Human Devolution?

[Blob]

Uh, it should be common knowledge that the information to engineer the machines was in the DNA of your zygote...

Yes that is what I have been saying, albeit using biological terms rather than your preferred informal terms "information" and "engineer" and "machines". The DNA contains the genotype. Can I ask if you are you familiar with the terms genotype and phenotype? Sorry if that is a condescending question but I am really unsure from that question.

or are you saying that God makes these biological machines brand new for every new living creature?

At this time I do not believe in a god so no I am not saying that. Neither I am implying that you or other theists believe that. I'm really not sure why you are asking me that question.

Excuse my inability to follow you. I can only promise I am not being cantankerous. I really don't see how how your questions follow from what I have said.

but it kinda has to deal with genes...for the DNA is what will have the cell make the machine-

Well I think it is very clear I know that from my above post.

because even if a biological machine were to be magically and accidentally made in a cell...

Well when you say 'biological machine' I say phenotype - and I am quite aware phenotypes do not exist in cells. It's not like you find a little person inside a zygote. What you find is a genotype, what you call the 'information'.

unless it's in the DNA-it won't happen the next time around with the offspring of the cell.

Yes the DNA contains the genes and therefore the genotype. But this is pretty obvious. I'm really not sure why you are telling me this or why it is relevant to the discussion.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Ah, you don't get it still, irreducible complexity is an argument on a microscopic level-on the level of cellular machinery. If you zoom out to an organism, everything gets simpler because the complexities are hidden within the cell.

OK, some examples...

Flagellum
Cilia
Blood Clotting Cascade
The eye (the chemical process, so, don't bring up Darwin's and Dawkin's wimpy explanation that explains nothing)
Immune system

But, there is irreducible complexity on a macroscopic level-it's just that the argument isn't used there.

You could use it there I guess...circulatory system
Muscular/skeletal (need one for the other one to work, so a double whammy)
Digestive system
Endocrine system

All systems actually-because as one theoretically system would change to specialize in one are...the rest much follow suit and change in such a way to support what the other system was doing before it changed.

[Blob]

Could you please give a specific example of a a biological system - let's say an organ rather than an organism for clear focus - that you consider irreducibly complex so that we can take this enlightening discussion forward in a productive manner?

How about a Flagellum (sp?)

Er...

...I am not a biologist and, sorry to say, it is clear there are no biologists in this thread (unless you are one, bizzt?). That might be a bit technical. I was thinking a human organ that we are all familiar with so everyone knows what is being discussed. Like a heart or brain or whatever, so long as you feel it is irreducibly complex so I can understand why you think that.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Could you please give a specific example of a a biological system - let's say an organ rather than an organism for clear focus - that you consider irreducibly complex so that we can take this enlightening discussion forward in a productive manner?

How about a Flagellum (sp?)

Ah you picked a good one!
Fist you explain to me how the flagellum is irreducibly complex because it is a complex chemical system, and this discussion will require advanced understanding of chemistry.

And not only will I show you how it isn't irreducibly complex but also that there is even a precursory molecular process!

[Blob]

Ah, you don't get it still, irreducible complexity is an argument on a microscopic level-on the level of cellular machinery. If you zoom out to an organism, everything gets simpler because the complexities are hidden within the cell.

OK, some examples...

Flagellum
Cilia
Blood Clotting Cascade
The eye (the chemical process, so, don't bring up Darwin's and Dawkin's wimpy explanation that explains nothing)
Immune system

But, there is irreducible complexity on a macroscopic level-it's just that the argument isn't used there.

You could use it there I guess...circulatory system
Muscular/skeletal (need one for the other one to work, so a double whammy)
Digestive system
Endocrine system

All systems actually-because as one theoretically system would change to specialize in one are...the rest much follow suit and change in such a way to support what the other system was doing before it changed.

Ok. But just pick one please (even flagellum if you like, what the hell?) And please explain why it is irreducibly complex in your opinion. (please don't copy paste.)

The eye (the chemical process, so, don't bring up Darwin's and Dawkin's wimpy explanation that explains nothing)

Your tone sounds a but rude there. As if you are weary of me already. Please be pleasant and nice to me, or don't bother. I haven't come here to annoy anyone so just tell me and I'll leave you alone. Better that than sarcasm which I really have not done anything to deserve now, have I?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Unleash your fury bgood....I'm reading his book as we argue, so I've got ammo...and if you bring up the stupid fact (or possibly a lie) that flagellum and the injection system of the bubonic plague bacteria is similar...doesn't have anything to do with the argument.

[Blob]

Could you please give a specific example of a a biological system - let's say an organ rather than an organism for clear focus - that you consider irreducibly complex so that we can take this enlightening discussion forward in a productive manner?

How about a Flagellum (sp?)

Ah you picked a good one!
Fist you explain to me how the flagellum is irreducibly complex because it is a complex chemical system, and this discussion will require advanced understanding of chemistry.

And not only will I show you how it isn't irreducibly complex but also that there is even a precursory molecular process!

Oh ok. You seem to know your stuff. Over to you BGood!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Could you please give a specific example of a a biological system - let's say an organ rather than an organism for clear focus - that you consider irreducibly complex so that we can take this enlightening discussion forward in a productive manner?

How about a Flagellum (sp?)

Ah you picked a good one!
Fist you explain to me how the flagellum is irreducibly complex because it is a complex chemical system, and this discussion will require advanced understanding of chemistry.

And not only will I show you how it isn't irreducibly complex but also that there is even a precursory molecular process!

Oh ok. You seem to know your stuff. Over to you BGood!

Thank you Blob!
=)
However, noone has shown any system to be irreducibly complex yet. Once someone does I will refute. Bringing up examples does not show understanding of the material at hand, and I refuse to discuss matters of complex chemestry with someone who does not understand it.

[Blob]

I find it rather unfair that people home in on a specific and highly technical example that they are well read up on. I'm newish to this whole area of discussion and don't see why we can't discuss things a non-expert know about in plain english - like the heart or brain or whatever. If people are comfortable in their beliefs I don't see why this should be a problem.

It feels like I have been deliberately dragged onto an unlevel playing field, as though people are more interested in a victory than a sharing of points of view. It's clear no-one is a biolgist - they have just read up on an example that suits their presumptions. What a shame.

But, being game, I was prepared to give it a go anyway - I'd just like to point that much out.

[Blob]

Ah, you don't get it still, irreducible complexity is an argument on a microscopic level-on the level of cellular machinery.

And whilst I'm feeling I have a genuine greivance with how people are repsonding to my very polite and all-ears, positive attitude I take issue with "you don't get it". No one explicitly stated we a re talking about single-celled phenotypes. It's quite clear we were talking about organisms and organs - I explicitly used these terms myself. The only single cell mentioned was the zygote in the context of it becoming an organ or organism. The confusion was hardly mine.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I was just correcting your perception of what Behe actually argues. It's just that I've read a sprinkling of "Behe was wrong because of this and this..." when what the person says has nothing to do with what Behe says.

Kinda like what sweden is doing, but not AS annoying...when he says that we're stupid into following creation scientists (who say the world is 10,000 years old) even though we don't believe it...

[Blob]

I was just correcting your perception of what Behe actually argues. It's just that I've read a sprinkling of "Behe was wrong because of this and this..." when what the person says has nothing to do with what Behe says.

I understand your frustration but I have not tried to misrepresent anyone here.

Kinda like what sweden is doing, but not AS annoying...when he says that we're stupid into following creation scientists (who say the world is 10,000 years old) even though we don't believe it...

Fine, but I'm not sweden. And quite frankly I've got thinker misrepresenting things I say in another thread so I do understand. (Sorry thinker if you see this, but it is true and I have said so politely to your 'face' a few times now.)

I really have been on very best behaviour since I joined. But it's starting to feel like all give and no receive on the pleasantries front. You should all remember you are ambassadors for christianity and not judge new non-believers on the basis of a sterotype, however true that steroetype might have proved itself to be in the past.

Anyway, I appreciate you saying it's nothing I've personally done that resulted in your earlier irritation.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Don't worry (not much of a) thinker always does that I think.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Ah, you don't get it still, irreducible complexity is an argument on a microscopic level-on the level of cellular machinery.

And whilst I'm feeling I have a genuine greivance with how people are repsonding to my very polite and all-ears, positive attitude I take issue with "you don't get it". No one explicitly stated we a re talking about single-celled phenotypes. It's quite clear we were talking about organisms and organs - I explicitly used these terms myself. The only single cell mentioned was the zygote in the context of it becoming an organ or organism. The confusion was hardly mine.

You have a point here Blob and as such that there are a lack of biology experts here, I will in the next few weeks attempt to put together some lessons. And from there we can all tackle an example together. In the meantime we can argue the points of irreducible complexity on its merits in a general way.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Oh ok. You seem to know your stuff. Over to you BGood!

Thank you Blob!
=)
However, noone has shown any system to be irreducibly complex yet. Once someone does I will refute. Bringing up examples does not show understanding of the material at hand, and I refuse to discuss matters of complex chemestry with someone who does not understand it.

As nobody has brought up an example, let us continue the argument on the basics of irreducible complexity. How did these irreducible systems come into being, was it a creation event or did an intelligent designer guide its development through time?