enzyme B and A are useless.

The evolution of the cascade:
Enzyme D servers a completely unrelated function, but also happens to support enzyme C. Enzyme B evolves to augment enzyme C. Enzyme A evolves to augment enzyme B. Enzyme C then mutates and enzyme D no longer supports enzyme C. Now enzyme C is completely reliant upon enzyme B, which is completely reliant upon enzyme A.
 
death2impiety

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
Johnny said:
Sure. The parts have other functions. Or there were supporting enzymes no longer present.

Example:
Enzyme A relies on enzyme B which relies on enzyme C.

Enzyme D servers a completely unrelated function, but also happens to support enzyme C. Enzyme B evolves to augment enzyme C. Enzyme A evolves to augment enzyme B. Enzyme C then mutates and enzyme D no longer supports enzyme C. Now enzyme C is completely reliant upon enzyme B, which is completely reliant upon enzyme A.
Click to expand...

So all these enzymes create organs?
 
death2impiety

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
Johnny said:
Sure. The parts have other functions. Or there were supporting enzymes no longer present.

Example:
Our irreducibly complex cascade:
Enzyme C (which performs function X) relies on enzyme B which relies on enzyme A. Without enzymes B and A, enzyme C cannot perform the function. Without enzyme C, enzyme B and A are useless.

The evolution of the cascade:
Enzyme D servers a completely unrelated function, but also happens to support enzyme C. Enzyme B evolves to augment enzyme C. Enzyme A evolves to augment enzyme B. Enzyme C then mutates and enzyme D no longer supports enzyme C. Now enzyme C is completely reliant upon enzyme B, which is completely reliant upon enzyme A.
Click to expand...


I'd be interested in reading about an example of this situation in reality for context's sake. Not the maybe's and if's how a system may have evolved, just a current biological system that operates how you described. Would you mind providing one?
 
J

Johnny

New member
death2impiety said:
So all these enzymes create organs?
Click to expand...
No. They are made up imaginary enzymes in an irreducibly complex cascade. An irreducibly complex system is an irreducibly complex system, whether we're talking about organs or enzymes. The argument lies not in the components, but in the inter-dependent relationships between the functions of the components.
 
J

Johnny

New member
death2impiety said:
I'd be interested in reading about an example of this situation in reality for context's sake. Not the maybe's and if's how a system may have evolved, just a current biological system that operates how you described. Would you mind providing one?
Click to expand...
Sure, after lunch.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
death2impiety said:
I'd be interested in reading about an example of this situation in reality for context's sake. Not the maybe's and if's how a system may have evolved, just a current biological system that operates how you described. Would you mind providing one?
Click to expand...

I suggest he do the bacterial flagellum. This should be easy because evolutionists already have done this one (supposely).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top