Jump to content

How can a rational person believe in evolution?


Recommended Posts

Let's take the RNA splicing process in eukaryotes as an example. The RNA splicing process is the ability of the eukaryotic cell to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release premRNA molecule.

If we assume the existance of reduced state of this process(evolutionary necessity), for example the existance of subprocesses with the ability to recognize, capture and cut premRNA molecule, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause premRNA to magically transform itself into a mature mRNA. In this reduced state protein-coding capacity of mRNA is destroyed, which results in cell death. And we know that dead cell cannot evolve.


Since evolution increase complexity of the process by adding its components one step at a time, then we are able to retrace that path by reducing the complexity of the process. But, if we do that we will destroy the ability of the eukaryotic cell to either - recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join or to release premRNA molecule. And in that state cell is dead.

This empirical and observable scientific fact is true for all fundamental processes, organs, organ systems - if they are in reduced state, organism dies or is not able to reproduce.

If mentioned biological entities were evolved then logical necessity of their reduction into a less complex state is retention of organism's ability to live and reproduce. But, experiments and countless medical examples showed that that is not the case.


Standard response of proponents of evolution to this type of observation goes something like this: this is a typical irreducible complexity argument. Irreducible complexity is debunked, and it does not exist. The reason lies in the fact that every single biological system that is deemed irreducibly complex, does in fact have in nature simpler or more complex forms. That means the said system is not, irreducibly complex.

It may not seem obvious at first glance but, from a logical point of view this kind of response is deeply flawed. It rests on the implicit assumption that the existence of different structural solutions for the same function automatically mean that a step by step path from one structural solution to another exists. The best way to understand these is by an example.

Imagine if someone told you, that the car engine is not irreducibly complex, because motorcycle engine possess the same function of energy conversion from burning fuel, into useful mechanical motion. Since both engines can convert energy from burning fuel into mechanical motion, the car engine is obviously more complex form of a motorcycle engine . And vice versa, a motorcycle engine is obviously simpler form of car engine.


But, what that has to do with the step by step path from one to another? Absolutly nothing. If we start to remove components of the car engine this action won't result in motorcycle engine or some other less complex engine with retained energy conversion function. Component removal will result in nothing but malfunctioned engine. So in reality step by step path from one structural solution to another does not exist. If the car engine were the superstructure, the result of a step by step design process, with retained energy conversion funtction at every step then component removal would not result in malfunctioned engine but in a simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction.


Exactly the same is true for biological systems, for example reproductive system. If reproductive system of some organism were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding components one step at a time then removal of components would not result in infertility but in some simplest mode of reproduction. Since this is not the case, the assumption that the existence of different modes of reproductions in nature automatically mean that a step by step path from one reproductive system to another exists is nothing but non sequitur logical fallacy.

So, how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility stil believe that processes, organs and organ systems evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps ?


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Except we don't.   It maybe possible to cherry pick the observations to support an idea. This is in fact quite typical of pseudoscience.     Based on all the evidence available we have

A) Because the argument for irreducible complexity falls under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium - also known as the argument from ignorance. Put simply, just because you personally can

Let's take the RNA splicing process in eukaryotes as an example. The RNA splicing process is the ability of the eukaryotic cell to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release premRNA molecule

So, how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility stil believe that processes, organs and organ systems evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps ?

 

A) Because the argument for irreducible complexity falls under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium - also known as the argument from ignorance. Put simply, just because you personally can't perceive that a part of the whole can't be under positive selection due to a functional utility, does not mean that such a functional utility, and therefore positive selection does not exist.

 

B) A trait does not have to be functional, or under positive selection to become fixed in a population. Through genetic drift, neutral traits can become fixed in a population.Therefore, a trait does not need to have any benefit for an organism at all to evolve in a population - it only needs to not place individuals at a selective disadvantage. As such, irreducible complexity as an argument addresses an oversimplified caricature of evolution which is not representative of reality, and becomes something of a strawman argument.

 

C) There is no empirical evidence in your statement at all. You have a flawed analogy, and an unsupported assertion. Sexual reproduction is very poor example of irreducible complexity, as there are a number of independent mechanisms of sexual reproduction, including many nonessential (e.g. parthenogenesis, prokaryotic conjugation) and intermediate states (e.g. vivipary, monotremes) between the most derived mechanisms of sexual reproduction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility stil believe that processes, organs and organ systems evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps ?

 

In many cases we have evidence of the steps involved.

 

We also see evolution happening, so it would be pretty irrational to think it doesn't exist. Do you think domesticated animals and crops don't exist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A) Because the argument for irreducible complexity falls under the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignoratium - also known as the argument from ignorance. Put simply, just because you personally can't perceive that a part of the whole can't be under positive selection due to a functional utility, does not mean that such a functional utility, and therefore positive selection does not exist.

 

B) A trait does not have to be functional, or under positive selection to become fixed in a population. Through genetic drift, neutral traits can become fixed in a population.Therefore, a trait does not need to have any benefit for an organism at all to evolve in a population - it only needs to not place individuals at a selective disadvantage. As such, irreducible complexity as an argument addresses an oversimplified caricature of evolution which is not representative of reality, and becomes something of a strawman argument.

 

C) There is no empirical evidence in your statement at all. You have a flawed analogy, and an unsupported assertion. Sexual reproduction is very poor example of irreducible complexity, as there are a number of independent mechanisms of sexual reproduction, including many nonessential (e.g. parthenogenesis, prokaryotic conjugation) and intermediate states (e.g. vivipary, monotremes) between the most derived mechanisms of sexual reproduction.

Irreducible complexity does not fall into the category of logical arguments but into the category of scientific knowledge. It is a simple and easy observable property - a quality or characteristic of the system in which system cannot function in reduced state.
If you remove CPU from motherboard your PC will not work. If systems for sperm and egg fusion are missing you can't reproduce. If you remove enzyme from the metabolic pathway resulting product will not be produced. If structural or catalytic proteins for joining the exons into a mature mRNA are missing, proteins in eukaryotic cell cannot be produced, etc, etc. Ergo, irreducible complexity is pure scientific fact, and no argumentum ad ignoratium. People who are in denial of irreducible complexity are producing argument from ignorance. Even worse, they deny scientific knowledge.
Consider a medical condition known as infertility as an example . If you are in denial of irreducible complexity then you are in denial of infertility because infertility is reduced complexity of reproductive system. One of the factor that can cause infertility is DNA damage. DNA damage is an alteration in the chemical structure of DNA, such as a break in a strand of DNA, a base missing from the backbone of DNA, or a chemically changed base. DNA damage would, for example, result in the inability of cell to produce some protein responsible for the functionality of reproductive system . To reduce, means to bring down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number.. therefore the absence of protein responsible for the functionality of reproductive system is by definition REDUCED complexity of reproductive system. In this reduced state reproductive system can't function - individual is infertile. If an individual is infertile it is unable to pass their genes on to individuals of the next generation. If individual is unable to pass on their genes, it is unable to evolve. Therefore, irreducible complexity of reproductive system is observable, undeniable fact, and it is called infertility. And it is true for all cellular life forms without exception, from archaea, bacteria to eukaryote - if we reduce core components of their reproductive systems they are unable to reproduce.
That is whay I ask how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility still believe that processes, organs and organ systems were in reduced state and still functional?
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility stil believe that processes, organs and organ systems evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps ?

What about vestigial structures?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Consider a medical condition known as infertility as an example . If you are in denial of irreducible complexity then you are in denial of infertility because infertility is reduced complexity of reproductive system.

OK, let's consider one specific form of reduced fertility- men with only one testicle.

Their fertility is reduced- but only slightly.

In principle, that frees up the other testicle for evolution into some other structure.

 

Do you realise that every example of "irreducible complexity" put forward has been shown to be wrong?

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

 

I have a more interesting question for you forex

How can a rational person not believe in evolution?

After all, as has been pointed out, there's a stack of evidence for it but more importantly, what would stop it?

 

If some mutation brings about an advantage that lets that individual have more offspring, how would that trait not survive and become more common?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ forex, you're treating complexity as lineal when it isn't. The addition of components one step at a time is not accurate. The difference between various cells and organisms is in coding and expression and not the addition of new chemistry. You are also ignoring that there is interaction. How changing one thing changes the environment for everything else. Three mutations can can result in thousands of process differences. It is important to also not treat it as absolute. The overwhelming majority changes results in either death or nothing at all. For every successful adaptation an calculable number of living components died, failed, didn't thrive, or how every you want to reference it.

A car engine with maintained with always only be a car engine. It won't grow or shrink, it won't replicate, it won't die or decay, a car engine it not a living thing. It is a bad analogy. A better analogy would be to grab a hand full of dirt and trying to work backyards to recreate the organic living structures it was produced from like leafs, worms, animal hair, bone, and etc, etc, etc, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I don't "believe in" evolution. I accept the overwhelming and consistent evidence in its favor, and I do so much like I accept the germ theory of illness and the gravity theory of why we don't all fly off the surface of the earth.

 

I'll just leave this here for anyone curious to learn more:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a frequent visitor to the religous threads and an even less frequent poster in them.

 

However this one caught my eye for two reasons.

 

Firstly because despite the rather self satisfied style of the OP, it was not rude, and forex is a new member so in my opinion deserves the opportunity to discuss reasonably.

 

So I am sorry the red pencil came out so early and may have served to drive someone away who might well have been able to think differently given better information.

 

Secondly religion and biological stuff is not my area so much of any argument goes over my head, but I do want to thank forex for introducing me to the term

irreducible complexity, which has obvious meaning well outside these fields.

 

So I am going to add a +1 for this in part compensation for the (IMHO) over strong reaction of some others.

 

However, having looked at the idea of IC, I find it a useful concept but cannot see that any proof has been offered that it must have arisen by way of Intelligent Design.

In fact quite the contrary I can find many examples of IC in my own fields that have arisen in a variety of ways, some by accident or happenstance, some by an external (non intelligent) forcing agency and I am sure there are other routes I have not considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to Ten oz's car engine analogy...

 

I remember what one guy used to say at the Gym where I worked-out.

"If you put a 2 hp load on a 1 hp engine you end up with a blown engine, but,

if you put a 2 hp load ( weights ) on a person ( organism ) you end up with a 2 hp person."

 

Or are you going to refute that working out increases strength and muscle size ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you remove CPU from motherboard your PC will not work.

 

This is a spectacularly bad analogy. For one thing, this is like saying that if you cut an animals head off, you will kill it. That doesn't prove that a head is "irreducibly complex".

 

A CPU is not an example of irreducibly complexity. In fact, the CPU has "evolved" over many decades. So you could remove the caches from the CPU and it would still work. You could remove the superscalar pipelined architecture and it would still work. You could remove the hardware multipliers and it would still work. In fact, you don't need very much more than a few basic logic gates to have a working CPU.

 

The same is true of all biological functions: there are simpler versions which will do something useful.

 

 

Consider a medical condition known as infertility as an example . If you are in denial of irreducible complexity then you are in denial of infertility because infertility is reduced complexity of reproductive system.

 

That is just nonsense. You can have reduced fertility not just "fertile or not".

 

And, of course, those organisms which are less fertile will be less likely to have offspring and hence less likely to pass on that deficiency: this is known by the complex technical term, "EVOLUTION".

 

 

That is whay I ask how can a rational person, despite this easy opservable empirical facts of non-reducibility still believe that processes, organs and organ systems were in reduced state and still functional?

 

How can a rational person fail to notice any of the objections to their argument and just repeat the same thing?

 

How can a rational person deny the existence of inherited characteristics, variation within populations and the effect of those variations on survival and reproduction?

 

How can a rational person deny the existence of domesticated animals and plants?

Link to post
Share on other sites

forex: Rational is a poor choice of words for acceptance of such a documented fact. When are they going to stop calling it a theory? Goes for Relativity too.

You have given this much thought and obviously are determined but are reaching needlessly.Ajb mentioned vestigial organs. A tip of the iceberg.

Assume you are correct. I am willing to bet you believe God did all this, correct me if I am wrong. , So do I. Whatever or whom one may call God.

 

Why would God give us such compelling fossil evidence of evolution arranged chronologically in strata. A really big joke? To test our faith? Think about it. Many ways it could have been done, why leave such compelling evidense of something untrue :unsure:

 

To create all this from that famous spark so long ago with laws and just the right variables and ingredients for creatures that can contemplate such things could be the real miracle.

 

You dont believe in Evolution. How do you think this all happened if God didnt use evolution? Evolution in no way precludes God. It makes a statement of how a God might have done it. Works for me. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rational is a poor choice of words for acceptance of such a documented fact. When are they going to stop calling it a theory? Goes for Relativity too.

 

Hopefully never. Science works with theory instead of proofs so improvements can be made as new information becomes available. Granted, with the theories of Evolution and Relativity, the evidence in support keeps piling up, while the evidence against is in the form of these feeble, already debunked creationist attempts to misunderstand the science. It's easy to think of the theory as fact, but we actually want it to be a work in progress, so we constantly refine it and increase our understanding of the mechanisms.

 

Evolution is fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains it to the best of our current ability and information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since evolution increase complexity of the process by adding its components one step at a time, then we are able to retrace that path by reducing the complexity of the process. But, if we do that we will destroy the ability of the eukaryotic

 

This statement is the real problem behind the argument for Irreducible complexity. It shows a lack of basic understanding of how evolution really works. The evolutionary process doesn't work from less complex to more complex. If it did, we wouldn't have viruses and germs - they'd have evolved into something else in the hundreds of millions of years they've existed. There is no guiding hand behind evolution that chooses more complex structures over less complex ones. The structure or trait that enables more successful reproduction gets passed on - nothing more, nothing less.

 

Actually, that's not even really accurate. It is more accurate to say that structures and traits that do not reduce reproductive fitness are passed on, while those that result in reduced reproduction will eventually be bred out of the organism.

 

Additionally, how do you define the complexity of the system? Which is more complex, the digestive tract of a cow, or the digestive tract of a person? Is the bovine system more complex because it has more moving parts, or is the human system more complex because it doesn't need the extra bits? Does the efficiency of digestion add to the complexity? What about the ability to digest a wider range of foods (for instance, hogs, which can eat pretty much everything we can, and a few things we can't).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is fact, and the Theory of Evolution explains it to the best of our current ability and information.

 

Just thought that was worth repeating.

 

The fact of evolution has always been known. The ancient Greeks, among others, pondered many possible explanations. Eventually Wallace (and some guy called Darwin, apparently) managed to piece together all the necessary evidence to expand on earlier theories and show that natural selection is the "driving force".

 

The "goddidit" answer is not only unsupported but deeply anti-intellectual as it shuts down any further enquiry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "goddidit" answer is not only unsupported but deeply anti-intellectual as it shuts down any further enquiry.

 

Further, it is spiritually anaemic. Awe, reverence and respect make up at least a part of anyone's spiritual journey and i can think of few things which can inspire these qualities as a theory, albeit still being refined, as beautiful as evolution. Whether one believes in god or not we can all share in this experience by learning how facts relate to the theory. "Goddidit" not only silences the intellect, it also blinds us to beauty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Further, it is spiritually anaemic. Awe, reverence and respect make up at least a part of anyone's spiritual journey and i can think of few things which can inspire these qualities as a theory, albeit still being refined, as beautiful as evolution. Whether one believes in god or not we can all share in this experience by learning how facts relate to the theory. "Goddidit" not only silences the intellect, it also blinds us to beauty.

 

I'm kind of surprised more people who believe in god(s) don't accept evolution as their god's handiwork, instead of recycling arguments that have long been refuted. I mean, it's awesome to wave your hand and make things exist that didn't before, it's very impressive and all, but it doesn't seem very patient. And the Young Earth Creationists would have us believe their god was so impatient that he literally took just a solar day each to make things like... all the animals except humans.

 

I've always thought it's much more awe-inspiring to devise a mechanism for slow, inevitable change over time. If a god(s) created us using a mechanism that takes hundreds of millions of years to "cook up" all the recipes we see today, I think that's much more impressive. Think of the patience!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phi for all: Ilike youy perspective on "theory"

 

Strange: Somewhat true . Simply goddidit is an end all copeout. Many believe we appear to live in a created universe or one of many 'Mini-unverses" and this is one of those that just appear to be created.Our universe is cause and effect so it is reasonable it itself was caused.Easier for me to believe in a hidden variable creator than an infinite number of universes. Nothing but concepts have infinity in this universe. What ever some non contingent creator may have been is what I call God. Einstein called God the Old One. One might say I am trying to figure out ways God may have done all this. This leaves intellect largely in tact. Mine I hope. :unsure:

 

forex: By now Ihope you believe evolution proponants can be rational. Do you realize that if you do finally come up with a compelling rebuttal, you will be in papers around the world and nominated for the Nobel. Iam serious.

 

I am still waiting on your explanation for all those chronologcal strata of fossils.A few gaps but we have found only a fraction of the fossils.Any theory that successfully debunks evolution must inclued that. Goddidit? See above. Was it kind of a joke? To give us something to dig and debate about. I am open to an explanation of this very important item.

 

A suggestion. How about the "fossil record re-capulates the changes you say are not evolution"? That works and you can persist in your already well refuted though well intended theory.Re-read my earlier post. Evolution is a fact. Period. If God is a fact then evolution is how God does it. One gets nowhere dissagreeing with God' methods. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a of issues with yout respnse and I'm a little short on time, but I'll try and hit some of the bigger issues to assist you understanding.

 

Irreducible complexity does not fall into the category of logical arguments but into the category of scientific knowledge. It is a simple and easy observable property - a quality or characteristic of the system in which system cannot function in reduced state.

 

1) Sorry, but irreducible complexity is a textbook example of argument from ignorance - as explained previously: "Put simply, just because you personally can't perceive that a part of the whole can't be under positive selection due to a functional utility, does not mean that such a functional utility, and therefore positive selection does not exist."

 

2) You haven't provided ANY citations, let alone scientific evidence to support your case. Flawed analogies and incorrectly posited lay examples do not evidence make. Furtthermore, as John Cuthber cites, every supposed example of an irreducible biological system has been shown to be, in fact, reducible. Resultantly, there is no viable evidence to support irreducible complexity, in your posts, or otherwise.

 

3) The concept of irreducible complexity isn't even one that CAN be properly evidenced, as it is a null hypothesis. It's the (falsely) claimed absence of evidence for simplified versions of a system which leads to the claim of irreducible complexity.

 

Also, the use of reproduction is a spectacularly bad example of a supposedly irreducible system and I fear its use indicates a lack of basic biological understanding.

 

If systems for sperm and egg fusion are missing you can't reproduce.

 

The reason it such a terrible example is that the above is simply untrue for the majority of life on earth. Most life does not rely on sex for reproduction, and the myriad of reproductive and developmental strategies which are extant in nature (meaning we don't even have to go back in evolutionary time to observe them) run the gamut for very simple ( e.g. binary fission) to the very complex ( e.g. placental mammals). Most organisms even have the capacity to implement multiple strategies of varying complexity depending on circumstance (e.g. transformation, transduction, parthenogenesis, vegetative propagation, selfing, etc)

 

The fact is, contrary to your claims, the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that reproduction is reducible even in the same individual of the same species in many cases, and extraordinarily so when we look across the existing tree of life, without even having to go into the past.

 

Most supposed examples of irreducibly complex biological structures show a similar pattern, completely converse to any claim of irreducible complexity.

 

Consider a medical condition known as infertility as an example .

 

"Infertility" is a nebulous umbrella term for a multitude of biological conditions with an equally vast array of causes and medical properties. The generalizations forthwith begin to fall into "not even wrong" territory due to gross oversimplification, of which this:

 

If you are in denial of irreducible complexity then you are in denial of infertility because infertility is reduced complexity of reproductive system.

 

Is another prime example. Many, if not most of the underlying causes of infertility have nothing to do with biological complexity. Many are environmental - e.g. chemotherapy or even due to INCREASED biological complexity - e.g. chromosomal duplication can cause infertility.

 

Irreducible complexity is not a vaild scientific argument for anything and is certainly not supported by any observational data in biological systems. To claim otherwise is simply false.

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your answers, but scientific fact of irreducible complexity of biological processes will not cease to exist because of the human mental constructs in the form of ideas, theories, hypotheses, explanations, presuppositions,...or by persistent repetition of phrases like "IC has been debunked" or appeals to personal incredulity. The reason is simple:

The inability of the eukaryotic cell to perform the cell cycle without a functional RNA splicing is not dependent on the human mental constructs(mentioned above) but on the presence of the subprocesses with the ability to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release premRNA molecule.


That is why my focus here is on things that can be observed scientifically and not on the general creation/evolution debate. So, if you want to talk about "mountain of evidence" in favor of evolution this topic is not for you. One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper, said that the big difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications. This topic is about falsifications.


Science is pretty simple. It provides insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular set of natural phenomena is manipulated. In my examples of RNA splicing and reproduction process, it is empirically undeniable that if this processes exists in such a way that some of their subprocesses are missing(cause) a specific thing happens as a result(effect) - cell/organism loses its ability to perform fundamental activity that defines life - the ability to maintain or to replicate arrangement of matter that existed before, or simply put, the cell/organism dies.


If we start from the idea that reproductive system of some organism, e.g. human(tempotal point n) were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps and that the first self replicating organism(starting point of evolution) did not contain the genetic information needed to make three-dimensional structures and arrangements like penis, testicles, sperm, uterus, ovaries, ovum, enzyme on sperm head that can penetrate egg wall, etc., then certain things follow as a logical necessity:


Evolution is a process that proceeds incrementally, one step at a time. One thing leads to another. This is true for all kinds of evolution. Living things evolve with small changes between generations. If that is true, than three-dimensional structures and arrangements like penis, testicles, sperm, uterus, ovaries, ovum... were also produced by evolution, incrementally, one step at a time. Incrementally means increasing in size, or adding on.

If mentioned three-dimensional structures and arrangements of reproductive system were added on through time, then we can easily simulate the state of a system before "adding", by reducing its current state, which means that we decrease the number of its components. So we can take one step back in "adding on" process(tempotal point n-1), or in other words, we can take one step back in "evolution of reproductive system" by removing(eg. by gene knockout) or destructuring(eg. by gene mutation) one of its core component/subprocess/enzyme. But, we know from empirical science that this action will result in inability of that organism to either - produce germ cell, produce the sperm or egg cell, discharge the semen or releases a mature egg, produce the enzyme for egg wall penetration, unite egg and sperm, etc., etc, etc. Since organism in that state is not able to reproduce, evolution is not able to proceed. Hence, at an earlier stage of hypothetical evolutionary development of reproductive system, "adding on" procces is physically impossible since organism lacks components required for its execution.


Now, if we start from the assumption that reproductive system of some organism is a evolutionary superstructure, which means that system is an upward extension of a previously existing and functional reproductive system, then logical necessity of component removal from this superstructure is retention of reproductive function or arrival at some simpler mode of reproduction. But experiments and countless medical examples have showed that is not the case. For this reason, the assumption that human reproductive system is a evolutionary superstructure, is false, it's falsified by direct empirical science.


The same is true for organisms that reproduce asexually. For example, most bacteria rely on binary fission for propagation. Before binary fission occurs, the cell must copy its genetic material and segregate these copies to opposite ends of the cell. Then the many types of proteins that comprise the cell division machinery assemble at the future division site. A key component of this machinery is the protein FtsZ. Protein monomers of FtsZ assemble into a ring-like structure at the center of a cell. Other components of the division apparatus then assemble at the FtsZ ring. This machinery is positioned so that division splits the cytoplasm and does not damage DNA in the process. As division occurs, the cytoplasm is cleaved in two, and in many bacteria, new cell wall is synthesized. The systems for order and timing of these processes are also needed.


If we reduce core components of the systems that allows the execution of these processes - DNA replication, DNA segregation, division site selection, invagination of the cell envelope and synthesis of new cell wall... - the biological process by which new offspring is produced will be stopped, just like with sexual reproduction. Hence, this processes are not reducible.


To conclude, if there is an idea(theory/hypotheses/whatever) that claims reproductive function evolved by "numerous, successive, slight modifications over millions of years", that idea is completely flawed regardless of scientific community opinion, conventions, "mountains of evidence for evolution", evolutionary "scientist" opinion, youtube IC refutations... This idea is flawed because science demonstrated thru a simple cause-and-effect relation that outcome is in contradiction with the fundamental premise of evolution. Pure and simple.
Edited by forex
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you for your answers, but scientific fact of 1 - irreducible complexity of biological processes will not cease to exist because of the human mental constructs in the form of ideas, theories, hypotheses, explanations, presuppositions,...or by persistent repetition of phrases like "IC has been debunked" or appeals to personal incredulity. The reason is simple:
The inability of the eukaryotic cell to perform the cell cycle without a functional RNA splicing is not dependent on the human mental constructs(mentioned above) but on the presence of the subprocesses with the ability to recognize, capture, cut, rearrange, join and release premRNA molecule.
2 - That is why my focus here is on things that can be observed scientifically and not on the general creation/evolution debate. So, if you want to talk about "mountain of evidence" in favor of evolution this topic is not for you. One of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, Karl Popper, said that the big difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in attitude. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, Popper says, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications. This topic is about falsifications.
Science is pretty simple. It provides insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular set of natural phenomena is manipulated. In my examples of RNA splicing and reproduction process, it is empirically undeniable that if this processes exists in such a way that some of their subprocesses are missing(cause) a specific thing happens as a result(effect) - cell/organism loses its ability to perform fundamental activity that defines life - the ability to maintain or to replicate arrangement of matter that existed before, or simply put, the cell/organism dies.
If we start from the idea that reproductive system of some organism, e.g. human(tempotal point n) were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps and that the first self replicating organism(starting point of evolution) did not contain the genetic information needed to make three-dimensional structures and arrangements like penis, testicles, sperm, uterus, ovaries, ovum, enzyme on sperm head that can penetrate egg wall, etc., then certain things follow as a logical necessity:
3 - Evolution is a process that proceeds incrementally, one step at a time. One thing leads to another. This is true for all kinds of evolution. Living things evolve with small changes between generations. If that is true, than three-dimensional structures and arrangements like penis, testicles, sperm, uterus, ovaries, ovum... were also produced by evolution, incrementally, one step at a time. Incrementally means increasing in size, or adding on.
If mentioned three-dimensional structures and arrangements of reproductive system were added on through time, then we can easily simulate the state of a system before "adding", by reducing its current state, which means that we decrease the number of its components. So we can take one step back in "adding on" process(tempotal point n-1), or in other words, we can take one step back in "evolution of reproductive system" by removing(eg. by gene knockout) or destructuring(eg. by gene mutation) one of its core component/subprocess/enzyme. But, we know from empirical science that this action will result in inability of that organism to either - produce germ cell, produce the sperm or egg cell, discharge the semen or releases a mature egg, produce the enzyme for egg wall penetration, unite egg and sperm, etc., etc, etc. Since organism in that state is not able to reproduce, evolution is not able to proceed. Hence, at an earlier stage of hypothetical evolutionary development of reproductive system, "adding on" procces is physically impossible since organism lacks components required for its execution.
Now, if we start from the assumption that reproductive system of some organism is a evolutionary superstructure, which means that system is an upward extension of a previously existing and functional reproductive system, then logical necessity of component removal from this superstructure is retention of reproductive function or arrival at some simpler mode of reproduction. But experiments and countless medical examples have showed that is not the case. For this reason, the assumption that human reproductive system is a evolutionary superstructure, is false, it's falsified by direct empirical science.
The same is true for organisms that reproduce asexually. For example, most bacteria rely on binary fission for propagation. Before binary fission occurs, the cell must copy its genetic material and segregate these copies to opposite ends of the cell. Then the many types of proteins that comprise the cell division machinery assemble at the future division site. A key component of this machinery is the protein FtsZ. Protein monomers of FtsZ assemble into a ring-like structure at the center of a cell. Other components of the division apparatus then assemble at the FtsZ ring. This machinery is positioned so that division splits the cytoplasm and does not damage DNA in the process. As division occurs, the cytoplasm is cleaved in two, and in many bacteria, new cell wall is synthesized. The systems for order and timing of these processes are also needed.
If we reduce core components of the systems that allows the execution of these processes - DNA replication, DNA segregation, division site selection, invagination of the cell envelope and synthesis of new cell wall... - the biological process by which new offspring is produced will be stopped, just like with sexual reproduction. Hence, this processes are not reducible.
To conclude, if there is an idea(theory/hypotheses/whatever) that claims reproductive function evolved by "numerous, successive, slight modifications over millions of years", that idea is completely flawed regardless of scientific community opinion, conventions, "mountains of evidence for evolution", evolutionary "scientist" opinion, youtube IC refutations... This idea is flawed because science demonstrated thru a simple cause-and-effect relation that outcome is in contradiction with the fundamental premise of evolution. Pure and simple.

 

1 - You do realize that this is a redundant statement? Irreducible complexity is also a mental construct.

 

2 - Evolution has been observed countless times at the DNA level and full species scale.

 

3 - This is simply inaccurate. Evolution is not lineal. It is not one baby step at a time. Mutations, changes to DNA, can have large or small impacts. It can happen in just a few generations or take millions. It is random. Your small step by small step tiny change by tiny change isn't random.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why my focus here is on things that can be observed scientifically and not on the general creation/evolution debate.

 

But all you are doing is presenting the same old creationist lies. You haven't presented any science, just empty assertions.

 

So, if you want to talk about "mountain of evidence" in favor of evolution this topic is not for you.

 

Science is all about evidence. So saying that you want to ignore the evidence is a typical religious anti-scientific approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be sure here Forex: what, if anything, do you imagine could change your mind on this topic?

Empirical/theoretical cause-and-effect demonstration of how four fundamental interactions - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear can arrange atoms into a state that we observe at a simplest level of biological organization - cybernetic systems with regulation, control, feedback loops, mechanical gears, temporal coordination and semiotic relation... or empirical/theoretical cause-and-effect demonstration of how random DNA shuffling and natural selection can produce three-dimensional cellular structures and arrangements - organs, tisues, signaling and regulatory networks, checkpoints are control mechanisms, molecular machines, metabolic pathways. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation and storytelling does not belong into that category.

Edited by forex
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • 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.