25 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLol, Mr Hamilton, you are , as we say in Scots, a blether!
[b]…a reasonable hypothesis? gulp Andrew, were not interested in what you deem to be reasonable nor hypothetical.…
You have totally missed my point here -I am not saying that IS the way it happened and, I think in this case, I cannot even be absolutely sure that that is the way it ‘probably’ happened because there may be other alternative hyp ...[text shortened]... confused with its ORIGINAL form) but NOT one being dependent on the other in its ORIGINAL form.[/b]
26 Jan 09
@ Mr Hamilton
I'd just let it go if I were you to be honest its like banging your head off a wall. The bottom line is that Irreducible complexity has been fully debunked and Isn't a viable theory. Furthermore there hasn't been a valid example of an actually Irreducibly complex system, ever.
However those that support it will argue in circles or not accept your answers no matter how you put it. Sometimes its really not worth the hassle.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by Mexicomy dear Mr. Mexico, it has not been established in the slightest, not even remotely how the human cell is not irreducibly complex. all Mr Hamilton did was provide abstract biological systems that may have, might have, could have behaved in a certain manner, there is no way that you can deny the correlation between DNA, RNA and proteins, the human cell is therfore irreducibly complex, and professor M J Behe lives! i must also conclude that you are also a blether!
@ Mr Hamilton
I'd just let it go if I were you to be honest its like banging your head off a wall. The bottom line is that Irreducible complexity has been fully debunked and Isn't a viable theory. Furthermore there hasn't been a valid example of an actually Irreducibly complex system, ever.
However those that support it will argue in circles or not accept your answers no matter how you put it. Sometimes its really not worth the hassle.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePlease list the components of the Human cell that you consider to be 'irreducibly complex'.
my dear Mr. Mexico, it has not been established in the slightest, not even remotely how the human cell is not irreducibly complex. all Mr Hamilton did was provide abstract biological systems that may have, might have, could have behaved in a certain manner, there is no way that you can deny the correlation between DNA, RNA and proteins, the human ce ...[text shortened]... ucibly complex, and professor M J Behe lives! i must also conclude that you are also a blether!
If one of us was to provide an example of a viable cell that contains all but one of those components, will you admit that the Human cell is not in fact irreducibly complex, or would you care to explain how your understanding of 'irreducible complexity' works differently from what Behe proposed?
Or will you simply pull your usual stunt of pulling out of a conversation when challenged to back up anything?
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…all Mr Hamilton did was provide abstract biological systems that may have, might have, could have behaved in a certain manner..…
my dear Mr. Mexico, it has not been established in the slightest, not even remotely how the human cell is not irreducibly complex. all Mr Hamilton did was provide abstract biological systems that may have, might have, could have behaved in a certain manner, there is no way that you can deny the correlation between DNA, RNA and proteins, the human ce ...[text shortened]... ucibly complex, and professor M J Behe lives! i must also conclude that you are also a blether!
I assume you are referring to my plausible hypothesis of how the current interdependencies of the components in modern living cells could have evolved -I and other thinking people have already debunked the “irreducibly complexity” argument that you keep referring to time and time again:
reminder of my post:
“…You have totally missed my point here -I am not saying that IS the way it happened and, I think in this case, I cannot even be absolutely sure that that is the way it ‘probably’ happened because there may be other alternative hypothesis/factors that have never entered my mind or are totally unknown to me.
BUT, and this IS the critical point here, the fact that I just gave JUST ONE reasonable hypothesis (and ONLY one is sufficient here) that shows how the CURRENT complexity of the chemistry of living cells could have come about without the “chicken and egg” problem means that that the mere existence of that reasonable hypothesis totally rubbishes and DISPROVES the idea that it is, so called, “irreducibly complex” because, to make sense to call it “irreducibly complex”, it must contain within it components that couldn’t credibly came there one at a time (the “chicken and egg” problem) under ANY reasonable hypothesis!
-but I have just given a reasonable hypothesis that DOES show how they could have credibly came there one at a time!
-whether my hypothesis is the correct hypothesis or if the correct hypothesis of how they could have credibly came there one at a time is totally different from mine is totally irrelevant to the issue for the reason just explained…”
-the above really hits it no the nail -“irreducibly complexity” logically disproven.
If you deny this then please point out to us EXACTLY where the logical flaw is in the above and how so….
P.S. just either ignoring the logical proof or dismissing it as not proof does not in any way make the proof any lesser of a proof nor does it make it go away -the only way you can discredit it is to show EXACTLY where a logical flaw is in the ’proof” to show that it is a misnomer.
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducable_complexity
my dear Mr. Mexico, it has not been established in the slightest, not even remotely how the human cell is not irreducibly complex. all Mr Hamilton did was provide abstract biological systems that may have, might have, could have behaved in a certain manner, there is no way that you can deny the correlation between DNA, RNA and proteins, the human ce ...[text shortened]... ucibly complex, and professor M J Behe lives! i must also conclude that you are also a blether!
Edit: "Behe himself acknowledges that simply because scientists cannot currently see how an "irreducibly complex" organism could evolve, it does not prove that there is no possible way for it to have occurred."
i have no wish to explain just how irreducibly ignorant you are anymore. you have been provided with material, read it and draw conclusions for yourself.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthank you, your admittance that it was nothing more than a hypothesis was a rather small but never the less significant admission, plausible is an adjective i would not like to band about when we are talking science.
[b]…all Mr Hamilton did was provide abstract biological systems that may have, might have, could have behaved in a certain manner..…
I assume you are referring to my plausible hypothesis of how the current interdependencies of the components in modern living cells could have evolved -I and other thinking people have already debunked the “irre ...[text shortened]... edit it is to show EXACTLY where a logical flaw is in the ’proof” to show that it is a misnomer.[/b]
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe town idiot speaks nonsense and when someone tries to explain something to him he shouts "blah blah i can't hear you."
yeah yeah, wikipedia blah de blah, professor Micheal J Behe lives! i must therefore also conclude that you are a blether too Zhalanzi, but you knew that already!
do try and read it. doubt it will make a difference though.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadi already have, i will not do so again, RNA, DNA, and proteins, take one of these out of the equation and the human cell would not function! Behe lives, your another blether!
Please list the components of the Human cell that you consider to be 'irreducibly complex'.
If one of us was to provide an example of a viable cell that contains all but one of those components, will you admit that the Human cell is not in fact irreducibly complex, or would you care to explain how your understanding of 'irreducible complexity' works diff ...[text shortened]... pull your usual stunt of pulling out of a conversation when challenged to back up anything?
26 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanziah your favorite word, i wonder when that extensive vocabulary would produce such eloquence again. i know how a human cell functions, if you can prove that it can function without any one of the aforementioned components then do so, otherwise please refrain from firing your rockets into cyberspace, it really is quite undignified and unedifying. and if you had been following the post, you will determine one would hope, that the question of whether it could biologically happen is not the issue, never was oh enlightened one, but whether it was likely, and statistics were given, from, a quotation from the new york times, plus various illustrations to help numpties like you grasp how completely and utterly infinitesimally small the likely hood would be! read it an weep!
the town idiot speaks nonsense and when someone tries to explain something to him he shouts "blah blah i can't hear you."
do try and read it. doubt it will make a difference though.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe link explains it. like i said, i am done explaining anything to you. i don't mind using my time to explain to idiots certain concepts, but you don't want to learn. as such that time would be utterly wasted.
ah your favorite word, i wonder when that extensive vocabulary would produce such eloquence again. i know how a human cell functions, if you can prove that it can function without any one of the aforementioned components then do so, otherwise please refrain from firing your rockets into cyberspace, it really is quite undignified and unedifying. and ...[text shortened]... asp how completely and utterly infinitesimally small the likely hood would be! read it an weep!
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…thank you, your admittance that it was nothing more than a hypothesis was a rather small but never the less significant admission,
thank you, your admittance that it was nothing more than a hypothesis was a rather small but never the less significant admission, plausible is an adjective i would not like to band about when we are talking science.
..…
Yes -it is an unproven hypothesis -but yet again you haven’t addressed my point and you pretend not to understand my point that that the mere existence of such a hypothesis, REGARDLESS of whether or not it is proven, CLEARLY TOTALLY DEBUNKS the “irreducibly complexity” argument. This is because only ONE plausible hypothesis has to be given to how only one component of the cell could have evolved at a time to totally disprove discredit the whole “irreducibly complexity” argument.
-are you pretending not to read what I said? -if not, please point out to us the logical flaw in my argument.
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo if I give you an example of a viable cell that does not have one of those three components, will you accept that you are wrong about the human cell being irreducibly complex?
i already have, i will not do so again, RNA, DNA, and proteins, take one of these out of the equation and the human cell would not function! Behe lives, your another blether!