26 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, i will do nothing of the sort, Mexico asked for an example, i stated the human cell and now you want to verify your hypothesis with your own example, dear oh dear, will you guys stop at nothing with which to perpetuate your delusion?
So 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?
26 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonperhaps you had better tell Zahlanzi, he thinks that it is real!
[b]…thank you, your admittance that it was nothing more than a hypothesis was a rather small but never the less significant admission,
..…
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 i ...[text shortened]... ending not to read what I said? -if not, please point out to us the logical flaw in my argument.[/b]
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo I have clearly misunderstood the concept of irreducible complexity. I was under the mistaken impression that it meant that an entity could not operate without any one of its parts. Would you care to enlighten me as to where my mistake is?
No, i will do nothing of the sort, Mexico asked for an example, i stated the human cell and now you want to verify your hypothesis with your own example, dear oh dear, will you guys stop at nothing with which to perpetuate your delusion?
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadok, not only must i provide an example of irreducible complexity, which i did, and as yet, no one has provided anything remotely resembling evidence as to why the human cell, remember that, the human cell, could function, as a complete entity, without the team work that exists between DNA, RNA and the proteins they produce.
So I have clearly misunderstood the concept of irreducible complexity. I was under the mistaken impression that it meant that an entity could not operate without any one of its parts. Would you care to enlighten me as to where my mistake is?
Andrew Hamilton, to his credit, and i had to admire his honesty, produced what he termed a , 'plausible hypothesis', based on other types of biological systems, you also were prepared to do the same, most admirable as well, but let me state this, hopefully for the last time, human life cannot exist without the teamwork between DNA, RNA and proteins, thus the human cell is irreducibly complex, because if we take away anyone of these components, it simply could not function.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs I pointed out in my last post it is quite clear that you and I have completely different understandings of the meaning of the phrase 'irreducible complexity' and its implications. I fully agree that the human cell would no longer be a human cell if it did not have DNA, RAN and proteins. What I don't understand is what that has to do with a discussion of evolution. Could you enlighten me?
ok, not only must i provide an example of irreducible complexity, which i did, and as yet, no one has provided anything remotely resembling evidence as to why the human cell, remember that, the human cell, could function, as a complete entity, without the team work that exists between DNA, RNA and the proteins they produce.
Andrew Hamilton, to his ...[text shortened]... bly complex, because if we take away anyone of these components, it simply could not function.
My understanding from Behe was that he was arguing that no cell could function without any given part and therefore the parts would either have to have evolved simultaneously with and simultaneously started to be used as currently used. You on the other hand clearly have a very different understanding of the matter. I am interested to know what your argument is.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducable_complexity
As I pointed out in my last post it is quite clear that you and I have completely different understandings of the meaning of the phrase 'irreducible complexity' and its implications. I fully agree that the human cell would no longer be a human cell if it did not have DNA, RAN and proteins. What I don't understand is what that has to do with a discussion o ...[text shortened]... a very different understanding of the matter. I am interested to know what your argument is.
behe proposes numerous examples of irreducible complexity, and most of them are debunked in the above thread. he admits himself that just because the scientists don't know of a way in which something supposedly irreducible complex could have evolved that doesn't mean there isn't such a way. behe is looking for god in earthly places. whenever he finds something wonderful he shouts: here he is. when he is proven wrong, he cries that he is persecuted and looks in another spot. his search will never end because his theory is not falsifiable.
27 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…but let me state this, hopefully for the last time, HUMAN life cannot exist without the teamwork between DNA, RNA and proteins,
ok, not only must i provide an example of irreducible complexity, which i did, and as yet, no one has provided anything remotely resembling evidence as to why the human cell, remember that, the human cell, could function, as a complete entity, without the team work that exists between DNA, RNA and the proteins they produce.
Andrew Hamilton, to his bly complex, because if we take away anyone of these components, it simply could not function.
...… (my emphasis)
Yes -and NOBODY has denied this nor implied that this is not the case on this thread -but, and this is the point you repeatedly ignore, it does NOT logically follow from that fact that a much earlier simpler ancestral life form which all life evolved from could also NOT exist without BOTH DNA and RNA and protein and then the full complement of the components of the modern cell evolved later -and I have already logically proved that by giving just one hypothesis of how so.
The fact that it is an unproven hypothesis is irrelevant to the argument here -just ONE plausible hypothesis is required to debunk the irreducible complexity argument (which is another fact you repeatedly ignore) and so just one given -your argument has been DEBUNKED!
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziI agree with you. However Robbie clearly has a different understanding of what 'Irreducible Complexity' is and what it implies and there is really no sense in continuing a discussion of it with him or anyone else unless we first know what it is we are discussing - which only he can tell us.
behe proposes numerous examples of irreducible complexity, and most of them are debunked in the above thread. he admits himself that just because the scientists don't know of a way in which something supposedly irreducible complex could have evolved that doesn't mean there isn't such a way. behe is looking for god in earthly places. whenever he finds someth ...[text shortened]... d and looks in another spot. his search will never end because his theory is not falsifiable.
A cell is clearly not Irreducibly Complex by Behe's definition and Robbie admits as such, however he still maintains that it is Irreducibly Complex by his own definition so I would just like him to clarify what that definition is and what he thinks its implications are.
27 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehmmmmmm... This really is a head vs wall situation isn't it. The conclusive proof that Irreducible complexity is unsustainable is shown by the fact that cells DO exist without DNA/RNA/Proteins interacting with each other. Any cell is therefore fully reducible to these components. EVERY example ever put forward for Irreducible Complexity has been shown, with examples to be reducible, with no examples the argument is farcical.
No, i will do nothing of the sort, Mexico asked for an example, i stated the human cell and now you want to verify your hypothesis with your own example, dear oh dear, will you guys stop at nothing with which to perpetuate your delusion?
I'm not going to bother giving you examples of these because I'm not a biologist and my understanding of this stuff is somewhat limited since I've only studied it via paleontology and paleobiology . I'll leave it to others, if I remember correctly however Red Blood cells don't have DNA.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
"ok, not only must i provide an example of irreducible complexity, which i did, and as yet, no one has provided anything remotely resembling evidence as to why the human cell, remember that, the human cell, could function, as a complete entity, without the team work that exists between DNA, RNA and the proteins they produce. "
No I've a question for you, you ask for evidence of a"THE human cell" hmmmm which one? we aren't single celled organisms as far as I can tell. And I've given you one with no DNA that serves its function fine, If I was bothered I'd find more info, but I'm very busy today.
You really don't listen do you, you just rabbit back the same thing over and over again until everyone stops listening to you, then you turn around and claim this as victory.....
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadi submit the theory that he doesn't want to admit to any flaws in his ideas. have you noticed that he not once adjusted his theories? that he insulted both me and hamilton? that he still claims that behe is the man after at least 3 of behe's examples of irreducible complexity have been refuted? i am not sure he even read those refutes(i hope i got the noun right) let alone understand them. he simply refuses to have a decent conversation.
I agree with you. However Robbie clearly has a different understanding of what 'Irreducible Complexity' is and what it implies and there is really no sense in continuing a discussion of it with him or anyone else unless we first know what it is we are discussing - which only he can tell us.
A cell is clearly not Irreducibly Complex by Behe's definition a ...[text shortened]... uld just like him to clarify what that definition is and what he thinks its implications are.
and while i must admit it is quite ego boosting to have a debate with someone who is probably never going to produce anything intelligent, one must realize at one point that talking to a wall is not really healthy. that is why i stop here. i am done explaining things to the robbie. whenever he produces one of his pearls of wisdom, i will simply reply with a link to some material if possible or a simple "no" if not. if i am particular chatty i will say a "hell no"
27 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton…a much earlier simpler ancestral life form which all life evolved from could also NOT exist without BOTH DNA and RNA and protein
[b]…but let me state this, hopefully for the last time, HUMAN life cannot exist without the teamwork between DNA, RNA and proteins,
...… (my emphasis)
Yes -and NOBODY has denied this nor implied that this is not the case on this thread -but, and this is the point you repeatedly ignore, it does NOT logically follow from that fact that a much ...[text shortened]... h is another fact you repeatedly ignore) and so just one given -your argument has been DEBUNKED![/b]
...…
That was a misprint; should have been:
“…a much earlier simpler ancestral life form which all life evolved from could have existed without BOTH DNA and RNA and protein
...…”
-sorry for any confusion caused.
27 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWas wondering.....
[b]…a much earlier simpler ancestral life form which all life evolved from could also NOT exist without BOTH DNA and RNA and protein
...…
That was a misprint; should have been:
“…a much earlier simpler ancestral life form which all life evolved from could have existed without BOTH DNA and RNA and protein
...…”
-sorry for any confusion caused.[/b]