Jump to content


Photo

Man's Organs Create An Unsurmountable Problem For Accidentalists


  • Please log in to reply
277 replies to this topic

#41 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2017 - 07:13 PM

...
Hmmm... Just like I predicted, Your "Whole book about the subject that I found in 2 seconds" contains ZERO Examples, Methodology, Specifics, Drawings or Diagrams that show concrete plausible or feasible pathways, No Explanations about Which Organs came first and Why, How, How long it would have or could have taken, and what their "Prior Function" Could have possibly been, No Order given for their "Evolution" No explanation as to how "Newly Evolved" organs could have possibly interlinked with existing Vital organs ZERO substance.. BUT IT IS Loaded with wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions, and vague just so stories that give us NOTHING to analyze using logic and critical thinking.. It might just as well been written by Richard Dawkins, That is how hopeless it is written..
The Abstract you presented is a good example of what the whole book is like.. Lots of worthless generalities, ZERO Specifics,

..
So you have bought and read the whole book already ? Or have you assumed all of the above ?
...
I skimmed through it very fast, looking for something with substance.. I have seen these kinds of books before.. Same old same old..Lots of vague assumptions and assertions mixed with known biological structures but ZERO Substance, No Examples, No mechanisms, no explanations.. Well you know the list by now (I hope)
Only the first 39 pages are available to read online, none of the chapters dealing with each organ type are shown so how can you have even skimmed through the whole book ?
In any case, clearly your charge that "nobody" is interested in researching about the evolution of organ systems is wrong. You can easily search online for research papers, for example:http://www.nature.co...s41559-017-0072https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/16093481
 

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..


Please desist with the silly strawmen. Of course Man did not appear organless and then each appeared one by one. All mammals and probably all vertebrates share the major organs so you have to go well back into evolutionary time to start worrying about any kind of sequence (and I'm not qualified to answer that)

I will review your research papers, but, before I do, would you like to make a friendly wager that there NOTHING in them that even begins to address my OP? I will give you 100 to 1 odds.. Do you really think I havent been there and done that many times before?

#42 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 30 May 2017 - 10:51 PM

 

 

 

...
Hmmm... Just like I predicted, Your "Whole book about the subject that I found in 2 seconds" contains ZERO Examples, Methodology, Specifics, Drawings or Diagrams that show concrete plausible or feasible pathways, No Explanations about Which Organs came first and Why, How, How long it would have or could have taken, and what their "Prior Function" Could have possibly been, No Order given for their "Evolution" No explanation as to how "Newly Evolved" organs could have possibly interlinked with existing Vital organs ZERO substance.. BUT IT IS Loaded with wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions, and vague just so stories that give us NOTHING to analyze using logic and critical thinking.. It might just as well been written by Richard Dawkins, That is how hopeless it is written..
The Abstract you presented is a good example of what the whole book is like.. Lots of worthless generalities, ZERO Specifics,

..
So you have bought and read the whole book already ? Or have you assumed all of the above ?

 

...

I skimmed through it very fast, looking for something with substance.. I have seen these kinds of books before.. Same old same old..Lots of vague assumptions and assertions mixed with known biological structures but ZERO Substance, No Examples, No mechanisms, no explanations.. Well you know the list by now (I hope)

 


Only the first 39 pages are available to read online, none of the chapters dealing with each organ type are shown so how can you have even skimmed through the whole book ?

In any case, clearly your charge that "nobody" is interested in researching about the evolution of organ systems is wrong. You can easily search online for research papers, for example:
http://www.nature.co...s41559-017-0072
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/16093481


 

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..



Please desist with the silly strawmen. Of course Man did not appear organless and then each appeared one by one. All mammals and probably all vertebrates share the major organs so you have to go well back into evolutionary time to start worrying about any kind of sequence (and I'm not qualified to answer that)

 

 

 

HERE IS THE ABSTRACT FROM ONE OF YOUR SOURCES..

PURE ASSERTIONS AND NOTHING MORE.. SHOULD THAT

BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE?

 

 

 

Evolution of the heart from bacteria to man.

Author information
1 Department of Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33101, USA. nhb@chroma.med.Miami.edu
Abstract

This review provides an overview of the evolutionary path to the mammalian heart from the beginnings of life (about four billion years ago ) to the present. Essential tools for cellular homeostasis and for extracting and burning energy are still in use and essentially unchanged since the appearance of the eukaryotes. The primitive coelom, characteristic of early multicellular organisms ( approximately 800 million years ago), is lined by endoderm and is a passive receptacle for gas exchange, feeding, and S@xual reproduction. The cells around this structure express genes homologous to NKX2.5/tinman, and gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes. Investment of the coelom by these mesodermal cells forms a "gastrovascular" structure. Further evolution of this structure in the bilaterian branches Ecdysoa (Drosophila) and Deuterostoma (amphioxus) culminate in a peristaltic tubular heart, without valves, without blood vessels or blood, but featuring a single layer of contracting mesoderm. The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system. A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals. With differentiation of the cardiac chambers, regional specialization of the proteins in the cardiac myocyte can be detected in the teleost fish and amphibians. In mammals, growth constraints are placed on the heart, presumably to accommodate the constraints of the body plan and the thoracic cavity, and adult cardiac myocytes lose the ability to re-enter the cell cycle on demand. Mammalian cardiac myocyte innervation betrays the ancient link between the heart, the gut, and reproduction: the vagus nerve controlling heart rate emanates from centers in the central nervous system regulating feeding and affective behavior.



#43 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 31 May 2017 - 11:52 AM

...
Hmmm... Just like I predicted, Your "Whole book about the subject that I found in 2 seconds" contains ZERO Examples, Methodology, Specifics, Drawings or Diagrams that show concrete plausible or feasible pathways, No Explanations about Which Organs came first and Why, How, How long it would have or could have taken, and what their "Prior Function" Could have possibly been, No Order given for their "Evolution" No explanation as to how "Newly Evolved" organs could have possibly interlinked with existing Vital organs ZERO substance.. BUT IT IS Loaded with wishful speculation, hopeful assumptions, and vague just so stories that give us NOTHING to analyze using logic and critical thinking.. It might just as well been written by Richard Dawkins, That is how hopeless it is written..
The Abstract you presented is a good example of what the whole book is like.. Lots of worthless generalities, ZERO Specifics,

..
So you have bought and read the whole book already ? Or have you assumed all of the above ?
...
I skimmed through it very fast, looking for something with substance.. I have seen these kinds of books before.. Same old same old..Lots of vague assumptions and assertions mixed with known biological structures but ZERO Substance, No Examples, No mechanisms, no explanations.. Well you know the list by now (I hope)
Only the first 39 pages are available to read online, none of the chapters dealing with each organ type are shown so how can you have even skimmed through the whole book ?
In any case, clearly your charge that "nobody" is interested in researching about the evolution of organ systems is wrong. You can easily search online for research papers, for example:http://www.nature.co...s41559-017-0072https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/16093481

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..


Please desist with the silly strawmen. Of course Man did not appear organless and then each appeared one by one. All mammals and probably all vertebrates share the major organs so you have to go well back into evolutionary time to start worrying about any kind of sequence (and I'm not qualified to answer that)

So have you found someone who has presented a plausible or hypothetical Order / Pathway / Methodology / that everyone can Analyze using Logic and critical thinking to see if it could have possibly happened as we are Assured it happened?

So which do we start with? Some skin and a primitive stomach and a simple Brain that came from who knows where?

Where are the articles addressing the proposed ORDER of Evolution for Interdependent VITAL Organs that you assured me existed?

You see.. It is easy to say that there is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity UNTIL you start to have to actually analyze it with clear thinking..

And the fossil record shows us the same exact thing.. All creatures, fully formed, with all Vital Organs intact, Working together in tandem Which is Exactly what we observe today (Empirical Science) But you want us to suspend logic and believe something that No one can even make a comic book drawing of as it would be laughed out of the room..

Are you starting to see why Creationism makes so much more sense Scientifically? Irreducible Complexity is Real and Destroys the Myth of AbioDarwinism..

It really IS about Science vs Religious belief..
Creationism represents Science while
the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is
a religious belief that requires
massive faith to believe in..


"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature,

#44 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 31 May 2017 - 03:06 PM

So have you found someone who has presented a plausible or hypothetical Order / Pathway / Methodology / that everyone can Analyze using Logic and critical thinking to see if it could have possibly happened as we are Assured it happened?


I gave you a book that might provide you with some answers if you actually studied it rather than pompously dismissing without even addressing any of it. Why don't you buy it (rather than pretending you "skimmed through it" when most of the book is not available to read online for free (yes I did notice you avoided my enquiry about that)
 

You see.. It is easy to say that there is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity UNTIL you start to have to actually analyze it with clear thinking..


You haven't demonstrated any organism is irreducibly complex, only asserted so and erected nonsensical strawmen to back your case.
 

And the fossil record shows us the same exact thing.. All creatures, fully formed, with all Vital Organs intact, Working together in tandem Which is Exactly what we observe today (Empirical Science)


The fossil record doesn't show any of the vital organs you mentioned except maybe skin. But you seem to still be labouring under the idea that ancestral organisms would have been struggling along with partially intact organs. Ancestral organisms may have had less complex organs but they would have been perfectly intact and functional for their needs.

Here's another article (about the blood vascular system) which you will just dismiss http://onlinelibrary.../jth.12253/full
 

Are you starting to see why Creationism makes so much mure sense Scientifically? Irreducible Complexity is Real and Destroys the Myth of AbioDarwinism..


Don't make me laugh. You pose a question which requires a wide ranging and technical response requiring expert knowledge of comparative anatomy and molecular phylogeny and where the fossil record can't help much (because only hard body parts are generally fossilised not body organs). Yet you believe that a chaotic, cataclysmic flood accounts for all the different sedimentary layers and structures, and the clear pattern of emergence of organisms in the fossil record while pretending that the whole science of radiometric dating with all the multiple methods must be undertaken by a legion of boneheaded and/or dishonest scientists.
 



#45 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 31 May 2017 - 05:19 PM

So have you found someone who has presented a plausible or hypothetical Order / Pathway / Methodology / that everyone can Analyze using Logic and critical thinking to see if it could have possibly happened as we are Assured it happened?

I gave you a book that might provide you with some answers if you actually studied it rather than pompously dismissing without even addressing any of it. Why don't you buy it (rather than pretending you "skimmed through it" when most of the book is not available to read online for free (yes I did notice you avoided my enquiry about that)

You see.. It is easy to say that there is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity UNTIL you start to have to actually analyze it with clear thinking..

You haven't demonstrated any organism is irreducibly complex, only asserted so and erected nonsensical strawmen to back your case.

And the fossil record shows us the same exact thing.. All creatures, fully formed, with all Vital Organs intact, Working together in tandem Which is Exactly what we observe today (Empirical Science)

The fossil record doesn't show any of the vital organs you mentioned except maybe skin. But you seem to still be labouring under the idea that ancestral organisms would have been struggling along with partially intact organs. Ancestral organisms may have had less complex organs but they would have been perfectly intact and functional for their needs.
Here's another article (about the blood vascular system) which you will just dismiss http://onlinelibrary.../jth.12253/full

Are you starting to see why Creationism makes so much mure sense Scientifically? Irreducible Complexity is Real and Destroys the Myth of AbioDarwinism..

Don't make me laugh. You pose a question which requires a wide ranging and technical response requiring expert knowledge of comparative anatomy and molecular phylogeny and where the fossil record can't help much (because only hard body parts are generally fossilised not body organs). Yet you believe that a chaotic, cataclysmic flood accounts for all the different sedimentary layers and structures, and the clear pattern of emergence of organisms in the fossil record while pretending that the whole science of radiometric dating with all the multiple methods must be undertaken by a legion of boneheaded and/or dishonest scientists.
"I gave you a book that might provide you with some answers if you actually studied it rather than pompously dismissing without even addressing any of it."

Like I said, If I MISSED something, Please provide it for us..


So if you found someone who has presented a plausible or hypothetical Order / Pathway / Methodology / that everyone can Analyze using Logic and critical thinking to see if it could have possibly happened as we are Assured it happened Please present it..

Here, let me help you again..

Which do we start with? Some skin and a primitive stomach and a simple Brain that came from who knows where?

"Ancestral organisms may have had less complex organs but they would have been perfectly intact and functional for their needs."

I see you are back to skipping the supposed millions of years while those "perfectly intact and functional for their needs" were BECOMING "Fully intact and functional for their needs" organs..

I have to be honest, you are sounding more and more like a creationist with each every post.. Every example you give are of fully intact and functional organs" OR you have a willing blind spot for what should be obvious to you and everyone else..


"Yet you believe that a chaotic, cataclysmic flood accounts for all the different sedimentary layers and structures, and the clear pattern of emergence of organisms in the fossil record while pretending that the whole science of radiometric dating with all the multiple methods must be undertaken by a legion of boneheaded and/or dishonest scientists."

Well for starters Carbon 14 Radiometric dating shows
Dinosaurs are ALL less than 50,000 years old.. OOPS.

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

"Clear pattern of fossil emergence in the fossim record"

HUH? Then why the need to invent delusional fantasy like 500 MYO
"Living Fossils" to explain away your "Clear Pattern"?? What a joke..

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

Jim Thinnsen


"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

So "evolution" happens....

INSTANTLY
QUICKLY
SLOWLY
NEVER

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins



"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas whether without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature

#46 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 02 June 2017 - 01:45 AM

So have you found someone who has presented a plausible or hypothetical Order / Pathway / Methodology / that everyone can Analyze using Logic and critical thinking to see if it could have possibly happened as we are Assured it happened?

I gave you a book that might provide you with some answers if you actually studied it rather than pompously dismissing without even addressing any of it. Why don't you buy it (rather than pretending you "skimmed through it" when most of the book is not available to read online for free (yes I did notice you avoided my enquiry about that)
 

You see.. It is easy to say that there is no such thing as Irreducible Complexity UNTIL you start to have to actually analyze it with clear thinking..

You haven't demonstrated any organism is irreducibly complex, only asserted so and erected nonsensical strawmen to back your case.
 

And the fossil record shows us the same exact thing.. All creatures, fully formed, with all Vital Organs intact, Working together in tandem Which is Exactly what we observe today (Empirical Science)

The fossil record doesn't show any of the vital organs you mentioned except maybe skin. But you seem to still be labouring under the idea that ancestral organisms would have been struggling along with partially intact organs. Ancestral organisms may have had less complex organs but they would have been perfectly intact and functional for their needs.
Here's another article (about the blood vascular system) which you will just dismiss http://onlinelibrary.../jth.12253/full
 

Are you starting to see why Creationism makes so much mure sense Scientifically? Irreducible Complexity is Real and Destroys the Myth of AbioDarwinism..

Don't make me laugh. You pose a question which requires a wide ranging and technical response requiring expert knowledge of comparative anatomy and molecular phylogeny and where the fossil record can't help much (because only hard body parts are generally fossilised not body organs). Yet you believe that a chaotic, cataclysmic flood accounts for all the different sedimentary layers and structures, and the clear pattern of emergence of organisms in the fossil record while pretending that the whole science of radiometric dating with all the multiple methods must be undertaken by a legion of boneheaded and/or dishonest scientists.

"The fossil record doesn't show any of the vital organs you mentioned except maybe skin."

Hmmm..

https://www.google.c...qg8L06tOPJ3l0QQ

here is a fossil that is supposedly "520 MYO"..


"The Chengjiang fossil deposit in China has yielded incredible fossils of arthropod organ systems. These predatory animals lived 520 million years ago, during the Cambrian period. Researchers have reported the earliest examples of arthropod brains, eye stalks, heart and blood vessels and digestive systems from fossils discovered at Chengjiang. Here are some of these amazing fossil creatures.

https://www.google.c...est-organs.html

Here is a "120 MYO" Heart..

http://theconversati...ic-animal-57204

More

https://www.google.c...rgans-and-hair/

And More

http://articles.orla...ossil-theropods

#47 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 02 June 2017 - 03:10 PM

Interesting, thanks for pointing those out. What is clear though is the extreme rarity of soft tissue preservation in the fossil record. The vast majority of fossils are just the hard parts, bones and shells, it requires very particular environmental circumstances for the examples in the links and some of these are simply stains representing an organ, no structure. Ironically, the Rhacolepsis fish heart discovery in the third of your links suggests that the valve structure is intermediate between the most primitive form and the modern condition of teleost fish so you've lent some support for evolution there ;)

 

Under your flood model, with rapid burial, why aren't soft tissue remains the norm rather than exceedingly rare ?



#48 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 02 June 2017 - 04:51 PM

Interesting, thanks for pointing those out. What is clear though is the extreme rarity of soft tissue preservation in the fossil record. The vast majority of fossils are just the hard parts, bones and shells, it requires very particular environmental circumstances for the examples in the links and some of these are simply stains representing an organ, no structure. Ironically, the Rhacolepsis fish heart discovery in the third of your links suggests that the valve structure is intermediate between the most primitive form and the modern condition of teleost fish so you've lent some support for evolution there ;)
 
Under your flood model, with rapid burial, why aren't soft tissue remains the norm rather than exceedingly rare ?


"Under your flood model, with rapid burial, why aren't soft tissue remains the norm rather than exceedingly rare ?"

I guess we shouldnt expect soft tissue remains to be able to last over 4000 years very often without biodegrading completely..

#49 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 04 June 2017 - 10:14 PM

 

Interesting, thanks for pointing those out. What is clear though is the extreme rarity of soft tissue preservation in the fossil record. The vast majority of fossils are just the hard parts, bones and shells, it requires very particular environmental circumstances for the examples in the links and some of these are simply stains representing an organ, no structure. Ironically, the Rhacolepsis fish heart discovery in the third of your links suggests that the valve structure is intermediate between the most primitive form and the modern condition of teleost fish so you've lent some support for evolution there ;)
 
Under your flood model, with rapid burial, why aren't soft tissue remains the norm rather than exceedingly rare ?


"Under your flood model, with rapid burial, why aren't soft tissue remains the norm rather than exceedingly rare ?"

I guess we shouldnt expect soft tissue remains to be able to last over 4000 years very often without biodegrading completely..

 

 

So is that it?

 

You cant even make a cartoon drawing or science fiction tale to show a conceivable or plausible order for Mans 10  Interdependent VITAL Organs (Or the Vital Organs of Mans FIRST Ancestor with Organs...) Can you?

 

So why don't you just be honest and admit that it is too ridiculous to even think about..  Here it is again, Surely you must know ONE "Expert" on Organic systems over at Talk Origins or the NCSE

that can help you out with it...   Put it up on the Atheist message boards, lets see if anyone can do better than you haven't..   I will give you a head start.. I will throw in the proven impossible Abiogenesis

AND I will also throw in a bag of skin AND a crude stomach.... Where do we go from here?.. you have 1 billion years to turn into a Man with 10 Vital Interdependent organs.. Start the evolution process for

us! Come on. .Any old guess will do, after all, we are talking about long ago and far away.. Who can prove you wrong.. Go for it!!   Don't be shy :rolleyes:

 

       

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...



#50 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 June 2017 - 02:39 PM

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..


I've already told you that all other mammals also have these organs (and potentially reptiles, amphibians as well - I haven't checked).

With that in mind it's reasonable to expect that man's evolutionary ancestors also had all these organs. Now you can still ask about the origin of them in some distant chordate ancestor but can you see that this invalidates your claim that just because humans need all these organs to survive, then its "Bye bye evolution" in respect to our species ?



#51 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 07 June 2017 - 04:41 PM

 

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..


I've already told you that all other mammals also have these organs (and potentially reptiles, amphibians as well - I haven't checked).

With that in mind it's reasonable to expect that man's evolutionary ancestors also had all these organs. Now you can still ask about the origin of them in some distant chordate ancestor but can you see that this invalidates your claim that just because humans need all these organs to survive, then its "Bye bye evolution" in respect to our species ?

 

 

"I've already told you that all other mammals also have these organs"

 

YES INDEED, They are ALL Irreducibly Complex AS WELL AS MAN IS (By Definition)

 

So please point out a specific one, And show us the ORDER of Evolution for THEIR

Vital Interdependent Organs if you don't want to speculate on Man's 10..

 

LET ME HELP YOU HERE.. 

 

Supposedly, crocodiles have been around for "200 million" years (give or take a few days)

They have 9 VITAL interconnected / interdependent organs that have to ALL be

working together in tandem or the Croc Dies... and Bye Bye Evolution...

 

Since you refuse to provide an ORDER for the evolution of MAN'S 10 vital Organs..

Maybe you would like to try the Crocodile... They have a Heart, Brain, Liver, Kidney,

Pancreas, Intestine, Stomach, Testes, Lung, Etc...

 

Now, supposedly they have been around for "200 Million Years"  Would you please

present a plausible or feasible ORDER for the evolution of the Crocodile?

 

What comes first? Brain? then what? Stomach? What's next? Lung? :think:

 

Are you starting to see why the website you are on has the name that it does??

 

 

 

4724643.jpg?438



#52 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 June 2017 - 12:41 AM

"I've already told you that all other mammals also have these organs"
 
YES INDEED, They are ALL Irreducibly Complex AS WELL AS MAN IS (By Definition)


I must have missed the bit where you demonstrated all these organs are irreducibly complex, rather than merely asserting they are so.

Do you at least concede that as other vertebrates also have these organs then this particular argument you are pushing does not refute evolution of man from earlier chordate ancestors ?



#53 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 07:13 AM

I see you are back to skipping the supposed millions of years while those "perfectly intact and functional for their needs" were BECOMING "Fully intact and functional for their needs" organs..

Who is supposing that millions of years would be required for something to become functional?

#54 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 11:37 AM

"I've already told you that all other mammals also have these organs"

YES INDEED, They are ALL Irreducibly Complex AS WELL AS MAN IS (By Definition)

I must have missed the bit where you demonstrated all these organs are irreducibly complex, rather than merely asserting they are so.
Do you at least concede that as other vertebrates also have these organs then this particular argument you are pushing does not refute evolution of man from earlier chordate ancestors ?

"I must have missed the bit where you demonstrated all these organs are irreducibly complex, rather than merely asserting they are so."

The CREATURE'S Interdependent VITAL Organic system IS irreducibly complex BY DEFINITION.. We can prove that using the EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD (The Enemy of AbioDarwinism) Are YOU asserting
that a crocodile DOESN'T need all of its Vital Organs to live?


"Do you at least concede that as other vertebrates also have these organs then this particular argument you are pushing does not refute evolution of man from earlier chordate ancestors"?

NO NO NO.. As I CLEARLY said, the other vertebrates ARE ALL IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX AS WELL.. That is why I provided an EXAMPLE of the supposedly "200 MYO" Crocodile!!!!!!

Would YOU like to point to a DIFFERENT Creature and show us that it's Vital Interdependent Organic System is NOT Irreducible complex?

It is like claiming that the Ocean spits out Gold Rolex
Watches because you found a 5 dollar timex on the beach...

"Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather."

(Dr. David Berlinski)

#55 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 11:45 AM

I see you are back to skipping the supposed millions of years while those "perfectly intact and functional for their needs" were BECOMING "Fully intact and functional for their needs" organs..

Who is supposing that millions of years would be required for something to become functional?
I guess that is why Hopeful Monsters and Punctuated Equilibrium had to be summoned to the rescue..

That's the beauty of the Darwinian Science Fiction Novel about "Long ago and far away" You get to write it as you go along, And, without a time machine, Who Can Prove You Wrong?


"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."

(Nancy Pearcey,

#56 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 12:16 PM

The CREATURE'S Interdependent VITAL Organic system IS irreducibly complex BY DEFINITION.. We can prove that using the EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD (The Enemy of AbioDarwinism)

So do it. Prove it using the empirical scientific method and show us how you did it.
 

Are YOU asserting that a crocodile DOESN'T need all of its Vital Organs to live?

That's not what irreducible complexity is. Irreducible complexity is the idea that a crocodile (or any other organism, apparently) can't have the function of its organs reduced in any slight way and still survive. Put another way that such an organism couldn't have resulted from slight modification because at some point the function would be compromised. You have yet to demonstrate the necessary existence of such a point.
 

It is like claiming that the Ocean spits out Gold Rolex
Watches because you found a 5 dollar timex on the beach...

It's more like if someone claimed a bicycle was irreducibly complex and then you pointed out that it's not because there is a well documented history of the slight modifications that led to the modern bicycle.
 

I guess that is why Hopeful Monsters and Punctuated Equilibrium had to be summoned to the rescue..

Neither of those has anything to do with my question. My point is that you're attacking some straw man version of evolution where millions of years of non-functional change happens before any functionality is gained. That's not how evolution works.
 

That's the beauty of the Darwinian Science Fiction Novel about "Long ago and far away" You get to write it as you go along, And, without a time machine, Who Can Prove You Wrong?

You seem pretty convinced that you can, up until the point where you actually have to substantiate such claims.

#57 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 02:33 PM

The CREATURE'S Interdependent VITAL Organic system IS irreducibly complex BY DEFINITION.. We can prove that using the EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC METHOD (The Enemy of AbioDarwinism)

So do it. Prove it using the empirical scientific method and show us how you did it. 

Are YOU asserting that a crocodile DOESN'T need all of its Vital Organs to live?

That's not what irreducible complexity is. Irreducible complexity is the idea that a crocodile (or any other organism, apparently) can't have the function of its organs reduced in any slight way and still survive. Put another way that such an organism couldn't have resulted from slight modification because at some point the function would be compromised. You have yet to demonstrate the necessary existence of such a point. 

It is like claiming that the Ocean spits out Gold RolexWatches because you found a 5 dollar timex on the beach...

It's more like if someone claimed a bicycle was irreducibly complex and then you pointed out that it's not because there is a well documented history of the slight modifications that led to the modern bicycle. 

I guess that is why Hopeful Monsters and Punctuated Equilibrium had to be summoned to the rescue..

Neither of those has anything to do with my question. My point is that you're attacking some straw man version of evolution where millions of years of non-functional change happens before any functionality is gained. That's not how evolution works. 

That's the beauty of the Darwinian Science Fiction Novel about "Long ago and far away" You get to write it as you go along, And, without a time machine, Who Can Prove You Wrong?

You seem pretty convinced that you can, up until the point where you actually have to substantiate such claims.

Do I actually have to go and get 10 humans and 10 crocodiles and pull out each different one of their 10 VITAL organs and videotaping them dying for you (Empirical Scientific Method) to prove that human's and crocodile's organic systems are Irreducibly complex? (BY DEFINITION!)

"My point is that you're attacking some straw man version of evolution where millions of years of non-functional change happens before any functionality is gained. That's not how evolution works."

Well then Just how DOES "IT WORK"? You keep on PURPOSELY Avoiding what SURELY MUST HAVE HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in order for the Amoebas to Man myth to to true..

At least Wibble was honest enough to say..

"Your question about organs is one that is simple to ask but one that would be complicated and lengthy to answer and would require extensive research in comparative anatomy and physiology between living organisms."

To which I answered, And will ask You as well..

Surely you must know ONE "Expert" on Organic systems over at Talk Origins or the NCSE that can help you out with it... Put it up on the Atheist message boards, lets see if anyone can do better than you haven't.. I will give you a head start.. I will throw in Abiogenesis AND I will also throw in a bag of skin AND a crude stomach.... Where do we go from here?.. you have 1 billion years to turn into a Man with 10 Vital Interdependent organs.. Start the evolution process for
us! Come on. .Any old guess will do, after all, we are talking about long ago and far away.. Who can prove you wrong.. Go for it!! Don't be shy..

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...

.

#58 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 03:17 PM

Do I actually have to go and get 10 humans and 10 crocodiles and pull out each different one of their 10 VITAL organs and videotaping them dying for you (Empirical Scientific Method) to prove that human's and crocodile's organic systems are Irreducibly complex? (BY DEFINITION!)

You can, but that has very little to do with irreducible complexity. I’m also not sure why you keep insisting that it is true both by definition and true by empirical testing.
 

Well then Just how DOES "IT WORK”?

As I’ve said several times, through functional changes. Every step along the way is a functional organism. There’s some room for non-functional change to happen, but the mechanism for changes to be retained over time relies on those changes being beneficial.
 

To which I answered, And will ask You as well..

He’s probably right on that. Evidence for lots of evolutionary history is sparse, which is fine, because we don’t need to be able to exhaustively prove everything in the history of ever in order to determine whether evolution happened at all. It’s sort of like insisting that we have to know the name of every Roman senator before we can determine whether the empire ever existed. Your standard of evidence is unreasonable, and as I’ve pointed out a number of times it’s based on a flawed premise.

#59 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 08 June 2017 - 03:18 PM

"Do you at least concede that as other vertebrates also have these organs then this particular argument you are pushing does not refute evolution of man from earlier chordate ancestors"?

NO NO NO.. As I CLEARLY said, the other vertebrates ARE ALL IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX AS WELL.. That is why I provided an EXAMPLE of the supposedly "200 MYO" Crocodile!!!!!!


I'm not sure how you are still not understanding the point. If man's vertebrate ancestors also had all these organs then your irreducibility argument (in respect to humans) is irrelevant.



#60 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 08 June 2017 - 04:01 PM

 

Do I actually have to go and get 10 humans and 10 crocodiles and pull out each different one of their 10 VITAL organs and videotaping them dying for you (Empirical Scientific Method) to prove that human's and crocodile's organic systems are Irreducibly complex? (BY DEFINITION!)

You can, but that has very little to do with irreducible complexity. I’m also not sure why you keep insisting that it is true both by definition and true by empirical testing. 

Well then Just how DOES "IT WORK”?

As I’ve said several times, through functional changes. Every step along the way is a functional organism. There’s some room for non-functional change to happen, but the mechanism for changes to be retained over time relies on those changes being beneficial. 

To which I answered, And will ask You as well..

He’s probably right on that. Evidence for lots of evolutionary history is sparse, which is fine, because we don’t need to be able to exhaustively prove everything in the history of ever in order to determine whether evolution happened at all. It’s sort of like insisting that we have to know the name of every Roman senator before we can determine whether the empire ever existed. Your standard of evidence is unreasonable, and as I’ve pointed out a number of times it’s based on a flawed premise.

Look who is the Scarecrow Emperor now..

"We dont need to exhaustively proove everything"

YOU KEEP FORGETTING..

I am NOT asking for proof, I am NOT even asking for evidence, I am asking (For the umpteenth time) A PLAUSIBLE OR FEASABLE

ORDER for the Evolution of Man's OR even the Crocodile's 10 Interdependent VITAL organs OR THEIR "ANCESTORS" Vital Organs..

"Your standard of evidence is unreasonable"

WHAT "STANDARD OR EVIDENCE"???   I am NOT ASKING FOR ANY EVIDENCE!!!!!  :gaah:

Simply asking for a PLAUSIBLE or FEASIBLE Order of Man's (OR ANY OF OUR "ANCESTORS") VITAL Interdependent Organs is "UNREASONABLE"???

 

LET ME ASK YOU AGAIN,,   :dono:

 

 

So WHICH ONE/S do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart?

 

 

nz041.jpg

 

 

Surely you must know ONE "Expert" on Organic systems over at Talk Origins or the NCSE that can help you out with it... Put it up on the Atheist message boards, lets see if anyone can do better than you haven't.. I will give you a head start.. I will throw in Abiogenesis AND I will also throw in a bag of skin AND a crude stomach.... Where do we go from here?.. you have 1 billion years to turn into a Man with 10 Vital Interdependent organs.. Start the evolution process for us! Come on. .Any old guess will do, after all, we are talking about long ago and far away.. Who can prove you wrong.. Go for it!! Don't be shy.. :muscular:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users