Jump to content
justqwer

Irreducible complexity (split from Could intelligent design be legitimate?)

Recommended Posts

There is a concept of "irreducible complexity". Meaning that some biological systems could not be produced by incremental steps. Evolutionists really can't explain an evolution for almost any of internal organs.  

Go look for yourself. How 2 chamber heart evolves into 3 chamber heart, how lungs evolved, how bactrium evolved a flagellum. This is very simple stuff, and yet evolutionists can't provide an evolutionery path to any of that. And yet they manage to live in small illusion that they got it all figured out.  

Actually evolutionists have nothing. They can't explain anything really. 

Edited by justqwer
added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, justqwer said:

There is a concept of "irreducible complexity".

There may be such a concept, but there is no evidence for it. (Your personal incredulity is not evidence.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just told you that evolutionists can't explain anything... how lungs evolved, how heart evolved, how flagellum evolved... what "personal incredulity" has to do with anything?

the only thing that you evolutionists really evolved, is fancy phrases that you use as defence mechanism... "personal incredulity", "strawman", "fallacy", etc... 

put more dislikes to my post more, more... 

i want 1000 dislikes.

a dislike from evolutionist is a compliment to me.

Edited by justqwer
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, justqwer said:

how lungs evolved

Here is a paper with plenty of references and discussion of evolutionary patterns: Evolution of Air Breathing: Oxygen Homeostasis and the Transitions from Water to Land and Sky, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926130/ 
(I have not had time to read all of the paper)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for googling and providing a link. Do you see how this paper explains how lungs evolved? 

hhehe this paper says that the first cell came from space... 

maybe the lungs also come from space..

 

This is what you people do, provide an abundance of redundant data, and then claim that the proof is somewhere there... I'm pretty sure no person here on the forum can read that paper and understand how lungs have evolved. It's just bunch of data. 

It's the same if I provide you a paper with many blueprints of different smartphone models, from Iphone 1 to Iphone 10, and then I will claim that it proves that Iphone 10 evolved from Iphone 1 by random changes. And if you can't see it, then it's your "personal incredulity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, justqwer said:

I just told you that evolutionists can't explain anything...

You can repeat that as often as you lie. It doesn't make it any less wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justqwer said:

And yet they manage to live in small illusion that they got it all figured out.  

!

Moderator Note

Well, that's a straw man.

Also, this thread was a hijack, which you were told not to do both in a thread and in a PM. Ignoring the rules isn't going to get you what you want.

(and please be aware that responding to this note in the thread would be off-topic, and thus also a rules violation)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, justqwer said:

hhehe this paper says that the first cell came from space... 

Where does the paper say that?

The paper states the following (bold by me)

Quote

While the earliest dates of biogenic claims remain disputed (216, 217, 758), life could have existed even before this date because numerous major terrestrial impact events could have wiped out all traces of earlier life forms. Because the earliest bacteria appear fully formed in the fossil record, even respected scientists have not ruled out the possibility that they might have been seeded by comets from outer space (250). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justqwer said:

It's the same if I provide you a paper with many blueprints of different smartphone models, from Iphone 1 to Iphone 10, and then I will claim that it proves that Iphone 10 evolved from Iphone 1 by random changes. And if you can't see it, then it's your "personal incredulity".

!

Moderator Note

This would be an example of what I explained to you in our PM exchange: the inevitable evidence that you don't understand evolution. This is a massive straw man (if it were real, you should have no trouble finding legitimate examples of people making this argument) and relying on logical fallacies is not evidence. 

 

 

1 hour ago, justqwer said:

 put more dislikes to my post more, more... 

i want 1000 dislikes.

a dislike from evolutionist is a compliment to me.

!

Moderator Note

And this just indicates you are trolling, and your primary intent at this point is to stir things up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justqwer said:

This is what you people do, provide an abundance of redundant data, and then claim that the proof is somewhere there... I'm pretty sure no person here on the forum can read that paper and understand how lungs have evolved. It's just bunch of data. 

It's the same if I provide you a paper with many blueprints of different smartphone models, from Iphone 1 to Iphone 10, and then I will claim that it proves that Iphone 10 evolved from Iphone 1 by random changes. And if you can't see it, then it's your "personal incredulity".

:lol: do you see your mistake? of course not... did the designer of the Iphone 1 know what the Iphone 10 would look like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, justqwer said:

Do you see how this paper explains how lungs evolved? 

I don't think it does (and, to be fair, Gideon did say they hadn't had time to read it). Although, it does make it clear that lungs have evolved multiple times.

1 hour ago, justqwer said:

hhehe this paper says that the first cell came from space... 

It doesn't say that. But even if the first cells came from space, that does nothing to falsify evolution. (If you had evidence that each new species arrived fully formed from space, perhaps...)

1 hour ago, justqwer said:

This is what you people do, provide an abundance of redundant data

Yeah. Science: all it does is look at lots of data to reach its conclusions. It is so much easier to just belief the first thing that comes into your head. (Or that you read in a holy book.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, justqwer said:

There is a concept of "irreducible complexity". Meaning that some biological systems could not be produced by incremental steps. Evolutionists really can't explain an evolution for almost any of internal organs.  

Go look for yourself. How 2 chamber heart evolves into 3 chamber heart, how lungs evolved, how bactrium evolved a flagellum. This is very simple stuff, and yet evolutionists can't provide an evolutionery path to any of that. And yet they manage to live in small illusion that they got it all figured out.  

Actually evolutionists have nothing. They can't explain anything really. 

Only your wilful ignorance makes it look like nothing. There are plenty of research pathways going on into flagella evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evolution of the bacterial flagellum (among the many claimed instances of irreducible complexity that has been thoroughly debunked) :

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2019 at 7:08 AM, justqwer said:

There is a concept of "irreducible complexity". Meaning that some biological systems could not be produced by incremental steps. Evolutionists really can't explain an evolution for almost any of internal organs.  

Go look for yourself. How 2 chamber heart evolves into 3 chamber heart, how lungs evolved, how bactrium evolved a flagellum. This is very simple stuff, and yet evolutionists can't provide an evolutionery path to any of that. And yet they manage to live in small illusion that they got it all figured out.  

Actually evolutionists have nothing. They can't explain anything really. 

The Muller Two Step was a prediction of evolution before Behe was even born, let alone before he decided it was somehow a problem for evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.