Evolution posits that humans and every species have either lived with every organ system, organ, and cellular organelle in their body being incomplete and non-functional for eons, or that they changed their function millions of times whilst maintaining their necessity. Both disjuncts are absurd; every one of these subsystems depend on others' function for their existence. (And you just happened to be born today with all of your organ systems complete and functional, with a smartphone in your pocket and internet access. Lucky you.)
A summation of the argument for evolution: >1. Evolution is a fact, ok a theory, but actually a fact. >2. Look at all these similarities that exist because they're physically necessary for function. >3. Look at this functioning DNA called "junk DNA" that existed in prehistoric ancestors because evolution is a fact. >4. Here's how evolution could have happened. >5. Ok, that only explains like 0.01% of what needs to be explained and there's a lot of holes but we need to have faith science will eventually discover the full explanation. >6. The evidence is OVERWHELMING! >7. Anyone who disagrees is uneducated and stupid. Atheists are so desperate to believe in independence from God, it's embarrassing.
In all systems, if A is necessary for B, B is necessary for C, and C is necessary for A, if one variable is missing, none of the variables can exist. Natural selection necessitates disadvantageous variables disappear, leaving only advantageous or neutral variables. Advancement of systems in the world necessitates addition of advantageous variables. This means any system will be almost or entirely composed of conditional subsystems. The human body is one such system, containing more subsystems than there have been seconds in the universe. Thus, the evolutionist needs to believe all of these subsystems evolved at the same time while consistently changing their function yet maintaining their necessity for function, which is demonstrably impossible.
> changed their function millions of times whilst maintaining their necessity. > absurd
Yeah it's not though.
The ones that didn't work ceased to exist. The ones that worked better were more successful.
Brody Garcia
Amazing
Luke Lewis
>muh moustrap analogy, checkmate atheists.
Most churches now even admit to evolution now dont they?
Luke Brown
Kill all Muslims
Brody Moore
Maybe having an entire universe full of experiments going on over twelve billion years helps those chances out a bit? Just a thought.
Charles Bennett
>apply environmental pressure to controlled environment in lab >literally watch fruit fly evolution in real time Can you just stop making up theoretical frameworks for why evolution doesn't happen, when it clearly does?
Kevin Adams
Whoa, what is this?
Samuel Adams
Looks like DNA transcription into RNA
Nicholas Phillips
>irreducible complexity Lmfao read a book you fuckin retard
Jack Rodriguez
If there is a designer, they've tried incredibly hard to make it look like the variety of life seen today arose through evolution. Just one example: in our retinas, the blood vessels sit above the light sensing cells, meaning light has to pass through them to be detected. This makes sense if eyes evolved from photosensitive spots on the skin but there's no logical reason to do it if the animal is designed.
Chase Reyes
that's DNA replication faggot
Blake Fisher
False. Next question.
Jacob Kelly
> incomplete and non-functional, if it is able to function in a given role, it is complete > they changed function "they" change because the genetic information that describe the proteins creating them change > also, biological systems are can be redundant - as almost every cell carries the total genetic information and some of them able to despecialize
Leo Morales
>Evolution posits that humans and every species have either lived with every organ system, organ, and cellular organelle in their body being incomplete and non-functional for eons, or that they changed their function millions of times whilst maintaining their necessity. this assumption is already wrong there are too many factors to make such an assumption, and there are many different evolutionary outcomes/results for one situation/problem
they did - in fact - change their functions a million times, their necesseties were just as varied as the functions they possessed but at some point the sum of those functions result in a new species instead
you also seem to forget that "random" mutations are a big factor of evolution
Nathaniel Adams
>laws of nature + time yea okay
Ethan Clark
If creationism is real then your God is a shit designer. There are ton of left over crap in the human body such as the appendix, tailbone, and severed RNA strands in the cells that are not only useless but infact harmful to have. Why would something all knowing design an individual that has a bunch of left over evolutionary garbage behind? Hell, i'm not even all knowing but i know putting the fun reproductive organs so close to the waste disposal holes is a shitty design...literally.
Michael Hall
Really isn't that complicated a system. It's pretty flawed actually
Jordan Mitchell
What is the thing in the middle? Some sort of genom-printer?
Jonathan Scott
How is that shitty design? Did you just want to make that groaner of a pun?
Do you really think having significantly distinct scaffolding for different forms of excretion would be a positive or efficient change?
Also
>what is GALT
Aaron Edwards
>The irreducible complexity of biological systems makes natural evolution impossible
No it doesn't
Have the Universe as an example. It definitely is FUCKING complex as it contains all the possible complexity within it. Is it impossible for it because of some arbitrary argument like "its complex lol" to not create complex structures?
That's how fucking retarded this is
Ryder Mitchell
>Evolution is a fact, ok a theory, but actually a fact. Learn the meaning of the term 'scientific theory' and colloquial 'theory' and then come back
Jaxon Parker
They're proteins that manipulate and kink the DNA for a few reasons, mostly quality control... A lot of the safe guards against mutation can only detect deletions or funny geometries in the strand, and that loop conformation allows repair mechanisms to check the DNA for accuracy one base at a time
Jace Adams
Theists cannot understand evolution. Their worldview works in thousands of years, not billions.
Andrew Butler
It still needs to be fleshed out a little. Plus humans are kind of fucking with some of the rules.
Jaxon Scott
>still needs to be fleshed out a little
Go on
Nicholas Sanchez
>pseudo intellectual on Sup Forums
Thanks for proving your fedora tipping credentials kid. Also a significant majority of reproductive organ infection are caused by their close proximity or direct connection to waste disposal, yeast infection ring a bell?
Jayden Stewart
How can you even think that you could explain the theory with words, fucking prick ? I'm not atheist, but you are a tremendous faggot.
1. Evolution begins with "simple" replications like coarcevats 2. Things go incredibly fast in a microscopic scale, and you don't seem to know that 3. You're talking about a system (human body) which is giant from an atomic scale where the cells are on an average 10^6 times smaller than your body, which is still 10000 times bigger than the molecular scale, each cell is still an amazing biological machinery taken independantly. But the complexity doesn't mean that evolution is absolutely false, it's a theory.
The ocean streams are complex, so is the motion of a plasma fluid into a thorus, the world is complex, are you saying that god is behind everything because it's complex ?
You're retarded.
Xavier Reed
why "random"? I's random.
Brandon Allen
...
Aaron Baker
Hey, I'm not going to be condescended to by someone who thinks the appendix is completely vestigial.
Besides, you seem to be drawing a very ambiguous line when it comes to what's a reproductive structure and what's a renal structure.
Pro tip: UTIs/yeast infections are not "reproductive organ infections"
Inb4 "but your cock's your baby maker!"
Anthony Adams
>being a retarded child & embarassment to his parents >not believing in evolution
Caleb Myers
>implying God didn't just copy paste an ape and modified it to be human You think he's going to redesign each creature from scratch? What would you do in his position?
Ryan Taylor
>UTIs/yeast infections Not knowing the difference between the two.
You're literally pulling shit for wikipedia to make it look like your not a sperg.
Jack Long
Complexity doesn't make it so something can't happen
World has existed or 4.2 billions years, a lot can happen
Think of this way, when something mutates slightly it either lives and spreads the mutation or it dies. Over time, shit changes, those fit for life continue to breed and those that are not, die off.
We didn't jump out of a pond after growing lungs. We slowly mutated to point where we could breath out of water. And then we develop the ability to dwell on land. Like Amphibians do today. Then we evolved to live on land more, probably to take advantage of the vegetation and grow stronger.
The process developed over millions of years. When we breed animals over mere decades, we are able to effectively create a new subspecies. Livestock is bigger. Pets are cuter.
The difference between animal breeding and evolution is that evolution is a natural process that takes a long time compared to an man influenced process that takes a lot less time.
Also, evolution as a concept is used to develop AI. It's actually very easy to simulate the process.
The whole thing isn't actually that complicated. You'd have to be pretty retarded to not understand it.
Jackson Brooks
>maybe if I call him a sperg no one will notice how much of an autist I am
Ian Rivera
The fact it's irreducible does not imply it is not based on basic principles: just that you cannot know them.
Also, Christian burgers are the only Christians who deny evolution. Think about that.
Josiah Morales
An arbitrary metric of complexity =/= impossible you mongoloid
Asher Brown
Wikipedia not have a pre-packaged response for you then?
Mason Cox
He's supposed to be omnipotent and not bound by time, m8.
Hudson Flores
Thanks OP. Sorry but your effort to red pill people on (((their))) explanation on the origin of life isn't going to work. As you said >Anyone who disagrees is uneducated and stupid. Evolution has been taught as a unchallengable "science." It's as bad as people defending circumcision, and despite how many issues you point out, they'll never listen
Owen Long
Well, if i had the ability to create entire life forms from scratch on a whim.... I'd create an entire life form from scratch.... Just a though.
Nathaniel Evans
Evolutionary outcomes are riddled with local maxima. It shows the optimization procedure to arrive at the current phenotype did not have any foresight, as it is expected from pure randomness.
Camden Wood
Pretending to be retarded is a shit defense mechanism and no one would have to tell you that if you weren't terminally ASD
Cameron Gray
>Really isn't that complicated a system. It's pretty flawed actually
Actually the replication speed must approach the speed of light in order for this process to take as little time as it does. It's one of the mysteries of the human body. That's why he said,
>>laws of nature + time >yea okay
It's crazy. At least one dude, Dan White iirc thinks the replication speed surpasses the speed of light by a 'measurable' amount. There is just too much genetic data for replication to happen in as little time as it does, when you solve for speed the result is superluminal. Fucking awesome right!?!
Sebastian Howard
>we make God so omnipotent that he's challenged on what he can do Ironic. If we said he was the creator, the moral absolute, and the final judge, nobody would have a problem with "can he make a rock so big he can't lift it" or that he can't cut a corner when designing an extremely complex lifeform. Instead religion has to push this perfect perfection, that is more detrimental than beneficial to the argument for God.
Aaron James
>If you have half a lung you can't breath you need to have a whole lung to breath checkmate evolutionists You're embarrassing yourself m8.
Jaxson Hernandez
>Pretending to be intellectual while pulling random shit from the first Google results.
Still mad i called you out? Stay mad little man.
Carter Watson
you too f a m
Mason Peterson
Your implying all that God does requires zero interaction, time, or effort. I do not believe this to be so. Genesis clearly shows time, interaction, and I'm sure I could find an example of effort but I'm too lazy to look at the moment.
The truth about evolution and all "natural sciences", is that there is no real way to verify far reaching claims / conclusions based on microscopic amounts of applicable / observable data.
While Astro Physicist can give us some "barely" observable data like red / blue shift, they build a whole, sprawling, mythology around it.
While Geologist can find Oil, and some times other stuff. The whole "Earth History" fairy tale Geologist have made is based on looking at rocks and guessing.
The rest of these disciplines all just poke at shit until something happens, write down what does and doesn't work, then move on.
They don't understand the "core" engineering behind why things are they way they are.
With the exception of Medical Doctors, Petroleum Geologist and Chemical Engineers, there are no other professions that actually produce anything but wild guesses based on a tiny amount of observable data.
It's a little better than reading tea leaves, or palm reading, but its the same general principle.
Thomas Rodriguez
They need to show it happening in a variety of longer lives species for one. They also need to observe it in the wild such that a new species is actually created.
It still needs work.
Easton Ortiz
DNA replication
dna helicase breaks up the helix.
dna polymerase reads 3' end to 5' end on the dna strand and adds the complementary base pair.
That's why one dna polymerase can spit out the double helix continuously, while the other needs to do it in chunks, since it is effectively working backwards, and instead of designing a new protein that could read in the 5' to 3' direction, evolution just decided to be retarded and use the same protein.
Juan Gomez
/thread
James Mitchell
The "God can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it" is not a problem because it's impossible by definition. This is like saying God can't make a circle a square. Things have to be inherently possible.
Ryan Ward
What defines a new species? At what point will you have observed the rise of a novel organism?
>irreducible complexity i'm just going to keep asking for a source on this that isn't Pastor Ben's Barnyard Service.
no reputable source? into the trash it goes
Tyler Butler
>Actually the replication speed must approach the speed of light in order for this process to take as little time as it does.
Why don't you tell me the conversion rate between number of replications and meters?
Jaxson Cook
The complexity would just be what makes evolution take so long. With such a large and interdependent system, any small detrimental change is magnified to make the whole organism less likely to survive.
Matthew Gutierrez
>At least one dude, Dan White iirc thinks the replication speed surpasses the speed of light by a 'measurable' amount. there are multiple (read, thousands and thousands) sites of replication in dna. you and dan are dumb niggers
Henry Parker
Reminder that in order for our laws of physics to be correct on a galactic scale, 90% of the universe has to be made up of a theoretical substance that can't be measured in any known way.
Tyler Brooks
>irreducible complexity of biological systems source?
Carson Morgan
Yep. They figured out that bible isn't cooking book and we can cook things that aren't described in it.
Gabriel Johnson
>irreducible complexity of biological systems source? or is this just some sciency-sounding buzzwords that you think prove your point? >using scientific-sounding language to argue for religion nigga you dumb
Nicholas Walker
>Evolution posits that humans and every species have either lived with every organ system, organ, and cellular organelle in their body being incomplete and non-functional for eons, or that they changed their function millions of times whilst maintaining their necessity. It does not. This may be the origin of all your problems.
Julian Green
this.
just cut these degrees out of universities, and bring back skilled labor/ trade.
David Gray
>literally using argument from irreducible complexity
This has been thoroughly destroyed please try again
Elijah Torres
>They don't understand the "core" engineering behind why things are they way they are. you must be a bioengineer or biomedical engineer. can you explain what these core engineering principles behind why things are the way they are to me?
also,
>irreducible complexity of biological systems sauce?
Connor Bennett
Yeah because it makes so much more sense that THIS was intelligently designed
>irreducible complexity of biological systems source?
Ethan Carter
>theory >no supporting evidence into the trash
>look up Wai H. Tsang >speaker, musician, cumputer programmer into the trash
>irreducible complexity of biological systems source?
Jack Long
Irreducible complexity is a youtube tier argument because you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that some living creatures are irreducibly complex and you people never deliver because that would require knowledge of biology.
Grayson Hall
Who do you think creates the inherent possibility? To not believe in God at this point is very dense
Jacob Cruz
>irreducible complexity of biological systems citation?
Jace Myers
I don't know. So far every time we've selectively bred animals into vastly different phenotypes they haven't been considered new species. If you take dogs as an example there's probably a good argument that a bull mastiff is not the same species as a chihuahua. I imagine if those two breeds were newly observed they would not be classified the same. But because they were the result of human intervention we don't treat them differently. All of the evolution studies I've ever read stopped at the trait level.
It is one of the main observations that is notably absent from the theory.
Chase Bell
>All of the evolution studies I've ever read stopped at the trait level. molecular approaches are more accurate than "hurr durr they look different"
>irreducible complexity of biological systems source?
Robert Brooks
>They don't understand the "core" engineering behind why things are they way they are.
Physicists figure this out and then tell the engineers, you retard.
Logan Clark
Seems like there's quite a bit absent from your theory.
Christian Miller
"I am a creationist because I read a book, and the book disagrees with the entire scientific community hehehe so edgy xdddddddddd"
Levi Anderson
I believe in God.
Blake Ward
Define 'irreducible complexity'
Also, "I don't get it" != "it's impossible"
Gavin Murphy
don't forget that book was written by people who didn't know about microorganisms and didn't know how rain worked, to name a few
Nathaniel Richardson
>what is cumulative complexity Wew
Brayden Jenkins
>irreducible complexity of biological systems still waiting on a source for this
Carter Martinez
I pity you three, you're trying for intelligent conversation and only pulling out American and Australian spergs.
Here's a shoutout/bump thingy for actually being intelligent and bothering to properly argue your points, without deflecting.
>The Process developed over millions of years >The whole thing isn't actually that complicated. You'd have to be pretty retarded to not understand it. The 'shit happened' reply is not an argument.
Jack Smith
Look mate, is Sky Daddy all powerful or not?
Justin Ward
And, you dumb shit, if you need a source on the complexity of the human body? Start by getting a girlfriend. Then, go for a gander on Wikipedia, even if its just the immune system.
And fuck yourself.
Asher Morgan
Yea but they don't use a molecular approach to classify most species.
Isaiah Allen
>. Look at this functioning DNA called "junk DNA" that existed in prehistoric ancestors because evolution is a fact
The "junk DNA" is far from being useless. It's non-coding DNA, but it is highly involve in gene reculation (siRNA, miRNA, tRNA,...).
Also, it's possible to make bacteria or small organism evolve in the laboratory to equip them with new functions. It's a experimental proof of evolution.
Benjamin Myers
Neither is "the bible says so, and Darwinism doesn't exist".
Create a micro-colony of a species; the weaker ones die out. Over time, you start to see minute changes that are reactionary adaptions to the environment. Why do you think Africans have less natural body hair than Scandinavians?
Someone hasn't gone through their edgy atheist teen phase. Sorry, you're dumb.
James Edwards
Not really. It's a remarkably well crafted theory with tons of evidence. The barrier to become a scientific law is just very high. Essentially once something is enshrined as a law scientists largely stop questioning it and take it for granted. Not really something you want to do without having done due diligence.
Cameron Perez
Breaking news. The Einstein relativity theory is close to being partially disproven. He had it all right except for how gravity works in supralarge spaces. They think gravity has two kind of actions, à close scale one and à large scale one, and that would explain the universe with no 'eed for black matter or whatever.
Charles Perez
>Neither is "the bible says so, and Darwinism doesn't exist". I said that? I hope you've got a spare (you).
>Create a micro-colony of a species; the weaker ones die out. And? Correlation isn't causation.
>Over time, you start to see minute changes that are reactionary adaptions to the environment. The same way that I'm amused by your reply? Living things react to their environment. So what?
>Experimental >Proof Pick one.
Isaac Howard
1/2
As a neuroscientist I can claim that you are full of shit
I dont even want to lose my time explaining this to you. But ill shed some light in order to stump the darkness.
Evolution doesnt posits what you said. It merely states that life changes over time and that several different factors shape the outcome.
There are several theories on how life began, the best is the theory about matter increasing in complexity due to a thermodynamic tendency to cluster in complex ways to better shed off heat.
Eventually theses complex heat sheding blocks became so efficient at doing it that it became possible for them store energy.
Thats when life really began, these energy storing capacities allowed new layers of complexity to emerge that could tap into these reservers to create additional processes.
The first great selection happened on the grounds of reproduction capacity and adaptation heritability. When the great cosmic soup produced the first organisms that were not only capable but efficient in these processes the boom of life began.
The development of sensors and locomotion happened using the same basic system that consists of dopamine and other energy discharging signalers that are completely multi purpose.
At the same time that they signaled an energetic release they created a memory related to it and created adaptative motor action related to the stimuli.
This made it so that the system responsible for memory building be linked with a cost-benefic analysis system, motor activation, spatio-temporal analysis system and in turn it allows a representative reality to emergy in your mind giving you the power to make simulations, predictions, inferences etc.
