Jump to content


Photo

Man's Organs Create An Unsurmountable Problem For Accidentalists


  • Please log in to reply
277 replies to this topic

#1 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 May 2017 - 06:42 PM

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 

Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

 

For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE

a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible.

 

For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)

 

Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys?

 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

 

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart?

 

You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. :think:

 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

 

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can

show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 

Anyone like to take a stab at it? :dono:



#2 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 May 2017 - 04:28 AM

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 

Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

Sure

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

Not really facts, the first is a false dichotomy. For instance they could have evolved simultaneously.

The second is a play on the word "separately". Separately can simply mean "independent of each other", or "one after the other". For one interpretation your assessment is correct, for the other its not.

 

For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE

a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible.

 

For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)

 

Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys?

 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

 

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart?

 

You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. 

 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

 

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can

show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 

Anyone like to take a stab at it?

The whole "irreducibly complexity" argument is an argument from incredulity. No need to go deeper into it unless the argument gets better substantiated.



#3 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 May 2017 - 09:09 AM

good questions blitz.
apparently, science has no answers for these questions
from koonin:
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped* with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

* koonins original phrase was "ready made".

the above makes it plain, science does not know how animal phyla evolved.
also, the above makes it plain that there are no transitionals between animal phyla.

here is something else for you to chew on:
Forty years ago it was thought that the amount of DNA in a genome correlated with the complexity of an organism.
. . .
Many of us have been teaching this basic fact for twenty years. The bottom line is ....
Anyone who states or implies that there is a significant correlation between total haploid genome size and species complexity is either ignorant or lying.
- sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/09/genome-size-complexity-and-c-value.html

#4 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 May 2017 - 11:58 AM

 

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 

Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

Sure

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

Not really facts, the first is a false dichotomy. For instance they could have evolved simultaneously.

The second is a play on the word "separately". Separately can simply mean "independent of each other", or "one after the other". For one interpretation your assessment is correct, for the other its not.

 

For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE

a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible.

 

For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION)

 

Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys?

 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

 

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart?

 

You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. 

 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

 

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can

show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 

Anyone like to take a stab at it?

The whole "irreducibly complexity" argument is an argument from incredulity. No need to go deeper into it unless the argument gets better substantiated.

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

"Not really facts, the first is a false dichotomy. For instance they could have evolved simultaneously." :think:

 

" ALL AT ONCE"  is the same as SIMULTANEOUSLY.. I am a little suprised at your answer to be honest.. :burp:



#5 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 May 2017 - 07:59 PM

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT
 
If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

Not in the sense you seem to mean of 0 to human skin, and then 0 to human stomach, etc. What people mean when they keep telling you they evolved together is that you’d have rudimentary versions of those systems like an undifferentiated gut tube instead of the digestive tract that evolved additional functionality over time, including dependence on the function of other organs.
 
 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

Which means nothing with respect to irreducible complexity and evolution. The question isn’t whether an organ could be totally removed from a modern man. The question is whether an organism could survive with a slightly less functional organ than a modern man’s. That is whether an ancestor of modern humans could have survived before the modern level of functionality evolved.
 
 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

Any organism without all 10 organs functioning as they do in humans falsifies the claim that all 10 need to be there at the same time.
 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can
show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR…

No, they’re not. You need to show that there is no feasible pathway to prove your claim.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#6 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 24 May 2017 - 08:28 PM

Not in the sense you seem to mean of 0 to human skin, and then 0 to human stomach, etc. What people mean when they keep telling you they evolved together is that you’d have rudimentary versions of those systems like an undifferentiated gut tube instead of the digestive tract that evolved additional functionality over time, including dependence on the function of other organs.

not according to what koonin says in post 3.
science does not know what pathway evolution took with the sudden arrival of animal phyla, simply because it didn't leave any traces to its predecessors.

the rest of your post is simply erroneous because you are assuming a progressive small accumulation paradigm, and this IS NOT the way evolution proceeds.

#7 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 May 2017 - 10:27 PM

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation) OR they Evolved separately.. FACT
 
If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

Not in the sense you seem to mean of 0 to human skin, and then 0 to human stomach, etc. What people mean when they keep telling you they evolved together is that you’d have rudimentary versions of those systems like an undifferentiated gut tube instead of the digestive tract that evolved additional functionality over time, including dependence on the function of other organs.
 
 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

Which means nothing with respect to irreducible complexity and evolution. The question isn’t whether an organ could be totally removed from a modern man. The question is whether an organism could survive with a slightly less functional organ than a modern man’s. That is whether an ancestor of modern humans could have survived before the modern level of functionality evolved.
 
 

Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.

Any organism without all 10 organs functioning as they do in humans falsifies the claim that all 10 need to be there at the same time.
 

IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can
show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBLE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR…

No, they’re not. You need to show that there is no feasible pathway to prove your claim.

 

 

 

"Not in the sense you seem to mean of 0 to human skin, and then 0 to human stomach, etc. What people mean when they keep telling you they evolved together is that you’d have rudimentary versions of those systems like an undifferentiated gut tube instead of the digestive tract that evolved additional functionality over time, including dependence on the function of other organs."

 

Yes, I am familiar with how the Science Fiction novel is written..  But we don't observe anything of the sort today.. It all was supposed to happen "Long ago and far away" and if we don't have to think about it too much, Accidentalists can get away with it to the unsuspecting students.. BUT NOT IN THIS CLASSROOM!!

 

"including dependence on the function of other organs." :think:

 

WHAT "Other organs? And Where did they come from? Are you saying that "Evolution" is a Omni Sentient being that starts to evolve "Other organs" MILLIONS OF YEARS Before the creature NEEDS THEM to survive?

AND THEN  "start to depend on their function"??? :funny:

 

Did you ever honestly stop to think this stuff through on your own using critical thinking and logic before just blindly accepting what you were indoctrinated to believe?? :snapoutofit:

 

"The question is whether an organism could survive with a slightly less functional organ than a modern man’s." 

 

HUH?

 

How did it get to be "slightly less" functional??  Aren't you missing the millions of years of plodding steps of from Useless, Nearly Useless, Halfway useless Barely functional, Almost Functional, Halfway functional, Somewhat Functional,     THINK Man THINK!!   

 

 

"Any organism without all 10 organs functioning as they do in humans falsifies the claim that all 10 need to be there at the same time."

 

ONLY IF..  (As I made Clear in the OP)

 

You can state what that organism is. IE Lungfish, Nematode, Etc.. AND THEN Provide the pathway to Humans..

 

You know... all of the how's, when's, why's entailed that would allow for this incredible magic to happen... 

 

A comic book version of such a thing would be more believable, and deep down I think you know that by now..

 

 

 

You say..

 

"you’d have rudimentary versions of those systems like an undifferentiated gut tube instead of the digestive tract that evolved additional functionality over time,"

How does that happen?? And what keeps the creature alive? Where did this "undifferentiated gut tube" come from? This is not Dr. Frankenstein's Laboratory..

Every single creature that we DO OBSERVE ( Empirical Science) is a complete, fully functioning creature with all of its interlinked organs intact..

 

Now you may wish to speculate that miraculous things happened in the past, but that is NOT PART OF Science in any way shape or form.. :snapoutofit:

 

You say..

 

"No, they’re not. You need to show that there is no feasible pathway to prove your claim."

 

Unbelievable how Darwinists try to convince people that they represent the side of "Science"

while they behave incredibly UNSCIENTIFIC by asking other people to PROVE A NEGATIVE!

 

 

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of

an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible

deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",


  • mike the wiz likes this

#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 May 2017 - 08:58 AM

Those last two posts by Popoi and Blitzking were fairly good critical thinking.

 

Technically Popoi is right BK, that if an organism can be shown to exist without those organs then hypothetically it's at least possible to have an organism exist to begin with, an ancestor, without them technically speaking even if there never was one. 

 

For this issue my own opinion is that irreducible complexity doesn't always apply but sometimes it does. So I think both sides make good points. Hypothetically evolution can allow for a feature earlier in the progenitor, yet some features seem to be so vital that you can only strip an organism down to X point.

 

By analogy BK, hypothetically evolution can allow for it later on. I don't agree it happened of course but if we imagine a bicycle we are going to use for a journey, presently it has no battery and doesn't need one but later on as we add motors on our journey, there may be a need for one. So later on you can't say; "it is impossible to have a motor-bike without a battery", because originally there wasn't a need for one because it wasn't a motorbike but was a bike.  In the same way to say, "you can't have a human without them", is a problem because evolutionists aren't arguing it was humans that went without them but rather ancestors of humans. (like it's not a motor-bike that can go without the batter, but rather a bicycle)

 

So hypothetically at least, it can be a bit misrepresentative of what evolutionists argue.

 

However obviously if we look at a motorbike today and say, "it always needed a battery," that would be correct as there never was a time when it was a bicycle, even though it might be technically feasible to have a motorcycle start it's life as a bicycle.

 

So I guess that it all depends on our starting assumptions. Like BK I don't accept that we can just grant the transitionals, they remain hidden behind the invisibility cloak of deep time. That cloak can also hide fictional things and that's the problem!

 

But evolutionists also have to avoid the easy trap of arguing-from-ignorance;

 

Example; "you can't show it's not possible technically, therefore it is/did happen/ is true."

 

So this is my somewhat neutral opinion I guess, as I am not here to debate it. There has to be a reason to believe something is true, beyond mere credulity in evolution, IMHO. It seems to me that mostly evolutionists can only really offer their belief in the conjecture that it happened that way. 

 

(these views in this post aren't contentious, I'm just sharing my thoughts and trying to be objective, like Mike says don't take what I say stick it in your chest and twist, Bilbo my lad, as I only wrote them while spreading butter on my toast before another cup of tea my lad. Look at it this way, in 100 years who will care what I wrote?....hang on a minute......who cares now?)  :rotfl3:  :dono: 



#9 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 May 2017 - 10:45 AM

Those last two posts by Popoi and Blitzking were fairly good critical thinking.

Technically Popoi is right BK, that if an organism can be shown to exist without those organs then hypothetically it's at least possible to have an organism exist to begin with, an ancestor, without them technically speaking even if there never was one.

For this issue my own opinion is that irreducible complexity doesn't always apply but sometimes it does. So I think both sides make good points. Hypothetically evolution can allow for a feature earlier in the progenitor, yet some features seem to be so vital that you can only strip an organism down to X point.

By analogy BK, hypothetically evolution can allow for it later on. I don't agree it happened of course but if we imagine a bicycle we are going to use for a journey, presently it has no battery and doesn't need one but later on as we add motors on our journey, there may be a need for one. So later on you can't say; "it is impossible to have a motor-bike without a battery", because originally there wasn't a need for one because it wasn't a motorbike but was a bike. In the same way to say, "you can't have a human without them", is a problem because evolutionists aren't arguing it was humans that went without them but rather ancestors of humans. (like it's not a motor-bike that can go without the batter, but rather a bicycle)

So hypothetically at least, it can be a bit misrepresentative of what evolutionists argue.

However obviously if we look at a motorbike today and say, "it always needed a battery," that would be correct as there never was a time when it was a bicycle, even though it might be technically feasible to have a motorcycle start it's life as a bicycle.

So I guess that it all depends on our starting assumptions. Like BK I don't accept that we can just grant the transitionals, they remain hidden behind the invisibility cloak of deep time. That cloak can also hide fictional things and that's the problem!

But evolutionists also have to avoid the easy trap of arguing-from-ignorance;

Example; "you can't show it's not possible technically, therefore it is/did happen/ is true."

So this is my somewhat neutral opinion I guess, as I am not here to debate it. There has to be a reason to believe something is true, beyond mere credulity in evolution, IMHO. It seems to me that mostly evolutionists can only really offer their belief in the conjecture that it happened that way.

(these views in this post aren't contentious, I'm just sharing my thoughts and trying to be objective, like Mike says don't take what I say stick it in your chest and twist, Bilbo my lad, as I only wrote them while spreading butter on my toast before another cup of tea my lad. Look at it this way, in 100 years who will care what I wrote?....hang on a minute......who cares now?) :rotfl3: :dono:

"Technically Popoi is right BK, that if an organism can be shown to exist without those organs then hypothetically it's at least possible to have an organism exist to begin with, an ancestor, without them technically speaking even if there never was one."

I was talking about Man, and his 10 Vital Organs.. Man CANNOT live with less, so if we reverse time, we need to go back until there was a moment that Man (Or his mysterious "Ancestor") was able to live with LESS than 10.. The math is VERY EASY on this one.. So which one would you like to pick? Tough choice isnt it..(You know the list) AND where did that organ come from?? This is NOT a motorcycle shop where you can simply put a battery and a motor on a bicycle! That NEW organ must be Accounted for, Are you trying to say that it is hypotheticaly feasable to believe that a creature started to evolve organs MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE they "Knew" they would be needed? What kind of nonsense does that make?? Seems like Evolution is indistinguishable from the almighty God himself..

If someone wants to point to a DIFFERENT Organism that has less then 10.. They need to provide a pathway for THAT organism to evolve into a Man.. Preferably one that wont fail the laugh test..
(Indeed, that is why they never even bother to try to demontrate it)

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible
deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal",

#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 May 2017 - 11:17 AM

 

 

Blitzking: If someone wants to point to a DIFFERENT Organism that has less then 10.. They need to provide a pathway for THAT organism to evolve into a Man.. Preferably one that wont fail the laugh test.. 

 

That's a fair point, it really needs to be the organism that allegedly evolved into man rather than just an organism that one proposes in place of the ancestor. I guess that is the issue, because there is no ancestor as such. Apparently vertebrates evolved from invertebrates according to the story of evolution, so it would be some type of invertebrate without lungs. 

 

If we push it far back as trilobites, on their phylogenetic tree, even trilobites had a brain, heart, stomach and gut;

 

[attachment=1581:trilo1.jpg]

 

Beyond that it is the evolution of the archaea/bacteria, prokaryotes that didn't have any organs. So I guess there is a jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, where we simply have gaps in the record, between say the archaea and things with hearts, brains, etc....my knowledge of the specific species of evolution, the proposed lineages of the specific types, is limited, I would guess that what, "What If" said is about right, there aren't any transitionals between those types of organisms with those organs, and those more simplistic archaea. (but of course there are also simpler eukaryotes such as fungi). 

 

My conclusion is that it seems reasonable that you either have simplistic forms without those organs, or forms that need them. Arguably the time-spans are too large for the imagination to conjure an image of going from simple to complex. If we think of something like a trilo heart/brain/gut and a humans' the bridge is too vast, but I suppose the evolutionist will argue the immense span of time between the two means the evolution of those organs is shaped ever so gradually.

 

I myself can't reconcile it with reality, the number and variety of species is so great that we would have to move transitionals every time we wanted to type a post at EFF, as they would be in the way of the keyboard. :rotfl3: 

 



#11 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 May 2017 - 11:44 AM

 

 

 

Blitzking: If someone wants to point to a DIFFERENT Organism that has less then 10.. They need to provide a pathway for THAT organism to evolve into a Man.. Preferably one that wont fail the laugh test.. 

 

That's a fair point, it really needs to be the organism that allegedly evolved into man rather than just an organism that one proposes in place of the ancestor. I guess that is the issue, because there is no ancestor as such. Apparently vertebrates evolved from invertebrates according to the story of evolution, so it would be some type of invertebrate without lungs. 

 

If we push it far back as trilobites, on their phylogenetic tree, even trilobites had a brain, heart, stomach and gut;

 

attachicon.giftrilo1.jpg

 

Beyond that it is the evolution of the archaea/bacteria, prokaryotes that didn't have any organs. So I guess there is a jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, where we simply have gaps in the record, between say the archaea and things with hearts, brains, etc....my knowledge of the specific species of evolution, the proposed lineages of the specific types, is limited, I would guess that what, "What If" said is about right, there aren't any transitionals between those types of organisms with those organs, and those more simplistic archaea. (but of course there are also simpler eukaryotes such as fungi). 

 

My conclusion is that it seems reasonable that you either have simplistic forms without those organs, or forms that need them. Arguably the time-spans are too large for the imagination to conjure an image of going from simple to complex. If we think of something like a trilo heart/brain/gut and a humans' the bridge is too vast, but I suppose the evolutionist will argue the immense span of time between the two means the evolution of those organs is shaped ever so gradually.

 

I myself can't reconcile it with reality, the number and variety of species is so great that we would have to move transitionals every time we wanted to type a post at EFF, as they would be in the way of the keyboard. :rotfl3: 

 

 

"So I guess there is a jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, where we simply have gaps in the record, between say the archaea and things with hearts,"brains, etc....

 

Yes, and that is EXACTLY my point..  They (AS MAN IS) Are Irreducibly complex ( Another Empirical Scientific Fact that Accidentalists love to ignore)

 

The reasons that there are "Gaps" is because it is not possible "Scientifically" Based on Empirical Science (The Mortal Enemy of "Evolutionists"..



#12 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 May 2017 - 09:01 PM

Those last two posts by Popoi and Blitzking were fairly good critical thinking.

Technically Popoi is right BK, that if an organism can be shown to exist without those organs then hypothetically it's at least possible to have an organism exist to begin with, an ancestor, without them technically speaking even if there never was one.

For this issue my own opinion is that irreducible complexity doesn't always apply but sometimes it does. So I think both sides make good points. Hypothetically evolution can allow for a feature earlier in the progenitor, yet some features seem to be so vital that you can only strip an organism down to X point.

By analogy BK, hypothetically evolution can allow for it later on. I don't agree it happened of course but if we imagine a bicycle we are going to use for a journey, presently it has no battery and doesn't need one but later on as we add motors on our journey, there may be a need for one. So later on you can't say; "it is impossible to have a motor-bike without a battery", because originally there wasn't a need for one because it wasn't a motorbike but was a bike. In the same way to say, "you can't have a human without them", is a problem because evolutionists aren't arguing it was humans that went without them but rather ancestors of humans. (like it's not a motor-bike that can go without the batter, but rather a bicycle)

So hypothetically at least, it can be a bit misrepresentative of what evolutionists argue.

However obviously if we look at a motorbike today and say, "it always needed a battery," that would be correct as there never was a time when it was a bicycle, even though it might be technically feasible to have a motorcycle start it's life as a bicycle.

So I guess that it all depends on our starting assumptions. Like BK I don't accept that we can just grant the transitionals, they remain hidden behind the invisibility cloak of deep time. That cloak can also hide fictional things and that's the problem!

But evolutionists also have to avoid the easy trap of arguing-from-ignorance;

Example; "you can't show it's not possible technically, therefore it is/did happen/ is true."

So this is my somewhat neutral opinion I guess, as I am not here to debate it. There has to be a reason to believe something is true, beyond mere credulity in evolution, IMHO. It seems to me that mostly evolutionists can only really offer their belief in the conjecture that it happened that way.

(these views in this post aren't contentious, I'm just sharing my thoughts and trying to be objective, like Mike says don't take what I say stick it in your chest and twist, Bilbo my lad, as I only wrote them while spreading butter on my toast before another cup of tea my lad. Look at it this way, in 100 years who will care what I wrote?....hang on a minute......who cares now?) :rotfl3: :dono:

"if we imagine a bicycle we are going to use for a journey, presently it has no battery and doesn't need one but later on as we add motors on our journey, there may be a need for one."

With all due, well deserved, and highly merited respect, I believe that you may have allowed yourself to be tricked into using an analogy with an accidental apologists mindset and lost sight of the fact that a bicycle is a perfect example of something that is irreducibly complex in its essence..Bicycles also dont arrive on the scene by way of methodogical naturalism.. No pedal, sprocket, chain, handle bars, wheels, frame, forks, etc.. And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its intended purpose...

ALSO

A bicycle is something that is designed by intelligence agents for a purpose.. And any tinkering like adding a motor or a battery would require additional engineering by way of intelligence agents as well!

Please allow me to indulge myself by refreshing your memory and remind you of "Berra's Blunder". All the Best.. BTW.. Who is Bilbo? LOL

Now I could use a good "Spot of Tea" and a crumpet or two meself..

https://www.evolutio...cla_researcher/

#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 May 2017 - 02:08 AM

 

 

Blitzking: With all due, well deserved, and highly merited respect, I believe that you may have allowed yourself to be tricked into using an analogy with an accidental apologists mindset and lost sight of the fact that a bicycle is a perfect example of something that is irreducibly complex in its essence..Bicycles also dont arrive on the scene by way of methodogical naturalism.. No pedal, sprocket, chain, handle bars, wheels, frame, forks, etc.. And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its intended purpose...

 

BK, try and get into my mindset. The point of me explaining that hypothetic/analogy, isn't to support evolution that's for sure. It's just to explain what the hypothetics of evolution theory say. They themselves would argue that natural selection and mutations, perhaps with other complex factors such as HGT or whatever, would bring you the motors and bring you the battery.

 

I myself don't accept this is possible by evolution because of the sophistication of the intelligent design in organisms. My base studies in anatomy from reading Paley's work, and reading about biomimetics, leads me to the unavoidably true logical conclusion that a more superior intelligent design requires a more superior intelligent designer, and evolution isn't intelligent. 

 

So basically I have no reason to defend macro evolution, evolutionists should answer your question, I was only trying to describe how they would argue it.

 

Evolution theory, is a very complex and sophisticated scientific theory which I believe is false. However, even though it is false, it could take you a lifetime just to understand the complex theoretics and scientific conjecture it involves. It's easy for creationists that don't study it, to fall into the trap of thinking of evolution in simplified terms, which is the only reason I told you those things because certain things creationists say can lead evolutionists to believe they haven't understood the evolution theory.

 

Now let's get this clear, my belief macro evolution occurred is precisely 0% with flies on the side. However, understanding what the evolution scientists argue is important or we will look like nitwits and we will compound the stereotype that our knowledge of evolution is; "monkeys are still here." ;)

 

Thin about it this way; hypothetically if we go back in their story, as far as the evolution of vertebrates, then human evolution according to that logic, no longer exists that far back, because we would be talking about the evolution of a broader group. Their theory says as you know, that invertebrates like a trilobite with an exoskeleton, evolved into vertebrates with a spine or notochord, then backbone and what not, then a fish that adapted to be closer to land like tiktaalik evolved into an amphibian. So basically to TRACE these ten organs, we have to go back in their story to say, trilobites where there seems to be maybe half of those organs, and obviously that far back in their story of the evolution of man, man is just another mammal and is unimportant, the evolution of mammals from reptiles would begin the group, "mammals" from which all such organs would already exist as a shared, derived character from the original ancestor.

 

Boring stuff, but you have to represent it in those terms, because they are arguing it in those terms. (otherwise it can be easy to strawman evo theory).

 

So take that for what it's worth. (I know your main theme here isn't to care about all that stuff as you want answers to the direct questions but there isn't a simple answer because of the complications of evo theory). Remember, I myself don't believe this happened, if it did we would have to move transitionals to get to our keyboard to type a post at EFF. :D (read my sig)

 

 

 

Blitzking: All the Best.. BTW.. Who is Bilbo? LOL

Now I could use a good "Spot of Tea" and a crumpet or two meself..

 

Bilbo is a member here, he may have posted before you arrived, he was very prolific and would maybe post ten times more posts than I post, but occasionally he goes silent. If you study his avatar, it explains my avatar, here is a link to his profile; :D

 

http://evolutionfair...111-gilbo12345/

 

 

 

BK: Now I could use a good "Spot of Tea" and a crumpet or two meself..

 

That's spooky because I say, "myself" as, "meself" because of my northern english accent, my lad. Lol



#14 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 26 May 2017 - 10:26 AM

 
 
Blitzking: With all due, well deserved, and highly merited respect, I believe that you may have allowed yourself to be tricked into using an analogy with an accidental apologists mindset and lost sight of the fact that a bicycle is a perfect example of something that is irreducibly complex in its essence..Bicycles also dont arrive on the scene by way of methodogical naturalism.. No pedal, sprocket, chain, handle bars, wheels, frame, forks, etc.. And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its intended purpose...

 
BK, try and get into my mindset. The point of me explaining that hypothetic/analogy, isn't to support evolution that's for sure. It's just to explain what the hypothetics of evolution theory say. They themselves would argue that natural selection and mutations, perhaps with other complex factors such as HGT or whatever, would bring you the motors and bring you the battery.
 
I myself don't accept this is possible by evolution because of the sophistication of the intelligent design in organisms. My base studies in anatomy from reading Paley's work, and reading about biomimetics, leads me to the unavoidably true logical conclusion that a more superior intelligent design requires a more superior intelligent designer, and evolution isn't intelligent. 
 
So basically I have no reason to defend macro evolution, evolutionists should answer your question, I was only trying to describe how they would argue it.
 
Evolution theory, is a very complex and sophisticated scientific theory which I believe is false. However, even though it is false, it could take you a lifetime just to understand the complex theoretics and scientific conjecture it involves. It's easy for creationists that don't study it, to fall into the trap of thinking of evolution in simplified terms, which is the only reason I told you those things because certain things creationists say can lead evolutionists to believe they haven't understood the evolution theory.
 
Now let's get this clear, my belief macro evolution occurred is precisely 0% with flies on the side. However, understanding what the evolution scientists argue is important or we will look like nitwits and we will compound the stereotype that our knowledge of evolution is; "monkeys are still here." ;)
 
Thin about it this way; hypothetically if we go back in their story, as far as the evolution of vertebrates, then human evolution according to that logic, no longer exists that far back, because we would be talking about the evolution of a broader group. Their theory says as you know, that invertebrates like a trilobite with an exoskeleton, evolved into vertebrates with a spine or notochord, then backbone and what not, then a fish that adapted to be closer to land like tiktaalik evolved into an amphibian. So basically to TRACE these ten organs, we have to go back in their story to say, trilobites where there seems to be maybe half of those organs, and obviously that far back in their story of the evolution of man, man is just another mammal and is unimportant, the evolution of mammals from reptiles would begin the group, "mammals" from which all such organs would already exist as a shared, derived character from the original ancestor.
 
Boring stuff, but you have to represent it in those terms, because they are arguing it in those terms. (otherwise it can be easy to strawman evo theory).
 
So take that for what it's worth. (I know your main theme here isn't to care about all that stuff as you want answers to the direct questions but there isn't a simple answer because of the complications of evo theory). Remember, I myself don't believe this happened, if it did we would have to move transitionals to get to our keyboard to type a post at EFF. :D (read my sig)
 

 
 
Blitzking: All the Best.. BTW.. Who is Bilbo? LOLNow I could use a good "Spot of Tea" and a crumpet or two meself..

 
Bilbo is a member here, he may have posted before you arrived, he was very prolific and would maybe post ten times more posts than I post, but occasionally he goes silent. If you study his avatar, it explains my avatar, here is a link to his profile; :D
 
http://evolutionfair...111-gilbo12345/
 

 
 
BK: Now I could use a good "Spot of Tea" and a crumpet or two meself..

 
That's spooky because I say, "myself" as, "meself" because of my northern english accent, my lad. Lol

Yes..that is a good point about transitionals. To believe the hypothetical hypothesis of Chucky There assuredly had to have existed enough transitionals to cover the entire earth 5000 miles high..


I guess that I misunderstood what you meant by this..
"Technically Popoi is right BK"

As I proceeded to show you that technically he is wrong.. Thats OK

Cheers

#15 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 743 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 26 May 2017 - 12:20 PM

But we don't observe anything of the sort today..

Organs had to originate somehow. If we don't observe it happening, we have no choice but to think about how it could have happened and what kind of evidence those scenarios would leave behind that we can observe. You know, science.

WHAT "Other organs? And Where did they come from?

Those are separate questions. We're trying to address your contention of irreducible complexity right now.

Are you saying that "Evolution" is a Omni Sentient being that starts to evolve "Other organs" MILLIONS OF YEARS Before the creature NEEDS THEM to survive?

In the sense that organs originated and had some function before they were necessary for survival.

How did it get to be "slightly less" functional??

We're working backwards from human. That's the "irreducible" part of "irreducible complexity".
 

Unbelievable how Darwinists try to convince people that they represent the side of "Science"
while they behave incredibly UNSCIENTIFIC by asking other people to PROVE A NEGATIVE!

If you don't want to be asked to prove a negative I'd recommend you stop asserting negatives. You could assert that scientists haven't adequately proven how human organs originated and you might even be right, but you went a step beyond that supportable statement and declared such proof impossible.
 

With all due, well deserved, and highly merited respect, I believe that you may have allowed yourself to be tricked into using an analogy with an accidental apologists mindset and lost sight of the fact that a bicycle is a perfect example of something that is irreducibly complex in its essence..Bicycles also dont arrive on the scene by way of methodogical naturalism.. No pedal, sprocket, chain, handle bars, wheels, frame, forks, etc.. And the Bicycle is not able to be used for its intended purpose...

There are actually several of ways to remove parts from a bike and still have something functional for pretty much the same purpose. See: balance bikes (no pedals), penny-farthings (no sprocket or chain), or unicycles (no handlebar, sprocket, or chain).

You are correct that bicycles did not have a natural origin and are therefore a flawed analogy for life, which did.

#16 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 May 2017 - 12:24 PM

It's easy for creationists that don't study it, to fall into the trap of thinking of evolution in simplified terms, which is the only reason I told you those things because certain things creationists say can lead evolutionists to believe they haven't understood the evolution theory.

this is the entire reason evolutionists MUST hang on to the "natural selection, random mutation" paradigm.
plus, it implies the cell is some kind of simple "read from" list, and it isn't.
it makes it uber easy to "explain" evolution, and it's misleading.

evolution is far more complex than you probably ever imagined.
the genome is apparently a "read from" list, compute the possibilities, then write this information back into the genome.
the computational abilities and information is already there.
in short, the cell is a "naturally occuring" genetics engineering lab, evolution as "tinkering".
koonin mentions this concept when he blasted the tree of life concept.

granted, HGT and base pair insertions do occur, and this causes some changes, but the overwhelming majority of change seen by science occurs because of other methods employed by the cell.

the adaptive capabilities of epigenetics/ regulatory networks makes natural selection obsolete.
lynch comes right out and says it, there is no evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.
then again, how is lynch defining complexity?
phenotypic? genetic? length of the DNA strand?

however it is defined, one thing is clear, the cell was as complete as it would almost get at the time of eukaryote super groups, save for the occasional HGT event and base pair insertion, and most of these would have been weeded out with the ability of DNA self repair.

#17 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 May 2017 - 12:38 PM

You could assert that scientists haven't adequately proven how human organs originated and you might even be right, but you went a step beyond that supportable statement and declared such proof impossible.

i have to disagree with this.
if you take into consideration epigenetics/ regulatory networks, and consider the genome as a read/write mechanism instead of read only, then this perfectly explains how cells become differentiated.
throw in transposons and sandbox concept, and you have a full blown genetics engineering lab, complete with everything the cell needs.
of course, this places a terrible burden on abiogenesis, because the above would be impossible for "random chance" to achieve. 

#18 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 May 2017 - 01:10 PM

 

 

Popoi: You are correct that bicycles did not have a natural origin and are therefore a flawed analogy for life, which did. 

 

The analogy was to show that logically at one stage a feature can be required that isn't at a previous stage. So my point was that if an evolutionist claims ancestors of humans didn't have organs, he doesn't have to show that there can be humans without organs. I am not sure you got the analogy, you seem to struggle to understand them. The key point of it was that there is a difference between claiming a motorcycle needs a battery and a bicycle, like it would be different to claim that a human doesn't need a certain organ, rather than it's ancestor. So the relevance of life being natural, doesn't come into the analogy. (Homework; THINK harder about why some parts of an analogy aren't relevant;

 

EXAMPLE "Fjuri and Mike are like chalk and cheese" - so then would the following point be relevant? "but you can eat cheese but not chalk!"

 

Answer; no - for the analogy only exists to convey a point that two people can be very different. So then a bike and a human being different in the sense that a bike isn't a living thing, doesn't come into my analogy. Conclusion; you're in no position to judge whether my analogy is poor or not, I am. Don't talk as though you are an authority on a matter you clearly aren't an authority on.

 

So then the bicycle is analogous to a previous form of a motorcycle, like an invertebrate might be a previous evolutionary form on the lineage for human evolution, which is the only purpose of the analogy. I'm not claiming that bikes can reproduce, as it's only an analogy, the bike doesn't have to be a vertebrate either.

 

So basically I am only saying that evolutionists don't argue that humans don't need those organs. If you are to understand evolution theory properly, first you must understand that evolutionary scientists do not argue that humans were ever not human, but that their ancestors were not human.

 

However this is also begging-the-question fallacy, because you assert that life had a natural origin which is what you are trying to prove. So this is a bald assertion

 

To simply assert life had a natural origin isn't sufficient in a debate. Are you saying abiogenesis has been proven in a lab? To state something as though it is a fact, won't mean it is factual, all of the experiments thus far for life originated naturally have been abysmal failures and all count as confirmation evidence that it can't happen naturally, as part of an inductive tally.

 

 

 

Popoi: If you don't want to be asked to prove a negative I'd recommend you stop asserting negatives. You could assert that scientists haven't adequately proven how human organs originated and you might even be right, but you went a step beyond that supportable statement and declared such proof impossible.

 

I would also go a step beyond the claim that monkeys built the pyramids with the help of grey aliens, as not being supported, and infer it impossible, too, so what is your point? Arguably whales from quadrupeds is equally absurd if not more so.

 

Even if we can't prove it impossible, you can't therefore conclude that; "therefore monkeys did build the pyramid".

 

So then perhaps BK is saying that he has no rational reason to believe a story about it happening in the form of 100% conjecture.

 

 

 

Popoi: There are actually several of ways to remove parts from a bike and still have something functional for pretty much the same purpose. See: balance bikes (no pedals), penny-farthings (no sprocket or chain), or unicycles (no handlebar, sprocket, or chain).

 

But there are features that also can't be removed, which is why I said that irreducible complexity is correct for some things and not for some things. For example, you can't remove the wheel or the frame. There is a limit to that which you can reduce, if you can show something earlier than the trilobite I shown, which is supposed to have evolved, say a prokaryotic organism with some organs, that might be interesting, but where are the ancestors that evolved the organs? Seems to me you either have a eukaryotic invertebrate with organs or something entirely different, without them, and a huge gap between but I will be happy to be proven wrong on that.

 

But just mentioning the things that are reducibly complex, and omitting to mention the things that are irreducibly complex? ....proves little. It's clear there is a line whereby something can't be reduced any further without losing it's purpose.



#19 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 May 2017 - 01:37 PM

 

 

Blitzking: I guess that I misunderstood what you meant by this..
"Technically Popoi is right BK"

 

I only meant that he is right that if you state that an organism can't exist without certain organs and one does exist without them, then on a technicality that is proof that there can exist an organism without those organs.

 

Theoretically all this means is that one can make a case that if simpler forms exist, or more "primitive" might be a better epithet, then hypothetically you can argue that there could have been a previous state in the past, that didn't involve a morphology that had those organs.

 

So it gives logical permission for one to at least argue that theoretically it is possible to have an organism without those organs and one of those types of organisms is what evolutionists claim existed as an ancestor. 

 

This doesn't mean that such an organism did or could evolve into a "higher" organism, it just means that you can't say that it's impossible for a creature to exist without those organs, if evolution says that certain creatures without those organs, were what existed in the past as ancestors.

 

This is the problem - evolution says that certain organisms like trilobites, which have less vital organs than men, because they aren't vital to it, existed BEFORE those other organs became vital.

 

If you're still confused perhaps a quote from Columbo will help when he says this to the person he knows is the murderer, when the murderer thanks Columbo for sticking up for her; "that's okay, no problem...after all I can't have you arrested on the wrong evidence."

 

So when it seems I am supporting evolution, all I am doing is sacrificing a pawn. "mike, what the hell, you gave that pawn to him, are you wanting him to have the checkmate by agreeing with evolutionary hypothetics?"

 

Not really, we can be objective and fair and just and knowledgeable and studious and not misrepresent evolution and evolutionists, WHILE arguing against the ToE.



#20 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 895 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 26 May 2017 - 02:51 PM

with the discovery of CRISPR, science now has the ability to cut and paste DNA at will.
it now has the ability to insert, or delete, a gene, or genes.
but i don't think it will be that straight forward.
first we must deal with DNA self repair, DNA could easily reject these additions/ deletions.

second, and metaphorically, we must pass through the gates of epigenetics/ regulatory networks.
it's quite possible that the above processes invokes changes that make the insertions/ deletions acceptable.
IOW, genetic additions/ deletions aren't "random", they can't just be anywhere without the proper "preinstall" methods.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users