I've not been on here much in months, but some things never change. GMS still doesn't understand random mutation and natural selection and still insists in posting on threads about it. I have all sorts of things to add to this thread but it's all been said countless times before. I'm just going to skip straight to the part where I bang my head against the wall.
You know what, I can't resist. I am going to say one thing on the GMS's perceived irreducible complexity of the nose. I've seen you in the past use a couple of examples of IC, the eye was another one. I explained to you in detail how that evolved, only for you to use the same example later. In fact I'm going to grant you, for arguments sake, that the nose and eyes (and any other fallacious examples you can come up with) can't be explained by RM & NS. Do you somehow think that this is an argument against evolution? That the fact that science can't explain these few examples somehow negates the vast volume of evidence for evolution? Or that it is somehow evidence for creationism? How do you jump from "evolution can't explain the eye" to "evolution is not real" in the face of overwhelming evidence? That isn't how science (or reason) works. Unlike creationists, scientists don't claim to have all the answers. If scientists can't find the answer to a question they happily admit it and work to find the answer. If creationists can't find an answer, they just say "God did it", which makes EXACTLY the same rational sense as saying "The tooth fairy did it." That is to say, we have equal objective evidence to say that either created the heavens and the earth. There is a course on Evolutionary Biology on Yale University's Youtube Channel. I suggest you watch some of it before posting on any more evolution threads.
First of all, hello haven't seen you in a while haha Irreducible complexity goes against evolution because it is saying "this is a machine that required multiple parts at once to function that could not have evolved over a slow, gradual process" I've been reading alot up on this experiment called something along the lines of 'minimal gene set for cells'. Taking the most simplest single celled organism, scientists have been working for over a decade I believe now to reduce a cell to the least amount of genes required to self sustain itself; gene replication, encoding, transcribing, energy supply ect. They've found that atleast 250 genes are required for the most simplest cell to be alive- Scientists Find Smallest Number Of Genes Needed For Organism's Survival Just one medium sized protein made up of 300 amino acids forming with 3 nucleotides per amino acid would be a 1 in 656,100,000,000 probability. For one protein. Now think about 250 genes... Please don't claim that "oh there were once simply just 'primitive cells' that didn't need as much". First of all, there is no evidence. Even before the Cambrian explosion all single celled organisms were as complex as ones today. And second of all, this experiment is proof you can't have a 'primitive cell' because there is irreducible complexity at a level impossible to reach by chance.. As far as organic evolution goes, it's pretty much out of the picture. If macroevolution were ever to be true, especially if abiogenisis is in the picture, we need something more along the lines of 950 trillion quadrillion years, not 13.7 billion.. lol and most definitely wasn't an unguided process. I think Darwin had a really groundbreaking new observation in science of animals creating variety, but came to a well overdrawn conclusion saying variety and natural selection created all living lifeforms we have today.. Natural selection actually decreases overall genetic information.. He was onto something, but I think there's alot more to it we just don't know yet.
Oh look, another sidestep from GMS, including an incredible lack of understanding of the Cambrian explosion. GMS is obviously an expert and is able to tell us how long it should be taking things to evolve and doesn't see how environment guides mutation thus making it non-random, and therefore - biased mutation. I DONT KNOW HOW THIS GOT HERE SO THAT MEANS IM RIGHT
I can't believe I'm allowing myself to be dragged into this futile waste of time. Hi. This is working from the premise that any examples of IC haven't or can't actually be explained by biologists (stoners on GC are not biologists, myself included). What in fact is the case is one or more of the following: creationists fail to understand the explanations and evidence given or fail to look at it; creationists are in denial over the evidence given because it is wholly incompatible with, and a threat to, their closed minded, solipsistic, arrogant religious views; or creationists have an agenda other than scientific (political, etc). Oh OK. So what you're saying is that it probably didn't happen that way, so God must have done it? If you don't believe in evolution you shouldn't talk about such things as the Cambrian Explosion. Evolution is a small part of biology, which is a small part of science. All scientific fields are interconnected and inter-reliant. You can't accept one field (palaeontology) and refuse to accept a discipline that works parallel (biology). In order to talk about the Cambrian Explosion, you need to accept the fossil evidence that points to it. Every single fossil we find is a transitional fossil between the creature it descended from and those that descend from it, most of these we know, some are still unclear. The fact that some are still unclear doesn't affect the validity of those that are very much clear. Are we just making up impossibly large arbitrary numbers that sound impressive? We see evolution happening all around us. Viruses and bacteria evolve year on year to create new strains through random mutation (one individual virus mutates immunity to a vaccine) and natural selection (that virus survives and passes on its mutation). The fact we can see this is partly due to their much faster reproductive rate (more generations per year) and the selective pressures caused by vaccines. I'm done with this thread. From here on it's just the inevitable running in circles.
Maybe the chances don't seem likely for your protein to form, DNA, etc. because of random chance, but you seem to forget that given an infinite amount of time within our universe and there are an infinite number of possibilities that can happen. Considering there was nothing to stop it from happening, it was BOUND to happen at some point. As far as the nose, particular organisms needed some form of chemical detection, which actually started with basic chemosensors which are present in even some single celled organisms as organelles, to be able to avoid certain chemicals which would be harmful to their health. The few organisms that were lucky enough to have the mutation lived longer and reproduced more successfully than other members of their generation and therefore the mutation lasted this long. Also, in case you have any other debatable questions, here's a nice link with some answers for you. An Index to Creationist Claims I have nothing against a good debate about any topic, but get educated on the topic before trying to attack it head on.
As stated, not all of them were provided with the, "Garden of Eden," so to speak. Not everyone has a farm in their backyard. Some people have to go out and get jobs to earn money to buy food from other people. By the way; who even said, "man evolved from primates?" Who even invented that category? Who's to say we aren't still primates? Have you seen the actions of some of the, "people," of the world?