Irreducible complexity exists - cannot be refuted

[nnmartin]

You seem to be somewhat confused. :sarcastic
Evolution is a result of the laws of physics.

I'm not confused in the slightest. Most people here are saying that evolution happens by chance - no , it is driven by physics.

Secondly, the non-random element you are looking for has a name. It's called Natural Selection, not cosmic order, whatever that is.

Nonsense!

Natural Selection is an old fashioned term coined over 100 years ago by a man , currently revered as God by the Neo-Darwinists. Natural selection is random - the laws of physics allow nature to direct this evolution. See post 37 for explanation.

Nobody claimed that it was due to chance

Nonsense! - Virtually all Neo-Darwinists champion the 'chance' theory.

And if by 'guiding force' you mean the laws of physics and chemistry, then we agree. If you mean something else, I think you might need to elaborate somewhat.

So you agree that it is not chance then?

Again , see post 37 which explains how DNA has a role in shaping its own destiny by design.

What do you mean 'the force of the universe'?

The power that controls the laws of physics.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not confused in the slightest. Most people here are saying that evolution happens by chance - no , it is driven by physics.

Chance ...

Oh, and nnmartin, you might wish to seriously meditate upon Dr. King's comment below. :yes:

 

[nnmartin]

Here is the conclusion in the link you posted above . (Chance)


.......'Conclusions of this FAQ
Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.' ...............


It tells us that 'evolultion is not fundamentally a random process'--- this is what I have been saying all along!


The part I have put in italics is quite clearly off topic and over simplistic. (sounds like Dawkins in his pipe and slippers)



Genetic changes do not anticipate a species needs but they do anticipate the next step required to make improvements in the next biochemical change.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I'm not confused in the slightest. Most people here are saying that evolution happens by chance - no , it is driven by physics.

I have never heard an evolutionary biologist claim that evolution is a random process.
In fact, most are quite insistent that while mutations are, for all intents and purposes, random, the process of natural selection is far from random.
But it's still a physical process following the laws of physics.

Nonsense!
Natural Selection is an old fashioned term coined over 100 years ago by a man , currently revered as God by the Neo-Darwinists. Natural selection is random - the laws of physics allow nature to direct this evolution. See post 37 for explanation.

Yeah, I read your post.
Now you would do well to read this article dealing with that exact paper.

I'll quote the most relevant part, which is the one showing you why you are wrong:
"Within a few years, evidence accumulated for non-teleological models of mutation. By 1998, essentially everyone in the field, including Cairns and his closest collaborators, agreed that the original observation did not reflect "directed" mutations, which by that time had been re-baptized with the less loaded term "adaptive mutations". Nevertheless, several interesting features of bacterial biology had been discovered in the process. One alternative model for the observations proposes that starved bacteria enter a "hypermutable" state , either by virtue of a specific genetic "rescue" program, or as a result of breakdown of normal cellular control mechanisms. In this state, high levels of mutations are introduced throughout the bacterial genome, but selection for specific mutants makes it appear as if the environmental conditions preferentially targeted mutations to the selected gene. Importantly, this mechanism has relevance for the onset of bacterial resistance to antibiotic drugs, and possibly to certain cellular states involved in cancer development . In another novel mechanism which has been observed, a multiplication of the copies of the crippled gene ("amplification") is first favorably selected because it leads to a small but detectable increase in its product's minimal activity. This massive gene amplification makes for better chances of mutation, and when these occur the extra gene copies become a burden, and are eliminated by selection.

Nonsense! - Virtually all Neo-Darwinists champion the 'chance' theory.

Right. In that case I'm sure you'll have no problem providing me with a sourced quote that confirms this.

So you agree that it is not chance then?

See above.

Again , see post 37 which explains how DNA has a role in shaping its own destiny by design.

See above.

The power that controls the laws of physics.

And how do you know that there is a 'power' controlling the laws of physics?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Genetic changes do not anticipate a species needs but they do anticipate the next step required to make improvements in the next tiny biochemical step.

Rubbish.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'm not confused in the slightest. Most people here are saying that evolution happens by chance ...

Really?

Who said that?

Looking through this thread reveals that absolutely no one "here" has said that "evolution happens by chance"

For example...

Evolution is not by chance, nor do the changes happen all at once. Great time & population sizes are needed.
While mutations are randomly generated, the fitness function created by reproduction & survival created your guiding mechanism.

Natural selection is a "self-organizing mechanism".

I doubt you read it very carefully or thoughtfully. You didn't even read the title carefully enough.

Which is claimed by exactly no-one.
Well ,except you, that is... :sarcastic



Mate, everything has self-organising mechanisms...
It's called the laws of physics.

Which still isn't entirely understood, e.g. protein folding.
They don't happen only by chance, they follow the laws of chemistry and physics. Chance is involved (environments are rarely static), but it's never the driving factor.

Natural selection is not chance. The selection criteria are very strict: Each organism must live long enough to reproduce, and the cumulative rate of reproduction must be more offspring than necessary to replace the current population.

Now that you understand this basic principle, I'm sure you will realise the error of your assertions lol.

Are you simply mistaken? Or is this a case of blatant dishonesty?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's a case if willful and pretentious ignorance.

 

[painted wolf]

Even a cursory look at wikipedia would have cleared this up... how sad is that?

Natural selection:

Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

Natural selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sadly it's the only argument that some people have and they don't want to give it up.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

Are you simply mistaken? Or is this a case of blatant dishonesty?

I think its a good metaphor for the strictly non-random mechanism of natural selection: No concept that contradicts his erroneous opinion is able to survive in the hostile environment of nmartin's brain. If we were to have a dig in there, we might find the fossilized remains of thousands of species of facts that have long since perished.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I take it he either didn't watch the videos I posted or simply ignored them and didn't watch them.....

 

[camanintx]

Why do particles strive for perfection - it seems as if DNA does not stop evolving until its intrinsic inner coding mechanism has reached its full potential. This cannot just be due to chance - but in accordance with the eternal guiding Force.

If DNA is driven to reach its full potential, then why are the most common organisms also the most simple?

 

[nnmartin]

Three reasons:

1. They have not yet fully evolved.
2. They have reached the end of their route.
3. They exist to provide fodder for future advances

 

[Revoltingest]

Three reasons:
1. They have not yet fully evolved.
2. They have reached the end of their route.
3. They exist to provide fodder for future advances

Evolution doesn't work that way. It has no objective, such as being "fully evolved", reaching "the end" of a route, or providing anything.
It's a process which is always operating, even though some critters give the appearance of stability over long periods of time.
But even where stable, environmental conditions can change, & the process will yield change.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Three reasons:

1. They have not yet fully evolved.
2. They have reached the end of their route.
3. They exist to provide fodder for future advances

I'd apprechiate it if you could reply to my post above: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2658060-post44.html

 

[nnmartin]

In fact, most are quite insistent that while mutations are, for all intents and purposes, random, the process of natural selection is far from random.

Don't you see how disingenuous and back-to-front this statement is?

You cannot call natural selection a process or a mechanism - it is just the end result of something else.

The process is the mutation in the first place which you are saying is random.

No, this is not random - the DNA guides the mutations to change in an overall directed manner in response to signals received from the cells/atoms at the front line.

 

[nnmartin]

In this state, high levels of mutations are introduced throughout the bacterial genome, but selection for specific mutants makes it appear as if the environmental conditions preferentially targeted mutations to the selected gene.

How could they possibly know whether the mutations were targeted or not?

I imagine that because they could not prove this they went for the safe bet - to stick with the Darwinian theory so as not to lose face.

 

[Revoltingest]

He's all yours, jar....I ain't get'n no discussion.

 

[nnmartin]

Evolution doesn't work that way. It has no objective, such as being "fully evolved", reaching "the end" of a route, or providing anything.

The objective of evolution is to take energy out of the Universe. This is in accordance with the laws of physics. Evolution will not stop unless DNA is destroyed or an organism has no need to get more complex, in which case it just replicates.

 

[not nom]

I imagine that because they could not prove this they went for the safe bet - to stick with the Darwinian theory so as not to lose face.

perhaps you're projecting -- nobody would loose face if evolution were discredited. did newton loose face because of einstein? nah.

 

[not nom]

It's about time someone came up with some real answers to evolution

oh, that answer has long been found: covering one's ears and going "lalala, I can't hear you". well, professionals dress it up a bit more, but it's essentially that, as evidenced here as well.