Bitcoin Forum
March 30, 2024, 08:26:49 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 225 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolution is a hoax  (Read 107963 times)
gollygosh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 02, 2017, 08:06:19 PM
 #241

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

1711787209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711787209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711787209
Reply with quote  #2

1711787209
Report to moderator
1711787209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711787209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711787209
Reply with quote  #2

1711787209
Report to moderator
1711787209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711787209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711787209
Reply with quote  #2

1711787209
Report to moderator
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711787209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711787209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711787209
Reply with quote  #2

1711787209
Report to moderator
1711787209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711787209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711787209
Reply with quote  #2

1711787209
Report to moderator
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 10:31:47 PM
 #242

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 645


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 10:46:37 PM
 #243

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed.

Cool

No it doesn't and we already discussed this in the other topic, stop spreading your bullshit, you can't even defend yourself anymore in the other thread. It's pathetic. Newton's 3rd law is not that anyways, I don't know where you got that definition from. ''The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[24] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[25][26] or different regions within one body, and thus that there is no such thing as a force that is not accompanied by an equal and opposite force. In some situations, the magnitude and direction of the forces are determined entirely by one of the two bodies, say Body A; the force exerted by Body A on Body B is called the "action", and the force exerted by Body B on Body A is called the "reaction". This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with FA called the "action" and FB the "reaction". In other situations the magnitude and directions of the forces are determined jointly by both bodies and it isn't necessary to identify one force as the "action" and the other as the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous, and it does not matter which is called the action and which is called reaction; both forces are part of a single interaction, and neither force exists without the other.[24]''

Nowhere it says anything about everything having a cause and definitely it doesn't say that the cause for everything is God.

\\\\\...COIN.....
...CURB...
         ▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄
      ▄██████████████████████▄
    ▄█████▀▀▀          ▀▀▀█████▄
   ████▀      █████▄▄       ▀████
  ████        ██   ▀██        ████
 ████         ██    ██         ████
▐███▌         ██▄▄▄██▀         ▐███▌
▐███▌         ▀▀▀▀▀            ▐███▌
▐███▌         ████████         ▐███▌
 ████            ██            ████
  ████           ██           ████
   ████▄         ██         ▄████
    ▀█████▄▄▄          ▄▄▄█████▀
      ▀██████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀
........NEWS, UPDATES, & ICO'S........
...FROM ALL THE PROJECTS YOU LOVE...
▄▄█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀     ██  ██  ██     ▀██▀     ██      ██     ▀██  ██     ▀██     █████████████
█████████████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████▄    ▀██  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██▄    ▀██  ██████  ▀▀  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██     █████████████
█████████████████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██  ██████  ▄  ▀██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████     ▄██▄    ▄██  ▀▀ ▄██     ▄██      ██  ██  ██  ██  ▀▀ ▄██     █████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 ▀▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███   ▄██████▀▄   ███
▐██   ████▀▀▀████   ██▌
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
▐██   ████▄▄▄████   ██▌
 ███   ▀███████▀   ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
/////
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 10:54:00 PM
 #244

Evolution is obvious - nature has so many variations, even in dog breeds, you can see evolution at work.

Cause and effect is science law that proves that the universe has been programmed.

Cool

No it doesn't and we already discussed this in the other topic, stop spreading your bullshit, you can't even defend yourself anymore in the other thread. It's pathetic. Newton's 3rd law is not that anyways, I don't know where you got that definition from. ''The third law states that all forces between two objects exist in equal magnitude and opposite direction: if one object A exerts a force FA on a second object B, then B simultaneously exerts a force FB on A, and the two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction: FA = −FB.[24] The third law means that all forces are interactions between different bodies,[25][26] or different regions within one body, and thus that there is no such thing as a force that is not accompanied by an equal and opposite force. In some situations, the magnitude and direction of the forces are determined entirely by one of the two bodies, say Body A; the force exerted by Body A on Body B is called the "action", and the force exerted by Body B on Body A is called the "reaction". This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with FA called the "action" and FB the "reaction". In other situations the magnitude and directions of the forces are determined jointly by both bodies and it isn't necessary to identify one force as the "action" and the other as the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous, and it does not matter which is called the action and which is called reaction; both forces are part of a single interaction, and neither force exists without the other.[24]''

Nowhere it says anything about everything having a cause and definitely it doesn't say that the cause for everything is God.

Are you trying to say that an equal and opposite reaction is not an effect? Go back to school.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016



View Profile
June 02, 2017, 11:07:09 PM
 #245

BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to:

A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless.

B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters.

And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them...

[edit]

Quote
1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?

2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation?
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 02, 2017, 11:26:14 PM
 #246

BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to:

A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless.

B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters.

And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them...

[edit]

Quote
1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?

2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation?

Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying.

Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact.

Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?

The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.

Any way you look at it, evolution isn't even in the running science-wise. The fact that it is still around proves it is a hoax.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016



View Profile
June 02, 2017, 11:55:15 PM
 #247

BADecker, if you want to have a proper discussion about these sort of topics then you need to:

A. Stop moving the goalposts around. You can't try and use scientific evidence to prove one of your points, and then turn around and say something like "ah but in the distant past we're not sure that time and space were running at the same speed they are today... so anything could be possible...". That kind of logic renders any discussion meaningless.

B. Listen to people when they tell you simple facts about semantics. For example, the definition of a scientific theory. Arguing about these things just muddy the waters.

And did you read my questions a few pages upthread? I don't believe you replied to them...

[edit]

Quote
1. You say that all change, including evolution, is "programmed" into the universe through cause and effect. Now this is a valid philosophical position, which I believe means you view the universe as "deterministic". However, if all change is programmed, then this means that we have no free will, because everything we do is a result of cause and effect, and not our own decisions. Didn't god gift us with free will? If so, how do you resolve this problem?

2. Put all ideas of faith in deities or science aside for a moment. Don't you think it's strange that although you say evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible, the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians disagree with you? Are they lying, or do you know more about science and maths than them? Or do you have another explanation?

Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying.

Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact.

No, you still don't understand the difference. A scientific law is a description of a phenonemon - it tells us what happens within certain parameters. A scientific theory aims to tell us why it happens. They are two different things, and a theory doesn't just turn into a law if it's been proven enough times. Apples and oranges.
Quote

Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?

The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.

If we consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past, then anything anyone says about the past can conveniently be nullified. That includes any and all of your "scientific evidence" for evolution being false. So we're back to square one. Your argument is a ridiculous catch 22.

And then you say that the Bible somehow rises above all this pseudo-philosophical claptrap, and is somehow more credible. Not only that, but one of the reasons you give is that Bible followers are strong in numbers...

By that logic, the Backstreet Boys are one of the most musically talented groups that has ever been, and the Fast and Furious films are some of the finest pieces of cinema in the history of mankind.
Quote

Any way you look at it, evolution isn't even in the running science-wise. The fact that it is still around proves it is a hoax.

Cool
Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 12:14:29 AM
 #248

Now think about what you just said. And think about what I have been saying.

Both, science law and science theory are based on the idea that things have been working somewhat like they presently are throughout the past. The difference is that science theory is known to be based on probability, while science law is based on fact. Evolution is science theory that has been debunked by science fact.

No, you still don't understand the difference. A scientific law is a description of a phenonemon - it tells us what happens within certain parameters. A scientific theory aims to tell us why it happens. They are two different things, and a theory doesn't just turn into a law if it's been proven enough times. Apples and oranges.

Gravity is science law. Everybody uses it every day. It is in existence all over the place that we know of, and has been as far back as any historical writings and carvings tell us.

Gravity theory is simply explanations about why gravity works the way it does. Gravity theory is not known to be true.

Evolution is not law. Why not? Because everything that we see that might be attributed to it, can be attributed to something else that we see, as well. Regarding evolution, cause and effect, which is law, alone eliminates evolution, because nobody can even envision what a universe would be like with its opposite, pure random, which would have to be there for unprogrammed mutation.

Evolution theory is simply a story being used to try to explain something that doesn't exist.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 12:24:10 AM
 #249

Quote

Now, let's go the next step. Let's consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past. Some of these changes nullify science law. But science theory is essentially nullified already, by the fact that it is based on probability. What is left?

The religious writings, and the traditions regarding each... plus a certain amount of archaeology. In these, the Bible reigns supreme among records from the past. There are some very good reasons why, not the least of them being the strength of Bible followers of today.

If we consider that there were great changes in the physics of the past, then anything anyone says about the past can conveniently be nullified. That includes any and all of your "scientific evidence" for evolution being false. So we're back to square one. Your argument is a ridiculous catch 22.

And then you say that the Bible somehow rises above all this pseudo-philosophical claptrap, and is somehow more credible. Not only that, but one of the reasons you give is that Bible followers are strong in numbers...

By that logic, the Backstreet Boys are one of the most musically talented groups that has ever been, and the Fast and Furious films are some of the finest pieces of cinema in the history of mankind.


Any great changes of the past were not so great as to keep past peoples from recording what they saw and did, and what happened. The best of these records is the Bible.

When you compare the scientific history of how the Bible came into being, the strength of the 25,000 hand-copied copies that we have, and lots of other things about the Bible, including the numbers of people that receive God's blessing through reading it daily... compare these to any other writing that we have, you can eliminate the potentially flawed past of potentially flawed physics.

Potentially flawed physics is like science theory. It might have worked that way in the past. But nobody knows.

The Bible is a record that has strength.

Potentially flawed physics is just another point that nullifies the evolution idea.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 12:26:55 AM
 #250

Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?


Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
protokol
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1188
Merit: 1016



View Profile
June 03, 2017, 01:31:44 AM
 #251

Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?


Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?

Cool

Because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it, and barely any disproving it. That's why all credible scientists believe it. So your answer to why basically all scientists believe in this supposedly flawed theory is "they might be mistaken". OK, what are your thoughts on my other question about free will?

I read your last few posts, and although you use scientific language you don't actually explain what you mean in a coherent manner, so it's impossible to debate your points. I explained why the theory of evolution cannot logically become a law, yet you make up your own rambling explanation about "cause and effect" etc.

Like I said earlier, I've grown disinterested in convincing you of certain scientific facts, but I'm eager to know your thoughts on the free will problem in a deterministic universe, if everything is programmed.

Bonus question: What are your thoughts on the randomness of radioactive decay?
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 08:49:21 AM
 #252

Again, don't you think it's odd that less than 1% of actual scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry and physics agree with you? Why do you think that is?


Is that an accurate statistic? Even if it is, scientists make mistakes all the time. The reason that they create theories is to attempt to correct their mistakes. Why not be mistaken about evolution?

Cool

Because there is a huge amount of evidence supporting it, and barely any disproving it. That's why all credible scientists believe it. So your answer to why basically all scientists believe in this supposedly flawed theory is "they might be mistaken".
Wrong. Almost all of the evidence in favor of evolution can be applied to other things, as well, and does not have to support evolution.

Cause and effect (science law), probability math, and Irreducible Complexity are 3 major pieces of science that utterly contradict evolution, thereby disproving it.


OK, what are your thoughts on my other question about free will?
What is your question about free will?



I read your last few posts, and although you use scientific language you don't actually explain what you mean in a coherent manner, so it's impossible to debate your points. I explained why the theory of evolution cannot logically become a law, yet you make up your own rambling explanation about "cause and effect" etc.
Like others, I am not here to formulate some monstrous writing that will cover encyclopedias of pages. We all make up our own "ramblings" in the forum. I have presented enough basics that if a person is interested, he can go out and research it... using my "ramblings" as a start or a direction for his research.



Like I said earlier, I've grown disinterested in convincing you of certain scientific facts, but I'm eager to know your thoughts on the free will problem in a deterministic universe, if everything is programmed.
Thank you for explaining your question. Please ignore my question of your question, above.

1. Cause and effect, entropy, and complexity combine to prove that God exists - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054513.msg16961242#msg16961242. They don't express much about God. They only point to the fact that He exists.
2. God is extremely more powerful and complex than this universe, as can be seen by the way cause and effect works in everything.
3. God has left open a tiny part of the soul/spirit/mind of people to believe in Him in any varying degree.
4. God examines this tiny free will part, and goes back to the beginning of creation, and jiggles/juggles all of the beginning causes to match our tiny free will, and to accomplish His goals according to this matching. This means that there have existed countless timelines throughout the universe and history, God regulating where we all exist within them.
5. Some starting questions. >>> Is this cause-and-effect-changing-process automatic with God? How far greater is God's Spirit (not mind) than ours? We recognize about 32 dimensions; are there an infinity of dimensions that God regulates entirely?



Bonus question: What are your thoughts on the randomness of radioactive decay?

"Randomness" is a term we apply to things that we can't understand by analyzing them directly. Rather, we "plot points" that we can see, and use probability to "guess at" the rest. There is no random.


The info in this post covers a lot of thinking and formulation. It will probably not be understood without a reasonable amount of thinking. The start of it is to understand that science proves that God exists, even though many scientists ignore this proof.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 645


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 02:23:53 PM
 #253

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

\\\\\...COIN.....
...CURB...
         ▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄
      ▄██████████████████████▄
    ▄█████▀▀▀          ▀▀▀█████▄
   ████▀      █████▄▄       ▀████
  ████        ██   ▀██        ████
 ████         ██    ██         ████
▐███▌         ██▄▄▄██▀         ▐███▌
▐███▌         ▀▀▀▀▀            ▐███▌
▐███▌         ████████         ▐███▌
 ████            ██            ████
  ████           ██           ████
   ████▄         ██         ▄████
    ▀█████▄▄▄          ▄▄▄█████▀
      ▀██████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀
........NEWS, UPDATES, & ICO'S........
...FROM ALL THE PROJECTS YOU LOVE...
▄▄█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀     ██  ██  ██     ▀██▀     ██      ██     ▀██  ██     ▀██     █████████████
█████████████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████▄    ▀██  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██▄    ▀██  ██████  ▀▀  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██     █████████████
█████████████████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██  ██████  ▄  ▀██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████     ▄██▄    ▄██  ▀▀ ▄██     ▄██      ██  ██  ██  ██  ▀▀ ▄██     █████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 ▀▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███   ▄██████▀▄   ███
▐██   ████▀▀▀████   ██▌
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
▐██   ████▄▄▄████   ██▌
 ███   ▀███████▀   ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
/////
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 09:16:07 PM
 #254

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 645


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 09:27:04 PM
 #255

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Methods_by_which_irreducible_complexity_may_evolve

As I said, it's debunked. It's pseudoscience without any grounds.

Radioactive decay is so far true randomness

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177872/true-randomness-via-radioactive-decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Your pseudoscience cannot refute the facts, sorry. Evolution is a fact and you can't accept it because your religion has infected your brain. I'm truly sorry for you.

Regarding the eye argument which is used by many creationists:

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.


http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/eye-too-complex-have-evolved-naturally

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved


\\\\\...COIN.....
...CURB...
         ▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄
      ▄██████████████████████▄
    ▄█████▀▀▀          ▀▀▀█████▄
   ████▀      █████▄▄       ▀████
  ████        ██   ▀██        ████
 ████         ██    ██         ████
▐███▌         ██▄▄▄██▀         ▐███▌
▐███▌         ▀▀▀▀▀            ▐███▌
▐███▌         ████████         ▐███▌
 ████            ██            ████
  ████           ██           ████
   ████▄         ██         ▄████
    ▀█████▄▄▄          ▄▄▄█████▀
      ▀██████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀
........NEWS, UPDATES, & ICO'S........
...FROM ALL THE PROJECTS YOU LOVE...
▄▄█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀     ██  ██  ██     ▀██▀     ██      ██     ▀██  ██     ▀██     █████████████
█████████████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████▄    ▀██  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██▄    ▀██  ██████  ▀▀  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██     █████████████
█████████████████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██  ██████  ▄  ▀██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████     ▄██▄    ▄██  ▀▀ ▄██     ▄██      ██  ██  ██  ██  ▀▀ ▄██     █████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 ▀▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███   ▄██████▀▄   ███
▐██   ████▀▀▀████   ██▌
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
▐██   ████▄▄▄████   ██▌
 ███   ▀███████▀   ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
/////
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 09:44:04 PM
 #256

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Methods_by_which_irreducible_complexity_may_evolve

As I said, it's debunked. It's pseudoscience without any grounds.

Radioactive decay is so far true randomness

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177872/true-randomness-via-radioactive-decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Your pseudoscience cannot refute the facts, sorry. Evolution is a fact and you can't accept it because your religion has infected your brain. I'm truly sorry for you.

Regarding the eye argument which is used by many creationists:

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.


http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/eye-too-complex-have-evolved-naturally

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved



You forgot the part where cause and effect debunks all of evolution, as well as evolution theory. No scientist has any credible explanation for cause and effect being part of evolution, especially if you add universal entropy, and complex universe to the mix.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 645


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 10:27:54 PM
 #257

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Methods_by_which_irreducible_complexity_may_evolve

As I said, it's debunked. It's pseudoscience without any grounds.

Radioactive decay is so far true randomness

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177872/true-randomness-via-radioactive-decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Your pseudoscience cannot refute the facts, sorry. Evolution is a fact and you can't accept it because your religion has infected your brain. I'm truly sorry for you.

Regarding the eye argument which is used by many creationists:

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.


http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/eye-too-complex-have-evolved-naturally

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved



You forgot the part where cause and effect debunks all of evolution, as well as evolution theory. No scientist has any credible explanation for cause and effect being part of evolution, especially if you add universal entropy, and complex universe to the mix.

Cool

I don't know what you mean with cause and effect, explain. I don't know what you mean by complex universe either.
Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.

Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.

Complexity is poorly defined.

Regarding Universal entropy: This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.

That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.

The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the "entropy" of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less "ordered" (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.

However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole.

If the above is too esoteric, consider a simple analogy: a poker tournament. In poker, good hands are less likely to be dealt than bad ones - for example, the odds of getting three of a kind are much less than the odds of getting two of a kind. So in a poker tournament, most people will be dealt bad hands and only a few will be lucky enough to be dealt good hands. But it is the people with good hands who will be more likely to win and "survive" to the next round. So the "outside forces" (in this case, the rules of poker) acting on a random distribution (all the poker hands that were dealt) will tend to select out the best, least likely ones.

Do you even do some research before posting a bunch of crap? Just google it my friend.

\\\\\...COIN.....
...CURB...
         ▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄
      ▄██████████████████████▄
    ▄█████▀▀▀          ▀▀▀█████▄
   ████▀      █████▄▄       ▀████
  ████        ██   ▀██        ████
 ████         ██    ██         ████
▐███▌         ██▄▄▄██▀         ▐███▌
▐███▌         ▀▀▀▀▀            ▐███▌
▐███▌         ████████         ▐███▌
 ████            ██            ████
  ████           ██           ████
   ████▄         ██         ▄████
    ▀█████▄▄▄          ▄▄▄█████▀
      ▀██████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀
........NEWS, UPDATES, & ICO'S........
...FROM ALL THE PROJECTS YOU LOVE...
▄▄█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀     ██  ██  ██     ▀██▀     ██      ██     ▀██  ██     ▀██     █████████████
█████████████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████▄    ▀██  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██▄    ▀██  ██████  ▀▀  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██     █████████████
█████████████████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██  ██████  ▄  ▀██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████     ▄██▄    ▄██  ▀▀ ▄██     ▄██      ██  ██  ██  ██  ▀▀ ▄██     █████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 ▀▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███   ▄██████▀▄   ███
▐██   ████▀▀▀████   ██▌
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
▐██   ████▄▄▄████   ██▌
 ███   ▀███████▀   ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
/////
Razick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1003


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 10:57:49 PM
 #258

"Evolution is a hoax" thread got to 14 pages.....There are trolls in our midst

ACCOUNT RECOVERED 4/27/2020. Account was previously hacked sometime in 2017. Posts between 12/31/2016 and 4/27/2020 are NOT LEGITIMATE.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3738
Merit: 1363


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 11:26:09 PM
 #259

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Methods_by_which_irreducible_complexity_may_evolve

As I said, it's debunked. It's pseudoscience without any grounds.

Radioactive decay is so far true randomness

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177872/true-randomness-via-radioactive-decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Your pseudoscience cannot refute the facts, sorry. Evolution is a fact and you can't accept it because your religion has infected your brain. I'm truly sorry for you.

Regarding the eye argument which is used by many creationists:

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.


http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/eye-too-complex-have-evolved-naturally

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved



You forgot the part where cause and effect debunks all of evolution, as well as evolution theory. No scientist has any credible explanation for cause and effect being part of evolution, especially if you add universal entropy, and complex universe to the mix.

Cool

I don't know what you mean with cause and effect, explain. I don't know what you mean by complex universe either.
Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.

Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.

Complexity is poorly defined.

Regarding Universal entropy: This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.

That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.

The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the "entropy" of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less "ordered" (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.

However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole.

If the above is too esoteric, consider a simple analogy: a poker tournament. In poker, good hands are less likely to be dealt than bad ones - for example, the odds of getting three of a kind are much less than the odds of getting two of a kind. So in a poker tournament, most people will be dealt bad hands and only a few will be lucky enough to be dealt good hands. But it is the people with good hands who will be more likely to win and "survive" to the next round. So the "outside forces" (in this case, the rules of poker) acting on a random distribution (all the poker hands that were dealt) will tend to select out the best, least likely ones.

Do you even do some research before posting a bunch of crap? Just google it my friend.

You might Google "cause and effect" for many explanations. Possibly the best explanation is Newton's 3rd Law.

Whatever things people include in the term "evolution," if evolution happens by cause and effect, then it might be real. If it doesn't, then it isn't.

The general understanding of "evolution" suggests randomness, of which there is none. Thus, evolution by the general understanding is wrong.

All your explanations are people playing with science fiction.

Cool

BUDESONIDE essentially cures Covid symptoms in one day to one week >>> https://budesonideworks.com/.
Hydroxychloroquine is being used against Covid with great success >>> https://altcensored.com/watch?v=otRN0X6F81c.
Masks are stupid. Watch the first 5 minutes >>> https://www.bitchute.com/video/rlWESmrijl8Q/.
Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin. Thank you. >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 645


View Profile
June 03, 2017, 11:46:51 PM
 #260

All of your claims have been debunked badecker.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.


http://experimentalmath.info/blog/2009/08/misuse-of-probability-by-creation-scientists-and-others/

Stop spreading your lies badecker.

What do you even mean, "Irreducible complexity can evolve?"

The simple words, "Irreducible complexity" means that there is nothing useful from which an irreducible complexity component can evolve from. Evolution has to have some thing that is useful in mind for it to evolve that way. Nature doesn't simply evolve a clump of useless cells, that sit there for millions of years, continually evolving from less complex useless cells to more complex useless cells, with the idea that someday there will be an eye that will be useful to the then-evolved creature. To suggest this is to suggest great inteligence and planning in nature. This doesn't fit any theory of evolution.

For example. Let's say that you have a human eye. There is simply nothing that would flow in stages from something rather simple to something as complex as the human eye. According to evolution theory, there has to be some use for every little thing that evolves. There is no evolution explantation for a jump from a clump of useless cells to an eye. But that's what they would be... useless cells. Because there is no use for them prior to becoming an eye.

However, all that talk is playing with the idea of evolution. Cause and effect show that things are programmed. Not only life things, but everything. So, whatever you want to call evolution, it was programmed through cause and effect by something that is extremely greater than the whole universe, both in ability and intelligence.

There is no evidence of random chance changes without cause and effect. Such a thing does not even fit our thinking. All science is built on cause and effect. The greater the scientist, the more he uses cause and effect. All the scietists you quoted CAUSED the happenings that they observed. None of them watched these things happen in nature without manipulation of nature in some way.

Cool

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Methods_by_which_irreducible_complexity_may_evolve

As I said, it's debunked. It's pseudoscience without any grounds.

Radioactive decay is so far true randomness

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/177872/true-randomness-via-radioactive-decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

Your pseudoscience cannot refute the facts, sorry. Evolution is a fact and you can't accept it because your religion has infected your brain. I'm truly sorry for you.

Regarding the eye argument which is used by many creationists:

This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).

photosensitive cell
aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deeper depression
the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.


http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/eye-too-complex-have-evolved-naturally

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved



You forgot the part where cause and effect debunks all of evolution, as well as evolution theory. No scientist has any credible explanation for cause and effect being part of evolution, especially if you add universal entropy, and complex universe to the mix.

Cool

I don't know what you mean with cause and effect, explain. I don't know what you mean by complex universe either.
Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else.

Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are special cases of the "complexity indicates design" claim; they are also arguments from incredulity.

In the sort of design that we know about, simplicity is a design goal. Complexity arises to some extent through carelessness or necessity, but engineers work to make things as simple as possible. This is very different from what we see in life.

Complexity arises from natural causes: for example, in weather patterns and cave formations.

Complexity is poorly defined.

Regarding Universal entropy: This idea has been put forward by many people to try to prove that evolution is impossible. However, it is based on a flawed understanding of the second law of thermodynamics, and in fact, the theory of evolution does not contradict any known laws of physics.

The second law of thermodynamics simply says that the entropy of a closed system will tend to increase with time. "Entropy" is a technical term with a precise physical definition, but for most purposes it is okay to think of it as equivalent to "disorder". Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics basically says that the universe as a whole gets more disordered and random as time goes on.

However, the most important part of the second law of thermodynamics is that it only applies to a closed system - one that does not have anything going in or out of it. There is nothing about the second law that prevents one part of a closed system from getting more ordered, as long as another part of the system is getting more disordered.

There are many examples from everyday life that prove it is possible to create order! For example, you'd certainly agree that a person is capable of taking a pile of wood and nails and constructing a building out of it. The wood and nails have become more ordered, but in doing the work required to make the building, the person has generated heat which goes into increasing the overall entropy of the universe.

Or, if you prefer an example that doesn't require conscious human intervention, consider what happens when the weather changes and it gets colder outside. Cold air has less entropy than warm air - basically, it is more "ordered" because the molecules aren't moving around as much and have fewer places they can be. So the entropy in your local part of the universe has decreased, but as long as that is accompanied by an increase in entropy somewhere else, the second law of thermodynamics has not been violated.

That's the general picture - nature is capable of generating order out of disorder on a local level without violating the second law of thermodynamics, and that is all that evolution requires.

The idea of evolution is simply that random genetic mutations will occasionally occur that lead an individual organism to have some trait that is different from that of its predecessors. Now, it is true that these mutations, being random, would probably tend to increase the "entropy" of the population as a whole if they occurred in isolation (i.e., in a closed system). That is, most of the mutations will create individual organisms that are less "ordered" (i.e., less complex) and only some will create individual organisms that are more complex, so overall, the complexity goes down.

However, evolution does not take place in a closed system, but rather requires the existence of outside forces - i.e., natural selection. The idea is that there can be some environmental effect that makes organisms with a particular mutation (one that makes them more "complex") more likely to survive and pass their genes on to the next generation. Thus, as generations go by, the gene pool of the species can get more and more complex, but notice that this can only occur if the gene pool interacts with the outside world. It is through the course of that interaction that some other form of entropy (or disorder) will be generated that increases the entropy of the universe as a whole.

If the above is too esoteric, consider a simple analogy: a poker tournament. In poker, good hands are less likely to be dealt than bad ones - for example, the odds of getting three of a kind are much less than the odds of getting two of a kind. So in a poker tournament, most people will be dealt bad hands and only a few will be lucky enough to be dealt good hands. But it is the people with good hands who will be more likely to win and "survive" to the next round. So the "outside forces" (in this case, the rules of poker) acting on a random distribution (all the poker hands that were dealt) will tend to select out the best, least likely ones.

Do you even do some research before posting a bunch of crap? Just google it my friend.

You might Google "cause and effect" for many explanations. Possibly the best explanation is Newton's 3rd Law.

Whatever things people include in the term "evolution," if evolution happens by cause and effect, then it might be real. If it doesn't, then it isn't.

The general understanding of "evolution" suggests randomness, of which there is none. Thus, evolution by the general understanding is wrong.

All your explanations are people playing with science fiction.

Cool

Newton 3rd law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A. I fail to see how that disproves evolution.

\\\\\...COIN.....
...CURB...
         ▄▄▄████████████▄▄▄
      ▄██████████████████████▄
    ▄█████▀▀▀          ▀▀▀█████▄
   ████▀      █████▄▄       ▀████
  ████        ██   ▀██        ████
 ████         ██    ██         ████
▐███▌         ██▄▄▄██▀         ▐███▌
▐███▌         ▀▀▀▀▀            ▐███▌
▐███▌         ████████         ▐███▌
 ████            ██            ████
  ████           ██           ████
   ████▄         ██         ▄████
    ▀█████▄▄▄          ▄▄▄█████▀
      ▀██████████████████████▀
         ▀▀▀████████████▀▀▀
........NEWS, UPDATES, & ICO'S........
...FROM ALL THE PROJECTS YOU LOVE...
▄▄█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▄▄
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████▀     ██  ██  ██     ▀██▀     ██      ██     ▀██  ██     ▀██     █████████████
█████████████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████▄    ▀██  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██▄    ▀██  ██████  ▀▀  ██  ██  ▀▀  ██     █████████████
█████████████████  ██  ██  ██  ██  ██████  ██  ██████  ▄  ▀██  ██  ██  ██  ████████████████
█████████████     ▄██▄    ▄██  ▀▀ ▄██     ▄██      ██  ██  ██  ██  ▀▀ ▄██     █████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
 ▀▀█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███               ███
▐██   ▐█▄   ▄███▄   ██▌
██▌    ███▄██████▀  ▐██
██▌    ▐████████    ▐██
▐██     ▐██████     ██▌
 ███   ▀█████▀     ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀


     ▄▄█████████▄▄
   ▄███▀▀     ▀▀███▄
  ███             ███
 ███   ▄██████▀▄   ███
▐██   ████▀▀▀████   ██▌
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
██▌   ███ ███ ███   ▐██
▐██   ████▄▄▄████   ██▌
 ███   ▀███████▀   ███
  ███             ███
   ▀███▄▄     ▄▄███▀
     ▀▀█████████▀▀
/////
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 ... 225 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!