Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Irreducible Complexity is unbeatable

errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:28:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

This is high-school biology stuff. I was expecting at least the immune system or a flagella.

The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu...
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:45:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Simply "Irreducible Complexity" strikes me as foolish. What is there in nature that cannot be reduced to a lower level? Before you run into elementary particles, that is.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
RationalMadman
Posts: 354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 2:53:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think he means irreducible simplicity, which applies to that of his mind.
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

We didn't fight our way to the top of the food chain to be f***ng vegetarians.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:01:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:28:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

This is high-school biology stuff. I was expecting at least the immune system or a flagella.

The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu...

I don't think you quite get what I'm trying to say. I'm not claiming that these individual components are irreducibly complex. I'm claiming that they are irreducibly complex as a whole. Apparently blood vessels came first, and they were originally body cavities. There are in fact 3 major problems with this thinking.

1. What use are they without blood to go round the body? A useless cavity in your body is certainly a disadvantage, and would quickly be eliminated by selective pressure.

2. You have to accept that a crude 'cavity' managed to evolve to the perfect system of blood vessels we have today. To accept that you have accept to that mutations have targeted the particular set of genes that control blood vessels so many times, at random, in the exact same beneficial way enough times to make blood vessels practically perfect.

3. This presupposes the existence of complex muscle cells, already containing a vastly complex mini respiration system, that have evolved without any advantage if selective pressure, simply because the absence of blood and the other organisms I mentioned makes them completely useless.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:53:53 PM, RationalMadman wrote:
I think he means irreducible simplicity, which applies to that of his mind.

You haven't even attempted to refute my arguments, so how can you honestly begin to call me stupid?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 3:05:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:45:43 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
Simply "Irreducible Complexity" strikes me as foolish. What is there in nature that cannot be reduced to a lower level? Before you run into elementary particles, that is.

I have explained my argument. You have not attempted to refute it. ( I think I'm beginning to repeat myself ).
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 5:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 3:01:01 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:28:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

This is high-school biology stuff. I was expecting at least the immune system or a flagella.

The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu...

I don't think you quite get what I'm trying to say. I'm not claiming that these individual components are irreducibly complex. I'm claiming that they are irreducibly complex as a whole. Apparently blood vessels came first, and they were originally body cavities. There are in fact 3 major problems with this thinking.

1. What use are they without blood to go round the body? A useless cavity in your body is certainly a disadvantage, and would quickly be eliminated by selective pressure.

2. You have to accept that a crude 'cavity' managed to evolve to the perfect system of blood vessels we have today. To accept that you have accept to that mutations have targeted the particular set of genes that control blood vessels so many times, at random, in the exact same beneficial way enough times to make blood vessels practically perfect.

3. This presupposes the existence of complex muscle cells, already containing a vastly complex mini respiration system, that have evolved without any advantage if selective pressure, simply because the absence of blood and the other organisms I mentioned makes them completely useless.

This is too easy. I will give Wnope the honors and pick it up only if he does not. He got here first after all.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 5:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 3:01:01 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:28:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

This is high-school biology stuff. I was expecting at least the immune system or a flagella.

The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu...

I don't think you quite get what I'm trying to say. I'm not claiming that these individual components are irreducibly complex. I'm claiming that they are irreducibly complex as a whole. Apparently blood vessels came first, and they were originally body cavities. There are in fact 3 major problems with this thinking.

1. What use are they without blood to go round the body? A useless cavity in your body is certainly a disadvantage, and would quickly be eliminated by selective pressure.

2. You have to accept that a crude 'cavity' managed to evolve to the perfect system of blood vessels we have today. To accept that you have accept to that mutations have targeted the particular set of genes that control blood vessels so many times, at random, in the exact same beneficial way enough times to make blood vessels practically perfect.

3. This presupposes the existence of complex muscle cells, already containing a vastly complex mini respiration system, that have evolved without any advantage if selective pressure, simply because the absence of blood and the other organisms I mentioned makes them completely useless.

Do I REALLY have to explain high school biology to you?

The first digestive systems were single-celled phages that engulfed other organisms and turned them into food. Multi-cellcular organisms benefited by created a specialized cavity which mean increased efficiency in digestion.

The first lung appeared in fish BILLIONS of years after digestion. This lung complemented the fishes gills, allowing it to also walk on land

The first muscle cells appeared 700 million years ago just before bilateral creatures separated from non-bilateral (i.e. jellyfish, hydra). The first heart-like organ appeared around 500 million years ago as tubular vessels (later blood vessels) which acted as a linear peristaltic pump without a closed cardiac compartment. Closed cardiac compartments lead to a specific organ for pumping liquid: the heart.

If you'd take the time to actually look at the sources I posted, you'd know this.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 5:17:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.

#2

http://talkorigins.org...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 6:17:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 5:17:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.

#2

http://talkorigins.org...

#2 "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. "

This isn't actually an argument against irreducible complexity itself, but rather the conclusions derived from it. And while I agree that it is possible that other processes may have produced these irreducibly parts, no one has even got an inkling of what this supposed process could possibly be. So surely it is reasonable to believe in the one idea which can explain irreducible complexity (intelligent design), rather than some dubious 'other process' which may, or may not exist?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 6:24:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 6:17:18 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:17:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.

#2

http://talkorigins.org...

#2 "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. "

This isn't actually an argument against irreducible complexity itself,

Correct, that's what the rest of the entries are.

but rather the conclusions derived from it. And while I agree that it is possible that other processes may have produced these irreducibly parts, no one has even got an inkling of what this supposed process could possibly be. So surely it is reasonable to believe in the one idea which can explain irreducible complexity (intelligent design), rather than some dubious 'other process' which may, or may not exist?

The dubious process which may or may not exist is inteligent design.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 7:03:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 5:05:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:01:01 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:28:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

This is high-school biology stuff. I was expecting at least the immune system or a flagella.

The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu...

I don't think you quite get what I'm trying to say. I'm not claiming that these individual components are irreducibly complex. I'm claiming that they are irreducibly complex as a whole. Apparently blood vessels came first, and they were originally body cavities. There are in fact 3 major problems with this thinking.

1. What use are they without blood to go round the body? A useless cavity in your body is certainly a disadvantage, and would quickly be eliminated by selective pressure.

2. You have to accept that a crude 'cavity' managed to evolve to the perfect system of blood vessels we have today. To accept that you have accept to that mutations have targeted the particular set of genes that control blood vessels so many times, at random, in the exact same beneficial way enough times to make blood vessels practically perfect.

3. This presupposes the existence of complex muscle cells, already containing a vastly complex mini respiration system, that have evolved without any advantage if selective pressure, simply because the absence of blood and the other organisms I mentioned makes them completely useless.

Do I REALLY have to explain high school biology to you?

I'm not out of high school yet.

But perhaps you need a recap of the respiratory system.

When you eat food, your digestive system turns that food into glucose. The glucose is sent to your blood. When you breathe in oxygen with your lungs, that oxygen also enters your blood. The blood is pumped through blood vessels by the heart and carries the glucose and oxygen to your muscle cells. These blood vessels range in thickness from about the size of your thumb to about one cell thick. This is because the blood vessels need to carry blood to every single muscle cell.Once the glucose and oxygen reaches the muscle cell, it is taken in to produce energy for your muscles to move. Carbon Dioxide, water and urea are also produced as waste. These are expelled from the body.


The first digestive systems were single-celled phages that engulfed other organisms and turned them into food.

How can the energy gained from these digestive phages benefit the organism without muscle cells to use the glucose generated?

Multi-cellcular organisms benefited by created a specialized cavity which mean increased efficiency in digestion.

Specialized cavity sounds impressive, but have you ever considered that in this stage of evolution it is little more than a hole? A hole with no purpose, as there is no blood, heart or muscle cells?

The first lung appeared in fish BILLIONS of years after digestion. This lung complemented the fishes gills, allowing it to also walk on land

And at this point the entire respiration system has just appeared? Fish have fully working respiratory systems, they just have gills instead of lungs.

The first muscle cells appeared 700 million years ago just before bilateral creatures separated from non-bilateral (i.e. jellyfish, hydra).

How? It seems pretty strange that the entire cellecular composition of an organsim can change. BOP on you.

The first heart-like organ appeared around 500 million years ago as tubular vessels (later blood vessels) which acted as a linear peristaltic pump without a closed cardiac compartment.

And how could this benefit the organism?

Closed cardiac compartments lead to a specific organ for pumping liquid: the heart.

If you'd take the time to actually look at the sources I posted, you'd know this.

Basically everything on these sources was assertions that these organisms evolved in a certain way, no satisfactory explanations.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 7:06:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 6:24:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 6:17:18 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:17:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.

#2

http://talkorigins.org...

#2 "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. "

This isn't actually an argument against irreducible complexity itself,

Correct, that's what the rest of the entries are.

You specifically said #2.

but rather the conclusions derived from it. And while I agree that it is possible that other processes may have produced these irreducibly parts, no one has even got an inkling of what this supposed process could possibly be. So surely it is reasonable to believe in the one idea which can explain irreducible complexity (intelligent design), rather than some dubious 'other process' which may, or may not exist?

The dubious process which may or may not exist is inteligent design.

Quote: "Other processes might have produced it"

That was the dubious other process I was referencing to.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 7:16:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 7:06:21 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 6:24:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 6:17:18 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:17:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.

#2

http://talkorigins.org...

#2 "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. "

This isn't actually an argument against irreducible complexity itself,

Correct, that's what the rest of the entries are.

You specifically said #2.

Yes. #2 explains how irreducible complexity is equivalent to an argument from ignorance (or an argument from incredulity, as the link states; they are tantamount to the same thing). This is what you asked for.

Irreducible complexity fails on other grounds too, of course. I never meant to imply that irreducible complexity fails only because it is an argument from ignorance, but I think that is probably the most pertinent point to address. By noting that it is logically fallacious, you attack it on principle (rather than on application).


but rather the conclusions derived from it. And while I agree that it is possible that other processes may have produced these irreducibly parts, no one has even got an inkling of what this supposed process could possibly be. So surely it is reasonable to believe in the one idea which can explain irreducible complexity (intelligent design), rather than some dubious 'other process' which may, or may not exist?

The dubious process which may or may not exist is inteligent design.

Quote: "Other processes might have produced it"

That was the dubious other process I was referencing to.

While forgetting that Intelligent Design is, itself, dubious, a point I felt necessary to explain to you.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 7:17:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 7:03:14 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:05:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:01:01 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:28:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

This is high-school biology stuff. I was expecting at least the immune system or a flagella.

The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu...

I don't think you quite get what I'm trying to say. I'm not claiming that these individual components are irreducibly complex. I'm claiming that they are irreducibly complex as a whole. Apparently blood vessels came first, and they were originally body cavities. There are in fact 3 major problems with this thinking.

1. What use are they without blood to go round the body? A useless cavity in your body is certainly a disadvantage, and would quickly be eliminated by selective pressure.

2. You have to accept that a crude 'cavity' managed to evolve to the perfect system of blood vessels we have today. To accept that you have accept to that mutations have targeted the particular set of genes that control blood vessels so many times, at random, in the exact same beneficial way enough times to make blood vessels practically perfect.

3. This presupposes the existence of complex muscle cells, already containing a vastly complex mini respiration system, that have evolved without any advantage if selective pressure, simply because the absence of blood and the other organisms I mentioned makes them completely useless.

Do I REALLY have to explain high school biology to you?

I'm not out of high school yet.

But perhaps you need a recap of the respiratory system.

When you eat food, your digestive system turns that food into glucose. The glucose is sent to your blood. When you breathe in oxygen with your lungs, that oxygen also enters your blood. The blood is pumped through blood vessels by the heart and carries the glucose and oxygen to your muscle cells. These blood vessels range in thickness from about the size of your thumb to about one cell thick. This is because the blood vessels need to carry blood to every single muscle cell.Once the glucose and oxygen reaches the muscle cell, it is taken in to produce energy for your muscles to move. Carbon Dioxide, water and urea are also produced as waste. These are expelled from the body.


The first digestive systems were single-celled phages that engulfed other organisms and turned them into food.

How can the energy gained from these digestive phages benefit the organism without muscle cells to use the glucose generated?

Muscles are not the only thing that uses energy in your body. Every living cell requires it, from muscles, to brain cells, to organs, to skin.


Multi-cellcular organisms benefited by created a specialized cavity which mean increased efficiency in digestion.

Specialized cavity sounds impressive, but have you ever considered that in this stage of evolution it is little more than a hole? A hole with no purpose, as there is no blood, heart or muscle cells?

That doesn't matter. In the course of mirco-organism competition, the hunted will have an evolutionary incentive to have thinker cell walls, to resist being digested. Likewise, the hunters will have an evolutionary incentive to have a better way to digest. A cavity that can encompass prey, so that it can be digested over time fills that incentive.

sugars do not need to be carried by blood, blood is merely specialized to do that task.


The first lung appeared in fish BILLIONS of years after digestion. This lung complemented the fishes gills, allowing it to also walk on land

And at this point the entire respiration system has just appeared? Fish have fully working respiratory systems, they just have gills instead of lungs.

Your point? That doesn't refute the reduced complexity, only questions the need of it.


The first muscle cells appeared 700 million years ago just before bilateral creatures separated from non-bilateral (i.e. jellyfish, hydra).

How? It seems pretty strange that the entire cellecular composition of an organsim can change. BOP on you.

Seen in fossil records. BOP on you to refute hard evidence that we can see.


The first heart-like organ appeared around 500 million years ago as tubular vessels (later blood vessels) which acted as a linear peristaltic pump without a closed cardiac compartment.

And how could this benefit the organism?

More efficient transfer of resources within an increasingly large and complex life form.


Closed cardiac compartments lead to a specific organ for pumping liquid: the heart.

If you'd take the time to actually look at the sources I posted, you'd know this.

Basically everything on these sources was assertions that these organisms evolved in a certain way, no satisfactory explanations.

I hope your school does not require biology to graduate.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:36:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 7:16:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 7:06:21 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 6:24:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 6:17:18 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:17:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.

#2

http://talkorigins.org...

#2 "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. "

This isn't actually an argument against irreducible complexity itself,

Correct, that's what the rest of the entries are.

You specifically said #2.

Yes. #2 explains how irreducible complexity is equivalent to an argument from ignorance (or an argument from incredulity, as the link states; they are tantamount to the same thing). This is what you asked for.

Irreducible complexity fails on other grounds too, of course. I never meant to imply that irreducible complexity fails only because it is an argument from ignorance, but I think that is probably the most pertinent point to address. By noting that it is logically fallacious, you attack it on principle (rather than on application).

How is it an argument from ignorance? If it is true it refutes evolutionary theory, doesn't it?


but rather the conclusions derived from it. And while I agree that it is possible that other processes may have produced these irreducibly parts, no one has even got an inkling of what this supposed process could possibly be. So surely it is reasonable to believe in the one idea which can explain irreducible complexity (intelligent design), rather than some dubious 'other process' which may, or may not exist?

The dubious process which may or may not exist is inteligent design.

Quote: "Other processes might have produced it"

That was the dubious other process I was referencing to.

While forgetting that Intelligent Design is, itself, dubious, a point I felt necessary to explain to you.

I disagree. Why must God be excluded?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 10:59:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 7:17:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/21/2012 7:03:14 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:05:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 3:01:01 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:28:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

This is high-school biology stuff. I was expecting at least the immune system or a flagella.

The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu...

I don't think you quite get what I'm trying to say. I'm not claiming that these individual components are irreducibly complex. I'm claiming that they are irreducibly complex as a whole. Apparently blood vessels came first, and they were originally body cavities. There are in fact 3 major problems with this thinking.

1. What use are they without blood to go round the body? A useless cavity in your body is certainly a disadvantage, and would quickly be eliminated by selective pressure.

2. You have to accept that a crude 'cavity' managed to evolve to the perfect system of blood vessels we have today. To accept that you have accept to that mutations have targeted the particular set of genes that control blood vessels so many times, at random, in the exact same beneficial way enough times to make blood vessels practically perfect.

3. This presupposes the existence of complex muscle cells, already containing a vastly complex mini respiration system, that have evolved without any advantage if selective pressure, simply because the absence of blood and the other organisms I mentioned makes them completely useless.

Do I REALLY have to explain high school biology to you?

I'm not out of high school yet.

But perhaps you need a recap of the respiratory system.

When you eat food, your digestive system turns that food into glucose. The glucose is sent to your blood. When you breathe in oxygen with your lungs, that oxygen also enters your blood. The blood is pumped through blood vessels by the heart and carries the glucose and oxygen to your muscle cells. These blood vessels range in thickness from about the size of your thumb to about one cell thick. This is because the blood vessels need to carry blood to every single muscle cell.Once the glucose and oxygen reaches the muscle cell, it is taken in to produce energy for your muscles to move. Carbon Dioxide, water and urea are also produced as waste. These are expelled from the body.


The first digestive systems were single-celled phages that engulfed other organisms and turned them into food.

How can the energy gained from these digestive phages benefit the organism without muscle cells to use the glucose generated?

Muscles are not the only thing that uses energy in your body. Every living cell requires it, from muscles, to brain cells, to organs, to skin.

These are just as complex, if not more than muscle cells. It just makes the problem worse. Also there are all the other required organisms missing.


Multi-cellcular organisms benefited by created a specialized cavity which mean increased efficiency in digestion.

Specialized cavity sounds impressive, but have you ever considered that in this stage of evolution it is little more than a hole? A hole with no purpose, as there is no blood, heart or muscle cells?

That doesn't matter. In the course of mirco-organism competition, the hunted will have an evolutionary incentive to have thinker cell walls, to resist being digested. Likewise, the hunters will have an evolutionary incentive to have a better way to digest. A cavity that can encompass prey, so that it can be digested over time fills that incentive.

In microorganisms that could be an advantage, but it is still a stretch to say that our perfect blood vessels evolved from a hole.

sugars do not need to be carried by blood, blood is merely specialized to do that task.

"Sugars do not need to be carried by blood"

Some evidence would be nice.


The first lung appeared in fish BILLIONS of years after digestion. This lung complemented the fishes gills, allowing it to also walk on land

And at this point the entire respiration system has just appeared? Fish have fully working respiratory systems, they just have gills instead of lungs.

Your point? That doesn't refute the reduced complexity, only questions the need of it.

My point is, he hasn't explained how the fish got to this point.


The first muscle cells appeared 700 million years ago just before bilateral creatures separated from non-bilateral (i.e. jellyfish, hydra).

How? It seems pretty strange that the entire cellecular composition of an organsim can change. BOP on you.

Seen in fossil records. BOP on you to refute hard evidence that we can see.

I've never heard of this evidence, sources would be good.


The first heart-like organ appeared around 500 million years ago as tubular vessels (later blood vessels) which acted as a linear peristaltic pump without a closed cardiac compartment.

And how could this benefit the organism?

More efficient transfer of resources within an increasingly large and complex life form.

It wouldn't work. What use are any blood vessels at all if they only transport stuff to and from a small portion of the body?

And what's more, as the first example of any blood vessels, they would have been extremely crude. eg. Lumpy, miss shaped, leaky, out of proportion. It would probably render the organism vulnerable to selective pressure, rather strengthening it. A faulty, unreliable new system will not be superior to a reliable old one.


Closed cardiac compartments lead to a specific organ for pumping liquid: the heart.

If you'd take the time to actually look at the sources I posted, you'd know this.

Basically everything on these sources was assertions that these organisms evolved in a certain way, no satisfactory explanations.

I hope your school does not require biology to graduate.

Biology =/= evolution
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2012 11:21:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 10:59:37 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 7:17:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/21/2012 7:03:14 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:05:49 PM, Wnope wrote:

Do I REALLY have to explain high school biology to you?

I'm not out of high school yet.

But perhaps you need a recap of the respiratory system.

When you eat food, your digestive system turns that food into glucose. The glucose is sent to your blood. When you breathe in oxygen with your lungs, that oxygen also enters your blood. The blood is pumped through blood vessels by the heart and carries the glucose and oxygen to your muscle cells. These blood vessels range in thickness from about the size of your thumb to about one cell thick. This is because the blood vessels need to carry blood to every single muscle cell.Once the glucose and oxygen reaches the muscle cell, it is taken in to produce energy for your muscles to move. Carbon Dioxide, water and urea are also produced as waste. These are expelled from the body.


The first digestive systems were single-celled phages that engulfed other organisms and turned them into food.

How can the energy gained from these digestive phages benefit the organism without muscle cells to use the glucose generated?

Muscles are not the only thing that uses energy in your body. Every living cell requires it, from muscles, to brain cells, to organs, to skin.


These are just as complex, if not more than muscle cells. It just makes the problem worse. Also there are all the other required organisms missing.

You missed the point. Those were merely examples. Every cell requires energy, so even if the organism doesn't have muscles, it can still benefit from glucose.



Multi-cellcular organisms benefited by created a specialized cavity which mean increased efficiency in digestion.

Specialized cavity sounds impressive, but have you ever considered that in this stage of evolution it is little more than a hole? A hole with no purpose, as there is no blood, heart or muscle cells?

That doesn't matter. In the course of mirco-organism competition, the hunted will have an evolutionary incentive to have thinker cell walls, to resist being digested. Likewise, the hunters will have an evolutionary incentive to have a better way to digest. A cavity that can encompass prey, so that it can be digested over time fills that incentive.

In microorganisms that could be an advantage, but it is still a stretch to say that our perfect blood vessels evolved from a hole.

1) Our blood vessels are not perfect by and real measure

2) We are talking about digestion, not circulation in this part ("a specialized cavity which mean increased efficiency in digestion").


sugars do not need to be carried by blood, blood is merely specialized to do that task.


"Sugars do not need to be carried by blood"

Some evidence would be nice.

Plants and Bacteria, and every living thing that does not have blood.



The first lung appeared in fish BILLIONS of years after digestion. This lung complemented the fishes gills, allowing it to also walk on land

And at this point the entire respiration system has just appeared? Fish have fully working respiratory systems, they just have gills instead of lungs.

Your point? That doesn't refute the reduced complexity, only questions the need of it.

My point is, he hasn't explained how the fish got to this point.

An alternative breathing mechanism would allow for expanded territory and thus give a survival advantage.

An easy possibility is that cells that were better able to absorb O2 from air would allow the individual creature that had that mutation (not full lungs, just gills that were better with a gas) to escape from predators by beaching itself, then coming back in the water a little later (after the predator ate something else that couldn't beach itself).

Since air is much lighter than water, it is much easier to make air flow (such as into a sac) vs water. This would allow for the gills that could handle a gas to form mostly closed with just a small hole (since that would protect them better than open gills). The same muscles that use to open the gills, would be there to expand the air chambers and compress them, forcing air in and out so oxygen could be collected.

Hopefully, you can piece together the rest from there.



The first muscle cells appeared 700 million years ago just before bilateral creatures separated from non-bilateral (i.e. jellyfish, hydra).

How? It seems pretty strange that the entire cellecular composition of an organsim can change. BOP on you.

Seen in fossil records. BOP on you to refute hard evidence that we can see.

I've never heard of this evidence, sources would be good.


The first heart-like organ appeared around 500 million years ago as tubular vessels (later blood vessels) which acted as a linear peristaltic pump without a closed cardiac compartment.

And how could this benefit the organism?

More efficient transfer of resources within an increasingly large and complex life form.

It wouldn't work. What use are any blood vessels at all if they only transport stuff to and from a small portion of the body?

Larger organisms have a natural size defense, this means that they are evolutionarily being pushed larger, and so various efficiency benefit would be evolutionarily advantageous. If the vessels are more efficient than the old method (which they eventual would as sizes increased), then they would likely form.


And what's more, as the first example of any blood vessels, they would have been extremely crude. eg. Lumpy, miss shaped, leaky, out of proportion. It would probably render the organism vulnerable to selective pressure, rather strengthening it. A faulty, unreliable new system will not be superior to a reliable old one.

What? What makes you think the first vessels would be "extremely crude"?



Closed cardiac compartments lead to a specific organ for pumping liquid: the heart.

If you'd take the time to actually look at the sources I posted, you'd know this.

Basically everything on these sources was assertions that these organisms evolved in a certain way, no satisfactory explanations.

I hope your school does not require biology to graduate.

Biology =/= evolution

No, but evolution (and the history of animals) is a large part of it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 3:33:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 2:05:59 PM, errya wrote:
Irreducible complexity is unbeatable. To refute it, the evolutionist must prove nothing has irreducible complexity, while the non-evolutionist must prove there is but one organism that has. Even Darwin knew this.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species

Also, I think I may have come up with the best and most obvious example of irreducible complexity ever. The Respiratory System. This includes the the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells. Each one is useless without all the others.

I invite anyone who wishes to challenge this conclusion.

Consider a sponge. It simply has holes in it. Salt water fills them and circulates by ocean currents. Salt water was the first blood carrying nutrients and oxygen to cells. Passive channels that where nothing more than holes were the first circulatory system. Lungs were not even necessary, nor muscles, nor a digestive system. You are simply in error to think they all were there from the start.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 4:51:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"the blood, blood vessels, heart, lungs, digestive system and muscle cells" This is the IC system being suggested. Firstly, this is in regards to the respiratory system, and errya is being sidetracked totally.

On to the arguments, only Wnope has provided something approaching an explanation. His second and third sources are the same. As his first source, the French article, is not free-access, I will not comment on it. The second article, however, is one that I"ve seen before. As such, I am perfectly willing to comment on it. I will do so before moving on to the problems in Wnope"s explanation.

The second article deals solely with the heart and nothing else. Within this article, there are many assertive statements that have no evidence. Consider the following, "During evolution, the heart evolved from a single-layered tube with peristaltic contractility to a more efficient and powerful pump with thick muscular chambers dedicated to receiving (atrial) and pumping (ventricular) blood, displaying synchronous contractions and seamless connections to a closed vascular system (10, 11)."

Now reference 10 is to an article in the physio. Rev. : http://physrev.physiology.org... (2003)

As close as possible to relate to this, there is found the statement, "The tunicate heart is a tubular structure that lies in a pericardial cavity. It consists of a single layer of cardiac muscle cells that are electrically coupled and are not lined by endocardial cells..."

We find after further reading of the article this statement: "...During evolution, the high-volume low-pressure cardiovascular system of the tunicates (blood volume equals &#8764;40% of their body weight) developed into a low-volume high-pressure system in vertebrates (blood volume comprises &#8764;6% of their body weight)..."
Now, where is the evidence for this? No references, and no original research. Aka. Assertion.

This reference article is also wrong, in that the statement "...The chordate phylum comprises the subphyla of the urochordates, or tunicates, and related forms, the cephalochordates with Amphioxus as a well-known representative, and the vertebrates..." contradicts newer studies: http://fdelsuc.perso.neuf.fr... to this 2006 article, "So, if lancelets really are close relatives of echinoderms, what are the implications for our picture of deuterostome evolution? The short answer is that the textbook scheme is turned on its head. Rather than the steady acquisition of progressively more chordate like (and, by implication, human like) features from an ancestor with nothing to recommend it, the story becomes one of persistent loss. The last common ancestor of extant deuterostomes would have been a free-living, bilaterally symmetrical creature with a distinct throat region perforated by gill slits, segmented body-wall musculature and possibly a reasonably sophisticated brain and central nervous system. In a sentence, the ancestor would have looked like a cross between an amphioxus and a larger, brainier, tunicate tadpole larva. Crazy? Possibly. But possibly not..."

So, the textbooks are wrong, and so is the 2003 reference article, which once again is merely assertion. Just because an assertion appears in a science journal does not mean it becomes a fact.

The second reference, ref 11. http://www.sciencedirect.com... has this interesting quote, "We observe a striking discontinuity between the blueprints of pumps in hemichordates, urochordates, cephalochordates, and those of vertebrate hearts (Fig. 2C). Particularly impressive is the apparent abrupt appearance of four-chambered hearts in hagfishes and lampreys when we take the cephalochordate amphioxus as reference. Pumps in amphioxus are so rudimentary that it is considered heartless (Moller and Philpott, 1973, Moorman and Christoffels, 2003a and Randall and Davie, 1980). In fact, four different vessels drive circulation in amphioxus (Moller and Philpott, 1973). Whether these vessels are homologous to the vertebrate heart will be discussed later. What concerns us now is the recognition of a gap in our understanding of the events that underlie the appearance of chambers in the hearts of hagfishes and lampreys. So far, there have been few attempts to understand the genetic basis of this gap and we believe this will be a fruitful area of investigation." First of all, note that this is an outdated paper. Second of all, this is a very interesting quotation which was NOT taken out of context. Suddenly appearing four-chambered hearts? hmmm....

"...Analyzing the differences in pump design in chordates it becomes apparent that cephalochordates and urochordates had enough time to diverge and develop specializations that have made it difficult to recognize in them the characteristics of the ancestral chordate pump. Integrating several lines of evidence we propose, as more parsimonious, the phylogenetic scenarios portraying the ancestor chordate circulation as open and driven by a main, pre-pharyngeal, and other accessory pumps. According to our views, cells akin to ventricular myocytes formed the main, pre-pharyngeal pump. At some point in evolution the precursors of these cells were patterned in the AP axis, generating all or a subset of chamber-specific myocytes. We suggest that this event made possible a later morphogenetic reorganization that created at once, two, perhaps more, cardiac chambers..."
"...By assuming RA signaling as one evolutionary mechanism that creates cardiac inflow/outflow divisions, we suggest an experimental program to test ideas proposed here. First, it will be necessary to establish whether the two RALDH2 expression patterns associated with the steps to commitment to cardiac inflow/outflow fates in amniotes are also present in other vertebrates and chordates as mechanisms of pump AP patterning. If this holds true, we will have calibrated an investigation tool to scrutinize the phylogenetic origins of cardiac chambers within chordates.
The conservation of these RALDH2 expression patterns in Ciona intestinalis was surprising since urochordate pumps lack overt AP asymmetries. RALDH2 expression posterior to the pump field may reflect an ancient role for RA in restricting the emerging pump field. However, the presence of a caudorostral wave raises intriguing possibilities. Perhaps the ascidian pump is more complex than apparent, using RALDH2 to establish dorsal/ventral asymmetries possibly related to the vertebrate atrium and ventricle. Alternatively, the ascidian pump may derive from a more complex organ, maintaining a dynamic RALDH2 pattern despite the loss of AP complexity. The urochordate RALDH2 caudorostral wave may fulfill non-cardiac requirements that were subsequently recruited in higher chordates to pattern a newly evolved chambered heart. Testing these hypotheses will require a thorough evaluation of RALDH2 patterns and the effects of RA signaling in chordate pump development..."

I will let the critic fit the puzzle together from here. I think they are intelligent enough. (Yes, if you"re wondering, I did read all articles I have cited)

So, the second article of Wnope"s is outdated and even if it were not, it is based on something known as no-evidence.

Continued in the next comment
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 4:51:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
On to Wnope"s suggestion, "The first digestive systems and blood vessels were little more than body cavities. The first hearts were little more than a pump which later took advantage of vessels to circulate blood. The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm."

There is many problems with these, firstly, what do you mean by "body cavities"? Which cavity? In the human body, there is so many cavities. Note that in this proposed system, the critic has to describe how nutrients came to be digested into this cavity without the fluid flowing out. Otherwise their explanation is intellectually valueless.
Blood vessels are by the broadest definition of body cavities cavities still. "Any space in the body of a multicellular organism, containing the viscera or fluid"

http://www.biology-online.org...

By definition, blood is a fluid, and as such, vessels are cavities. The critic has to explain how the cavities got there and how they subsequently became the intricate system of vessels we currently observe, with supporting evidence, otherwise their criticism means nothing.

The body has countless pumps, down to even within a cell. ATP synthase are used to pump protons out of the cytoplasm, why have they not yet evolved into more hearts?

"The first "blood" was basically cytoplasm" This is a statement of gross ignorance. Firstly, there is no supporting evidence. Secondly, the function of cytoplasm is much different than that of blood. This is high-school biology stuff.

In conclusion, this explanation to the system as proposed by Errya is false and not supported by the evidence.

I agree though that Errya"s response to this is not in any way good.
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 5:22:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/21/2012 10:36:05 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 7:16:22 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 7:06:21 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 6:24:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 6:17:18 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 5:17:11 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:26:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 12/21/2012 2:09:23 PM, drafterman wrote:
Irreducible complexity = argument from ignorance.

How? Please explain instead of assuming I'm stupid.

#2

http://talkorigins.org...

#2 "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. "

This isn't actually an argument against irreducible complexity itself,

Correct, that's what the rest of the entries are.

You specifically said #2.

Yes. #2 explains how irreducible complexity is equivalent to an argument from ignorance (or an argument from incredulity, as the link states; they are tantamount to the same thing). This is what you asked for.

Irreducible complexity fails on other grounds too, of course. I never meant to imply that irreducible complexity fails only because it is an argument from ignorance, but I think that is probably the most pertinent point to address. By noting that it is logically fallacious, you attack it on principle (rather than on application).

How is it an argument from ignorance?

Sigh. #2 in the provided link.

If it is true it refutes evolutionary theory, doesn't it?

No.



but rather the conclusions derived from it. And while I agree that it is possible that other processes may have produced these irreducibly parts, no one has even got an inkling of what this supposed process could possibly be. So surely it is reasonable to believe in the one idea which can explain irreducible complexity (intelligent design), rather than some dubious 'other process' which may, or may not exist?

The dubious process which may or may not exist is inteligent design.

Quote: "Other processes might have produced it"

That was the dubious other process I was referencing to.

While forgetting that Intelligent Design is, itself, dubious, a point I felt necessary to explain to you.

I disagree. Why must God be excluded?

The same reason Zeus should be excluded.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 8:01:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I love irreducible complexity. It always follows the same pattern of argument;
All our organs work together and without one, none of the others would work therefore we are irreducibly complex, therefore God.
Egad.

The problem is that you need a moderate understanding of evolutionary biology to begin to comprehend how these things did evolve from not existing to existing and all too often creationists come to the table with flawed preconceptions.

The argument for irreducible complexity is only valid if you ignore or misrepresent evidence.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 8:04:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 8:01:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I love irreducible complexity. It always follows the same pattern of argument;
All our organs work together and without one, none of the others would work therefore we are irreducibly complex, therefore God.
Egad.

The problem is that you need a moderate understanding of evolutionary biology to begin to comprehend how these things did evolve from not existing to existing and all too often creationists come to the table with flawed preconceptions.

The argument for irreducible complexity is only valid if you ignore or misrepresent evidence.

That is why creationists work so hard at being willfully ignorant.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 8:40:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 8:04:58 AM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/22/2012 8:01:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I love irreducible complexity. It always follows the same pattern of argument;
All our organs work together and without one, none of the others would work therefore we are irreducibly complex, therefore God.
Egad.

The problem is that you need a moderate understanding of evolutionary biology to begin to comprehend how these things did evolve from not existing to existing and all too often creationists come to the table with flawed preconceptions.

The argument for irreducible complexity is only valid if you ignore or misrepresent evidence.

That is why creationists work so hard at being willfully ignorant.

...wow...i never seen such bigotry. I gave a highly comprehensive rreply to just about the only post that attempted to explain IC and it is willfully ignored, with the people in the same group as the person posting the comprehensive reply being labelled 'willfully ignorant.'

Just, wow.. Great job!!!!!
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
StreetLogician
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 10:03:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/22/2012 8:40:31 AM, Muted wrote:
At 12/22/2012 8:04:58 AM, StreetLogician wrote:
At 12/22/2012 8:01:05 AM, tvellalott wrote:
I love irreducible complexity. It always follows the same pattern of argument;
All our organs work together and without one, none of the others would work therefore we are irreducibly complex, therefore God.
Egad.

The problem is that you need a moderate understanding of evolutionary biology to begin to comprehend how these things did evolve from not existing to existing and all too often creationists come to the table with flawed preconceptions.

The argument for irreducible complexity is only valid if you ignore or misrepresent evidence.

That is why creationists work so hard at being willfully ignorant.

...wow...i never seen such bigotry. I gave a highly comprehensive rreply to just about the only post that attempted to explain IC and it is willfully ignored, with the people in the same group as the person posting the comprehensive reply being labelled 'willfully ignorant.'

Just, wow.. Great job!!!!!

Very well, how about replying to my previous post:

Consider a sponge. It simply has holes in it. Salt water fills them and circulates by ocean currents. Salt water was the first blood carrying nutrients and oxygen to cells. Passive channels that where nothing more than holes were the first circulatory system. Lungs were not even necessary, nor muscles, nor a digestive system. You are simply in error to think they all were there from the start.