09 May '15 16:50>
Originally posted by Proper KnobHow do you know this?
A photoreceptor cell is the first stage for the development of the eye. You wanted to know what it was so I told you.
Originally posted by C HessAny attempt to shoot down irreducible complexity in reference to the millions of perfect species of conscious living animals with their senses of sight and touch and taste and hearing and smell and especially reproduction ...........................is not only absurd and stupid but downright dishonest.
When arguing for irreducible complexity, creationists often make the case that something as complex as the eye could not have evolved in gradual steps, the idea being that you need all the parts to be in place and fully functional before you have an actual eye. Any intermediate from "no eye parts" to an "all eye parts" would be useless baggage that nat ...[text shortened]... s scrambled, try pressing the full screen view button on the lower right of the video view.)[/i]
Originally posted by C HessOrganisms that may have some of the parts that are being used for different functions in not a refutation of the theory of irreducible complexity in biological systems. The theory means that if one part is removed, then it no longer works to perform the function it was designed for.
No, but that's not what we're talking about. Again, the argument from irreducible complexity is that there are biological structures so complex and intertwined that if you remove just one part, the entire structure fails, and therefore this could not have been the result of a step-wise evolutionary process. The refutation is that, look, there's an organism wi ...[text shortened]... only some of the parts, and it's doing just fine. Irreducible complexity debunked. End of story.
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, you have been given two links. Both give very detailed explanations regarding the evolution of the eye and what scientists have worked out. I suggest you read them. If that is insufficient for you, Google is your friend. A quick search for 'evolution of photoreceptor cells' yields enough literature to keep you busy till Christmas. Have fun. 🙂
"A photoreceptor cell is the first stage for the development of the eye"
Okay how do we know this is true?
If it was true, what made it useful since nothing it could do would have any meaning to
the life form that mutated to receive it?
Basic question, how did it get there in a manner that mattered?
Originally posted by KellyJayLet's suppose a creature develops a photoreceptor cell. It can now sense light.
"A photoreceptor cell is the first stage for the development of the eye"
Okay how do we know this is true?
If it was true, what made it useful since nothing it could do would have any meaning to
the life form that mutated to receive it?
Basic question, how did it get there in a manner that mattered?
Originally posted by Proper KnobThey may keep him busy past Christmas, but none of it will answer his questions. They use the magic of evolution to fill in the gaps.
Kelly, you have been given two links. Both give very detailed explanations regarding the evolution of the eye and what scientists have worked out. I suggest you read them. If that is insufficient for you, Google is your friend. A quick search for 'evolution of photoreceptor cells' yields enough literature to keep you busy till Christmas. Have fun. 🙂
Originally posted by Proper KnobI can read the links, I actually read them, and you guys are the one's I'm putting questions
Kelly, you have been given two links. Both give very detailed explanations regarding the evolution of the eye and what scientists have worked out. I suggest you read them. If that is insufficient for you, Google is your friend. A quick search for 'evolution of photoreceptor cells' yields enough literature to keep you busy till Christmas. Have fun. 🙂
Originally posted by KellyJayCan I get an admission from you that irredicible complexity is a bust if we can point to organisms with only parts of a feature, that still has use of those parts? It seems unfruitful to discuss the various lines of evidence that leads to logical conclusions (not religious beliefs) about the evolutionary development of the eye, if you can't even submit to the simplest of logic.
How do you know this?
Originally posted by C HessHaving only parts of a function is not what the theory of irreducible complexity is about.
Can I get an admission from you that irredicible complexity is a bust if we can point to organisms with only parts of a feature, that still has use of those parts? It seems unfruitful to discuss the various lines of evidence that leads to logical conclusions (not religious beliefs) about the evolutionary development of the eye, if you can't even submit to the simplest of logic.
Originally posted by DasaI can't tell if it's dishonesty or ignorance in your case, but there is not one single species among whose attributes perfection applies. Death, resource competition, predation, disease, and so on, all testify to that. Species are good enough to survive as species (obviously), but hardly falls under the category of perfection.
Any attempt to shoot down irreducible complexity in reference to the millions of perfect species of conscious living animals with their senses of sight and touch and taste and hearing and smell and especially reproduction ...........................is not only absurd and stupid but downright dishonest.
Originally posted by RJHindsMichael Behe, Darwin's black box:
Organisms that may have some of the parts that are being used for different functions in not a refutation of the theory of irreducible complexity in biological systems. The theory means that if one part is removed, then it no longer works to perform the function it was designed for.
The theory of irreducible complexity does not mean that some of the part ...[text shortened]... ay to perform a different function. Anyone that says that is what is meant is ignorant or evil.
Even if a system is irreducibly complex (and thus cannot have been produced directly), however, one can not definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route. As the complexity of an interacting system increases, though, the likelihood of such an indirect route drops precipitously. And as the number of unexplained, irreducibly complex biological systems increases, our confidence that Darwin's criterion of failure has been met skyrockets toward the maximum that science allows.
Originally posted by RJHindsOh, well, that settles it then. She claims it couldn't have evolved, so I guess it couldn't have evolved. 🙄
Having only parts of a function is not what the theory of irreducible complexity is about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCXbGQwM4UU
Originally posted by C HessYou should really start following along with the conversations, I don't give a rats behind
Can I get an admission from you that irredicible complexity is a bust if we can point to organisms with only parts of a feature, that still has use of those parts? It seems unfruitful to discuss the various lines of evidence that leads to logical conclusions (not religious beliefs) about the evolutionary development of the eye, if you can't even submit to the simplest of logic.