Total Posts:155|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Irreducible complexity

janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.
dee-em
Posts: 6,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 7:32:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

You could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[98]

"We therefore find 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. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). ..."


Follow the links if you want more detail.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 7:47:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 7:32:58 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

You could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[98]

"We therefore find 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. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). ..."


Follow the links if you want more detail.

The fact that there are no papers supporting IC is NOT debunking it.

Let's see an actual argument.
dee-em
Posts: 6,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 7:59:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 7:47:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:32:58 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

You could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[98]

"We therefore find 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. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). ..."


Follow the links if you want more detail.

The fact that there are no papers supporting IC is NOT debunking it.

Let's see an actual argument.

As I said, follow the links. You can start with Miller.

However, you don't really need to debunk something which has no peer-reviewed support.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:01:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 7:59:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:47:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:32:58 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

You could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[98]

"We therefore find 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. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). ..."


Follow the links if you want more detail.

The fact that there are no papers supporting IC is NOT debunking it.

Let's see an actual argument.

As I said, follow the links. You can start with Miller.

However, you don't really need to debunk something which has no peer-reviewed support.

I am not looking for information. I was hoping for a back-and-forth discussion.
dee-em
Posts: 6,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:30:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:01:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:47:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:32:58 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

You could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[98]

"We therefore find 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. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). ..."


Follow the links if you want more detail.

The fact that there are no papers supporting IC is NOT debunking it.

Let's see an actual argument.

As I said, follow the links. You can start with Miller.

However, you don't really need to debunk something which has no peer-reviewed support.

I am not looking for information. I was hoping for a back-and-forth discussion.

So you're interested in argument rather than information?

I suggest you be specific and choose an example put forward by IC proponents (such as the flagellum) and ask for arguments against it. A blanket refutation of IC would require a thesis. (This has been done a thousand times before though. Why reinvent the wheel?).
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:30:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:01:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:47:13 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:32:58 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

You could start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[98]

"We therefore find 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. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). ..."


Follow the links if you want more detail.

The fact that there are no papers supporting IC is NOT debunking it.

Let's see an actual argument.

As I said, follow the links. You can start with Miller.

However, you don't really need to debunk something which has no peer-reviewed support.

I am not looking for information. I was hoping for a back-and-forth discussion.

So you're interested in argument rather than information?

I suggest you be specific and choose an example put forward by IC proponents (such as the flagellum) and ask for arguments against it. A blanket refutation of IC would require a thesis. (This has been done a thousand times before though. Why reinvent the wheel?).

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.
dee-em
Posts: 6,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.
dee-em
Posts: 6,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:34:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

https://m.youtube.com...

Pretty compelling.

And in the video with Dawkins, what gave you the idea that it had no purpose in those various forms?
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 9:45:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions"

Interesting. What evolved from what?
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 10:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:45:27 PM, janesix wrote:
"recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions"

Interesting. What evolved from what?

It still completely shatters the notion of irreducible complexity.

This apparatus may not function as a flagellum when certain parts are missing, but it could serve other purposes, such as a needle, and then make the leap.
dee-em
Posts: 6,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2015 10:26:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?

You were the one talking about the various stages of uselessness. You seemed to be talking from a position of knowledge. Therefore I'm still waiting for you to identify a particular useless stage so we can explore and discuss its characteristics. You talk about "parts" but I have no idea what you are referring to. Please go ahead and supply us with specifics.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 8:36:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 7:59:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
...

However, you don't really need to debunk something which has no peer-reviewed support.

So what do you think science is, dee-em? Do you actually think that if one scientists gets his peer to bless to his paper, that makes it science?
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 10:27:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 8:36:20 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/30/2015 7:59:09 PM, dee-em wrote:
...

However, you don't really need to debunk something which has no peer-reviewed support.

So what do you think science is, dee-em? Do you actually think that if one scientists gets his peer to bless to his paper, that makes it science?

Peer review is merely a filter where particular scientific studies can be reviewed for errors, the type of errors in methodology fudged numbers and faulty logic.

It's relevant because any idiot can create a paper that shows something, but it takes peer review to have more confidence in the legitimacy of the result because smart people who know what they're talking about are purposefully charged with finding errors.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 2:22:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 10:26:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?

You were the one talking about the various stages of uselessness. You seemed to be talking from a position of knowledge. Therefore I'm still waiting for you to identify a particular useless stage so we can explore and discuss its characteristics. You talk about "parts" but I have no idea what you are referring to. Please go ahead and supply us with specifics.

I'm saying there ARE no useless stages. Evolutionists say there are multiple stages. Obviously, they can't all be useful.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 2:25:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 2:22:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:26:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?

You were the one talking about the various stages of uselessness. You seemed to be talking from a position of knowledge. Therefore I'm still waiting for you to identify a particular useless stage so we can explore and discuss its characteristics. You talk about "parts" but I have no idea what you are referring to. Please go ahead and supply us with specifics.

I'm saying there ARE no useless stages. Evolutionists say there are multiple stages. Obviously, they can't all be useful.

Why can't they?
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 2:27:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 2:25:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:22:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:26:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?

You were the one talking about the various stages of uselessness. You seemed to be talking from a position of knowledge. Therefore I'm still waiting for you to identify a particular useless stage so we can explore and discuss its characteristics. You talk about "parts" but I have no idea what you are referring to. Please go ahead and supply us with specifics.

I'm saying there ARE no useless stages. Evolutionists say there are multiple stages. Obviously, they can't all be useful.

Why can't they?

Why would they be?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 2:35:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 2:27:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:25:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:22:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:26:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?

You were the one talking about the various stages of uselessness. You seemed to be talking from a position of knowledge. Therefore I'm still waiting for you to identify a particular useless stage so we can explore and discuss its characteristics. You talk about "parts" but I have no idea what you are referring to. Please go ahead and supply us with specifics.

I'm saying there ARE no useless stages. Evolutionists say there are multiple stages. Obviously, they can't all be useful.

Why can't they?

Why would they be?

You said "obviously, they can't all be useful."

I'm assuming you have a justification for that claim, I would like to hear it. I can offer an argument for why they could be; but I want to here the detailed reasoning behind your specific claim first.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 2:37:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 2:35:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:27:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:25:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:22:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:26:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?

You were the one talking about the various stages of uselessness. You seemed to be talking from a position of knowledge. Therefore I'm still waiting for you to identify a particular useless stage so we can explore and discuss its characteristics. You talk about "parts" but I have no idea what you are referring to. Please go ahead and supply us with specifics.

I'm saying there ARE no useless stages. Evolutionists say there are multiple stages. Obviously, they can't all be useful.

Why can't they?

Why would they be?

You said "obviously, they can't all be useful."

I'm assuming you have a justification for that claim, I would like to hear it. I can offer an argument for why they could be; but I want to here the detailed reasoning behind your specific claim first.

Because without all the parts, there are many things that are useless in an organism. For example, the female reproductive system would be useless without ovaries.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, Jane, but a strategy for objecting looking for scientifically-accepted counter-examples in support.

Actually, if there were scientifically accepted counter-examples, it wouldn't debunk evolution so much as demand additional mechanisms, but that'd still be a viable objection.

However, the supposed counter-examples offered were rejected scientifically as having viable evolutionary pathways, and no better evidence has been produced, so now it's just empty creationist rhetoric flapping in the breeze. :)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:22:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, Jane, but a strategy for objecting looking for scientifically-accepted counter-examples in support.


Huh?

Somebody should point out that the debate is not whether irreducibly complex structures exist or not. Anybody who claims there is no such thing as IC clearly has no clue what IC means. The debate is whether IC structures could form one mutation at a time or not.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 3:51:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 9:39:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
I consider you a troll. Begone.

Not gone. I guess if you don't want to be troubled by intelligent dissent you'd best be the one to run off and protect yourself.
This space for rent.
Aran55633
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 2:37:47 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:35:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:27:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:25:59 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/1/2015 2:22:08 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 10:26:49 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:40:01 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:31:06 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:22:40 PM, janesix wrote:
At 6/30/2015 9:16:52 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/30/2015 8:38:04 PM, janesix wrote:

OK. At some stages in the flagulllum's evolution, it would have less than the total number of parts it has now. Say you have a flagellum with seven parts, that doesn't do anything. the fact is you simply don't find that kind of thing in nature. Adaptations always have a purpose. We see things in nature that work and have a purpose. Not things with random mutations that eventually, magically turn into working motors, for example, that was accidentally put together.

I'll let someone else take up the burden here since I have no real interest in reinventing the wheel.

Let me just say that adaptation does not have a "purpose". Random mutations are happening all the time. (Just last night I saw an ad for a new show about embarassing bodies where a man had two anuses. Good if you're a gay person, I suppose). Some mutations are advantageous and are selected for, most are not and disappear. There is no overall purpose. Adaptations only look purposeful in hindsight because the survivors benefited from a particuar useful random mutation.

"most are not and disappear" Yes, things disappear when they aren't useful. Like atrophied limbs and blind moles. Yet you expect me to believe the flagellum lasted for millions of years, over many stages of uselessness.

When did I say that? Why do you assume each stage wasn't useful?

If you know the stages in the evolution of the flagellum, please list them here and we'll go through it together. You may want to read this first so we are on the same page:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Go ahead. Which "useless" stage concerns you?

"All currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems serve the function of injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells. It is hypothesised that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum, except that is missing only a few flagellar mechanisms and functions, such as a needle to inject toxins into other cells. The hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from the type three secretory system has been challenged by recent phylogenetic research that strongly suggests the type three secretory system evolved from the flagellum through a series of gene deletions.[6] As such, the type three secretory system supports the hypothesis that the flagellum evolved from a simpler bacterial secretion system."

Do you mean the ONE possible stage they list? How about the stage where the first component mutated into being? Or the second? Or the twelfth? Or do you suppose all those parts came into being at the same time?

You were the one talking about the various stages of uselessness. You seemed to be talking from a position of knowledge. Therefore I'm still waiting for you to identify a particular useless stage so we can explore and discuss its characteristics. You talk about "parts" but I have no idea what you are referring to. Please go ahead and supply us with specifics.

I'm saying there ARE no useless stages. Evolutionists say there are multiple stages. Obviously, they can't all be useful.

Why can't they?

Why would they be?

You said "obviously, they can't all be useful."

I'm assuming you have a justification for that claim, I would like to hear it. I can offer an argument for why they could be; but I want to here the detailed reasoning behind your specific claim first.

Because without all the parts, there are many things that are useless in an organism. For example, the female reproductive system would be useless without ovaries.

That is the most fallacious argument you could have made. The various parts of the entire reproductive system evolved together, not individually.

And the argument with the flagellum has been refuted, with the posts above. A needle of almost exactly the same structure, except missing certain elements, in other microorganisms. It is not "irreducibly complex".

But there is no debate anymore. The scientific community has accepted evolution as scientific fact. There are just a few religious holdouts, but there's no debate.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:04:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:49:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:22:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.
Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, Jane, but a strategy for objecting looking for scientifically-accepted counter-examples in support.
Anybody who claims there is no such thing as IC clearly has no clue what IC means.

A strawman rebuttal, V, or did you not understand my post?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:19:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 4:04:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:49:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:22:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.
Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, Jane, but a strategy for objecting looking for scientifically-accepted counter-examples in support.
Anybody who claims there is no such thing as IC clearly has no clue what IC means.

A strawman rebuttal, V, or did you not understand my post?

LOL....Vnes does more Strawmans than a Nebraska farmer.

How is it that some people cannot simply take, what? Twenty minutes out of their day to actually READ about something they don't get?

Like this. To anybody doubting that IR has been thoroughly debunked as now carries as much credibility in the Biology arena as does Keanu Reeves leading a CERN seminar.
A simple review of this article should answer all your questions.

Vns...I would rather light a torch than curse your Darkness. It's how I roll.

Please read..and show you understand, then rebutt.

http://www.millerandlevine.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2015 4:22:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/1/2015 3:49:59 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 7/1/2015 3:22:18 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/30/2015 4:34:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I have read here on the boards that irreducible complexity has been debunked. I would like to see a good, convincing argument actually debunking irreducible complexity, if you can.

Irreducible complexity isn't an argument, Jane, but a strategy for objecting looking for scientifically-accepted counter-examples in support.


Huh?

Somebody should point out that the debate is not whether irreducibly complex structures exist or not. Anybody who claims there is no such thing as IC clearly has no clue what IC means. The debate is whether IC structures could form one mutation at a time or not.

How can anybody who does not understand something not take the time to simply read on it?

Here...PLEASE...read this. It'll take you maybe 15 minutes. Then....come back and show us you understood it. And then rebutt to it if you can. But I think you will not. Cannot.

I would rather light a Torch for you than curse your Darkness. It's sorta how I be rollin'.

http://www.millerandlevine.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.