Posted on 11/16/2009 6:19:30 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
OCD.
Yes, sad, isn't it, that the evos can't seem to help themselves from rooting out GGG's thread and swarming it to ridicule non-evos?
I guess DC isn't enough for them.
Irreducible complexityis nothing more than a manufactured term and notion, made-up by ID/YECers, to be used as an argument in a debate they think can be won and is being won by them by simply saying "we established an artificial lower limit, scientifically proving that God did it"....nothing more.
The very structure of these systems--with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all--demands design, not chance.
False conclusion, Brian.
The fact that non-functioning "machine parts" are invisible to Darwinian selection is exactly what design theorists have observed.
You, Brian, don't even understand what you're talking about. The researchers posited that the non-functioning parts actually had a function in bacteria, but you need it to be different so you could set up a false conclusion.
Plans and purposes, however, are only known to arise from intelligent planners, never from mindless and chaotic laws of matter.
False statement, Brian. Given 4 billion years, proteins have plenty of time to be chaotically and randomly generated to have a function.....or mutated to have a slightly different function, or mutated a bajillion times over millions of generations to have a completely different function. Mutations change the protein's primary, secondary, and/or tertiary structure....changes the protein function for good/bad.
Instead of relying on unknown "self-organizing" principles and magical impossibilities to have constructed the living world, scientists can instead rely on Acts 4:24: "Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is." Thus, a real, effectual, adequate Cause is responsible for irreducible molecular machines such as mitochondrial transport complexes.
BWAAAAhahahahaha.....translated: "Instead of paying attention to what I, with my uber-scientific edumacation, will deem to be 'magic'....pay attention to MY brand of 'magic'"
....but speaking of mtDNA, Brian, what's the YEC reason for mitochondrial DNA being entirely different than the rest of the DNA in ALL animals? LOVE to hear it...
The surest things we can say about the physical world are math, not science.
The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences (Wigner) is like God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
Evolution ignorance knows no bounds, and most are just conformists and bandwagoneers.
Your criticism might carry more weight if you actually read and understood the position of those you deride.
OK, where did the first proteins come from?
is it not true that proteins must be synthesized?
What synthesized them? Where did the mechanism to produce them come from and from what is IT comprised?
Well, that wouldn’t be any fun.
The first protein came from the flying spaghetti monster’s meatball.
I understand irreducible complexity quite well and it is nothing more than an IDer artificially setting a lower limit on something so he could attempt to make an argument.....a lower limit that has been shown to be false and artificial.
My criticism would never carry more weight with someone that believes that Man walked the Earth with 50 foot long 10 ton spinosaurus.
Well I have seen some of the evolution arguments against irreducible complexity. The explanations are simply lacking and vapid.
Regarding dinosaurs walking w/ man please see the Biblical decription of the large earth dwelling creature whose tail is a big as a tree trunk, found in the book of Job. Estimates for the age of this book are all less than 5,000 years ago. Science simply does not have all the answers. Heck it has not yet even formed all of the proper questions.
betty boop authored an excellent research project concerning the difference between combinatorix and Bayesian probability. Bayesian, not combinatorix, should be used to argue in favor of evolution. She quoted Jewish Physicist Schroeder on this point:
Consider another example: As Gerald Schröeder points out[4], a single typical protein is a chain of 300 amino acids, and there are 20 common amino acids in life; which means that the number of possible combinations that would lead to the actualization of a typical protein would be 20300 or 10390. In this way Combinatorics theory specifies the global problem.
But as Schröeder further describes the problem:
Pragmatically, it seems any reliable statement about the origin of proteins requires us to narrow the field from all possibilities to those that are more likely to occur — not least because the people who observe and describe such things are finite themselves.
A series of numbers blindly pulled from the extension of pi for instance may seem random but is, in fact, highly determined by the calculation of the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter.
Order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system. Period. There are always guides to the system.
Cellular automata and self-organizing complexity have rules. Chaos theory has initial conditions.
An argument in favor of evolution should posit Bayesian probability and specific complex systems theory rather than pure, blind, chance such as Combinatorix. That argument is mathematically untenable.
What you said.....
*setting a lower limit on SOMETHING*? A lower limit than what, on what? The false and artificial one that was set by... whom? Scientists?
And shown to be false and artificial by whom? And how?
Gets technical for a while but the flagellum fails the very first test if irreducible complexity as the basal complex has a function all on its own...protein secretion.
...so much for the crown jewel...
A lower limit than what, on what?
A lower limit on the reducible complexity of a functional part of an organism.
The false and artificial one that was set by... whom?
By Michael Behe. Here I though you knew about this stuff.
Scientists?
Apparently, Behe is a scientist of a sort.
And shown to be false and artificial by whom?
By those that know what a TTSS is.
And how?
And how indeed...by doing actual molecular research instead of setting artificial lower limits.
The flying spaghetti monster did it...oops gotta go feed the gigantosaurus.
No, you could be more specific than speaking in generalized terms. Your comment was a vague bunch of fluff that didn’t say anything specific.
Not very precise coming from someone who prides themselves on their intellectual prowess.
It’s all compared to the artificial limits set by scientists.
You don’t like the comparison is all.
You never really answered the question.
Wow, a tale of a "thing" equals all 100+ species of large Man eating dinosaurs......how about ONE ginormous 50 foot long 10 ton spinosaurus running around eating men like M+Ms?
So I could run around all day on Google doing that which you are too lazy to do for yourself?
To what end? To the end of you asking more inane questions from the land of Man walking the Earth with large Man eating dinosaurs?
I answered your questions quite clearly. The freakin’ flying spaghetti monster did it.
What can I say?! I didn’t know you had pictures, man!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.