Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Index > General > Who Is Your Creator message forum > Correction to Text; Getting Real
Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Correction to Text; Getting Real

In the above post, part of the quote in the last paragraph contained some added computer-generated letters and symbols which made the closing statement somewhat unclear. For crystal clarity here is how it should read:

"There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science," while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse."

Please observe as an aside how the real pseudoscientists always insist on a counter-intuitive explanation, even when a "straightforward and reasonable inference" will better fit the given rationale, and that is because they want to blind us to simple reality with "scientific" double talk. Note to careful readers: Use common sense where called for, and the truth will start to open up for you.

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

Replying to:

Are you completely unfamiliar with the argument of irreducible complexity?:

1) In order for co-option to produce a bacterial flagellum (for example) all of the component parts must have been present at the same time and in roughly the same place, and all of them must have had other naturally-selectable, useful functions. There is no evidence whatsoever that this ever was the case, or that it ever even could have been the case.

2) The components would have to have been compatible with each other functionally. A bolt that is too large, too small, or that has threads that are too fine or too coarse to match those of a nut, cannot be combined with the nut to make a fastener. There is absolutely no evidence that this interface compatibility ever existed (between all those imaginary co-opted component parts), or that it even could have existed.

3) Even if all the parts are available at the same time and in the same place, and are functionally compatible, one cannot just put them in a bag, shake them up, and have a motor fall out. An assembly mechanism is required, and that mechanism must be complete in every detail, otherwise incomplete or improper assembly will result, and no naturally-selectable function will be produced. The assembly mechanism thus represents yet another irreducibly complex hurdle.

4) Last, and perhaps most importantly, assembly instructions are required. Assembly must be timed and coordinated properly. And the assembly instructions must be complete in every detail, otherwise no function will result. This represents an additional irreducibly complex hurdle.

Co-option is a demonstrably fantastic story made up out of whole cloth, with absolutely no basis in evidence. And it doesn't withstand even the most trivial analytical scrutiny. There is not a shred of evidence that this process ever took place, or that it even could have taken place. Worst of all, it requires blind acceptance of the clearly miraculous.

There is a great irony here. This verifiably ridiculous co-option fantasy is presented as “science,” while a straightforward and reasonable inference to design is labeled pseudoscience. The real state of affairs is precisely the reverse.

-from uncommondescent, under irreducible complexity, co-option

Just because highly intricate organ component parts "could've" evolved simultaneously, does not mean they did, and this is ESPECIALLY TRUE in light of the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that demonstrates such a thing ever happened.

The only place this argument is "destroyed easily" is in your mind, which also apparently lacks the critical ingredient of reality. To believe that complex organs, like an eye for instance, can self-assemble using simultaneously-evolved parts, with no assembly mechanism and no intelligent direction, requires the blind acceptance (pun intended) of the clearly miraculous.

You have zero evidence, merely an assertion, and that is not good enough. The original assertion is yours, therefore the onus is on you to provide your EVIDENCE, but we dare not hold breath, because you have NONE.

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

Replying to:

watvh as this argument is destroyed easily. No where in evolution does it state that only one organ or system can evolve at a time. These could've evolved simultaniously. Starting out as a simpler system, it modified, evolved and specialized into seperate organs and systems to better perform their task.

Unless you can find me one scientific law or principle which states that only one organ can evolve at a time in thier current forms, this argument is bunk.

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

Replying to:

Select one of following scenarios and explain in detail what would 'evolve' first (or what would cause them to evolve simultaneously), and why natural selection would preserve the mutational beginnings of each one before they are functional:

The mouth or tongue?
The throat or esophagus?
Bronchial tubes or lungs?
The stomach or intestines?
The heart or arteries and veins?
Ovaries or fallopian tubes?

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

Replying to:

Why would anyone expect a "steady transformation of its ancestors"? This statement is not supported by the theory of evolution.

Exactly which organs are irreducibly complex?

Email  
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