The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

The simplest 'eye' requires neither a brain, a nervous system or an actual eye .

http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Eyespot

From that article:

"Whether eyespots are related to the development of higher-level eyes is currently an open question. A number of evolutionary scenarios suppose that once one gets light-sensitive cells, the further development of complex eyes is a fairly smooth transition."

Well obviously, isn't that what we are debating here? We already know what an evolutionary sceanrio would say in this regard. We just don't buy it. Yet!

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

From that article:

"Whether eyespots are related to the development of higher-level eyes is currently an open question. A number of evolutionary scenarios suppose that once one gets light-sensitive cells, the further development of complex eyes is a fairly smooth transition."

Well obviously, isn't that what we are debating here? We already know what an evolutionary sceanrio would say in this regard. We just don't buy it. Yet!

You're misunderstanding. This thread is full of people saying evolution impossible but that article is pointing out that the connection between the two hasn't been proven. To disprove irreducible complexity I don't have to show that every single step along the way actually happened, all I have to do is show that it could have happened. If an eye could have evolved from a simpler one, its complexity is not irreducible. If the eyespot is not actually a precursor to an eye, that does mean that there cannot possibly be any precursor to an eye.

Random mutations means its possible and natural selection means it's very very likely

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Really it's genetic mutation that you don't understand because you don't see how it can produce a nerve ending where there wasn't one before, you see mutation as a bad thing because it mostly produces what we call mutants, ie bad things.

But I'm sure you've seen things like people with 6 fingers or webbed hands. Neither of the parents had these oddities but the child has them because a mutation occurred. Having a 6th finger isn't particularly beneficial but what if this mutation happened in an animal that doesn't have opposable thumbs? Suddenly he'd be able to pick things up and beat his opponents to death and he'd get all the mates. And after a few years he'll have had sex with the whole population and this opposable thumb mutation will take over.

Or what if the webbed fingers mutation happened in an animal that lived near the shore? Suddenly it'd be able to swim better, eat more food, get more energy and have more sex

So the actual production of the thumb or the webbed fingers isn't deliberate, it's a mutation the same way having 6 fingers is a mutation but if this mutation happens to be beneficial it gets passed on.

And that's evolution in a nutshell

Yes but on both hands? If these appendages came about by genetic mutation then how do you explain an event like that occurring at the exact same spot on the other hands/feet/legs etc?? Even if mutations did produce a positive effect - which in itself would be an extremely rare thing - but even granting that, what are the chances of it happening on the exact same spot on the other side of the body on the other appendages?

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're misunderstanding. This thread is full of people saying evolution impossible but that article is pointing out that the connection between the two hasn't been proven. To disprove irreducible complexity I don't have to show that every single step along the way actually happened, all I have to do is show that it could have happened. If an eye could have evolved from a simpler one, its complexity is not irreducible. If the eyespot is not actually a precursor to an eye, that does mean that there cannot possibly be any precursor to an eye.

Random mutations means its possible and natural selection means it's very very likely

But I’m not arguing the case for irreducible complexity, that’s a debate between you and J C. I’m just asking questions that puzzle me about evolution in general.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I’m not arguing the case for irreducible complexity, that’s a debate between you and J C. I’m just asking questions that puzzle me about evolution in general.

Just to be clear, your problem is how does an organism without a light sensitive nerve "know" that one would be beneficial. Simple answer, it doesn't. Random mutations just keep trying and trying and trying until they find something that works.

As you can see in this post:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61359672&postcount=16391

Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with less than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.[2]

It's not the most efficient process but out of hundreds of millions of random mutations, 10 to 20 will happen to be beneficial. This seems unlikely to produce complexity but as I explained through the probability experiment, as long as the changes are beneficial, natural selection dramatically increases the likelihood. beneficial changes are the equivalent of the "correct answer" in the experiment

The only argument that can be used against this logic is the idea of irreducible complexity but I think you'll agree we've thoroughly debunked it in the past few pages

MatthewVII

Soul Winner wrote: »

Even if mutations did produce a positive effect - which in itself would be an extremely rare thing - but even granting that, what are the chances of it happening on the exact same spot on the other side of the body on the other appendages?

Effect of mutations can rarely be seen as absolutely positive or negative, it all has to be taken in the context of the environment. EG the cystic fibrosis mutation is hard to see as desirable, but it survived in the populace because it gave a resistance to cholera which was rampant back in the day. Similar story with sickle cell anaemia giving resistance to malaria. It's not a case of good or bad, it's a case of being useful at that time.

As for your 'same spot, same side' question, most mutations happen at gametogenesis, which means the zygote has the mutation, which means every cell in the body has that same mutation. If the gene mutation is only expressed in the limbs, then all the limbs will express it. I don't see where your confusion lies. mosaic mutations (occuring during mitosis of a developing bundle of cells and hence being sparsely expressed) are much less common and tend to have very little overall effect, hence people with mosaic Down's Syndrome tend to have very mild clinical manifestations.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but on both hands? If these appendages came about by genetic mutation then how do you explain an event like that occurring at the exact same spot on the other hands/feet/legs etc?? Even if mutations did produce a positive effect - which in itself would be an extremely rare thing - but even granting that, what are the chances of it happening on the exact same spot on the other side of the body on the other appendages?

Bilateral symmetry was selected early in the history of life. A mutation that affects one hand will more than likely affect the other.

An example of a paper investigating the evolution of such symmetry.

Here is a good website introducing the important concepts of evolution

(Be warned, the search engine is glitchy)

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but on both hands? If these appendages came about by genetic mutation then how do you explain an event like that occurring at the exact same spot on the other hands/feet/legs etc??

Relatively easily, the genetic code that builds one hand is the same code that builds other other hand. A mutation in that code that produces an extra finger can cause an extra finger on both hands.

Sam Vimes

So have we converted you then Soul Winner? See you at the next Atheist Ireland meeting? :pac:

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

From that article:

"Whether eyespots are related to the development of higher-level eyes is currently an open question. A number of evolutionary scenarios suppose that once one gets light-sensitive cells, the further development of complex eyes is a fairly smooth transition."

Well obviously, isn't that what we are debating here? We already know what an evolutionary sceanrio would say in this regard. We just don't buy it. Yet!

The aim was to show you an organism that doesn't know anything at all and still has an advantage as a result of the ability to 'see' light. Like complex eyes, Eyespots have evolved independently multiple times so clearly they are a useful innovation.

But in any case light sensitive pigments, ultimately followed by dedicated cells would be a fundamental step in eye development.

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So have we converted you then Soul Winner? See you at the next Atheist Ireland meeting? :pac:

Well no not just yet, but the answers to my question were adequate hence the thanks In any case it doesn't matter to me whether evolution is true or not. I've explained on this thread before, it doesn't contradict a proper rendering of the Bible. It just contradicts what some think the Bible is saying. The Bible gives no indication as to how old the earth is. It doesn't say that Adam was the only type of manlike creature that God created . It is a record of Adam's race not of man like creatures in general. It is pretty clear from cosmology and geology that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years but then the Bible never said it was only 6000 years old. That was an inference may by Bishop Usher as result of calculating back the genealogies from Jesus to Adam. He was wrong. Shouldn't have done it. Caused more confusion than anything. Anyway like I said, evolution even if true - and there is a lot of evidence for it - does nothing to a proper rendering of the sacred text. Even the early Church fathers conceded that long before there was an evolution versus creation debate. If you want to convert me to atheism then you must show me conclusively from the evidence available that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I am convinced He did just be logical deduction alone, so evolution can be true all it wants, my faith is not based on it being false. My faith is based on a very strong inner working on my heart for the things of God that I know I had no hand in. Being further convinced by a study of the resurrection just solidifies that already held inner conviction.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've explained on this thread before, it doesn't contradict a proper rendering of the Bible. It just contradicts what some think the Bible is saying.

The bible does say that man is made in God's image and evolution says we evolved through a series of random genetic mutations directed by natural selection and therefore could have ended up looking and thinking completely different. Do you think that God guided evolution? Because then it wouldn't be evolution, it'd be back to intelligent design.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you want to convert me to atheism then you must show me conclusively from the evidence available that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

I wonder, do you apply this "true until conclusively proven otherwise" to everything in your life or just your religious beliefs?

Soul Winner wrote: »

I am convinced He did just be logical deduction alone, so evolution can be true all it wants, my faith is not based on it being false.

Logical deduction:

1. People have commonly been known to lie
2. People have commonly been known to be deluded or coerced
3. People have commonly been known to mistake what they are seeing
4. People have commonly known to believe things just because they want to (such as your "true until proven otherwise"). People will say they saw Jesus and even convince themselves they did if they desperately want it to be true. Had you been born to muslim parents you would almost certainly believe in Allah with the same fervour
5. People have been known to want to spread what they think is a better ideology through any means necessary, even if it means telling a few lies for the greater good
6. There is evidence in the bible that the apostles were trying to make it look like Jesus fit the Messianic prophecies because he fits them all in every gospel but he is made to fit them in different ways.
7. History is littered with stories of this type with just as much supporting evidence and you don't believe any of them
8. To go very simple, Jesus could have had a twin or a lookalike
9. But, and it's a very important but, people have not been known to raise from the dead or to perform any supernatural feat. Ever.

I don't see how logic can bring you to that conclusion tbh. Seems to me it's wanting to believe it that brings you to that conclusion

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

JC, this diagram shows the major stages of the evolution of the eye

1. Each stage can be produced from the last through genetic mutations
2. Each stage is less complex than the next
3. Most importantly, each stage shows a functioning eye
4. Each stage has benefits over the last so they can be chosen by natural selection

Therefore the eye is not irreducibly complex

...these diagrams show how an Evoutionist has imagined the putative intermediate stages in the evolution of the mammamian eye to be.

There is no evidence that such eyes are ACTUALLY intermediate stages to anything ...
... except in the mind of some Evolutionist who desperately wants Evolution to be true ... in order to continue to deny God's claims on him/her!!!!

...like I have already said, you are confusing irreducible complexity with degree of complexity...

....relatively simple things, like a functional scissors, are irreducibly complex ... and highly complex things like a functional jet engine are equally irreducibly complex ... and ditto with eyes of different complexities!!!!:D

...the problem that Materialists face, is that there are overwhelming (i.e. impossible) odds against spontaneously producing each specific biomolecule required for functionality (i.e. viability) along ANY 'yellow brick road' that supposedly existed between each organism that supposedly existed between Microbes and Men!!!!
...and biomolecules, like protein chains, are all distinct molecules that have very different sequences of Amino Acids - and the 'wrong' AA in a critical sequence, renders the protein completely USELESS ... thereby depriving NS of any means of selecting between equally useless proteins with intermediate sequences, some of whom may be closer to the functional protein sequence than others.
Because all sequences, other than the critical sequence, are non-functional NS cannot help in selecting ever-closer sequences to the critical one, (as you have suggested) because they are ALL equally non-functional!!!!:D
[/

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now, just to show how the above diagram directly contradicts your claim of irreducible complexity:



The diagram shows six separates stages of eye development. Each new step provides a new capability but the only thing that is absolutely necessary for something to be called an eye is the photoreceptive cells, everything else just improves efficiency, such as how the lens allows focussing of light but a pinhole can still allow limited imaging and directional sensitivity.

And because each step improves efficiency, because at each step the eye functions better than it did before (but not as well as our current eye) "the 'keypad' KNOWS which are the correct answers at all points along the sequence" and "there IS INDICATION that part of a critical sequence has been assembled".

...in living organisms 'the keypad' DOESN'T know what the 'correct' answer is at all points along a critical sequence...it is only when the entire sequence is present that the protein becomes functional and capable of selection by NS. Up until then NS is completely 'blind' to any putative developing protein sequence!!!!

For example if the following is a critical sequence:-

azertyuiopqsdfghjklw

ALL intemediate sequences will be completely NON-FUNCTIONAL and therefore there will be no indication that any 'progress' has been made towards the functional sequence, with the following sequence, for example :-
azertyuiopqsdfghjklf...even though every AA is in place for functionality, except the last one.

...NS is therefore totally powerless to help in producing the 'correct' functional sequence and thus the probabilty of producing the required specfic protein is the full binomial expansion of 1/20x1/20x1/20.....and it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for undirected systems to do so!!!!:D

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

Before the first eye started to develop in the first organism, did that organism know what it wanted to gain by developing the eye? i.e. to be able to see? If the knowledge of what it means to be able to see was non existent before the actually seeing ability was attained by the first organism then why did that organism even begin to develop eyes in the first place if it didn’t know then what the advantages of seeing would have been?

We know in most animals that there is a nerve(s) which connects the eye to the brain, so which came first? The brain? The nerve? Or the eye? Obviously not the eye so it must have been either the brain or the nerve. If it was the brain then like above, how did it know what it wanted to attain before it attained it? Why did it project a nerve ending outward to where it could become sensitive to the sunlight and thus develop into an eye?

If it was the nerve or the nerve ending that came first then how did it know what it wanted to attain before it knew what it meant to be able to see and all this before it was even attached to a brain or the surface of the skin?

Or did the nerve grow from the surface of the skin into the brain to let the brain know what it was missing from the outside? If so then how did it know what it wanted to attain before it attained it? Or was the attainment of the ability to see the result of a chance happening?

...the whole of the Biosphere is FULL of such 'chicken and egg' situations for which Evolutionists have NO EXPLANATION.

Only an omnipotent and omniscient Intelligence has the capacity to overcome such logical difficulties because such an Inteligence would possess the Overview and Intelligent Design necessary to produce functional biomolecular systems!!!!

Evolutionists are like a primitive tribe who come face to face with a supersonic jet, for the first time ... and conclude that it was a spontaneous product of nature and time ... with a few whacks of a mutational sledge-hammer thrown in along the line, for good measure!!!!!:pac::):D

andrew

This is probably what happened with the eye

MatthewVII

J C wrote: »

and biomolecules, like protein chains, are all distinct molecules that have very different sequences of Amino Acids - and the 'wrong' AA in a critical sequence, renders the protein completely USELESS

You're actally incorrect here J_C, many protein molecules with a small amount of incorrect AA sequences still have functionality, usually just at a reduced level than the perfect protein. Bizarrely enough, evolution completely and elegantly explains why most organisms today have mostly high-functioning protein sequences encoded in their DNA by multifold mutations in their sequences over millenia. The better-fitting amino acids caused the production of better functioning product and gave the species an advantage. these superior proteins were passed to their offspring who had further random mutations, some of which were worse and fared poorly, and some of which were better and fared well, and so genetic code and product were honed over time.

If you have a hard time getting around this concept, just study up on some of the genetic diseases affecting humans. Different gene mutations causing things like CF (an easy one to study) have a vastly differing clinical phenotype depending on how reduced the cell's ability to transport chloride is. Although all of them have an imperfect sequence, many of them continue to conduct chloride, merely at a reduced capability, unlike the "one mistake makes it completely useless" theory you represent.

Also, the rest of your argument about the failure of evolution to explain complexity uses such words as "chance" and "spontaneous". Why argue on a topic you clearly don't understand? Chance has nothing to do with it, by the very competitive nature of breeding, evolution is bound to happen.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...these diagrams show how an Evoutionist has imagined the putative intermediate stages in the evolution of the mammamian eye to be.

There is no evidence that such eyes are ACTUALLY intermediate stages to anything ...
... except in the mind of some Evolutionist who desperately wants Evolution to be true ... in order to continue to deny God's claims on him/her!!!!

Your claim is that the complexity is impossible to reduce. Evolutionists don't have to prove it happened exactly like that to prove you wrong, just that it's not impossible
. Besides which, there's a mountain of evidence. Just because you choose not to look at it doesn't mean it's not there

J C wrote: »

...like I have already said, you are confusing irreducible complexity with degree of complexity...

....relatively simple things, like a functional scissors, are irreducibly complex ... and highly complex things like a functional jet engine are equally irreducibly complex ... and ditto with eyes of different complexities!!!!:D

A scissors is not alive

J C wrote: »

...the problem that Materialists face, is that there are overwhelming (i.e. impossible) odds against spontaneously producing each specific biomolecule required for functionality (i.e. viability) along ANY 'yellow brick road' that supposedly existed between each organism that supposedly existed between Microbes and Men!!!!
...and biomolecules, like protein chains, are all distinct molecules that have very different sequences of Amino Acids - and the 'wrong' AA in a critical sequence, renders the protein completely USELESS ... thereby depriving NS of any means of selecting between equally useless proteins with intermediate sequences, some of whom may be closer to the functional protein sequence than others.
Because all sequences, other than the critical sequence, are non-functional NS cannot help in selecting ever-closer sequences to the critical one, (as you have suggested) because they are ALL equally non-functional!!!!:D
[/

I really like your arguing technique

1. Make a ridiculous point
2. Provide nothing to support your point except smilies
3. Wait for rebuttal
4. Ignore the rebuttal
5. Make the same ridiculous point
6. Repeat

It's a good way to lead to a 1098 page thread

Zombrex

MatthewVII wrote: »

You're actally incorrect here J_C

Shocking :eek:

kiffer

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A scissors is not alive

I'm not so sure a pair of scissors counts as irreducibly complex even as a nonliving simple machine...
A scissors is made up of several parts ... which serve a useful function when removed from the scissors...

remove the axle linking them at their fulcrum you have two knives... which will cut things and are useful... take away the sharp edges but keep the axle and you still have a functional machine... a pliers...

take away the axle, and the sharp edges and you have two skewers which you could use to hold meat over a fire... take away the pointy end as well and you have a rod that you could use to stir up a mix of stuff in a bowl...

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I thought natural selection eliminates giraffes in deserts over time? Selection pressure that is supposed to have enabled macroevolution led to long necks, but the animal could have survived as a species without that evolution - is that what you are saying? If not, then would you care to give an example where NS does work?
If the giraffe hadn't developed a long neck to allow it to reach trees that other animals couldn't, they would have had to develop some other trait that allowed them to survive. Natural selection doesn't always work, that's why animals go extinct.

I'm sorry, I still don't see how that proves your original point - Having value is a big help but animals are full of various inefficiencies that, while detrimental to their operation, are not bad enough to get them killed in their given environment. A giraffe does great in Africa where there are high trees but put it in the desert where there are only small bushes and it'll die fairly lively. You seemed to be denying NS would cause the giraffe go extinct in deserts.

As for an example where NS does work, I can give you dozens of example in every animal that is alive today.

No need - creationists accept NS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm only giving my non-technical understanding, so better show you a scientific explanation:
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v...admissions.asp
Firstly, I find the idea of a scientific explanation in AIG to be an oxymoron.

That's just your prejudice showing. I'm sure you're man enough to overcome it.

Now, I stopped reading when I got as far as the words "Biochemist Michael J. Behe". I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted about him on this thread before to JC:

OK, you object to Behe as a source. He's not a creationist, so I'll leave that between him and you.

Intelligent design was kicked out of the American court system in spectacular fashion and judged not to be science.

So you accept the ability of a secular magistrate to determine scientific validity? What next, a pope? Seems to me the judge only decided on the strength of the scientific establishment's opposition, not on any scientific grounds.

Intelligent design is not science and the vast majority of christians in the world would agree with that statement

Depends on what one means by 'Christian'.

There might have been more "admissions" by evolutionists on that page but I can confidently say that one of the following is true about the quotes:
They are fake
They are taken out of context
They were made by people such as Behe who, despite calling themselves evolutionists, do not understand the theory of evolution.

When they are presented as evidence, it is up to those opposing them to show they are invalid. Not just make the assertion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
IC does not mean the eye of a mouse and the eye of a man are the same. It means both incorporate IC mechanisms.
You said the eye is irreducibly complex so I pointed to many examples of eyes that are less complex than our own. Therefore, it is possible to have a fully functioning eye that is less complex than our own, therefore the complexity is reducible.

Which shows you have no idea what IC means - no wonder you are opposed to it.

Also, you've just restated what IC means again, I linked you to a page explaining how the eye evolved from a few nerve endings to a cavity with nerve endings allowing directional sensitivity to a pinhole that allowed better directional sensitivity and limited imaging to a closed chamber with a transparent humor to having a cornea and a lens to having iris and separate cornea. So prove it wrong please.

Not being a scientist, I'll leave that to JC, who seems to be making the case.

But to add a little bit:
Argument: ‘Irreducible complexity’
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

Btw, I'd prefer if you linked to a peer reviewed scientific article to prove it rather than a creationist website.

Here's one that is both:
The Specified Complexity of Retinal Imagery
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Thank you. In theory they can doubt, but in reality they can't: It's just that over the last 150 years the evidence has become completely insurmountable...They can work on the contrary idea but
They are unwilling to accept a mature recent creation as truth now because there is no evidence to suggest it just like they accept evolution now because there is a lot of evidence to suggest it. The difference between creationists and scientists is that if the evidence started to suggest a mature recent creation, they would throw out their text books and show unending gratitude to the person that furthered their knowledge of the universe. Scientists go where the evidence tells them to go.

No, they wouldn't; or rather, most of them wouldn't. They are opposed to the concept of creation, no matter what the evidence:
Richard Dawkins "I'm a Darwinist because I believe the only alternatives are Lamarckism or God, neither of which does the job as an explanatory principle."

Professor D.M.S. Watson "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin, "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."


Man is an enemy of God in his heart. Man is not the objective judge you imagine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I understand that shows natural selection tolerating a loss of function, where that function is no longer needed. I don't see any increase in complexity.
Here's an increase in complexity for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment

And another example:
http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/w...ve-before.html


That's right, multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

Thanks for those. I'll search the creationist sites for responses and get back this week, DV.

But it was the article you posted that I found most interesting. The blogging comments that followed were most instructive. This one from an extended exchange seemed to get to the heart of the matter:
Anonymous said...
Your posts are misleading. You use the word "multicellularity" when you are just talking about the forming of a colonial organism.
See the Wikipedia entries for the difference between colonial organism and multicellular organism.
It is misleading to call a colonial organism as being "multicellular" when the word multicellular is commonly defined as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellularity
"Multicellular organisms are organisms consisting of more than one cell, and having differentiated cells that perform specialized functions in the cell."

The chlorella colony does not have
differentiated cells that perform specialized functions in the cell.
It is not "multicellular" in the common definition of the word.
For example you said:
"..and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists'eyes".
This is an incorrect statement using the common definition of "multicellular".
It should say:
and thus the colonial Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. A colony had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

You also say:
"The significance of this experiment is that it lends support to the hypothesis that a predator-prey arms race could provide the needed environmental change to enable multicellular organisms to evolve."
It should say:
The significance of this experiment is that it lends support to the hypothesis that a predator-prey arms race could provide the needed environmental change to enable colonial organisms to evolve.

These are huge and important distinctions.
Even your title is misleading.
It should say "Watching colonies evolve before our eyes".

MAY 06, 2009 9:44 AM

I noted also the defensive response to the poster:
Would you reveal your name?
Do you believe in evolution?

MAY 05, 2009 11:53 PM

Yes, very enlightening.

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

...

Here's one that is both:
The Specified Complexity of Retinal Imagery
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

...

I read this one... well most of it... blech...
To sum up... there are lots of rods and cones... if you do the wiring randomly the eye should just see static... assume everything happens at once, the chances of this happening in millions of steps is the exact same as it happening in one ... blah blah blah ... God did it.

Try harder guys.

J C

kiffer wrote: »

I'm not so sure a pair of scissors counts as irreducibly complex even as a nonliving simple machine...
A scissors is made up of several parts ... which serve a useful function when removed from the scissors...

remove the axle linking them at their fulcrum you have two knives... which will cut things and are useful... take away the sharp edges but keep the axle and you still have a functional machine... a pliers...

take away the axle, and the sharp edges and you have two skewers which you could use to hold meat over a fire... take away the pointy end as well and you have a rod that you could use to stir up a mix of stuff in a bowl...

...I did say that a scissors was a SIMPLE device.

....and if you want to cut something, rather than stirrring you tea with it - or skewering something with it, (which ALMOST ANYTHING WILL ALSO DO) a scissors MUST have two knives with ninety degree sharp edges that can interact with each other, a fulcrum and a finger holder on each knife.

...and a blunt scissors ISN'T a functional pliers.

The plain fact is that a functional (cutting) scissors is irreducibly complex ... and ditto for a specific functional protein!!!!:D

J C

kiffer wrote: »

I read this one... well most of it... blech...
To sum up... there are lots of rods and cones... if you do the wiring randomly the eye should just see static... assume everything happens at once, the chances of this happening in millions of steps is the exact same as it happening in one ... blah blah blah ... God did it.

...you can take a horse to water ... but you cannot make him drink!!!!

... even God will not stop somebody using their free will to remain in denial!!!:)

...and I'm not even going to try, to outdo God on this one!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
and biomolecules, like protein chains, are all distinct molecules that have very different sequences of Amino Acids - and the 'wrong' AA in a critical sequence, renders the protein completely USELESS

MatthewVII
You're actally incorrect here J_C, many protein molecules with a small amount of incorrect AA sequences still have functionality, usually just at a reduced level than the perfect protein.

...I have emboldened the critical point in my original post that you seem to have missed.

It is correct that minor changes to non-critical sections of protein chains only reduces functionality because of built-in redundancy (another aspect of ID) ... but critical sequences are just that ... and ANY change to these sequences renders the protein completely useless, probably because they have lost their original built-in redundancy.

wrote:

MatthewVII
Bizarrely enough, evolution completely and elegantly explains why most organisms today have mostly high-functioning protein sequences encoded in their DNA by multifold mutations in their sequences over millenia. The better-fitting amino acids caused the production of better functioning product and gave the species an advantage. these superior proteins were passed to their offspring who had further random mutations, some of which were worse and fared poorly, and some of which were better and fared well, and so genetic code and product were honed over time.

If you have a hard time getting around this concept, just study up on some of the genetic diseases affecting humans. Different gene mutations causing things like CF (an easy one to study) have a vastly differing clinical phenotype depending on how reduced the cell's ability to transport chloride is. Although all of them have an imperfect sequence, many of them continue to conduct chloride, merely at a reduced capability, unlike the "one mistake makes it completely useless" theory you represent.

...all of which is explained by degraded redundancy!!!

wrote:

MatthewVII
Also, the rest of your argument about the failure of evolution to explain complexity uses such words as "chance" and "spontaneous". Why argue on a topic you clearly don't understand? Chance has nothing to do with it, by the very competitive nature of breeding, evolution is bound to happen.

...the competitive nature of breeding may cause sexual and natural selection of pre-existing genetic information ... BUT the supposed evolutionary mechanism for producing new information (Mutagenesis) is so destructive of genetic information, that a very long list of chemicals have been banned on safety grounds because of their mutagenic effects ... and I don't hear of any Evolutionists campaigning for their un-banning!!!:pac::):D

J C

andrew wrote: »

This is probably what happened with the eye

...an unfounded faith-filled statement if ever I saw one!!!:pac::):D

....I too was an unfulfilled faith-filled Evolutionist ... BUT when I saw how preposterous the whole Spontaneuous Evolution story REALLY was ... I blushed profusely ... and I quietly became a Creationist!!!!:pac::):D

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it was the article you posted that I found most interesting. The blogging comments that followed were most instructive. This one from an extended exchange seemed to get to the heart of the matter:
Anonymous said...
Your posts are misleading. You use the word "multicellularity" when you are just talking about the forming of a colonial organism.
See the Wikipedia entries for the difference between colonial organism and multicellular organism.
It is misleading to call a colonial organism as being "multicellular" when the word multicellular is commonly defined as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellularity
"Multicellular organisms are organisms consisting of more than one cell, and having differentiated cells that perform specialized functions in the cell."

The chlorella colony does not have
differentiated cells that perform specialized functions in the cell.
It is not "multicellular" in the common definition of the word.
For example you said:
"..and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists'eyes".
This is an incorrect statement using the common definition of "multicellular".
It should say:
and thus the colonial Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. A colony had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

You also say:
"The significance of this experiment is that it lends support to the hypothesis that a predator-prey arms race could provide the needed environmental change to enable multicellular organisms to evolve."
It should say:
The significance of this experiment is that it lends support to the hypothesis that a predator-prey arms race could provide the needed environmental change to enable colonial organisms to evolve.

These are huge and important distinctions.
Even your title is misleading.
It should say "Watching colonies evolve before our eyes".

MAY 06, 2009 9:44 AM

I noted also the defensive response to the poster:
Would you reveal your name?
Do you believe in evolution?

MAY 05, 2009 11:53 PM

Yes, very enlightening.

..."Do you believe in Evolution?"... so evolution IS a belief then!!!!
It sounds like Evolution is becoming a RELIGIOUS 'Article of Faith' for Materialists ... who appear to routinely engage in the questioning of potential new members (as well as existing believers) to test the orthodoxy of their Evolutionist FAITH !!!!:eek::D


...however, the 'penny is beginning to drop' ... amongst LEADING scientists in relation to Spontaneous Evolution...

... but Creationism continues to be a 'love that dare not speak it's name'!!!!!!!!:eek::eek:;)
...and thus the need for anonanimity!!!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

andrew wrote:

This is probably what happened with the eye

...an unfounded faith-filled statement if ever I saw one!!!:pac::):D

Hmm... the word "probably" is so -- how could one put this -- final, eh?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Hmm... the word "probably" is so -- how could one put this -- final, eh?

...Robin, I agree with you, the word "probably" certainly isn't final ... it is JUST a faith-filled, hopeful and unfounded, conjecture!!!:D

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...I did say that a scissors was a SIMPLE device.

....and if you want to cut something, rather than stirrring you tea with it - or skewering something with it, (which ALMOST ANYTHING WILL ALSO DO) a scissors MUST have two knives with ninety degree sharp edges that can interact with each other, a fulcrum and a finger holder on each knife.

...and a blunt scissors ISN'T a functional pliers.

The plain fact is that a functional (cutting) scissors is irreducibly complex ... and ditto for a specific functional protein!!!!:D

Your response to kiffer's post has not addressed the point raised in kiffer's post. A structure may be irreducibly complex in the context of a specific function, but that does not mean it is irreducibly complex in the context of all possible functions.