Irreducible Complexity

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Oh, and BGood, just so you know-no scientists has been able to dismantle this example. Or any other one by the way Let's see what you try and do...will it be a strawman I have seen, or a new one?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

First, the blind spot is minimal, second, two eyes removes the problem. Then, you have the rest of that article. It's not bad design-you have to look at several factors, not just one. It'd be like you going through a range of laptops, and not finding an 82 inch screen, you label it a bad design…but wait a minute, there are other parameters to a laptop-it has to be mobile, and it needs to have good battery life…now, if you had an 82 inch monitor…you couldn't fit it in anything except a van, or SUV with the seats lowered/removed. Plus, once that screen turns on, you'll have maybe 3 seconds until your screen dies.

“Dawkins doesn't know why the vertebrate retina is designed this way because he doesn't really understand how the eye works. In fact, the retina is designed with slightly suboptimal light gathering abilities so that it will be functional for at least several decades. If it were designed according to Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer," it would not work at all, as we shall see.” (You're regurgitating Dawkins ain't ya')

Who is Dawkins?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The head hancho of all atheists basically. A scientist, but talks outside of his area of expertise...I think I've won when all you can do is ask me who Dawkins is

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Oh, and BGood, just so you know-no scientists has been able to dismantle this example. Or any other one by the way Let's see what you try and do...will it be a strawman I have seen, or a new one?

Silly look on page 81 and my quote from earlier, I already showed you that its possible to have a system in which there are none of the complex cascading features.

This is not about winning but about enlightening, tomorrow, if time permits I will go over the book point by point and return with a rebuttal.

[August]

Who is Dawkins?

Dude on the left....

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Oh, and BGood, just so you know-no scientists has been able to dismantle this example. Or any other one by the way Let's see what you try and do...will it be a strawman I have seen, or a new one?

Silly look on page 81 and my quote from earlier, I already showed you that its possible to have a system in which there are none of the complex cascading features.

This is not about winning but about enlightening, tomorrow, if time permits I will go over the book point by point and return with a rebuttal.

Which quote? You've said a lot.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Who is Dawkins?

Dude on the left....

Somehow.....it just seems...too ironic.

[PHIL121]

Also certain parts of the genes (hot spots) are more likely to mutate than others.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the science. The likelyhood of a mutation in a "hot spot" is just as likely as anywhere else. These so called "hot spots" are areas of the DNA chain which are "corrected" because they result in the death of an organism. Therefore the mutations which survive is the rate which is used in the calculation.

Well, considering I heard from a cancer researcher on Origins who holds seven different PhD's and your credentials as a "scientist" are......what?

Seems like someone is speading a little misinformation of their own.

[quote="PHIL121]To find the complexity we see today would take far more than 10 or even 100 billion years if it were all due to "random" chance.

Well thats strange because mutation rates are calculated by taking the genetic difference between two samples and dividing it by the estimated time of genetic isolation. Why would multiplying it again by the difference in material result in a larger timeframe?

This is because you are using successful mutations in determining the mutation rate. And then in determining the plausibility you are factoring out the unsuccessful mutations. This can not be done because the original count only counted the successful mutations. [/quote]

Well, I guess you don't consider "intellegence" to be a sucessful mutation then.



But you're NOT grilling me....yea ...right

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Also certain parts of the genes (hot spots) are more likely to mutate than others.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the science. The likelyhood of a mutation in a "hot spot" is just as likely as anywhere else. These so called "hot spots" are areas of the DNA chain which are "corrected" because they result in the death of an organism. Therefore the mutations which survive is the rate which is used in the calculation.

Well, considering I heard from a cancer researcher on Origins who holds seven different PhD's and your credentials as a "scientist" are......what?

Seems like someone is speading a little misinformation of their own.

Actually your right I misunderstood you, you had written aminos and not used to correct term. I made an assumption and it was the wrong one. I am sorry. Sorry about that. Hot spots in cancer research are locations where mutation is more likely than other locations. But not in the way you understood it as.

All nucleic acids in a DNA chain has a corresponding base pair.

Apparantly certain nucleic acids are prone to breaking down due to environmental factors. When this happens the broken down molecule will then be paired with the incorrect base pair. Resulting in a mutation.

Ask your cancer researcher friend again to explain it to you and post it here.

Changes in adult cells can possibly lead to cancer, but if the change is present in gametes it will probably lead to termination.

And yes I am generalizing when I say that the chances are the same but they are roughly equal. The chemistry of each nucleic acid is of course not exactly the same.

But look at the evidence and you will see that the base pairs are utilized roughly equally. So it cannot be the case that certain nucleic acids are favored.

[quote="PHIL121]To find the complexity we see today would take far more than 10 or even 100 billion years if it were all due to "random" chance.

Well thats strange because mutation rates are calculated by taking the genetic difference between two samples and dividing it by the estimated time of genetic isolation. Why would multiplying it again by the difference in material result in a larger timeframe?

This is because you are using successful mutations in determining the mutation rate. And then in determining the plausibility you are factoring out the unsuccessful mutations. This can not be done because the original count only counted the successful mutations.

Well, I guess you don't consider "intellegence" to be a sucessful mutation then.



But you're NOT grilling me....yea ...right

I am not grilling you at all.
And the intelligence comment has nothing to do with what I wrote?

What do you mean? I am talking about differences in genetic sequence?
For example seq1 - seq2 = change in seq.
change in seq/estimated divergence time = mutation rate.

This mutation rate calculates only successful genetic changes evident in the two gene sequences.

If I write something incorrectly please feel free to correct me.
Also if there is updated information I may be unaware please correct me.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Oh, and BGood, just so you know-no scientists has been able to dismantle this example. Or any other one by the way Let's see what you try and do...will it be a strawman I have seen, or a new one?

Silly look on page 81 and my quote from earlier, I already showed you that its possible to have a system in which there are none of the complex cascading features.

This is not about winning but about enlightening, tomorrow, if time permits I will go over the book point by point and return with a rebuttal.

Cough it up big boy