Question to the evolutionists.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i like this quotation

could natural selection produce the same effect through randomly saving the genes the necessary proteins, preserve them, bring them together, and assemble them
yes? the question is how likely is that

"to attribute irreducible complexity to a direct Darwinian pathway is like attributing Mount Rushmore to wind and erosion. d have to be not only an evolution of existing structures but an evolution of their purposes!

Why cant you simply admit that you know that you were lying when you claimed that the cell is irreducibly complex? Instead you admit it in a roundabout way then try to compare irreducible complexity with a totally different concept altogether (unless you are claiming that Mount Rushmore is irreducibly complex).
And your quote doesn't really make any sense at all. My understanding of 'irreducibly complex' is that is means something cannot work with any one of its parts removed. Surely one cannot "attribute irreducible complexity to a direct Darwinian pathway" as that would make no sense at all. Or did the person mean "attribute a given irreducibly complex entity to a direct Darwinian pathway"? if so, wouldn't that contradict the claim that the entity was irreducibly complex?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why cant you simply admit that you know that you were lying when you claimed that the cell is irreducibly complex? Instead you admit it in a roundabout way then try to compare irreducible complexity with a totally different concept altogether (unless you are claiming that Mount Rushmore is irreducibly complex).
And your quote doesn't really make any sens way"? if so, wouldn't that contradict the claim that the entity was irreducibly complex?

why cant you stop firing rockets into cyberspace?

why must you equate everything that you do not agree with as lying? i believe the principles of irreducible complexity, for after having examined the evidence both for and against to the best of my ability it makes perfect sense to me, if that is construed to lying then i think its best you do not engage me in any further discussion, for i have had quite enough of individuals like yourself who are somehow able to impute impure motives to others, without being able to distinguish their own bums from their elbows! if you are continuing to fire your rockets into cyberspace, aim them at someone else, i simply cannot be bothered with them anymore.

if you wish to discuss the actual content of the quotation with constructive thoughts on how the cell could function without its constituent parts in place then go ahead, but keep your rockets to yourself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]why must you equate everything that you do not agree with as lying?

Where do I do that? I equate you making a statement then admitting that you knew it was false equivalent to an admission that you lied.

i believe the principles of irreducible complexity, for after having examined the evidence both for and against to the best of my ability it makes perfect sense to me, if that is construed to lying then i think its best you do not engage me in any further discussion,
I never said any such thing. The question here is whether or not you believe that a cell is irreducibly complex not whether or not you "believe the principles of irreducible complexity". You made the claim that the cell was irreducibly complex and when challenged to support the claim you admitted it to be not true. Why cant you simply say "I was sadly mistaken"? Why try to cover up the mistake as you are doing now? The only explanation I can think of is that it was not a mistake, you knew you were wrong ie you lied.
If you have a better explanation then lets hear it rather than acting like an offended party and refusing to continue the conversation.

if you wish to discuss the actual content of the quotation with constructive thoughts on how the cell could function without its constituent parts in place then go ahead, but keep your rockets to yourself.
I would have liked that but you chose to avoid the challenge that was put to you of identifying one part that cell could not function without.

@ robbie
Irreducibly Complexity is a farce, you believing in it is fine but claiming that it has any supporting evidence is offensive to people who've spent time studying the material that it tries to snipe at.

Even Behe himself has admitted that he's probably wrong. He was pressed to give an organic example and failed to provide a single one. Hell even his mousetrap analogy was systematically dismantled and turned into a tie clip in the court room.

I asked already for you to give me a single example of irreducible complexity in nature and you've ignored me. So I ask again, no evasions, you say you believe in the theory so surely you must have evidence no?

Incredulity isn't evidence either by the way.

robbie carrobie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

“It [Irreducible complexity] is dismissed by the scientific community”

AND

“Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the argument of irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[4] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from IGNORANCE “.(my emphasis)

AND:

“In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been REFUTED in peer-reviewed research papers and has been REJECTED by the scientific community at large." (my emphasis)

ALSO see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Irreducible complexity is therefore NOT a credible hypothesis
AND has been easily DEBUNKED by REASON on numerous occasions by thinking people.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
robbie carrobie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

“It [Irreducible complexity] is dismissed by the scientific community”

AND

“Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the argument of irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts th ...[text shortened]... ypothesis
AND has been easily DEBUNKED by REASON on numerous occasions by thinking people.

Andrew i am not denying this, i have read the article that you mentioned many times, the arguments both for and against and contrary to what Mexico states, he is not the only one who can read and form an opinion, but we must remember that this is the same scientific community that advocate life having arisen from non living matter, a premise that i myself do not hold to be scientific, for it cannot be demonstrated, nor observed, nor falsified!

Originally posted by Mexico
@ robbie
Irreducibly Complexity is a farce, you believing in it is fine but claiming that it has any supporting evidence is offensive to people who've spent time studying the material that it tries to snipe at.

Even Behe himself has admitted that he's probably wrong. He was pressed to give an organic example and failed to provide a single one. Hell even h eory so surely you must have evidence no?

Incredulity isn't evidence either by the way.

you are not the only one who can read my learned friend, nor the only one who can form an opinion, whether you are offended by it or not is neither here nor there, for i myself do not hold that the whole evolutionary hypothesis as scientific, yet i am willing to listen to the arguments for and against without becoming offended. i have not ignored you, i am simply unwell, suffering from flu and have no energy to argue with you, if you do not find that it is scientific, supported by evidence, then that's fine, i was not stating that it was not possible that these changes at a molecular level could occur, i was merely stating that in my opinion, from what i have read, is that it is improbable. i still hold that the living cell is irreducibly complex, perhaps if you have the knowledge you can state why this is not the case, i will read and listen to the arguments, for to be sure a cat may function without an ear if he gets in a fight, even an eye, but take away a major organ and he may not last very long!

Everybody always goes with the cell, its an easy one and Ill do it for you rather than linking to anything.

Prokaryote Cells are simple consisting of a few components such as the flagellum cell wall etc. These components can be derived from very simple non living organic building blocks, protobionts (verging on abiogenisis here, want to avoid that discussion if possible). Combining these blocks will give you everything you need to form simple bacteria/non-living proto-cells.

One group of single celled procaryotes called archea show clear steps in moving from very simple to progressively more complex combinations of prokaryotes, during this many of their components functions change and/or become redundant.

These combinations bring us to the Eucaryotes.

Cytoskeleton, various organelles (nucleus etc), tubes and filaments, all interacting to produce various functions depending on the specific cell itself. Anyway each of these separate parts can be seen in various species Archea which have combined to form multi cellular agglomerates which can no longer function independently due to reliance on one another.

Thus forming a system which is dependent on each part and cannot be separated.

Sorry for the biology lesson, im very rusty on this stuff and find it difficult to be concise.

Now give me a SPECIFIC example of something that's irreducibly complex and ill reduce it pretty quickly unless you've got something that I've not heard before.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
We must remember that this is the same scientific community that advocate life having arisen from non living matter, a premise that i myself do not hold to be scientific, for it cannot be demonstrated, nor observed, nor falsified!

Yet.

And nobody advocates life having arisen from nothing, people think that this may be what happened but scientist have no answers as of yet. And no scientist worth his salt would ever ever claim100% that life came from nothing, they might illustrate a plausible model that is as of yet neither proven or disproven.

100 years ago scientists had no answers for many things.... Persistent Research has consistently yielded implausible models that are later proven. From electricity right through to atomic theory. All seemed silly until someone devised a clever test for them.

Same goes for Abiogenisis, eventually someone will devise something clever to rprove or disprove the various theories that are currently floating around.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Andrew i am not denying this, i have read the article that you mentioned many times, the arguments both for and against and contrary to what Mexico states, he is not the only one who can read and form an opinion, but we must remember that this is the same scientific community that advocate life having arisen from non living matter, a premise that i myself do not hold to be scientific, for it cannot be demonstrated, nor observed, nor falsified!

….i have read the article that you mentioned many times, the arguments both FOR and AGAINST ….(my emphasis)

By any chance, have you notices that ALL the “arguments” FOR irreducible complexity have been CLEARLY DEBUNKED by thinking people and shown to be just blatantly based on IGNORANCE, flimsy “illogic” (a misnomer) and misunderstanding?
-or does this fact count as absolutely nothing?

…he is not the only one who can read and form an OPINION..… (my emphasis)

"he" does not just have an “OPINION” but a “RATIONAL OPINION” based on REASON.

….this is the same scientific community that advocate life having arisen from non living matter, a premise that i myself do not hold to be scientific,..…

-and that is because you don’t really know what “scientific” means -you don’t know much about science -do you?

…for it cannot be demonstrated, nor observed, nor falsified!.…

LOGIC dictates that the very first life to form must have come from non-life else it would be a logical contradiction -wouldn’t it! Thus it has been proven non-falsifiable by LOGIC just as 4+4=8 has been proven non-falsifiable by LOGIC and it doesn’t need to be demonstrated to be falsifiable because it is LOGICALLY DEDUCED from PURE LOGIC. The fact that the first life to form must have come from non-life can be “demonstrated” to be true by applying LOGIC by considering the converse proposition and seeing the logical contradiction it leads to if we assume life had a beginning:

If the proposition:

1, “the first life to form came from non-life”

Is false, then, providing we both agree that life had a beginning (which we do), then it must follow:

2, “the first life to form did NOT came from non-life”

Given the fact that anything that is “NOT non-life” must tautologically mean the same thing as anything that is “life” because “NOT non-life” = “life”, proposition (2) is equivalent to:

3, “the first life to form came from life”

Which is a self contradiction because if the first life to form came from life then, logically, it is NOT the first life!
Therefore, the first life to form LOGICALLY MUST have came from non-life.

Is there any flaw in the above logic?
-yes or no?
if yes, please explain to us exactly where the flaw lies and give a full account of the nature of the logical flaw.

Therefore, given the assumption that life had a beginning, LOGIC dictates that the first life came from non-life just as LOGIC dictates that 4+4=8 -and, in this case, THAT mere fact is sufficient for the proposition to be correctly defined as “scientific” JUST as it is the case with proven mathematical theorems and for the same reason.

Originally posted by Mexico
@ robbie
Irreducibly Complexity is a farce, you believing in it is fine but claiming that it has any supporting evidence is offensive to people who've spent time studying the material that it tries to snipe at.

Even Behe himself has admitted that he's probably wrong. He was pressed to give an organic example and failed to provide a single one. Hell even h ...[text shortened]... eory so surely you must have evidence no?

Incredulity isn't evidence either by the way.

================================
Even Behe himself has admitted that he's probably wrong.
====================================

Quotation please, in full context.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
Even Behe himself has admitted that he's probably wrong.
====================================

Quotation please, in full context.[/b]

Perhaps this is sufficient to satisfy you that he basically said this?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity


“…"Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity
…”

AND

“…Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out.
…”

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]================================
Even Behe himself has admitted that he's probably wrong.
====================================

Quotation please, in full context.[/b]

Reply to My Critics:
A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
MICHAEL J. BEHE

If you've a springer link account, mines expired
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g527h45501l632v8/

From Wiki
Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical proof"

and

"Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..."


Granted he goes on in the publication to try patch up the massive holes in his arguments, but if read from an objective point of view its clear within this paper that he's acknowledging his examples are all flawed.

Since then he's failed miserably to provide new examples and his theory has been effectively and completely shot down.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
…Andrew, I don't think there is any such THING as a "simple living cell." I haven't seen one yet.
…

Of course you “haven't seen one yet” !-they existed in the past but not in the present day because evolution would have made them much more complex and advanced.

….That may make the problem SIMPLIER in your eyes. To me "organic molecule to apply the concept of "natural selection" to the origin of the sun.

==================================
Of course you “haven't seen one yet” !-they existed in the past but not in the present day because evolution would have made them much more complex and advanced.
==========================================

So the evidence is gone. No fossils?? I would suggest to you that you FIND them if at all possible.

This is, I feel, mostly your religious faith speaking. That is a secular anti -spirituality religion of Evolution.

=============================
….That may make the problem SIMPLIER in your eyes. To me "organic molecules" in the matter make it nearly unfathomly MORE complicated.
….

That is because you know little about organic chemistry while I do. I have done an university on organic chemistry and found it to be a fascinating subject. How do you judge it to be “MORE complicated” when clearly you don’t know much about it?
=========================================

Your evidence of which you boast IS GONE.

Listen, when you talk to a person of faith, he can recognize another person's "faith". It takes one to know one.

You have a belief that there are no fossils of the simpliest life forms. Apart from the needed evidence you want to believe that the bottom of the EVolution process started with them.

Now, note: You MAY Be right. But that would not be the rightness of your science. That would be the rightness of your religion.

I guess I am simply attempting to show you when you cross the line from your science into the realm of your secular religion.

Once again. No evidence of the simpliest life form is not proof that they didn't exist. Maybe they did. But you cannot be scientifically positive that that is the point from which Natural Selection started.

Your insistence on this is beyond Theory. I think your tone and insistency one what you do not know for sure imperically, is more characteristic of a religion.

================================…
“EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM”? what on earth are you talking about?
==============================

The word Algorithm liturally means "painful number" I was once told.

I mean by Algorithm a logical process which, though possibly very complicted, repeats itself again and again to accomplish some logical task.

Your a programmer of Java aren't you? Can't you see that Natural Selection could be akin to a kind of biological algorithm?


==================================
I presume you mean “EVOLUTION”? -which would make no sense because, very OBVIOUSLY, “EVOLUTION” is NOT a theory of how life originated and thus it is OBVIOUSLY NOT the accepted explanation of how the first life got started.
====================================

Okay. So living being #1 is claimed as a victim by the environment. And this is the very first instance of Natural Selection.

How long did it take for the second living being to come along?

In case there was a species of first living beings, what was the ORIGIN of thier species if not Natural Selection?

And if there was ONLY ONE living being to be claim as a victim, where did the next one come from?

===================================
So what on earth are you talking about when you
say “..have to be AROUND LONG ENOUGH for the EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM to take hold…”?
=====================================

Let us say that the giraffe's neck WAS short. Let us say that because he could not reach the high branches, Natural Selection caused the longer necked ones to survive. Let us say that Evolution then stretched their necks out.

The problem is that the tall plants which it liked to eat would have to REMAIN the same for those millions of years. Something has to STAND STILL for Natural Selection to work.

If everything is changing then you are expecting an uncontrolled chaos. The probablity of Natural Selection arriving at the biodiversity we see today in this "freeforall" chaotic alteration of evironmental factors make Evolution miraculous.

You believe in a miracle. Unless ... unless there is some Intelligent Engineering going on somewhere in the mix.

The environment is changing and not standing still. You don't have a problem of it standing still for just ONE species long enough. You have the problem of it standing still for manifold and multiple species.

If the result is what I see today. THAT IS A MIRACLE. Or there is some huge intelligence behind the scenes working in some way.

=======================================
what kind of “EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM” has to be “AROUND LONG ENOUGH”? -your statement makes no sense.
=======================================


I don't mean that the ALgorithm has not been around long enough. I mean that the environmental factors which allow TIME and CHANCE to cause Natural Selection to adopt, is often not stable enough.

For one living being - a distant maybe. But for thousands upon thousands of species? I doubt it. If so on ly intelligence could orchestrate such a development.

================================
…"The ORIGIN of Species," was the title of Darwin's book. Why didn't he call it "The Origin of every species EXCEPT the FIRST?"
..…

Because that would be idiotically pedantic. And it was called "The ORIGIN of Species" and not "The ORIGIN of life" for a reason.
=============================

What was the Origin of the first species?

Was the first living organism WITHOUT a species?


=======================================
The concept of "natural selection" was never applied to the problem of the origin of life because it is IRRELEVANT to origin of life thus it would be totally idiotic to do so. It would be as totally idiotic to do so as to apply the concept of "natural selection" to the origin of the sun.
======================================

I do not believe that that is true.

I do believe that the concept of Natural Selection has never been successfully or credibly applied to the problem of life's origin. That's the problem.

And I believe that Evos have given up and solved the problem by distancing Evolution Theory FROM Origin of Life issues, and with great millitance , depending on how religiously they are devoted to Evolution.

Originally posted by Mexico
Reply to My Critics:
A Response to Reviews of Darwin’s Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
MICHAEL J. BEHE

If you've a springer link account, mines expired
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g527h45501l632v8/

From Wiki
Behe has acknowledged using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism does not add up to a logical pr rovide new examples and his theory has been effectively and completely shot down.

No good. I want to see his words in context.

I want it from the horse's mouth in surrounding context.

Go a link to the source ? I do not mean Wikopedia or the possible spin of some Evolutionist who wrote an article for Wikopedia.