09 May 15
Originally posted by C HessAny attempt to shoot down irreducible complexity in reference to the millions of perfect species of conscious living animals with their senses of sight and touch and taste and hearing and smell and especially reproduction ...........................is not only absurd and stupid but downright dishonest.
When arguing for irreducible complexity, creationists often make the case that something as complex as the eye could not have evolved in gradual steps, the idea being that you need all the parts to be in place and fully functional before you have an actual eye. Any intermediate from "no eye parts" to an "all eye parts" would be useless baggage that nat ...[text shortened]... s scrambled, try pressing the full screen view button on the lower right of the video view.)[/i]
The real problem atheists have with trying to understand the creation stories of the false religions of Christianity and Islam and Judaism...................is that these stories along with most their doctrine is false and it is no wonder atheists reject them.
It is nonsense to defend the.....................accidental big bang and the accidental appearance of planet earth with it's accidental earthly living ecosystems, and the accidental appearance of tens of millions of perfect living species and the accidental provision of thousands of plants and tree,s and vegetation containing all their food, and the accidental appearance of conscious mind and intelligence and emotions and senses and the reproduction organs with both male and female parts.............etc etc etc.
Note: I say accidental because from the atheists assertions there appears to be no planned super intelligent cause behind all the living and nonliving systems that all complement each other to offer us all earthlings are perfect home/earth.
09 May 15
Originally posted by C HessOrganisms that may have some of the parts that are being used for different functions in not a refutation of the theory of irreducible complexity in biological systems. The theory means that if one part is removed, then it no longer works to perform the function it was designed for.
No, but that's not what we're talking about. Again, the argument from irreducible complexity is that there are biological structures so complex and intertwined that if you remove just one part, the entire structure fails, and therefore this could not have been the result of a step-wise evolutionary process. The refutation is that, look, there's an organism wi ...[text shortened]... only some of the parts, and it's doing just fine. Irreducible complexity debunked. End of story.
The theory of irreducible complexity does not mean that some of the parts can't be arranged in some other way to perform a different function. Anyone that says that is what is meant is ignorant or evil.
09 May 15
1 edit
"A photoreceptor cell is the first stage for the development of the eye"
Okay how do we know this is true?
If it was true, what made it useful since nothing it could do would have any meaning to
the life form that mutated to receive it?
Basic question, how did it get there in a manner that mattered?
10 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, you have been given two links. Both give very detailed explanations regarding the evolution of the eye and what scientists have worked out. I suggest you read them. If that is insufficient for you, Google is your friend. A quick search for 'evolution of photoreceptor cells' yields enough literature to keep you busy till Christmas. Have fun. 🙂
"A photoreceptor cell is the first stage for the development of the eye"
Okay how do we know this is true?
If it was true, what made it useful since nothing it could do would have any meaning to
the life form that mutated to receive it?
Basic question, how did it get there in a manner that mattered?
10 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayLet's suppose a creature develops a photoreceptor cell. It can now sense light.
"A photoreceptor cell is the first stage for the development of the eye"
Okay how do we know this is true?
If it was true, what made it useful since nothing it could do would have any meaning to
the life form that mutated to receive it?
Basic question, how did it get there in a manner that mattered?
Its offspring inherit this property.
Some do nothing with the sensory input.
Some are compelled to move towards light.
Some are compelled to move away from light.
Now if that creature's food source were found in light areas
(say a plant relying on photosynthesis) which ones do you
think will benefit and multiply at the greater rate?
Perhaps some future descendant has a development that allows
it better directional sense of where the light is coming from
and then that adaptation is passed on.
Et cetera
10 May 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey may keep him busy past Christmas, but none of it will answer his questions. They use the magic of evolution to fill in the gaps.
Kelly, you have been given two links. Both give very detailed explanations regarding the evolution of the eye and what scientists have worked out. I suggest you read them. If that is insufficient for you, Google is your friend. A quick search for 'evolution of photoreceptor cells' yields enough literature to keep you busy till Christmas. Have fun. 🙂
10 May 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI can read the links, I actually read them, and you guys are the one's I'm putting questions
Kelly, you have been given two links. Both give very detailed explanations regarding the evolution of the eye and what scientists have worked out. I suggest you read them. If that is insufficient for you, Google is your friend. A quick search for 'evolution of photoreceptor cells' yields enough literature to keep you busy till Christmas. Have fun. 🙂
to since you provided the links and the authors are not here!
Google is my friend if I want to read another's work, if I want to have a give and take I'll
do it here. If all you want to do is present a link...I guess there are a few here that do that.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
10 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayCan I get an admission from you that irredicible complexity is a bust if we can point to organisms with only parts of a feature, that still has use of those parts? It seems unfruitful to discuss the various lines of evidence that leads to logical conclusions (not religious beliefs) about the evolutionary development of the eye, if you can't even submit to the simplest of logic.
How do you know this?
10 May 15
Originally posted by C HessHaving only parts of a function is not what the theory of irreducible complexity is about.
Can I get an admission from you that irredicible complexity is a bust if we can point to organisms with only parts of a feature, that still has use of those parts? It seems unfruitful to discuss the various lines of evidence that leads to logical conclusions (not religious beliefs) about the evolutionary development of the eye, if you can't even submit to the simplest of logic.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
10 May 15
Originally posted by DasaI can't tell if it's dishonesty or ignorance in your case, but there is not one single species among whose attributes perfection applies. Death, resource competition, predation, disease, and so on, all testify to that. Species are good enough to survive as species (obviously), but hardly falls under the category of perfection.
Any attempt to shoot down irreducible complexity in reference to the millions of perfect species of conscious living animals with their senses of sight and touch and taste and hearing and smell and especially reproduction ...........................is not only absurd and stupid but downright dishonest.
I'm sorry if this bursts your bubble filled with unicorns and pink, friendly monster bunnies, but it can be dangerous to deny certain aspects of reality. Do me a favour and locate the nearest library where you will no doubt find a plethora of biology textbooks. It can be a disturbing read at times, but I think it may be beneficial to you. 🙂
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
10 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsMichael Behe, Darwin's black box:
Organisms that may have some of the parts that are being used for different functions in not a refutation of the theory of irreducible complexity in biological systems. The theory means that if one part is removed, then it no longer works to perform the function it was designed for.
The theory of irreducible complexity does not mean that some of the part ...[text shortened]... ay to perform a different function. Anyone that says that is what is meant is ignorant or evil.
Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.
He acknowledges the fact that a complex system could have evolved "indirectly"; where different parts played different roles in the past. That's where he should have stopped and looked at the species of today, where we see the same parts playing different roles in different species. At the very least he should have listened to the rest of the scientific community when they give example after example of how his "irreducibly complex" systems actually do feature among extant species in various forms, missing parts, demonstrating the "indirect" route evolution has taken.
His entire "theory" fails for two reasons. There is no such thing as "direct" evolution. Evolution is a blind, by definition "indirect" process. Secondly, he talks about how unlikely he thinks it is that complex systems can evolve "indirectly", even though he's surrounded by a world where every other species uses the same feature in different ways. It's a straw man maintained by wilful ignorance. Embarrassing really.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
10 May 15
Originally posted by RJHindsOh, well, that settles it then. She claims it couldn't have evolved, so I guess it couldn't have evolved. 🙄
Having only parts of a function is not what the theory of irreducible complexity is about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCXbGQwM4UU
Why do I still bother looking at your links? 😞
10 May 15
Originally posted by C HessYou should really start following along with the conversations, I don't give a rats behind
Can I get an admission from you that irredicible complexity is a bust if we can point to organisms with only parts of a feature, that still has use of those parts? It seems unfruitful to discuss the various lines of evidence that leads to logical conclusions (not religious beliefs) about the evolutionary development of the eye, if you can't even submit to the simplest of logic.
about someone else' irreducible complexity argument. I have my own, just as I don't hold
you accountable to someone else' link information, I hold you accountable for the things
you say.
My question to you was produce the first piece of the eye's evolutionary path and you
ignored it several times, instead you keep attempting to get me to admit about failure
for an argument I have not made outside of saying that if you don't have key elements
you don't have something that works.
For me since I have seen a lot of work in people's effort in the design of complex items,
all the effort is involved in getting things to work together, I want to know from you the
first step in this evolutionary path!
How did it start? What was the first piece? Why was that first piece useful? Please since
you are so keen on being able to produce things that are science, I'd like something that
is NOT conjecture, it does not have to be taken on faith, you know where is the evidence
that confirms this! I hope you can do better than the guy who spoke in your link and not
just do what he did, state his case therefore you should believe in it.