Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Index > General > Who Is Your Creator message forum > Re: Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed
Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed

"Of the fossil record, Gould himself said:

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'""

Yes, relatively sudden. These quick periods of Punctuated Equilibrium last millions for years, but are sudden in comparison.

Also, do you not remember that the simulation in that video displayed PE when it had no such guidance?

"Even Gould admits that there is no evidence for building."

Actually we do see examples of transitionals within periods of PE. One example is lodopods (kinda like worms with legs).

"Things appear suddenly and fully formed, just the way they would if a Creator spoke them into existence."

So a creator just put them there, and then killed them off, and then replaced them? The problem with trying to fit the fossil record with ID is that all throughout the fossil record you'd find what would be the creator's mistakes.

Please define "fully formed" as you used it in that sentence.

And Punctuated Equilibrium, a process observed in both computer simulations and reality, fits this perfectly. These periods of PE are millions of years long. Seems like an awful long time for a creator to just poof them into existence.

"Moreover, many organs are irreducibly complex, and could not have formed in unrelated parts, as in a building process."

Any evidence to support this claim? Did you read the numerous papers on the evolution of different organs and body systems? No? I thought not. This is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. "I can't imagine how it evolved. Therefore, God did it." I find it ironic that you are using Michael Behe's arguments when Behe himself admits that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

"Your argument ignores the evidence and is void of all logic, but somehow I have the feeling that won't stop you."

YOu don't even seem to know what evidence I'm ignoring. Do yourself a favor and read up on the subject instead of simply saying something can't happen because you can't imagine it.

"Probably won't even slow you down, because you are a true believer in "It Could Have Happened."

And that is good enough for you."

Interesting. That's what I hear Creationists say regularly when they are presented with evidence that they can't explain. "God works in mysterious ways. He could've done it."

Why do you still refrane from acknowledging ERVs, chromosone #2, Luce- Ya know what? I'm getting sick of typing the same bits of evidence over and over for you. I've written them enough. You should be able to remember them. NOw please address them. These are bits of evidence that you haven't even mentioned, and yet here you are saying we're ignoring evidence. The irony is delicious.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You say:

"In other words "It's complex, so it must be designed." Crystals are complex. Do they have designers? DNA could've evolved as well. The most likely candidate is RNA, which is much simpler. RNA could've evolved from an even simpler code. YOu fail to see how complexity builds. Creationists like to take everything as is and point out how complex it is. They fail to realize that things build."

Of the fossil record, Gould himself said:

"Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'"

-ibid, page 182

Even Gould admits that there is no evidence for building. Things appear suddenly and fully formed, just the way they would if a Creator spoke them into existence. Moreover, many organs are irreducibly complex, and could not have formed in unrelated parts, as in a building process.

Your argument ignores the evidence and is void of all logic, but somehow I have the feeling that won't stop you. Probably won't even slow you down, because you are a true believer in "It Could Have Happened."

And that is good enough for you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Let's start with your admission that Gould said what he said, which proves I took nothing out of context. I presented it exactly as he said it, and it IS a blow toward Darwinian evolution, which is why he came up with PE."

Theories change all the time with an increased understanding. Why were Einstein physics not considered a "blow" to Newton physics?

"As for the video, I did watch it, and since it purports to "prove" the viability of the randomness of evolution, I suggest that everyone on this board watch it. It is priceless. There are so many mistakes in his premise it is ridiculous. The most glaring is the fact that he wrote a complicated program to "prove" his premise, therefore HE was the designer in this case."

Uh huh. That response was expected. Other than including what in beneficial and what is deleterious, and giving each individual peice some qualities (where they attach, gears have teeth, etc), he did nothing. There was no set outcome at all. And yet we get the same results (but a differently built watch) each time. You make it seem like he put it together on purpose when the process was guided only by natural selection. It is a perfect example of how evolution works.

"Moreover, he used a computer, which is the end product of thousands of years of human discovery and painstaking advancements in design after design after design."

What's your point? He needed something to simulate evolution. You're going to have to explain how this is a problem.

"There is NOTHING random about either a computer or a code."

Umm... The mutations. Think of the computer as the environment in which we all live. A digital replacement for our planet earth. The code is the natural laws to which we all must abide by. It's a simulation of nature.

The mutations were completely random. They were filtered out by natural selection.

"Living things are composed first of DNA, an incredibly complex set of codes that are the blueprints for all of life. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a code has a designer"

In other words "It's complex, so it must be designed." Crystals are complex. Do they have designers? DNA could've evolved as well. The most likely candidate is RNA, which is much simpler. RNA could've evolved from an even simpler code. YOu fail to see how complexity builds. Creationists like to take everything as is and point out how complex it is. They fail to realize that things build.

"Yes, it is reasonable."

NOt without evidence of a designer.

"To believe otherwise, especially without evidence, is not only unreasonable, but perversely so."

Great. But we have evidence, and you haven't been replying to it. ERVs, chromsome #2, Lucy, Archaeoperyx, the rest of the fossils, hox genes, etc.

"But I do agree that he has built, not a watch, but a clock--a CUCKOO CLOCK!"

Argument from ridicule. And a really crappy joke.

"This is insanity, and it proves that people who will not believe the simple truth, will in their delusion believe anything, and I do mean ANYTHING!"

It proves that you will pluck st straws. Didn't he explain in the begining of the video how him designing the code doesn't equal him designing the watch? Or did you chose to ignore that because it goes against your strawman?

"Save yourselves from this lost, perverse generation while you still can. "

We're trying, but you won't listen to reason.

As for your video, it should be titled "Dodos Over the Cliff." Just madness."

Madness?

This. Is. SCIENCE!

"And very funny, if it were not so sad."

Yes, it is sad how you pluck at straws and fail to realize that in a simulation, it is impossible to use the real thing, or else it isn't a simulation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let's start with your admission that Gould said what he said, which proves I took nothing out of context. I presented it exactly as he said it, and it IS a blow toward Darwinian evolution, which is why he came up with PE.

Again, you seem to be unable to understand the implications of your own argument.

As for the video, I did watch it, and since it purports to "prove" the viability of the randomness of evolution, I suggest that everyone on this board watch it. It is priceless. There are so many mistakes in his premise it is ridiculous. The most glaring is the fact that he wrote a complicated program to "prove" his premise, therefore HE was the designer in this case. Moreover, he used a computer, which is the end product of thousands of years of human discovery and painstaking advancements in design after design after design. There is NOTHING random about either a computer or a code.

Living things are composed first of DNA, an incredibly complex set of codes that are the blueprints for all of life. Is it not reasonable to assume that such a code has a designer? Yes, it is reasonable. To believe otherwise, especially without evidence, is not only unreasonable, but perversely so.

But I do agree that he has built, not a watch, but a clock--a CUCKOO CLOCK!

This is insanity, and it proves that people who will not believe the simple truth, will in their delusion believe anything, and I do mean ANYTHING!

Save yourselves from this lost, perverse generation while you still can.

As for your video, it should be titled "Dodos Over the Cliff." Just madness. And very funny, if it were not so sad.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!"

If clocks were alive, yes. Did you even watch that video I linked you to? It's not even ten minutes long. I'm sure you can spare that.

""Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please."

That is what he said, but you presented it as if it were a blow toward evolution.

"And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!"

I'm glad you thought it was so funny that you didn't even watch the video that would've shown you how it works. Apparently evidence means nothing to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

I am laughing so hard I can barely type! You said "evolution can build a watch." Do you want to stand by that? No wonder you believe as you do!

And you did not answer my question:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?"

Answer specifically, please.

And thanks for making my day. I will laugh every time I think of your statement!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?"

You make it seem like this is a problem for evolution. Those quotes where used to defend Punctuated Equilibrium. Gradualism is out-dated, and disprovong that is simple.

"And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more."

Darwin came up with natural selection. Then mutation, genetic drift, sexual selection, etc.

Excuse? It is by Punctuated Equilibrium that we see new species originate. We don't see it happening at a steady pace but instead in quick bursts (relative to their time in stasis). Computer simulations of evolution also show Punctuated Equilibrium. Here's a video not only showing how evolution can build a watch, but also showing that with no guided forced, we see punctuated Equilibrium. I suggest you watch the whole thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

"Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway."

Thanks for the tip. I realize I come off hasty and angry. I apologize.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Are you saying that Gould did not admit that the intermediate steps that prove gradualism are missing, and that the fossil record actually shows so little of evolution directly?

You are accusing me of taking out of context. Do you even know the context?

And Gould developed no mechanism for evolution. No man is capable of such a thing. What are you saying? He concocted a fanciful excuse to explain the embarrassing lack of evidence, nothing more.

Please, before you answer, do a little research and think things through. Don't be so quick to type. Your arguments will be much more cogent, and you will make more headway.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.""

This is a quote Gould uses when defending Punctuated Equilibrium; a mechanism he developed. Clearly taken out of context.

"And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181."

Which is why Gould proposed Punctuated Equilibrium.

"By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless."

False. Where the fossil record has holes genetics fills them in. And you clearly took Gould's quote out of context.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ask a good question about what constitutes a species, Brian. As you probably know, the answer varies according to the purpose of the proposal or question being asked:

"In their 2004 book "Speciation," evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr point out that there are more than twenty-five definitions of 'species.' How can we choose among them?"

-Wells, Darwinism and Intelligent Design, page 52

Some definitions are highly esoteric, but for my purposes, I am speaking of the general term, which is individuals that resemble each other and are able to breed among themselves.

My point is that observed speciation is only known to occur that produces minor changes in individuals, and a change from a species to a subspecies does not constitute a change in body plan, or kind, which is what Darwin proposed and which his followers have been trying to prove for the last 150 years:

"In 1997, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson wrote: 'A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,' and 'the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.'"

-ibid, page 50

The question being asked by some on this board is "Where is the evidence of limits on body plans/genetics?"

But the correct question is: "Where is the evidence that body plans/genetics have ever been exceeded?"

Stone bones that have some similarities do NOT constitute transitional forms, as Gould admitted:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

And: "I only wish to point out that it [gradualism] was never 'seen' in the rocks."

-Gould, The Panda's Thumb, page 181.

By Gould's own admission, gradualism has never been proven by the fossil record. Thus, branching speciation leading to an actual change in body plan remains an unproven concept. An accepted concept by faith-filled evolutionists, granted, but an unproven concept nonetheless.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Your argument seems pretty good, John, but you are ignoring the fact that it is PEOPLE who decide whether a breed is a new species or not. This is a tricky business, far less cut and dry than you would have us believe.

You say that wolves and pugs are the same species. How about wolves and coyotes? Wolves and jackels? What about a purple finch and a house finch?

How exactly do people decide if two animals that are physically similar are in fact different species? I'm particularly interested in your answer to this last question.

*For those of you who don't want to look it up, wolves and coyotes are different species. Wolves and jackels are different species. And purple finches and house finches are different species.

Email  
Re: Irreducibly Complex and Fully Formed - by Brian - Sep 19, 2007 7:50pm
Re: Fully formed ... and interdependent? - by Brian - Sep 19, 2007 11:32pm
Give it a shot - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 20, 2007 12:51am
Re: Give it a shot - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 3:34pm
Re: Fully formed ... and interdependent? - by Ero-senji - Sep 20, 2007 11:08am
Correction to Text; Getting Real - by John - Sep 20, 2007 2:07pm
Re: Correction to Text; Getting Real - by Scott - Sep 21, 2007 9:26am
Give it a whirl! - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 20, 2007 3:24pm
Brian, Please Explain - by John - Sep 20, 2007 1:27pm
Re: Brian, Please Explain - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 1:44pm
Re: It's a nice premise. Where's the proof? - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 4:18pm
Where is your proof? - by whoisyourcreator - Sep 21, 2007 6:04am
Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins - by John - Sep 20, 2007 4:30pm
Re: Brian, Please Explain Richard Dawkins - by Brian - Sep 20, 2007 5:02pm
You May be Right - by John - Sep 20, 2007 6:07pm