Origins Thread

[Tiger]

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

You pulled out nothing.

I’m convinced that you have no idea what we are talking about.

You’re just googling shit to try and give the illusion that you know what ye hell we are talking about.

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

This shite approach isn’t going to work.

Sorry Tiger. Zero points for you.

What else do you have?

So as a reminder, Tank has yet to offer a single explanation for how flaggellum evolved.

 

[Kangal]

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.

ChatGPT is great isn't it?

I asked it to counter the article too and got the following to add to the above.

The article you provided argues that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, countering the claim that it must have been designed because it couldn't have evolved gradually. Here's a counterargument:

While the article points out that there is diversity in bacterial flagella and that some of their components can have other useful functions, it's important to note that the concept of irreducible complexity is not solely based on the bacterial flagellum. Irreducible complexity is a broader argument that has been used to challenge the gradual evolution of various complex biological systems, not just flagella.

Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that certain biological structures or systems require all their parts to be in place and functional for them to have any benefit. They claim that removing or altering any component would render the system non-functional and, therefore, it couldn't have evolved step by step.

While the article suggests potential evolutionary pathways for the flagellum, it doesn't address the irreducible complexity argument in a comprehensive manner. The debate over irreducible complexity remains a topic of discussion among scientists and creationists, and it extends beyond the specific example of bacterial flagella.

 

[Kangal]

So as a reminder, Tank has yet to offer a single explanation for how flaggellum evolved.

The classic "god of the gaps" strategy again.

 

[Tiger]

ChatGPT is great isn't it?

I asked it to counter the article too and got the following to add to the above.

The article you provided argues that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, countering the claim that it must have been designed because it couldn't have evolved gradually. Here's a counterargument:

While the article points out that there is diversity in bacterial flagella and that some of their components can have other useful functions, it's important to note that the concept of irreducible complexity is not solely based on the bacterial flagellum. Irreducible complexity is a broader argument that has been used to challenge the gradual evolution of various complex biological systems, not just flagella.

Proponents of irreducible complexity argue that certain biological structures or systems require all their parts to be in place and functional for them to have any benefit. They claim that removing or altering any component would render the system non-functional and, therefore, it couldn't have evolved step by step.

While the article suggests potential evolutionary pathways for the flagellum, it doesn't address the irreducible complexity argument in a comprehensive manner. The debate over irreducible complexity remains a topic of discussion among scientists and creationists, and it extends beyond the specific example of bacterial flagella.

Well done Chat GPT

All you’ve done there is shown that sophisticated AI agrees with me and not with you.

So now that you know that you’re wrong, what are you going to do?

 

[Tiger]

The classic "god of the gaps" strategy again.

It’s not just a gap though is it.

For example with blood clotting. What was happening to all the living beings that were trying to exist without the ability for their blood to clot? They wouldn’t survive birth (nor would the mother) never mind trying to be very careful for the rest of their existence.

 

[Kangal]

All you’ve done there is shown that sophisticated AI agrees with me and not with you.

All I did was ask it to contruct a counter argument. You have now also demonstrated you don't know how the current AI models work.

Here what it says about Behe.

Irreducible complexity is a concept often associated with the argument against the theory of evolution. It was popularized by Michael Behe, a biochemist, and is commonly used by proponents of Intelligent Design. The idea of irreducible complexity posits that certain biological systems or structures are too complex to have evolved gradually through a series of smaller, functional steps. The argument goes that if any part of these systems were removed, they would lose their functionality completely, making them "irreducible" and implying that they must have been designed by an intelligent creator.
However, there are several reasons why the concept of irreducible complexity is considered problematic and not a compelling argument against evolution:

1. Lack of Intermediate Steps: Irreducible complexity often assumes that there are no functional intermediate steps in the evolution of complex systems. In reality, evolution proceeds through incremental changes, with each step providing some advantage or function. These intermediate forms may not be as complex as the final structure but can still serve a purpose.
2. Exaptation: Many biological structures have exaptations, which means that they originally evolved for one function and were later co-opted for a different function. Irreducible complexity doesn't account for the possibility that a part of a structure may have had a different function before being incorporated into a more complex system.
3. Complexity Can Evolve: The argument that complex systems cannot evolve overlooks the fact that biological complexity can emerge gradually over long periods of time. Complex structures can evolve from simpler ones through the accumulation of small, beneficial changes.
4. Empirical Evidence: Irreducible complexity relies on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, the theory of evolution is supported by extensive evidence from various fields of biology, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and molecular biology.
5. Challenges from Evolutionary Biology: Many scientists and researchers in the field of evolutionary biology have addressed and refuted specific claims of irreducible complexity, providing plausible step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of complex systems.

In summary, irreducible complexity is considered flawed as an argument against evolution because it does not account for the incremental nature of evolutionary processes, lacks empirical evidence, and has been challenged by scientific research. Evolutionary biology provides a more comprehensive and well-supported framework for understanding the development of complex biological structures and systems over time.

 

[Kangal]

It’s not just a gap though is it.

It is, but it's getting smaller. And it's the most hackneyed fallacy ever to fill the gap with god.

As for blood clotting.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html#:~:text=Blood%20clotting%20evolved%20there%20from,natural%20selection%20did%20the%20rest.

 

[Tiger]

All I did was ask it to contruct a counter argument. You have now also demonstrated you don't know how the current AI models work.

Here what it says Behe.


Irreducible complexity is a concept often associated with the argument against the theory of evolution. It was popularized by Michael Behe, a biochemist, and is commonly used by proponents of Intelligent Design. The idea of irreducible complexity posits that certain biological systems or structures are too complex to have evolved gradually through a series of smaller, functional steps. The argument goes that if any part of these systems were removed, they would lose their functionality completely, making them "irreducible" and implying that they must have been designed by an intelligent creator.
However, there are several reasons why the concept of irreducible complexity is considered problematic and not a compelling argument against evolution:

1. Lack of Intermediate Steps: Irreducible complexity often assumes that there are no functional intermediate steps in the evolution of complex systems. In reality, evolution proceeds through incremental changes, with each step providing some advantage or function. These intermediate forms may not be as complex as the final structure but can still serve a purpose.
2. Exaptation: Many biological structures have exaptations, which means that they originally evolved for one function and were later co-opted for a different function. Irreducible complexity doesn't account for the possibility that a part of a structure may have had a different function before being incorporated into a more complex system.
3. Complexity Can Evolve: The argument that complex systems cannot evolve overlooks the fact that biological complexity can emerge gradually over long periods of time. Complex structures can evolve from simpler ones through the accumulation of small, beneficial changes.
4. Empirical Evidence: Irreducible complexity relies on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, the theory of evolution is supported by extensive evidence from various fields of biology, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and molecular biology.
5. Challenges from Evolutionary Biology: Many scientists and researchers in the field of evolutionary biology have addressed and refuted specific claims of irreducible complexity, providing plausible step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of complex systems.

In summary, irreducible complexity is considered flawed as an argument against evolution because it does not account for the incremental nature of evolutionary processes, lacks empirical evidence, and has been challenged by scientific research. Evolutionary biology provides a more comprehensive and well-supported framework for understanding the development of complex biological structures and systems over time.

Yes, welcome to the early 2000’s Tank

All these old chestnuts are what Kenneth Miller proposes. As you can see from their face to face debates. They are built on quicksand.

 

[Kangal]

Yes, welcome to the early 2000’s Tank

All these old chestnuts are what Kenneth Miller proposes. As you can see from their face to face debates. They are built on quicksand.

I'm afraid not. You clearly haven't actually watched it, have you?

Incredible.

 

[Tiger]

I'm afraid not. You clearly haven't actually watched it, have you?

Incredible.

Ah, we’re going into ‘bot’ mode again now are we?

I’ll take that as a win so.

 

[Kangal]

Ah, we’re going into ‘bot’ mode again now are we?

I’ll take that as a win so.

I'm happy to take it as a win for sure. You basically admitted you haven't watched it.

BTW, try not to rely on ChatGPT too much. It only gives you want you ask for.

 

[Tiger]

I'm happy to take it as a win for sure.

BTW, try not to rely on ChatGPT too much. It only gives you want you ask for.

Actually Chat GPT is highly biased. Particularly towards evolution. For it to slate your article says something.

It might not be a bad idea for you to test your articles using AI to see how error strewn the are in future before wasting peoples time on them.

 

[Tiger]

I'm happy to take it as a win for sure. You basically admitted you haven't watched it.

BTW, try not to rely on ChatGPT too much. It only gives you want you ask for.

Look Tank, this is classic ‘you’.

Your stupid accusation that I didn’t watch my own video post is retarded. You always try to deflect in this inane way when you’re caught out on something.

Go watch it and catch up.

 

[Kangal]

Your stupid accusation that I didn’t watch my own video post is retarded.

But true.

Ok, tell me where the following points are discussed in the video. Timestamps please.

1. Lack of Intermediate Steps: Irreducible complexity often assumes that there are no functional intermediate steps in the evolution of complex systems. In reality, evolution proceeds through incremental changes, with each step providing some advantage or function. These intermediate forms may not be as complex as the final structure but can still serve a purpose.
2. Exaptation: Many biological structures have exaptations, which means that they originally evolved for one function and were later co-opted for a different function. Irreducible complexity doesn't account for the possibility that a part of a structure may have had a different function before being incorporated into a more complex system.
3. Complexity Can Evolve: The argument that complex systems cannot evolve overlooks the fact that biological complexity can emerge gradually over long periods of time. Complex structures can evolve from simpler ones through the accumulation of small, beneficial changes.
4. Empirical Evidence: Irreducible complexity relies on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, the theory of evolution is supported by extensive evidence from various fields of biology, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and molecular biology.
5. Challenges from Evolutionary Biology: Many scientists and researchers in the field of evolutionary biology have addressed and refuted specific claims of irreducible complexity, providing plausible step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of complex systems

 

[Tiger]

But true.

Ok, tell me where the following points are discussed in the video. Timestamps please.

1. Lack of Intermediate Steps: Irreducible complexity often assumes that there are no functional intermediate steps in the evolution of complex systems. In reality, evolution proceeds through incremental changes, with each step providing some advantage or function. These intermediate forms may not be as complex as the final structure but can still serve a purpose.
2. Exaptation: Many biological structures have exaptations, which means that they originally evolved for one function and were later co-opted for a different function. Irreducible complexity doesn't account for the possibility that a part of a structure may have had a different function before being incorporated into a more complex system.
3. Complexity Can Evolve: The argument that complex systems cannot evolve overlooks the fact that biological complexity can emerge gradually over long periods of time. Complex structures can evolve from simpler ones through the accumulation of small, beneficial changes.
4. Empirical Evidence: Irreducible complexity relies on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, the theory of evolution is supported by extensive evidence from various fields of biology, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and molecular biology.
5. Challenges from Evolutionary Biology: Many scientists and researchers in the field of evolutionary biology have addressed and refuted specific claims of irreducible complexity, providing plausible step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of complex systems

Shall I wipe yer arse too.

Just watch the video

 

[Kangal]

Shall I wipe yer arse too.

Just watch the video

I rest my case. You continue to be an incredible spoofer. Just copy'n'paste.

 

[Kangal]

Actually Chat GPT is highly biased. Particularly towards evolution. For it to slate your article says something.

It might not be a bad idea for you to test your articles using AI to see how error strewn the are in future before wasting peoples time on them.

Again you demonstrate your failure to understand how this technology works.

The model responds to your prompt. In this case I said:

"Please read the following article and then present a counter argument to the points made."

How can you continue to fail to understand this?

 

[Wolf]

Shall I wipe yer arse too.

It'd probably like that but if you're over 10 yer no good to it.

 

[Tiger]

Again you demonstrate your failure to understand how this technology works.

The model responds to your prompt. In this case I said:

"Please read the following article and then present a counter argument to the points made."

How can you continue to fail to understand this?

For starters I found more errors than your Chat GPT search.

You gave it an easy one in that New Scientist is an entertainment rag and not a scholarly source for anything.

You were scraping the barrel from the get go on that one.

 

[Kangal]

For starters I found more errors than your Chat GPT search.

You gave it an easy one in that New Scientist is an entertainment rag and not a scholarly source for anything.

You were scraping the barrel from the get go on that one.