Origins Thread

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_tYrnv_o6A&t=15s

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvJrDsRuWxQ

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Micro ‘evolution’ is basically variations within a kind/species. Macro evolution is a new species coming into being.

Exactly. Did someone say they were the same thing?? Good Lord

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

There is no such thing as devolution.

Your responses suggest otherwise.

Also known as the second law of thermodynamics in fact.

 

[Kangal]

Your responses suggest otherwise.

Also known as the second law of thermodynamics in fact.

This is by far the dumbest thing said on the thread yet. I don't think I can respond to this level of stupid.

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I don't think I can respond to this

Oh, we know. We have the measure of you. Unread Google article paster extraordinaire. We can expect a flurry of such irrelevant articles any second

 

[Kangal]

Oh, we know. We have the measure of you. Unread Google article paster extraordinaire. We can expect a flurry of such irrelevant articles any second

What an incredible level of stupidity. You should be studied by science as a horrible warning.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Your responses suggest otherwise.

Also known as the second law of thermodynamics in fact.

Devolution is I believe a much more complex topic that there are stronger arguments for than there are for macro-evolution. There is the case of a bird which lost it's ability to fly and the question of whether than and other radical changes it underwent meant that it actually devolved into another species. There are people who believe that certain ape species actually originated from human types who became so degenerate that they lost the human state. I have wonder whether certain types of North Americans who have human shaped bodies and still it seems human souls as regards the ability for language actually have human spirits- and if they did lack that vital aspect of humanity could they be really called human or would they be now something else, maybe on the road to devolving down to the level of monkeys or something?

 

[Fishalt]

Devolution is I believe a much more complex topic that there are stronger arguments for than there are for macro-evolution. There is the case of a bird which lost it's ability to fly and the question of whether than and other radical changes it underwent meant that it actually devolved into another species. There are people who believe that certain ape species actually originated from human types who became so degenerate that they lost the human state. I have wonder whether certain types of North Americans who have human shaped bodies and still it seems human souls as regards the ability for language actually have human spirits- and if they did lack that vital aspect of humanity could they be really called human or would they be now something else, maybe on the road to devolving down to the level of monkeys or something?

“We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion. We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate for having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein do we err. For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with the extension of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings: they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.”​

 

[Tiger]

Devolution is I believe a much more complex topic that there are stronger arguments for than there are for macro-evolution. There is the case of a bird which lost it's ability to fly and the question of whether than and other radical changes it underwent meant that it actually devolved into another species. There are people who believe that certain ape species actually originated from human types who became so degenerate that they lost the human state. I have wonder whether certain types of North Americans who have human shaped bodies and still it seems human souls as regards the ability for language actually have human spirits- and if they did lack that vital aspect of humanity could they be really called human or would they be now something else, maybe on the road to devolving down to the level of monkeys or something?

The word devolution is controversial word play for evolutionists as it could suggests a predetermined direction and then a reversal of that. Terms like ‘regression’ or degeneration’ are preferred. Of course if you’re not an evolutionist you don’t need to worry about this word play.

 

[Tiger]

Drew Berry produces amazing animations based on cellular bio mechanics. Darwin had no idea the cell was so complex. Darwin's view of the cell as being a simple blob of goo was partly to blame for his notions related to the ability of complex life to form from simpler precursors.

The single cell is what's known as an irreducibly complex system. If you remove any one part the whole system collapses. Cells need to be able to capture energy and break it down for the needs of all the constituent parts. Cells need to have the ability to reproduce and repair themselves, as well the individual functions of the various kinds of cell. They are very complex machines. Drew's animation exposes for us, visually, how incredibly complex the cell and its various functions are. They are tiny bio-factories.

Evolutionary theory says a lightning bolt jump started some proteinoid goo in a primordial puddle, and instantly created the first viable cell, capable of all the functions necessary to even the most simple cellular creature, for survival . The word 'simple' here, is a misnomer. Another wizard word (like natural selection) to make things more digestible for the average imagination. There is nothing simple about the cell. They are incredible.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Hk9jct2ozY

Spoiler alert* You’re unlikely to get anyone on this forum to solve the challenge of irreducible complexity.

This video shows Behe responding to one particular challenge we’re a team of scientists are trying to provide a Darwinian explanation for the origins of a complex molecular machine like the flagellum motor.

 

[Kangal]

Spoiler alert* You’re unlikely to get anyone on this forum to solve the challenge of irreducible complexity.

This video shows Behe responding to one particular challenge we’re a team of scientists are trying to provide a Darwinian explanation for the origins of a complex molecular machine like the flagellum motor.

Just one example to the contrary. And that's all we need to debunk Behe.

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - BioLogos

In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.

biologos.org

 

[Tiger]

Just one example to the contrary. And that's all we need to debunk Behe.

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - BioLogos

In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.

biologos.org

Before getting into the merit of that challenge.

I presume you were not aware (when you did your random google search to pretend to find an answer), that the author you found is an EC, an ‘Evolutionary Creationist’ who believes Gods hand guides all evolution?

 

[Kangal]

Before getting into the merit of that challenge.

I presume you were not aware (when you did your random google search to pretend to find an answer), that the author you found is an EC, an ‘Evolutionary Creationist’ who believes Gods hand guides all evolution?

I thought it would spice things up. Though I was hoping to mention it later.
Though I think she has accepted evolution as-is without needing to lean on a God.

Over to you.

 

[Tiger]

I thought it would spice things up. Though I was hoping to mention it later.

I don’t think anyone will believe that, do you?

I think they’ll presume (correctly) that you jumped in underpants first again, with the first thing you found on the internet.

 

[Kangal]

I don’t think anyone will believe that, do you?

I think they’ll presume (correctly) that you jumped in underpants first again, with the first thing you found on the internet.

You obviously want to talk about anything else but what she says about Behe. Funny that.

 

[Kangal]

And these explain the problems in his thinking well.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

www.newscientist.com

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

[Tiger]

You obviously want to talk about anything else but what she says about Behe. Funny that.

I don’t think you read a single word of what she wrote. Do you know how I know? Because you said she ‘debunked Behe’.

If you had actually read your own googled link, you’d realise that she does no such thing. She simply (and unconvincingly) offers the transposon hypothesis as a “possible gradual route to an irreducibly complex system”.

That’s it. The article was also written in 2010. The videos above were Behe is debating Kenneth Miller (who is at the forefront of challenging Behe) are from 2015. You can see from the debate that no strong debunking argument is available to him in 2015, otherwise he’d know about it and use it.

 

[Kangal]

unconvincingly

In between the snark I pulled out the key gripe you have.

The root cause: You act don't understand anything about this.

Sorry Tiger. Zero points for you.

What else do you have?

 

[Tiger]

And these explain the problems in his thinking well.

Evolution myths: The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

Actually, flagella vary widely from one species to another, and some of the components can perform useful functions by themselves. They are anything but irreducibly complex

www.newscientist.com

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

From the very first sentence this NewScientist article is a plethora of dishonest strawman arguments.

The variability of flagella is neither here nor there and does nothing to address Behe’s challenge of irreducible complexity.

As a reminder the argument is that when you remove one part of the system, the system does not work. Articles like this seem to have a strong desire to misrepresent the argument.

The article mentions that only two proteins are unique to flagella, however a more honest argument would be speak about the complexity of the interactions among these proteins and to delve into the specific functions of each component and the potential changes of their removal. It purposefully avoids these challenges.

In terms of functionality of flagellar components the article highlights the versatility of some flagellar components, however it doesn’t bother to acknowledge the specific conditions and limitations under which these components can perform alternative functions. It’s essential to address whether alternative functions could replace the role of the flagellum in a biological context.

The article proposes a highly speculative evolutionary pathway for the flagellum as if it was fact. It doesn’t bother to mention that there’s zero empirical evidence for its hypotheses. Full on speculation presented as fact.

The author completely avoids discussing the current limitations in understanding specific evolutionary processes, especially at a molecular level.

While invoking Orgel’s Second Rule, the article doesn’t mention that this rule reflects a perspective on the adaptability of evolutionary processes, but doesn’t provide a detailed explanation for the origin of specific complex structures.