Jump to content


Photo

Evolutionists: What Have You Devoted To Creationism?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
91 replies to this topic

#61 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:02 PM

1. Why can't I compare a designed system with an undesigned one? Doesn't that depend on what processes I am trying to study? For instance, if I want to see how much damage a hailstone will do on my newly designed roofing material, is it valid for me to make my own hailstones, calculate the velocity at which hail would strike the ground and then shoot them at my new material or must I wait for a hailstorm because the designed test is automatically invalidated by the fact that it was designed?

2. Why, exactly, is that genetic algorithm invalid in studying the mechanisms put forth in the theory of evolution, namely mutation and selection? If you say it is simply because the algorithm is designed then you must invalidate every car crash test ever performed.

3. My statement regarding limited parameters meant that the parameters are limited in this case by the designer of the program.

4. Then you believe your designer cannot manipulate the environment to get a desired outcome? Even if the environmental pressures are not designed, they still cause selection.

5. This doesn't seem to address my comment about the appearance of randomness in mutation events.

6. So, cells are complex with self correcting mechanisms. What is it about this complexity that makes you believe it could not have evolved? We already know that the self correcting mechanisms don't work perfectly and mutations happen. I will look for Darwins Black Box...guess I'll have to buy it...not in local library.


7. This whole discussion started with your claim that biochemistry refutes evolution. You then gave an example of an interdependent system of mechanisms that provided energy to the cell and claimed that their interdependence meant that the system could not have evolved.

8. I pointed out that some bacteria only use glycolysis so the aerobic cellular respiration system is not irreducibly complex and could have evolved from anaerobic cellular respiration.

9. Just because anaerobic cellular respiration requires a mechanism to remove waste products doesn't mean it could not evolve to utilize the waste and get more energy in an environment with oxygen

10. So far you have not provided an example of an irreducibly complex system. So your main proclaimation that biochemistry refutes evolution has not been shown to be correct. Your statement...you provide the evidence.

11. The other functions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

12. So, glycolysis is the actual function that you are stating is irreducibly complex. I didn't get that from the original presentation since it focused on the aerobic cellular respiration and the interdependence of the 3 processes. I can hardly be faulted for thinking that aerobic cellular respiration was the function that you were presenting as irreducibly complex. What is it about glycolysis that makes it irreducibly complex? If you presented the evidence before, could you point out which message it was in?

13. There is energy all around. Heat energy from the Sun and from inside the Earth. Many chemical reactions utilize that energy. The chemicals can get mixed together by something as simple as wave action in bodies of water.

14. The proteins don't create energy, they just move it.



1. I have already told you why... You need to read and comprehend my posts.

For your analogy you would need to make hailstones that have the same characteristics as natural ones, therefore they can be an accurate representation, in this case the fact one is designed and the other is not doesn't matter since it is not the issue. With evolution, where the issue IS if an unguided process can form such complex structures then your analogy doesn't fit, again you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

2. Because you have no way of knowing for sure if the said genetic algorithm is the same to the process claimed to have occured. There is no way of justifying it since you cannot be sure if this is correct or not. As I have said in the previous posts it is about justification of the claim, this is a basic tenet in science, which you would soon learn once you do research. For example, the entire reason experiments are done in the scientific method is to test and justify a claim, hence justification of the experiment and the parameters used are equally important since an unjustified experiment has absolutely no value.

3. Which therefore leads to point two, since you are assuming that the programer inherently knows what the correct parameters are... Therefore you have inadvertently admitted that using genetic algorithims is unjustified since the programmers program what occurs, rather than leaving it fully up to natural processes.

An analogy, if I made a caucasian robot and made it jump three times before walking through a doorway can I use that as evidence that all caucasians (or caucaisan robots) also display this behaviour?.... No because my robot was programed to do that, there is no telling whether this is what occurs or not, since what I have programmed it to do is merely what I have programmed it to do.

4. Ah, the magic word "selection", care to explain a bit more about this, and your using of it here..

A designer could perhaps do such, however for the moment I am discussing evolution as per the evolutionists definition, which involves no designer at all. If you wish to discuss designed evolution I suggest you create a new thread, since that is not what we are discussing in this thread.

5. Did you go and research "jumping genes", or did you just respond without doing the research?.... Transposons are mobile elements that can move DNA around the genome / plasmid of a bacteria, this allows for adaption via the creation of different sequences... Now consider that the method for this is caused via multiple protein reactions and can be yet another example of irreducible complexity. Also consider that this method cannot have evolved itself from itself, hence its not a mechanism of evolution due to this, it is a designed form of adaption.

6. Yes mutations happen but remember when I said that IF the self correcting mechanism doesn't work properly (which is how these mutations get through), then there is the risk of disease, which is far greater than the chance of getting advantageous mutations... Therefore an analogy would be, you take one step forward but go three steps back, since when the cell gets diseased, (which it will since as you admitted its not functioning properly) then that is a loss in fitness which means . It will not be selected for.

You need to understand that just getting the changes is the easy part, the hard part is for such things to be selected for.

Addtionally just the mere fact that the system isn't working properly (which you admitted to), also can lead to a decrease in fitness without even worrying about changes to functions. If certain waste materials or other materials cannot be disposed of or recycled then that will lead to a decrease in fitness, (therefore no selection gradient to justify the fixation of the loss in the recycling system's integrity).

7. Yes

8. Talk about skipping my posts!! I have said time and again that the anaerobic system is yet another irreducibly complex system with multiple systems working in tandem just like the aerobic system. I can easiy just ask you where did the anaerobicc system "evolve" from since it is also irreducibly complex since it also requires multiple systems, (one being waste disposal).

"Anaerobic bacteria require a different interconnected system of systems... Hence it has the same problem described of aerobic respiration, therefore all you have done here is merely given me a different example to use."
- Me, post# 38

9. Really? And what evidence do you have for this assertion? OR is this one of the many popular evo-just-so-stories. For someone who claims they don't know biochemistry you surely claim things with alot of (percieved) authority. I have demonstrated that lactic acid IS detrimental, if you wish to find a process by which lactic acid can be used for energy, (and that the waste products of this are safe) then feel free to do so, just know that none of my lecturers have described such a thing.... hence you're probably using your imagination a tad too much.

10. Why, because you (with your percieved authority) says so. I have demonstrated such and the only actual refutation you gave was point 9 in that you are pleading that maybe there is some other way..... Pleading for something that has not been demonstrated is not a logical or valid argument, its merely demonstrating your inability to accept. Additionally you keep mentioning anaerobic respiration ignoring the fact that I have already shown you that this is also an irreducibly complex system in its own right... So you are using an irreducibly complex system to justify an irreducibly complex system... I do hope you realise the leap of faith you are making here.

11. I don't think so since we are talking about irreducible complexity... aren't we?

Perhaps consider how all the minimum requirement of systems for a cell arose, energy systems, waste disposal, nutrient collection, self-defense, regulatory mechanisms, transport within the cell, transport in and outside of the cell, DNA repair, DNA replication, cellular replication.. etc etc

Now consider how they occured
- at the same time
- in the same locality
- within a membrane (and how did the membrane form?)

ALL from random processes....

12. I have stated this before, in post #28 it is a secondary point. .

"This isn't even going into the fact that these systems themselves require multiple parts to function as well, hence its interconnected systems where each of those systems are based on a myriad of other interconnected systems, (check out the enzymes required for the citric acid cycle, its a pretty big list)."
-Me, post#28

"Now lets look at this deeper, each of these systems require a multitude of enzymes and regulatory proteins which are also interconnected, so the same problem occurs here to, (hence it escalates). Perhaps consider this as a factory line, where each enzyme is a different machine doing a different task. If you don't get the proper product you die, hence if you are missing any part of the process then there are dire consequences. The reason why the cell would die is because a protein's function is based on its structural formation, even the slightest change in the amino acid chains used (the primary structure) can potentially cause huge changes to the secondary and tertiary structure of the protein, (this would depend if the change was with a structurally important amino acid).

Now expand this out and consider all the different functions a cell would need to do in order to live. DNA reading, DNA correction as Uppsala has mentioned, DNA replication, cellular respiration, organelle replication, organelle repair, cellular replication, vesicle transport for a myriad of molecules, cell structure (cytoskeleton), cell membrane repair, protein formation, protein recycling, metabolite production, metabolite breakdown, regulatory processes, signal cascade systems, transporter proteins in the membrane (active and passive), lipid / carbohydrate breakdown, amino acid recycling, etc etc etc. All these things are required for a cell to survive its first day of life."

- Me post# 38


13. Care to give evidence that such things can create life? You do realise that this is a faith statement?

14. Really? So what does aerobic / anaerobic respiration do?

#62 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 October 2012 - 02:10 PM

This brings up an interesting question that I have been pondering. What kick starts cell metabolism once all of these parts are in place. Could we kill a cell, and then revive it by putting all the parts back together in just the right way? I doubt it. In my experience, life comes from life. I would say that there is some life force there that is passed on to offspring that is unable to be produced in the lab, and God is the giver of this life.



It can also be asked what initial source of ATP kick started glycolysis since glycolysis requires 2 ATP in order to get going :D

#63 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 October 2012 - 10:58 PM

My point is that you are sure PHD biochemists have any important input to the question of evolution and cellular biochemist but you have never actually talked to one to find out what they know.


Again, what does the sacrifice of Jesus have to do with that?

I am not a biochemist. If I were one, you would have already stopped talking to me since you would bet your bottom dollare that I would have exactly zero to say on the subject. If you want to know what scientific evidence exists for the gradual development of complex logic (chemistry) in a cell, go ask a PHD biochemist instead of assuming that they don't know squat.


You are not a biochemist, and yet you asume that they DO know squat about how complex logic develops in a cell. Surely you have the sense to realize that biochemists can only observe chemical reactions in a cell. If you believe that they have the power to explain how chemical reactions can possibly give a cell the logical capacity to read and interpret information then please tell me what you base that on.

#64 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 October 2012 - 04:40 AM

Again, what does the sacrifice of Jesus have to do with that?

It was a comparison. You refusing to speak to PHD biologists about "how complex logic develops" in a cell and then claiming that PHD biochemists don't know anything about it...is similar to...me refusing to speak to Christians about the complex logice behind the sacrifice of Jesus and then claiming that Christians don't know anything about it.

You are not a biochemist, and yet you asume that they DO know squat about how complex logic develops in a cell. Surely you have the sense to realize that biochemists can only observe chemical reactions in a cell. If you believe that they have the power to explain how chemical reactions can possibly give a cell the logical capacity to read and interpret information then please tell me what you base that on.

[sarcasm]Now I understand...you believe that cells are sentient and can interpret information. Those stupid biochemists just think that those chemical reactions that occur in the cell (to transfer energy, repair damage...etc) are...um... what do they call it?.... oh yeah....chemical reactions. Strange that people who have, at a minimum, studied the internals of cellular chemistry, initiated and completed their own original research (they are PHD's after all), and probably teach post graduate classes in the subject, doesn't know that cells are sentient beings. You, of course, do know they are sentient because..... [/sarcasm]

Please explain what you mean by "complex logic" in a cell.

#65 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:56 AM

1. It was a comparison. You refusing to speak to PHD biologists about "how complex logic develops" in a cell and then claiming that PHD biochemists don't know anything about it...is similar to...me refusing to speak to Christians about the complex logice behind the sacrifice of Jesus and then claiming that Christians don't know anything about it.


2. [sarcasm]Now I understand...you believe that cells are sentient and can interpret information. Those stupid biochemists just think that those chemical reactions that occur in the cell (to transfer energy, repair damage...etc) are...um... what do they call it?.... oh yeah....chemical reactions. Strange that people who have, at a minimum, studied the internals of cellular chemistry, initiated and completed their own original research (they are PHD's after all), and probably teach post graduate classes in the subject, doesn't know that cells are sentient beings. You, of course, do know they are sentient because..... [/sarcasm]

Please explain what you mean by "complex logic" in a cell.


1. This is a blatant lie, (one you tried with me earlier). You cannot know what other people have and haven't done, your claim here is an attempt at defaming. One of the reasons why we claim that Biochemists do not know is because there is no published empirical science that demonstrates the mechanisms that can be used for this. Seriously, if there was a naturalistic explanation you'd think that it would have been publicised via the media therefore making it common knowledge... Additionally you already know that I have chated with Biochemists about these exact same things.



2. I didn't see the word sentient in there... Perhaps you shouldn't put words in peoples mouths, its not a valid debate "tactic".

Obviously you don't understand the position being stated otherwise you wouldn't have gone on a tangent about naming chemical reactions, chemical reactions etc.

I am guessing that Uppsala is talking about the information and the systems of recognition within and for the DNA code. As science has demonstrated information and these systems of recognition has only ever come from an inteligent agent, (you cannot deny this). Therefore if these information and these systems are present in a cell then it screams the question from where did these things come from?.... We already know that only an intelligent source is the only known cause for this, however "Biologists" like Dawkins and his ilk utilise the logical fallacy argument from the future, to claim that perhaps in the future we will find a naturalistic answer... (a great display of blind faith right there).

#66 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 05 October 2012 - 06:02 PM

1. I have already told you why... You need to read and comprehend my posts.

For your analogy you would need to make hailstones that have the same characteristics as natural ones, therefore they can be an accurate representation, in this case the fact one is designed and the other is not doesn't matter since it is not the issue. With evolution, where the issue IS if an unguided process can form such complex structures then your analogy doesn't fit, again you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

I went back to all your posts and the only support for your rejection of the genetic algorithm was that the algorithm was written by a person. Using that criteria, you should have rejected the hailstone experiment.
You now claim that the validity of an experiment depends on what is being tested and if the outcome of the process being tested is skewed by the design of the experiment. Ok. The genetic algorithm is testing if random mutations can result in a viable outcome if constrained by a selection mechanism. Evolution is not an unguided process. It is guided directly by the environment in which the population of organisms lives. The environment provides the selection criteria. Is there is a designer setting up the environment to produce a particular outcome? That, I don't know. The theory of evolution does not cover the cause of the environment that constrains the population of organisms.


2. Because you have no way of knowing for sure if the said genetic algorithm is the same to the process claimed to have occured. There is no way of justifying it since you cannot be sure if this is correct or not. As I have said in the previous posts it is about justification of the claim, this is a basic tenet in science, which you would soon learn once you do research. For example, the entire reason experiments are done in the scientific method is to test and justify a claim, hence justification of the experiment and the parameters used are equally important since an unjustified experiment has absolutely no value.

The genetic algorithm is a very limited test that does not attempt to mimic the exact processes that occurred in a particular point in time to a particular group of organisms. The only thing it is designed to test is whether or not imperfect replication of individuals through random mutations constrained by selection criteria can result in increased complexity within the population of those individuals.

3. Which therefore leads to point two, since you are assuming that the programer inherently knows what the correct parameters are... Therefore you have inadvertently admitted that using genetic algorithims is unjustified since the programmers program what occurs, rather than leaving it fully up to natural processes.

Since the constraint criteria was not the item under test, your comment here is not relevant to the validity of the experiment.

An analogy, if I made a caucasian robot and made it jump three times before walking through a doorway can I use that as evidence that all caucasians (or caucaisan robots) also display this behaviour?.... No because my robot was programed to do that, there is no telling whether this is what occurs or not, since what I have programmed it to do is merely what I have programmed it to do.

I doubt the conclusion would be thus. I doubt that the experiment would be trying to determine the habits of humans with regard to doorway entry if the behavior under test was being overtly changed by the person running the experiment.

4. Ah, the magic word "selection", care to explain a bit more about this, and your using of it here..

In evolution, selection is the process that determines if a particular organism will live to have offspring or die before doing so.

A designer could perhaps do such, however for the moment I am discussing evolution as per the evolutionists definition, which involves no designer at all. If you wish to discuss designed evolution I suggest you create a new thread, since that is not what we are discussing in this thread.

Thank you for defining the constraints of this thread. Strangely, I thought it was a query of evolutionists to find out how much they have devoted to studying creationism as was stated in the first post (along with several other questions about our disenchantment with creationism).

5. Did you go and research "jumping genes", or did you just respond without doing the research?.... Transposons are mobile elements that can move DNA around the genome / plasmid of a bacteria, this allows for adaption via the creation of different sequences... Now consider that the method for this is caused via multiple protein reactions and can be yet another example of irreducible complexity. Also consider that this method cannot have evolved itself from itself, hence its not a mechanism of evolution due to this, it is a designed form of adaption.

It seems unlikely that it could have evolved from itself but it could have evolved from something else. You state that this could not have evolved but do not show us what prevents it from doing so other than your claim that it is too complex or too interdependent to evolve.

6. Yes mutations happen but remember when I said that IF the self correcting mechanism doesn't work properly (which is how these mutations get through), then there is the risk of disease, which is far greater than the chance of getting advantageous mutations... Therefore an analogy would be, you take one step forward but go three steps back, since when the cell gets diseased, (which it will since as you admitted its not functioning properly) then that is a loss in fitness which means . It will not be selected for.

You need to understand that just getting the changes is the easy part, the hard part is for such things to be selected for.
Addtionally just the mere fact that the system isn't working properly (which you admitted to), also can lead to a decrease in fitness without even worrying about changes to functions. If certain waste materials or other materials cannot be disposed of or recycled then that will lead to a decrease in fitness, (therefore no selection gradient to justify the fixation of the loss in the recycling system's integrity).

The organisms that go three steps back do get selected. They get selected to die. The ones that have the advantageous mutations or simply the neutral mutations get to live and pass those mutations on. Evolution happens to populations not individuals.

7. Yes

8. Talk about skipping my posts!! I have said time and again that the anaerobic system is yet another irreducibly complex system with multiple systems working in tandem just like the aerobic system. I can easiy just ask you where did the anaerobicc system "evolve" from since it is also irreducibly complex since it also requires multiple systems, (one being waste disposal).

"Anaerobic bacteria require a different interconnected system of systems... Hence it has the same problem described of aerobic respiration, therefore all you have done here is merely given me a different example to use."
- Me, post# 38

The items you labeled 7 and 8 actually go together. My statement meant that since glycolysis can operate without the other two processes, even if it must be supported by other processes, then aerobic respiration could have evolved from anaerobic respiration. Is there a biochemical mechanism that prevents the other two processes from evolving while the population of cells continues to use anaerobic respiration to supply the energy for them to go forth and multiply?

9. Really? And what evidence do you have for this assertion? OR is this one of the many popular evo-just-so-stories. For someone who claims they don't know biochemistry you surely claim things with alot of (percieved) authority. I have demonstrated that lactic acid IS detrimental, if you wish to find a process by which lactic acid can be used for energy, (and that the waste products of this are safe) then feel free to do so, just know that none of my lecturers have described such a thing.... hence you're probably using your imagination a tad too much.

10. Why, because you (with your percieved authority) says so. I have demonstrated such and the only actual refutation you gave was point 9 in that you are pleading that maybe there is some other way..... Pleading for something that has not been demonstrated is not a logical or valid argument, its merely demonstrating your inability to accept. Additionally you keep mentioning anaerobic respiration ignoring the fact that I have already shown you that this is also an irreducibly complex system in its own right... So you are using an irreducibly complex system to justify an irreducibly complex system... I do hope you realise the leap of faith you are making here.

You said that a particular biochemical mechanism within the cell is irreducibly complex because it relies on interdependent processes. You apparently believe that everyone should believe that on your say so alone. Why should I? I pointed out that your example was not irreducibly complex because one of the processes can operate without the others. You have not answered that rebuttal with anything other than something to the effect of "Well, that process needs other processes to operate without killing the cell even if it doesn't just need the two process I provided in my example". To that I say, "So what?". It still operates without the other two processes so that biochemical mechanism is not irreducibly complex.

11. I don't think so since we are talking about irreducible complexity... aren't we?

Apparently we are not since you have not produced an example of one.

Perhaps consider how all the minimum requirement of systems for a cell arose, energy systems, waste disposal, nutrient collection, self-defense, regulatory mechanisms, transport within the cell, transport in and outside of the cell, DNA repair, DNA replication, cellular replication.. etc etc

Now consider how they occured
- at the same time
- in the same locality
- within a membrane (and how did the membrane form?)

ALL from random processes....

I will concede that you understand these systems in greater depth than I. However, you don't know that they all occurred at the same time or in the same place. That's just some kind of skewed argument from incredulity because you believe that their current perceived interdependence was required for the first life or proto-life. You say all those things are necessary for life when you don't really know that they are necessary for anything but a modern bacterium.

12. I have stated this before, in post #28 it is a secondary point. .

"This isn't even going into the fact that these systems themselves require multiple parts to function as well, hence its interconnected systems where each of those systems are based on a myriad of other interconnected systems, (check out the enzymes required for the citric acid cycle, its a pretty big list)."
-Me, post#28

"Now lets look at this deeper, each of these systems require a multitude of enzymes and regulatory proteins which are also interconnected, so the same problem occurs here to, (hence it escalates). Perhaps consider this as a factory line, where each enzyme is a different machine doing a different task. If you don't get the proper product you die, hence if you are missing any part of the process then there are dire consequences. The reason why the cell would die is because a protein's function is based on its structural formation, even the slightest change in the amino acid chains used (the primary structure) can potentially cause huge changes to the secondary and tertiary structure of the protein, (this would depend if the change was with a structurally important amino acid).

Now expand this out and consider all the different functions a cell would need to do in order to live. DNA reading, DNA correction as Uppsala has mentioned, DNA replication, cellular respiration, organelle replication, organelle repair, cellular replication, vesicle transport for a myriad of molecules, cell structure (cytoskeleton), cell membrane repair, protein formation, protein recycling, metabolite production, metabolite breakdown, regulatory processes, signal cascade systems, transporter proteins in the membrane (active and passive), lipid / carbohydrate breakdown, amino acid recycling, etc etc etc. All these things are required for a cell to survive its first day of life."

- Me post# 38

This does not address the fact that your original post on this subject focused on the irreducible complexity of aerobic cellular respiration. Since you were wrong about its irreducible complexity you are now saying that I should have gone looking for every process you mentioned to bail you out of your error? You were incorrect about the irrecucible complexity of one process. Why should I believe you are correct about the others without something other than your claim that those processes depend on interrelated chemical reactions?


13. Care to give evidence that such things can create life? You do realise that this is a faith statement?

I never said that they create life but I also didn't say that they could not. I said that the energy from the Sun and heat in the Earth can cause chemical reactions.

14. Really? So what does aerobic / anaerobic respiration do?

It breaks or forms chemical bonds to utilize the energy from that chemical reaction. You're the biochemist and you don't know this?

#67 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 October 2012 - 09:50 PM

1. I went back to all your posts and the only support for your rejection of the genetic algorithm was that the algorithm was written by a person. Using that criteria, you should have rejected the hailstone experiment.

2. You now claim that the validity of an experiment depends on what is being tested and if the outcome of the process being tested is skewed by the design of the experiment.

3. Ok. The genetic algorithm is testing if random mutations can result in a viable outcome if constrained by a selection mechanism.

4. Evolution is not an unguided process. It is guided directly by the environment in which the population of organisms lives. The environment provides the selection criteria. Is there is a designer setting up the environment to produce a particular outcome? That, I don't know. The theory of evolution does not cover the cause of the environment that constrains the population of organisms.



5. The genetic algorithm is a very limited test that does not attempt to mimic the exact processes that occurred in a particular point in time to a particular group of organisms.

6. The only thing it is designed to test is whether or not imperfect replication of individuals through random mutations constrained by selection criteria can result in increased complexity within the population of those individuals.


7. Since the constraint criteria was not the item under test, your comment here is not relevant to the validity of the experiment.

8. I doubt the conclusion would be thus. I doubt that the experiment would be trying to determine the habits of humans with regard to doorway entry if the behavior under test was being overtly changed by the person running the experiment.


9. In evolution, selection is the process that determines if a particular organism will live to have offspring or die before doing so.

10. Thank you for defining the constraints of this thread.

11. Strangely, I thought it was a query of evolutionists to find out how much they have devoted to studying creationism as was stated in the first post (along with several other questions about our disenchantment with creationism).


12. It seems unlikely that it could have evolved from itself but it could have evolved from something else.

13. You state that this could not have evolved but do not show us what prevents it from doing so other than your claim that it is too complex or too interdependent to evolve.


14. The organisms that go three steps back do get selected. They get selected to die. The ones that have the advantageous mutations or simply the neutral mutations get to live and pass those mutations on.

15. Evolution happens to populations not individuals.


16. The items you labeled 7 and 8 actually go together. My statement meant that since glycolysis can operate without the other two processes, even if it must be supported by other processes, then aerobic respiration could have evolved from anaerobic respiration. Is there a biochemical mechanism that prevents the other two processes from evolving while the population of cells continues to use anaerobic respiration to supply the energy for them to go forth and multiply?


17. You said that a particular biochemical mechanism within the cell is irreducibly complex because it relies on interdependent processes. You apparently believe that everyone should believe that on your say so alone. Why should I?

18. I pointed out that your example was not irreducibly complex because one of the processes can operate without the others. You have not answered that rebuttal with anything other than something to the effect of "Well, that process needs other processes to operate without killing the cell even if it doesn't just need the two process I provided in my example". To that I say, "So what?". It still operates without the other two processes so that biochemical mechanism is not irreducibly complex.

19. Apparently we are not since you have not produced an example of one.


20. I will concede that you understand these systems in greater depth than I. However, you don't know that they all occurred at the same time or in the same place. That's just some kind of skewed argument from incredulity because you believe that their current perceived interdependence was required for the first life or proto-life. You say all those things are necessary for life when you don't really know that they are necessary for anything but a modern bacterium.


21. This does not address the fact that your original post on this subject focused on the irreducible complexity of aerobic cellular respiration. Since you were wrong about its irreducible complexity you are now saying that I should have gone looking for every process you mentioned to bail you out of your error? You were incorrect about the irrecucible complexity of one process. Why should I believe you are correct about the others without something other than your claim that those processes depend on interrelated chemical reactions?



22. I never said that they create life but I also didn't say that they could not. I said that the energy from the Sun and heat in the Earth can cause chemical reactions.


23. It breaks or forms chemical bonds to utilize the energy from that chemical reaction. You're the biochemist and you don't know this?


1. I suggest you read again.... The first person to point all this out was Tirian in post# 45, what this post states is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. You cannot use a designed system as evidence to claim that an undesigned evolution occured, or as a demonstration of undesigned evolution, as I said before you are comparing apples to oranges.

"Exactly what I was going to say. Admitting that the program is designed doesn't change the fact that it is designed, its merely a case of special pleading."
-Me post 46

"By having a designed selecting system, which is what you are advocating that by definition defies the modern evolutionary concept of "No design" since the system is (as you admitted) designed which cannot be proxy to an "undesigned" selecting system. Essentially you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Its all about justification of claims, if the parameters change - a designed system or an undesigned system, then how can you draw parallels between the two? You can't, its the same as if I tried growing one bacteria on one media and another on another media and trying to compare the results... I can't since the media and bacteria used are totally different so there is no common denominator to compare between the two."
-Me post# 49

"Others have sufficiently addressed this, I think you might agree this is essentially glorified trial&error that required intelligence to cull it. Evolution has no such advantage, as you admitted when you wrote: “Dog breeders do this kind of thing to get a dog of the form and temperment that they want.” This is not evolution, which requires selection to be “natural”."
-Fred post#51

"No you cannot compare a designed system with a "supposedly" undesigned one, as I have said they are totally different things and no amount ot mental gymnastics can change that fact."
-Me, post#52



2. Not true, I not only now stating this. This has been the entire point, as per quotes above, its a bit sad that you've only just realised it now.

3. Therefore such "experiments" are not evidence if evolution occurs or not since it is based on the assumption that evolution occurs, additionally it is based on the assumption that evolution occurs in the manner depicted by the program used... There are no controls that can be made to double-check such things hence with so many unverifiable assumptions how can this be claimed as science?...

4. You've opened a can of worms which you may regret

i) environmental factors are rarely constant for long, meaning that the selection will never be constant enough to allow for fixation of changes made (this is a huge problem many miss since fixation is merely assumed by evolutionists, they totally forget to account for it).

ii) environmental factors are not sentient and therefore cannot account for the occurences of apparant forsight in the design of an organism. Such as the blood vessel arrangement in penguin legs / feet.

iii) environmental factors have a limit to the change they can produce, this is empirically observed with breeding programs with domesticated animals. For example I cannot breed a pig as big as a house. There are factors within the characteristics that limit its overexpression, for example increasing the body mass of a pig would cause detriment to its leg and bone structure and make mating very hard, the increased body mass will increase the body temperature of the pig and decrease the survival of its unborn babies.

5. Thanks for admitting that... However you have now just admitted that these tests have no relevance whatsoever. If the program cannot utilise the same parameters as what evolution does, then it is not a demonstration of evolution.. Simple. Its the same as artificial flavourings, if it doesn't taste like apple then you wouldn't call it apple flavouring. Or how about phenotypic classification.

You've basically given evidence for my point three and point 6, and have admitted that there are no justification for the assumptions being made.

6. Firstly as I have said that is based on the assumption made in point 3

7. "3. Which therefore leads to point two, since you are assuming that the programer inherently knows what the correct parameters are... Therefore you have inadvertently admitted that using genetic algorithims is unjustified since the programmers program what occurs, rather than leaving it fully up to natural processes."

Umm... If you have studied science then you will know that what parameters are being used and whether they are justified is absolutely crucial to the validity of an experiment... I honestly cannot stress this enough, if you have no justification then you have no validity.. Hence I'll regard this comment as failure to understand how science is validated and justified.
You cannot merely claim that its not important.


Additionally the genetic algorithm is not an experiment since it is not testing something, it is a potential model, however as said in point 3 and 6 each program used is an unjustified model.

8. Yes I doubt the conclusion too, that is my point!!! You've recognised that my analogy model was unjustified for the exactly same reasons why I am claiming the genetic algorithm program model is also unjustified. Yet you cannot recognise this for the genetic algorithm model??? Perhaps someone has a personal bias?

9. Great, now care to demonstrate actual environmental factors that can lead to the progression of lungs in fish, (or some other arbitrary adaption).

10. No problem, just pre-emptively destroying red herrings.

11. It was, however the definition of evolution we use is the same as the evolutionist is undesigned evolution. As I said, if you wish to discuss designed evolution make an appropriate thread.

12. Pray tell what this other mechanism is.... You do realise that your response here is like, 'well it must have evolved somehow, because evolution did it'... Now where is the scientific objectivity in that claim? There is none, you've basically assumed that evolution is the cause without justification, in otherwords you "know" the result and now you're trying to make the evidence fit that by stating that it evolved (without any knowledge as to how it could have).

13. That was what I said, its an inter-dependant system which requires all its parts at once. If there is only one part its useless meaning that it won't be selected for nor fixated into the population... meaning that it cannot have evolved in small steps, it literally needs to have come about in one go.

14. Now that is based on the assumption that the advantageous mutations occur with no detrimental ones at all ever, perhaps you can try justifying this claim too.

15. ......... I hope you see how wrong this statement is.... Don't worry my evo-lecturers said it too, however its debunked by common sense.. If evolution didn't occur to individuals and only to populations then that is claiming that the mutations being made are exactly the same for each individual within the population as a whole, yet the naturalist claims that mutations are claimed to be random so there is no chance of this occuring ever... The reality is that evolution first starts with an individual and progressess from there... however the problem here is that with only one individual this means that
i) fixation will take a LONG time
ii) genetic drift can eliminate it over time anyway

These problems force the evolutionist to use the moronic claim that evolution only occurs to populations.

16. Again you have failed to comprehend my point.

You admit that glycolysis must be supported by other processes in order to function... this is an inter-dependant system, (as I have said over and over and over)

Therefore you're trying to solve the inter-dependant problem of one system with another inter-dependant system... so in effect you have explained nothing, since as I have said multiple times that anaerobic respiration is another inter-dependant system and I can merely ask you where did you get the anaerobic system from, or where did you get the supporting systems for glycolysis.

I strongly suggest you re-read ALL of my posts and meditate on them since it seems that I am forced to keep on repeating myself since you do not understand what I am saying.

Actually I'll make it simple. Not worrying about all the other functions required, like replication and transport etc, if all you had was glycolysis then the cell will die... due to the build up of pyruvate (as well as not being able to function because NAD needs to be replenished via the electron transport cycle- see my first post!). Now if you add in the electrn transport chain and waste disposal then that becomes an inter-dependant system which is what my entire point is about. This system, aerobic or anaerobic it doesn't matter which, defies evolution as per what Darwin wrote, (which I mentioned right at the start).

Additionally you would also need to account for the myriad of other functions that a "bare-bones" cell would require... this compounds the problem many many many times.


17. I have already given said over and over why.... Because evolutionists claim that evolution occurs via small changes over time. Now when there is an interdependant system it requires multiple parts in order to function at all (or to function without killing the cell), now such a thing cannot have come about via small changes since there is no selection gradient to select for the changes since the function doesn't work until all the changes are in place, therefore under the tenets of how selection works (as defined by evolutionists) a system requiring multiple parts defies evolution. This was why Darwin said it would debunk his "theory", at least he had the intellectual honesty to admit that.

18. I have already addressed this over and over. Being irreducibly complex means being dependant on multiple parts / functions, it doesn't matter which parts / functions, if multiple parts / functions are involved then it is irreducibly complex by definition.

Also....
"the aerobic cell normally operates with the 24-26 ATP from the full cellular respiration, glycolysis only creates a net of 2 ATP... Now here is the kicker. In order for glycolysis to occur you need to have 2 ATP to start the process, 4 ATP will be created, leading to a net creation of 2, as stated before. Now tell me where did this initial ATP come from in order to "kick start" glycolysis?"
Me, post#52

Additionally you've totally skipped over the electron transport chain and how it replenishes NAD for glycolysis. As I said right at the start NAD is required for glycolysis to work at all therefore the electron transport chain is indeed required, (the only step that can be taken out is the citric acid cycle, however that must be accounted for with a way to dispose of the waste pyruvate).

Michael Behe's Original Definition:
A
single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)

William Dembski's Enhanced Definition:
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the
irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected
mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

http://www.iscid.org...ible_Complexity



19. Read all my posts 10 times over, also read the point above 20 times over especially the bolded part. Since you are asking questions to which the answers have already been provided....

20. They are required for life because they are required, you cannot say that they are not required. If they didn't occur in the same locality of time and space then how can they be intergrated into a cell? (proteins don't last forever, they get broken down hence locallity is a huge issue).

WHAT IS NEEDED FOR LIFE ON EARTH


Information, Energy, and Catalysis
  • Information

    Living systems share many characteristics. One of the most basic is the need to store and use genetic information, the instructions that direct life processes.
    Within living systems, genetic information guides the production of proteins, which are the specialized machines that make organisms work. Living systems also must copy their genetic information and pass a complete set on to their offspring. This process is called replication.
  • Energy

    Living systems need energy to interpret and replicate their genetic information. Outside a living system, the energy requirements for completing biochemical reactions are very high. Living systems get a break, however. They rely on biological catalysts, such as enzymes, to lower energy requirements and carry out reactions quickly and accurately.
    Why can living systems use catalysts to carry out biological reactions? One reason is that living systems are self-contained, with a wall separating "inside" from "outside." On the inside, a living system can generate and maintain optimal conditions for biochemical reactions. On the outside, those conditions are difficult to achieve.
  • Catalysis

    Inside a living system, biological catalysts reduce the energy needed for a reaction. Catalysts can bring reactants close together or align them correctly to help the reaction take place.
    The best-known catalysts are enzyme proteins, which are the workhorses of cells. Each enzyme plays a specialized role in the workings of a living system. We now know the identities of many enzymes that catalyze important biochemical reactions. In many cases, we also know which genes encode these enzymes.
    How do catalysts work?
    Try your hand at uncatalyzed and catalyzed reactions:


http://learn.genetic...rna/needed.html


However these three require many different proteins, RNA polymerase, ribosome, helicase etc for information, and many other supplimentary functions, such as transport to get the nutrients / RNA / enzymes / proteins to where they are needed. Therefore this list can be expanded, however even with these three it demonstrates irreducible complexity.


21. Your claim here is based on your premature exclamation of victory. I am not wrong about irreducible complexity, (go read my posts), it is no consequence of mine that you do not comprehend my posts and relegate me to repeating myself.

22. Yet how does chemicals "use" heat from the sun? (You need photosynthesis, but that is another irreducibly complex system)

23. I asked you this in response to your claim

" The proteins don't create energy, they just move it."

The proteins "create" ATP which is a form of energy usable to a cell. Heat energy by itself is not usable, in fact it is destructive... Perhaps you can test this by putting your hand in boiling water and see if the cells absorb and utilise the heat energy there?..




You're not doing yourself any favours by continuing to ask questions where the answer has already been stated.

#68 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 October 2012 - 03:38 PM

It was a comparison. You refusing to speak to PHD biologists about "how complex logic develops" in a cell and then claiming that PHD biochemists don't know anything about it...is similar to...me refusing to speak to Christians about the complex logice behind the sacrifice of Jesus and then claiming that Christians don't know anything about it.


[sarcasm]Now I understand...you believe that cells are sentient and can interpret information. Those stupid biochemists just think that those chemical reactions that occur in the cell (to transfer energy, repair damage...etc) are...um... what do they call it?.... oh yeah....chemical reactions. Strange that people who have, at a minimum, studied the internals of cellular chemistry, initiated and completed their own original research (they are PHD's after all), and probably teach post graduate classes in the subject, doesn't know that cells are sentient beings. You, of course, do know they are sentient because..... [/sarcasm]

Please explain what you mean by "complex logic" in a cell.


"... and then claiming that PHD biochemists don't know anything about it."

They know about function and can describe it in great detail. What they don't know about is how these complex chemical reations originated and they cannot force it to happen...a.b.c.d.e.f.g. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7... they cannot begin with 'a.' The parts have to begin functioning or they can't begin at all.

Now why is it that you are having such a hard time grasping that, Mr. skeptic?

#69 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:53 PM

Interesting. Posts which ask questions the management can't answer seem to be removd from the thread. Way to go, you supporters of civil discourse!

#70 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:45 PM

Interesting. Posts which ask questions the management can't answer seem to be removd from the thread. Way to go, you supporters of civil discourse!


Interesting that you assume your questions cannot be answered. What post would that be? Are you sure it isn't just on a different page or thread? Your original post is still on page 1.

#71 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:32 PM

Interesting that you assume your questions cannot be answered. What post would that be? Are you sure it isn't just on a different page or thread? Your original post is still on page 1.


Right. But let's make it easy for him. Let him handle my simple proposition above and demonstrate that biological organisms can be empirically viewed from scratch...to maturity. That would certainly end the creation/evolution debate would it not?
  • JayShel likes this

#72 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 October 2012 - 01:48 PM

Right. But let's make it easy for him. Let him handle my simple proposition above and demonstrate that biological organisms can be empirically viewed from scratch...to maturity. That would certainly end the creation/evolution debate would it not?


Proving evolution would still not disprove creationism as a whole, it would just rule out the idea of God creating all biodiversity in six days. There would still be the abiogenesis vs creationism debate. but essentially yes, he could start by providing some evidence for his claims. As it stands he appears to be testing the waters here to see what he can get away with.

#73 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 October 2012 - 03:38 PM

Two things. Jonas, my post http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=85962 seems to have gotten buried in the heap, so I was wondering if you are still planning on responding to this. If you are, take your time. If not, no sweat, I will assume you got my point.

I would also like to post a video representation of the complex biochemical processes going on in our cells all the time.



Enjoy.

#74 Richw9090

Richw9090

    BANNED

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Tucson

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:00 PM

Calypsis says: Let him handle my simple proposition above and demonstrate that biological organisms can be empirically viewed from scratch...to maturity

What prposition would that be? If you'd like to start a discussion with me, you'll need to state your premise clearly - I'm certainly not going to rred back through all those kengthy posts to try to find where you proposed something.

Rich

#75 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:45 PM

Calypsis says: Let him handle my simple proposition above and demonstrate that biological organisms can be empirically viewed from scratch...to maturity

What prposition would that be? If you'd like to start a discussion with me, you'll need to state your premise clearly - I'm certainly not going to rred back through all those kengthy posts to try to find where you proposed something.

Rich


He was referring to this post http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=86034 which was two posts above the one you quoted just now, directly above the first post you wrote on this page. It wasn't exactly buried.

That reminds me, did you ever find that post you thought was deleted? It know you're not too fond of looking for old posts, but that doesn't mean that the admins are out to get you and delete your posts I promise. When I delete posts, I actually keep it hidden for future reference. This is always due to rule infractions, which I would have contacted you about also if it were your post. Help me out here, were you mistaken or are you missing posts? Randomly missing posts would definitely be an issue that should be solved.

#76 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 08 October 2012 - 04:48 PM

1. I suggest you read again.... The first person to point all this out was Tirian in post# 45, what this post states is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. You cannot use a designed system as evidence to claim that an undesigned evolution occured, or as a demonstration of undesigned evolution, as I said before you are comparing apples to oranges.

"Exactly what I was going to say. Admitting that the program is designed doesn't change the fact that it is designed, its merely a case of special pleading."
-Me post 46

"By having a designed selecting system, which is what you are advocating that by definition defies the modern evolutionary concept of "No design" since the system is (as you admitted) designed which cannot be proxy to an "undesigned" selecting system. Essentially you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Its all about justification of claims, if the parameters change - a designed system or an undesigned system, then how can you draw parallels between the two? You can't, its the same as if I tried growing one bacteria on one media and another on another media and trying to compare the results... I can't since the media and bacteria used are totally different so there is no common denominator to compare between the two."
-Me post# 49

"Others have sufficiently addressed this, I think you might agree this is essentially glorified trial&error that required intelligence to cull it. Evolution has no such advantage, as you admitted when you wrote: “Dog breeders do this kind of thing to get a dog of the form and temperment that they want.” This is not evolution, which requires selection to be “natural”."
-Fred post#51

"No you cannot compare a designed system with a "supposedly" undesigned one, as I have said they are totally different things and no amount ot mental gymnastics can change that fact."
-Me, post#52



2. Not true, I not only now stating this. This has been the entire point, as per quotes above, its a bit sad that you've only just realised it now.

3. Therefore such "experiments" are not evidence if evolution occurs or not since it is based on the assumption that evolution occurs, additionally it is based on the assumption that evolution occurs in the manner depicted by the program used... There are no controls that can be made to double-check such things hence with so many unverifiable assumptions how can this be claimed as science?...

4. You've opened a can of worms which you may regret

i) environmental factors are rarely constant for long, meaning that the selection will never be constant enough to allow for fixation of changes made (this is a huge problem many miss since fixation is merely assumed by evolutionists, they totally forget to account for it).

ii) environmental factors are not sentient and therefore cannot account for the occurences of apparant forsight in the design of an organism. Such as the blood vessel arrangement in penguin legs / feet.

iii) environmental factors have a limit to the change they can produce, this is empirically observed with breeding programs with domesticated animals. For example I cannot breed a pig as big as a house. There are factors within the characteristics that limit its overexpression, for example increasing the body mass of a pig would cause detriment to its leg and bone structure and make mating very hard, the increased body mass will increase the body temperature of the pig and decrease the survival of its unborn babies.

5. Thanks for admitting that... However you have now just admitted that these tests have no relevance whatsoever. If the program cannot utilise the same parameters as what evolution does, then it is not a demonstration of evolution.. Simple. Its the same as artificial flavourings, if it doesn't taste like apple then you wouldn't call it apple flavouring. Or how about phenotypic classification.

You've basically given evidence for my point three and point 6, and have admitted that there are no justification for the assumptions being made.

6. Firstly as I have said that is based on the assumption made in point 3

7. "3. Which therefore leads to point two, since you are assuming that the programer inherently knows what the correct parameters are... Therefore you have inadvertently admitted that using genetic algorithims is unjustified since the programmers program what occurs, rather than leaving it fully up to natural processes."

Umm... If you have studied science then you will know that what parameters are being used and whether they are justified is absolutely crucial to the validity of an experiment... I honestly cannot stress this enough, if you have no justification then you have no validity.. Hence I'll regard this comment as failure to understand how science is validated and justified.
You cannot merely claim that its not important.


Additionally the genetic algorithm is not an experiment since it is not testing something, it is a potential model, however as said in point 3 and 6 each program used is an unjustified model.

8. Yes I doubt the conclusion too, that is my point!!! You've recognised that my analogy model was unjustified for the exactly same reasons why I am claiming the genetic algorithm program model is also unjustified. Yet you cannot recognise this for the genetic algorithm model??? Perhaps someone has a personal bias?

9. Great, now care to demonstrate actual environmental factors that can lead to the progression of lungs in fish, (or some other arbitrary adaption).

10. No problem, just pre-emptively destroying red herrings.

11. It was, however the definition of evolution we use is the same as the evolutionist is undesigned evolution. As I said, if you wish to discuss designed evolution make an appropriate thread.

12. Pray tell what this other mechanism is.... You do realise that your response here is like, 'well it must have evolved somehow, because evolution did it'... Now where is the scientific objectivity in that claim? There is none, you've basically assumed that evolution is the cause without justification, in otherwords you "know" the result and now you're trying to make the evidence fit that by stating that it evolved (without any knowledge as to how it could have).

13. That was what I said, its an inter-dependant system which requires all its parts at once. If there is only one part its useless meaning that it won't be selected for nor fixated into the population... meaning that it cannot have evolved in small steps, it literally needs to have come about in one go.

14. Now that is based on the assumption that the advantageous mutations occur with no detrimental ones at all ever, perhaps you can try justifying this claim too.

15. ......... I hope you see how wrong this statement is.... Don't worry my evo-lecturers said it too, however its debunked by common sense.. If evolution didn't occur to individuals and only to populations then that is claiming that the mutations being made are exactly the same for each individual within the population as a whole, yet the naturalist claims that mutations are claimed to be random so there is no chance of this occuring ever... The reality is that evolution first starts with an individual and progressess from there... however the problem here is that with only one individual this means that
i) fixation will take a LONG time
ii) genetic drift can eliminate it over time anyway

These problems force the evolutionist to use the moronic claim that evolution only occurs to populations.

16. Again you have failed to comprehend my point.

You admit that glycolysis must be supported by other processes in order to function... this is an inter-dependant system, (as I have said over and over and over)

Therefore you're trying to solve the inter-dependant problem of one system with another inter-dependant system... so in effect you have explained nothing, since as I have said multiple times that anaerobic respiration is another inter-dependant system and I can merely ask you where did you get the anaerobic system from, or where did you get the supporting systems for glycolysis.

I strongly suggest you re-read ALL of my posts and meditate on them since it seems that I am forced to keep on repeating myself since you do not understand what I am saying.

Actually I'll make it simple. Not worrying about all the other functions required, like replication and transport etc, if all you had was glycolysis then the cell will die... due to the build up of pyruvate (as well as not being able to function because NAD needs to be replenished via the electron transport cycle- see my first post!). Now if you add in the electrn transport chain and waste disposal then that becomes an inter-dependant system which is what my entire point is about. This system, aerobic or anaerobic it doesn't matter which, defies evolution as per what Darwin wrote, (which I mentioned right at the start).

Additionally you would also need to account for the myriad of other functions that a "bare-bones" cell would require... this compounds the problem many many many times.


17. I have already given said over and over why.... Because evolutionists claim that evolution occurs via small changes over time. Now when there is an interdependant system it requires multiple parts in order to function at all (or to function without killing the cell), now such a thing cannot have come about via small changes since there is no selection gradient to select for the changes since the function doesn't work until all the changes are in place, therefore under the tenets of how selection works (as defined by evolutionists) a system requiring multiple parts defies evolution. This was why Darwin said it would debunk his "theory", at least he had the intellectual honesty to admit that.

18. I have already addressed this over and over. Being irreducibly complex means being dependant on multiple parts / functions, it doesn't matter which parts / functions, if multiple parts / functions are involved then it is irreducibly complex by definition.

Also....
"the aerobic cell normally operates with the 24-26 ATP from the full cellular respiration, glycolysis only creates a net of 2 ATP... Now here is the kicker. In order for glycolysis to occur you need to have 2 ATP to start the process, 4 ATP will be created, leading to a net creation of 2, as stated before. Now tell me where did this initial ATP come from in order to "kick start" glycolysis?"
Me, post#52

Additionally you've totally skipped over the electron transport chain and how it replenishes NAD for glycolysis. As I said right at the start NAD is required for glycolysis to work at all therefore the electron transport chain is indeed required, (the only step that can be taken out is the citric acid cycle, however that must be accounted for with a way to dispose of the waste pyruvate).

Michael Behe's Original Definition:
A
single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)

William Dembski's Enhanced Definition:
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the
irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected
mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.

http://www.iscid.org...ible_Complexity



19. Read all my posts 10 times over, also read the point above 20 times over especially the bolded part. Since you are asking questions to which the answers have already been provided....

20. They are required for life because they are required, you cannot say that they are not required. If they didn't occur in the same locality of time and space then how can they be intergrated into a cell? (proteins don't last forever, they get broken down hence locallity is a huge issue).

WHAT IS NEEDED FOR LIFE ON EARTH


Information, Energy, and Catalysis

  • Information

    Living systems share many characteristics. One of the most basic is the need to store and use genetic information, the instructions that direct life processes.
    Within living systems, genetic information guides the production of proteins, which are the specialized machines that make organisms work. Living systems also must copy their genetic information and pass a complete set on to their offspring. This process is called replication.
  • Energy

    Living systems need energy to interpret and replicate their genetic information. Outside a living system, the energy requirements for completing biochemical reactions are very high. Living systems get a break, however. They rely on biological catalysts, such as enzymes, to lower energy requirements and carry out reactions quickly and accurately.
    Why can living systems use catalysts to carry out biological reactions? One reason is that living systems are self-contained, with a wall separating "inside" from "outside." On the inside, a living system can generate and maintain optimal conditions for biochemical reactions. On the outside, those conditions are difficult to achieve.
  • Catalysis

    Inside a living system, biological catalysts reduce the energy needed for a reaction. Catalysts can bring reactants close together or align them correctly to help the reaction take place.
    The best-known catalysts are enzyme proteins, which are the workhorses of cells. Each enzyme plays a specialized role in the workings of a living system. We now know the identities of many enzymes that catalyze important biochemical reactions. In many cases, we also know which genes encode these enzymes.
    How do catalysts work?
    Try your hand at uncatalyzed and catalyzed reactions:


http://learn.genetic...rna/needed.html


However these three require many different proteins, RNA polymerase, ribosome, helicase etc for information, and many other supplimentary functions, such as transport to get the nutrients / RNA / enzymes / proteins to where they are needed. Therefore this list can be expanded, however even with these three it demonstrates irreducible complexity.


21. Your claim here is based on your premature exclamation of victory. I am not wrong about irreducible complexity, (go read my posts), it is no consequence of mine that you do not comprehend my posts and relegate me to repeating myself.

22. Yet how does chemicals "use" heat from the sun? (You need photosynthesis, but that is another irreducibly complex system)

23. I asked you this in response to your claim

" The proteins don't create energy, they just move it."

The proteins "create" ATP which is a form of energy usable to a cell. Heat energy by itself is not usable, in fact it is destructive... Perhaps you can test this by putting your hand in boiling water and see if the cells absorb and utilise the heat energy there?..




You're not doing yourself any favours by continuing to ask questions where the answer has already been stated.


You have made a concerted effort to read my posts and then completely misunderstand what I have to say and then repeat what you said before while characterizing me as some kind of idiot. This is getting out of hand because our posts get longer and longer without any indication of either one of us addressing what the other is trying to say. Wasting bandwidth is all we are accomplishing.
So, you and, apparently, Dr. Michael Behe say that irreducibly complex systems exist in that the system could not have evolved. You say that interdependent systems are all irreducibly complex (at least that is what I think you are saying).

What specific biochemical barriers prevent an interdependent system like anaerobic cellular respiration from evolving into a different interdependent system like aerobic cellular respiration?

I get the impression that you believe evolution above the creation of the cell does not occur either. In this, you differ from Dr. Behe, as he is a believer in evolution of multicellular organisms.

ATP is not energy, it is a chemical compound used by cells to transfer energy through the changing of chemical bonds. See http://en.wikipedia....ne_triphosphate

#77 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 08 October 2012 - 05:05 PM

"... and then claiming that PHD biochemists don't know anything about it."

They know about function and can describe it in great detail. What they don't know about is how these complex chemical reations originated and they cannot force it to happen...a.b.c.d.e.f.g. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7... they cannot begin with 'a.' The parts have to begin functioning or they can't begin at all.

Now why is it that you are having such a hard time grasping that, Mr. skeptic?

I understand what you are saying. Basically, you believe that PHD biochemists don't have a clue how cells developed the complex interdependent functions in an evolutionary fashion. Additionally, you say that the interdependent functions have to all start up at once.

You, of course, are the one person here who actually contacted some PHD biochemists to determine that they are the clueless morons that you claim them to be.

You might take a look at these articles and maybe the references in the bibliographies before you dismiss the entire field of research performed by PHD biochemists.

http://en.wikipedia....lution_of_cells
http://sacral.c.u-to.../duraidECAL.pdf
http://www.metabolis...-metabolism.pdf

#78 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 08 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

Two things. Jonas, my post http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=85962 seems to have gotten buried in the heap, so I was wondering if you are still planning on responding to this. If you are, take your time. If not, no sweat, I will assume you got my point.

I would also like to post a video representation of the complex biochemical processes going on in our cells all the time.

Enjoy.


I had not responded to your post because I simply missed it. The problem of chirality has not been a subject of any research of mine. So, I can't speak to it right now, but I will look into it.

The video was interesting but didn't really make a case one way or the other regarding evolution of cellular chemical processes.

#79 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 08 October 2012 - 06:03 PM

I had not responded to your post because I simply missed it. The problem of chirality has not been a subject of any research of mine. So, I can't speak to it right now, but I will look into it.

The video was interesting but didn't really make a case one way or the other regarding evolution of cellular chemical processes.


Chirality was one of the points made, but not the only one.

The video was not really intended to support any case, I just like how it is presented and figured I would share with the forum in the same vein as biochemistry. It is amazingly complex.

#80 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 October 2012 - 12:21 AM

1. You have made a concerted effort to read my posts and then completely misunderstand what I have to say and then repeat what you said before while characterizing me as some kind of idiot.

2. This is getting out of hand because our posts get longer and longer without any indication of either one of us addressing what the other is trying to say. Wasting bandwidth is all we are accomplishing.
So, you and, apparently, Dr. Michael Behe say that irreducibly complex systems exist in that the system could not have evolved. You say that interdependent systems are all irreducibly complex (at least that is what I think you are saying).

3. What specific biochemical barriers prevent an interdependent system like anaerobic cellular respiration from evolving into a different interdependent system like aerobic cellular respiration?

4. I get the impression that you believe evolution above the creation of the cell does not occur either. In this, you differ from Dr. Behe, as he is a believer in evolution of multicellular organisms.

5. ATP is not energy, it is a chemical compound used by cells to transfer energy through the changing of chemical bonds. See http://en.wikipedia....ne_triphosphate


1. Really? I thought I had made a concerted effort to show you where you were wrong... Or perhaps not allowing myself into the evolutionary-imagination-land means I am liable to misunderstand. Perhaps you can post specific instances where I have done such things, just for posterity's sake please.

However considering the amount of times I have had to correct you on issues and ask you to read my post again, I think the shoe is on the other foot (actually it is since via my posts I have demonstrated as such).

2. Yes I agree, and astute readers can see who has been making points and who refuses to accept them.

3. You would already know this, however I guess I can re-iterate. The biochemical barrier is in fact death, since if the function is required for life (which cellular respiration as well as others are), then there simply is no time for the organism to "evolve" with small changes over "millions of years" since it is required right there and then or the cell dies, (of course if the cell dies there is no selection). I have directly made this point a few times though it is the logical conclusion of pretty much every point I have made.

The same can be said for DNA replication / cellular replication / protein creation / repair.... Its these little details evolutionists convieniently "forget".

Another is that glycolysis requires 2 ATP to start, hence from where did these initial ATP come from?

The only recourse for an evolutionist is to imagine that there was a precursor system for respiration, yet there is no evidence of such.. Its pure fantasy.

4. Great. He is entitled to his own opinions as am I, it really doesn't matter if we differ on some things or not. I have different opinions to many of my lecturers but I don't make a point of stating that.

5. ATP like all molecules contains chemical energy... actually in fact all molecules are made up of protons and electrons meaning that all of matter is essentially energy.. Therefore ATP is energy however that is not the point. My point was that ATP is energy that the cell can actually use. Yes as I mentioned sunlight can be utilised by a cell, (to create glucose which in turn creates ATP anyway), however this requires a different system, there are some bacteria that live off of minerals / hydrocarbons so they require another system. My point here is that there is no method a cell can utilise energy without having a system in place beforehand, (yet to create / evolve such a system energy would be required leading to a chicken and the egg dilemma). You're claim of simple heat energy falls flat on its face in the fact that such energy (when not directed properly by a cellular system) is destructive... Actually this is the reason why cellular respiration is such a convoluted process since the amount of heat energy glucose itself would produce would burn the cell up, hence why bite sized ATP are used.






In response to your post# 77 (to Calypsis)

"You, of course, are the one person here who actually contacted some PHD biochemists to determine that they are the clueless morons that you claim them to be."



I think you've once again not understood my posts... Check out this quote from my post# 38

"3. She is a Biochemist, only Phd's can get jobs at universities, (and there are many people with Phds so only the best are chosen).

4. Um yeah I did.... My lecturer......"


Therefore your post# 77 is in fact false.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users