3b. Evo-Illusion and Irreducible Complexity
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by intelligent design proponents that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or “less complete” predecessors, through naturally occurring chance mutations, “selected for” by natural selection. The trip from “nothing” to a fully functioning organ would yield a non-functioning entity for hundreds of thousands of years until all of the complex parts are present. The early non-functioning organ would be a useless tumor. This first video on this page shows Ken Miller, a biology/evolution instructor at Brown University, seemingly very intelligently debunking irreducible complexity.
Above left is an electron micrograph of the flagellum. Above right is a schematic of the system. Professor Miller used the bacterial flagellum, in a recent ID vs. Evolution battle that occurred in Dover Pa. to disprove the concept of Intelligent Design. He completely flummoxed the creationists. This video is a perfect example of the evo-illusion being used like a magic trick, an illusion; making the audience think they are seeing something they are not. Note how the microphone, the echo effect in the lecture hall (just a natural by-product of the location), and the way he talks give him such credibility. I know this is a classroom, and it isn’t an intentional setup. But he simply has great credibility due to this setting. As a college student, I would have been in awe listening to him, and I would have been a full believer in what he is saying. When I was in college I believed. Now I think first before I believe; or don’t.
Keep these four steps mentioned on the previous page in mind when watching Miller do his thing, and how they mimic the linking rings illusion. In it, Ken Miller discusses the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, (electron micrograph above left) and how it is not irreducibly complex. He says he is going to do something unbelievably difficult, more difficult than we could ever imagine! He is not going to remove only one protein from the fifty in the flagellum, “not five, not ten, but FORTY!.” The congregation is aghast! He makes it seem that he is going to make it even more difficult for himself by removing forty! He then shows that the new device with forty fewer proteins, now having only ten proteins, is the type 3 secretory system of the bacteria! This is the injector that causes bubonic plague! This is only an illusion that he absolutely knows that he is perpetrating on the students. He is fooling them. He knows it would be impossible to remove one single protein from the flagellum motor at a time until there are only ten left and find a new advantage for each removal. So he is taking an impossible situation for himself, and turning it into a manageable situation. And there are no possible advantages for each of the ten protein additions that would be required in the evolution of the type 3 secretory system. Imagine the trillions of advantages that would have to be found for each evolutionary step for each organ, biochemical, or other evolved entity for every species that now lives or has ever lived on the planet earth. Unimaginable. So once the congregation is convinced that Miller has done the most difficult thing possible by removing forty proteins, which is really by far the easiest, he can then say simply just that there is an advantage for each step of the forty other removals without naming any of them. He makes the congregation think that identifying advantages for all of the other steps is easy since he already did the super hard one. The congregation will believe him. They have already been set up and fooled. Hasn’t he already done the most difficult thing imaginable? This is a Step 4 scientific bait and switch at its best.
Use the arrow on the lower left.
Of course, there are a couple of other minor problems that Miller doesn’t mention. The flagellum tail is corkscrew shaped and solid. The type 3 secretory system has a “needle” which must be configured to inject toxins. Of course, changing from one to the other would be an “easy” job for selected mutations. Every job, no matter how complex, is easy for evolution; just ask the evo-illusionists. When the “needle” evolves, it must be initially short, too short to inject into another cell. For thousands of years, it would have to be useless. And, the biggest glitch of all: There is absolutely no evidence that the type 3 secretory system evolved into the flagellum. Miller will ignore that part. Just telling the story makes it true in the world of evolution.
Click on the lower left arrow.
The motor can rotate the flagellum at 100,000 RPM. Just imagine if we could expand that motor for human use! It also goes forward and backward, and, of course, stops. Six million of these tiny motors would fit inside the circumference of a human hair.
To give an idea of how complex and perfectly designed the bacterial flagellum really is, take a look at the above video. It is truly an amazing example that random mutations and natural selection could not possibly have formed this device. It is perfectly engineered and symmetrical. It looks like it was designed by Boeing on an Autocad program. Does it look “random” in any way?
The elephant in the China shop here is the bacteria itself which is nearly irreducibly complex. Bacteria have comparatively few major parts, and therefore can’t survive missing any of them. The ribosomes make proteins, the nucleoid carries DNA. The cytoplasm, flagellum, and cell wall and membrane are the main parts. Of course with the cell wall incomplete or missing, the bacteria is non-existent. Without the nucleoid, it couldn’t exist and reproduce. Without the cytoplasm, it would be mush. One wonders what steps there were in the evolutionary formation of the different parts of the first bacteria. I would love to hear a plausible explanation. Cell wall first, then nucleoid? Ribosomes first? Until the cell wall completely formed it would be as good as half of a balloon.
Dr. Behe, the person who coined the term irreducible complexity, used a mousetrap as an evidence for his idea. Removing any one part would render it useless as a mousetrap. Ken Miller in the Dover trial that was referred in the video, removed the “trigger”, and smugly wore it in the courtroom as a tie holder supposedly showing IC to be wrong. Again, wishful “evidence” by the evolutionists. For that matter, you could remove all the metal parts and use the wood base as a bookmark, or kindling for a fire. The “tie holder” example is an example of nothing and does not at all disprove IC. Think about an eye without a retina, or optic nerve. Would that make a good tie holder or a good anything? Dr. Behe’s thinking on irreducible complexity is almost right on the mark, and not disproved at all by the ridiculous negative evidence provided by the evo-illusionists. Ev-illusionists talk about how things evolved in hundreds of thousands of steps. So, by their thinking, the real honest test of IC would have been to take a pair of nippers and chip a tiny piece of the base or spring off. Hand the chip to Miller and see what use he may think up then.
In reality, a far better term for irreducible complexity would be zero-up hyper-complexity. One problem with IC is that it works backward. That is, it takes a complete and functioning organ and, by removing any part, supposedly the organ would be rendered useless. When an organ evolves, it goes from nothing to the functioning organ. The parts are gradually evolving and being added to the organ or organ system from nothing, rather than the organ parts being reduced from a fully functioning organ. Also, organs can function with parts missing. Eyes could still provide vision without the iris, just not very well in bright light. A liver can function without a large portion of its cells missing. IC should look at evolving organs from nothing to a semi or full functioning organ, rather than taking parts away from a fully functioning organ.
By definition, with zero-up hyper-complexity, an organ would be simplified down to its bare “essentials”. That is, the non-essential parts would be discounted, so that the parts left would be the ones that the organ or organ system could not possibly function without. In the case of the vision system, the retina, optic nerve, visual cortex, and visual code together would be zero-up hyper-complex. There would be absolutely no vision if any one of these parts was removed or not functionally evolved. Translated, that means evolution in microsteps could not possibly put together a vision system. The evolving system would be useless until all of the above parts were present and evolved enough to provide some function. There would be no “advantage” to the host individual during the process from nothing to partial function.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#complex
Per commentator JohnG’s recommendation, I went to this site, which was supposed to explain the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. The author was very knowledgeable about biology and biochemistry, however, his whole paper was an attempt to prove that the flagellum evolved, rather than looking at the evidence that the flagellum provides, and trying to come up with a plausible theory for how it could have formed. In this case, evolution is not a plausible theory. The writer has an agenda, and he is going to bend the evidence in any way he can to fit the agenda. The article was full of the same rhetoric that inundates all evo-illusion articles: could have, might have, perhaps, probably…………..It is an incredibly well-written paper if you would like to see how ev-illusionists think the flagellum evolved, no matter what side of the battle you are on.
A sample from talkdesign:
“It is hypothesized that the first, very crude motility function was random dispersal.”
“The function was probably not stirring or gathering more food by more rapid movement….”
“There are additional reasons to think that the protoflagellum may have originated in a large bacterium.”
“Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.”
Here is my favorite evo-illusion phrase: “no evidence that it could not have, no major obstacles to the gradual evolution.” These are phrases of writers who deep down inside wonder if it really happened that way. Something you rarely hear with evo-illusionists is” evidence shows that this is definitely the way it happened.” It’s always, “No evidence that it could not have.”
“Intricate multi-component systems such as these could not have originated by gradual improvement of a single function, but if systems and components underwent functional shift, then selection could have preserved intermediates for a function different from the final one.”
“Functional shift”, is a concept coined by evo-illusionists for a change of task, of which billions would be required to make evolution real. Does a body part or organelle change from one function to another?
Another Illusion
Another great example of Steps 1 to 4 above is illustrated by: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/evolution_of_vertebrate_eyes.php
a site that describes the evolution of the eye. It is a given that something can evolve. So they take you on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride, and they keep listing item after item, and just by saying they evolved, that makes it so. The reader, hopefully for them, believes that one thing “could” have evolved at some time. Once they are convinced that one thing could evolve, they will then accept that evolution brought about step after step of hundreds of thousands of steps required to produce a complex vision system. Once the first step is accepted, the rest are easy. Probability, logic, and common sense are out the window.
Here is a partial sample from the site:
A primordial RPE65-like isomerase evolves.
A ciliary photoreceptor evolves that has well organized outer-segment membranes, an output synapse close to the soma and a synaptic specialization appropriate for graded signal transmission.
A primordial lens placode develops (evolves), preventing pigmentation of the overlying skin.
Ganglion-cell axons project (evolves) to the thalamus.
The optics evolve (the lens, accommodation and eye movement):
- The lens placode invaginates and develops (evolves) to form a lens.
- The iris develops (evolves) and a degree of pupillary constriction becomes possible.
- Innervated extra-ocular muscles evolve.
A highly contractile iris evolves that can adjust light levels.
The lens develops (evolves) an elliptical shape to compensate for the added refractive power that is provided by the cornea in air.
The dermal component of the split cornea is lost and the eyelids evolve.
The website evo-illusionists use the word “develops” in place of evolves so as not to alarm the reader by saying the word “evolves” too frequently. They so easily say every part simply evolves or develops, just like that. And don’t ask questions, or they will be pissed! I did question in the comments section if they really believed in the things they were saying. In a perfect example of Step 2, I was called pig-headed, stupid, arrogant, a dumfuck, retarded, a charlatan, a cocky know-nothing, kiddo, a fucking dentist, my degree must have been mail-order, confused, an anti-intellectual troll who picks fights for Jusus. My questions were childish demands, the dumbest thing ever, and strawman arguments. These are just typical of how ev–illusionists react when they are challenged, unlike any other science. For some other interesting debates with ev-illusionists, go to page 26, A through E. Section C has my debate with commenters on the University of Minnesota connected site.
I made a tongue-in-cheek video compendium of the things I have been called linked below.
[YouTube=]
Evolution: An Objective Look 
jon perry said,
January 19, 2009 at 5:39 pm
yer i get the same comeback, i work with an evolutionist, and he comes up with pure genius comments, as for the mathmatical chance removing any possibilty of life by chance, he says, “well we’re here so thats no chance at all, its certain.” This defys logic and makes no sense what so ever, but this is reasonable as far as he is concerned.
stevebee92653 said,
January 19, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Truly amazing the miracles these people will believe in under the guise of “science”.
Dave Martelli Jr. said,
April 8, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hey Steve. I think your on the money. Keep it up. Im always fighting this battle on youtube and other blog sites and its not easy especially since microbiology is a hobby of mine and i have no college degree in it. Yet with what little i do know. Im still able to stump these people sometimes. I think the more we all unite and fight for this cause the bigger it will become and changes will eventually be made. Its only the beginning. I can see how upset and scared the “science” world is getting when responding to this matter and its awesome! haha. Keep up the great work man.
stevebee92653 said,
April 12, 2009 at 6:35 am
Thanks for the note! So much fun to open a good one. This is a fascinating subject. I think the MOST. So you picked a good hobby. And, you didn’t get caught in the indoctrination. So, that alone means you are a good thinker. I did get caught for a long time. I really felt I only had two choices. But that is just not so. I don’t think we know, on a scientific basis, how the heck this whole thing came about. But what a Puzzle.
ADParker said,
May 19, 2009 at 8:27 am
Irreducible Complexity is nothing but an Argument from Ignorance. The mainstay of the entire Intelligent Design Creationism movement, and your rhetoric.
The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary. or, Why Behe’s “Irreducible Complexity” is silly:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
Brian Douglas said,
June 27, 2014 at 5:35 pm
“Argument from ignorance”. RIGHT out of the evo-brainwashed hand book. There is only one flagrantly obvious explanation for a machine like the flagellum and that is intelligence. It is the product of deliberate design. There is no use for 2% flagellum, no evidence it evolved and certainly nothing we can see today evolving like it. There is nothing we can look at in nature and predict where evolution is going with it. Between the corroboration from all the sciences and the “mountains of evidence” for evolution, it should be easy to look at many structures of living organisms today and make predictions for evolution. We can’t. Evolution appears to have stopped.
fellowprimate said,
June 28, 2014 at 3:33 am
A reply to something I said over five years ago; okay then.
Let’s see here.
>>RIGHT out of the evo-brainwashed hand book. <>flagrantly obvious<>It is the product of deliberate design<>There is no use for 2% flagellum,<>no evidence it evolved <>and certainly nothing we can see today evolving like it<> There is nothing we can look at in nature and predict where evolution is going with it<>Between the corroboration from all the sciences and the “mountains of evidence” for evolution, it should be easy to look at many structures of living organisms today and make predictions for evolution. <>We can’t.<>Evolution appears to have stopped.<<
Not even close to true.
fellowprimate said,
June 28, 2014 at 3:45 am
A reply to something I said over five years ago; okay then.
Let’s see here.
RIGHT out of the evo-brainwashed hand book.
That’s the way to do it Brian Douglas; start with an empty derogatory remark and attempt to poison the well.
I’m happy to correct you though; The argument from ignorance (or “argumentum ad ignorantiam” for those impressed by such fancy terminology) is straight out of the Logical Fallacy ‘handbook’, that collection of carefully thought out (using formal logic) and recognized fundamental errors in reasoning.
flagrantly obvious
Well a lot of incorrect things seem “flagrantly obvious”, which is why things like the sciences are so important; correcting errors that seem “obvious” to our ‘common sense’, which are not really suited for anything beyond that which we commonly sense, and is far from perfect there as well. Aristotle famously thought it “flagrantly obvious” that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones for example.
I am also reminded of the TV comedy ‘game’ show “QI” in which “obvious but wrong” answers are immediately reacted to with flashing lights and sirens etc. to embarrass the contestant.
It is the product of deliberate design
That may seem “flagrantly obvious” to you, but that is not really good enough. What evidence can you bring to bear on that claim? What evidence is there of deliberate design involved there? Any tool marks, the designers signature perhaps? Or how about some evidence that an intelligence capable of such a feat of deliberate design even existed prior to the emergence of the first bacterial flagellum (I don’t know how far back you would have to go, ol’ stevebee92653 claims the carbon atom had to be intelligently designed; so he has to go way way back!) … Or is it simply that you can’t imagine anything besides comparing it to things humans are known to design and build? That it just kind of seems obvious to you, and as you are ignorant of anything else (like evolutionary biology) you just leap to that conclusion? The very essence of the argument from ignorance.
It is hardly surprising that you find “agency was involved” to be obvious. That is a common aspect of human phychology; agenecy detection. We habitually ‘detect’ agency in all kinds of things; we imagine any movement spotted out of the corner of our eye as some living thing doing something (what exactly depends on the specifics). This extends to all kinds of things; we get mad at inanimate/mindless objects as if they did what they did deliberately, we blame our tools. etc. etc. Which is why there is good reason to suspect that theistic religion itself stems from that same human tendency…to assume agency even where there is none. Even today people attribute natural disaters like hurrcanes to gods with intent, without any justification for doing so.
There are decent evolutionary explanations for such a tendeny to evolve. The easiest way to highlight it is by way of example. Humans wandering through the African savannah have an overall improved likelihood to survive if they react to movements and sounds as if they are agents (lions in the underbrush etc.) instead of assuming them to be something more mundane (like the wind.) Because – Imagining a dichotomy of a movement being a lion or just the wind:
If you react as if it’s a lion and you are wrong then perhaps a little embarrassment at worst.
If you react as if it’s a lion and you are right that many save your life (and that of your fellows).
If you react as if it’s just the wind and you are wrong then you are probably dead.
If you react as if it’s a just the wind and you are right then..whatever.
So as a general rule: assuming agency (at least in terms of first immedaite reaction) is in general the more ‘profitable’ result. So it is useful, but it is no path to truth.
There is no use for 2% flagellum,
Here you highlight your fundamental ignorance of biology and evolution. You represent here a rather typical apologetic; that “what use is half an eye?” nonsense. That is simply not how it works Brian. Evolving a bacterial flagellum (or eye, or four chambered heart…) is not like using a construction kit to build a skyscraper, or even a blueprint design of something. It is rather more like a recipe where changes (additions, subtractions, alterations) have all kinds of effects on the new products.
So there was never anything that could properly be called “ 2% of a flagellum”. So what would 2% be? The flagellum ‘recipe’ is a string of DNA. A precusurur only amounting to 2% of that would be a shorter snippet of that code. Would that genetoc material code for something you would recognize as 2% of a flagellum? Of course not, it would be something quite different, perhaps coding for a couple of protiens that furthered some benefit of the organism (which would not be the modern bacteria of course, it is not like the flagellum evolves within an unchanging line of organisms, such an idea would just be silly) or had some insiginifcant effect or none at all. Nothing like a little sliver of flagellum.
So seriously; how can you declare with such confidence that the “2% flagellum”, which is of course whatever the genetic material was that could now be seen as 2% of the way toward that of the flagellum, would have no use?! Seeing as that could have taken any numer of forms, as a part of an organism that likewise could have had any number of forms. The possibilities are practically endless!
I could ask you to show your working behind such a bold conclusion, but why even pretend you have anything even remotely close to that?!
no evidence it evolved
I’m not an evolutionary biologist but I understand that there is evidence. I suspect that our opinions differ on this because unlike you; I have actually checked. Besides the obvious evidence for evolution in general there are things like the Type III secretion system, which is comprised of a subset of the genetic code of the flagellum.
Here’s one link on the subject from a quick search:
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SVb7Q1gd3ZgC (check out chapter 6)
and certainly nothing we can see today evolving like it
That has nothing to do with anything. That you are trying to imply that it does is telling though.
There is nothing we can look at in nature and predict where evolution is going with it
I would say “congradulations, you displayed at least some slight grasp on how evolution works”, except I have read the rest of your comment in which you display that you don’t get it at all.
There is little one can predict on what direction evolution will take life in the future…because evolution is based on random mutations and random factors like gentic drift etc. and otherwise shows no signs of being in any way guided, that the field is wide open, things could turn out in all kinds of wonderful and varied ways, via any number of interesting interactions and events big and small. We can (and many times have successfully) predict how things would have evolved in the past, based on an understanding of evolutionary processes and observations of organisms (fossils etc.) found to be older and more recent than the area in which we predict.
One example being the successful prediction of the existence of an organism with many speciifc features which later came to be known as Tiktaalik roseae. Based on earlier and more recent fossils considered to be related by evolutionary biology means.
>>Between the corroboration from all the sciences and the “mountains of evidence” for evolution, it should be easy to look at many structures of living organisms today and make predictions for evolution. <<
If you understood evolutionary biology at all you would never have said anything so ridiculous and manifestly dead wrong. It's rather like insisting that if one fully understands the structre and nature of a 20 sided dice one should be able to predict what the next roll should be! When of course if one really understood it one thing they would understand is that such a prediction is not possible as the odds are equal.
We can’t.
And thee is no reason we should be able to. So this is preciely what we wold expect if the theory of evolution is accurate! In fact it would be somewhat easier to predict the changes life makes over time if it was all intellignetly designed and guided.
Evolution appears to have stopped.
Not even close to true.
jan said,
October 14, 2009 at 4:17 am
AD Parker,
Assuming you are an “evolutionist”, equally so, your argument leaves out vital details concerning your speculations…….Apparently, you, by calling opposition ignorant, claim that you have sufficient corrobarotive evidence to make a “scientific” claim that you have demonstrative evidence that your assertions are “fact”. Ha Ha my friend…..Good luck….
People are not that gullible anymore. Go get a real job butthole………….
ADParker said,
October 14, 2009 at 5:44 am
jan,
Apparently you have no idea what the Argument from Ignorance is. It’s a kind of logical fallacy; look it up.
I think sites like this show that plenty of people are that gullible, sad to say.
Get a real job? Do you have any idea what my current job is?!
And “Butthole”: Nice, real mature, personal insults, that’s the level of your arguments is it?
Never mind; It does amuse me some when people use such tactics, as it reveals and says far more about them than those the seek to belittle.
jan said,
October 15, 2009 at 4:44 am
“jan,
Apparently you have no idea what the Argument from Ignorance is. It’s a kind of logical fallacy; look it up.”
AD……..Are you so ARROGANT (please, in advance forgive misspellings because i just dont have the time….but if you dont forgive I dont care) as to think that you are not “ignorant” regarding the multitude of physical and chemical development of pathways that are involved in what you and your fellow evolutionists are claiming as historical fact in terms of what had to have occurred from dirt (chemicals) to even the simplest life forms??? MY POINT IS EVERYBODY IS IGNORANT REGARDING THE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESSES THAT SOMEHOW CAME TO OUR OBSERVABLE CONCIOUSNESS AND RECOGNITIONS…… AND YOU CANT SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE…… YOU ARE PROBABLY AN OLD PATHETIC HANG ON ER OF THE VASTLY STUPIDLY POP CULTURALLY PROMOTED CONCEPT OF HOW THE F ANYTHING IS HERE. Please demonstrate me wrong…… I will be waiting
AD.
ADParker said,
October 15, 2009 at 7:07 am
No;
YOU accused me of calling [the] “opposition” ignorant. Which I did not. Don’t try to fob this off on some Red Herring tangent about what we may or may not know.
Your rant does highlight your own misconception of what the THEORY of evolution is claiming however.
jan said,
October 16, 2009 at 2:18 am
Whatever AD….Really, personally, I am not into throwing out red herrings or any other “social component” of the conversation. What most thinking people…..including people that take no side….probably are interested in is material demonstration, corroboration, behind the claims of chemicals to life as we know it today. And it just isn’t available to the degree that is required…….The evolutionary “biology” community has had its way for decades, in within all of the social institutions, to simply gloss over huge uncertainties and questions………and basically to wave off questions with “with enough time anything can happen”. And this without any real significant accumulated scientific demonstrations that all of the alleged “tools” of “evolution” are available and effective at all levels of the development of chemicals to life to living systems….. etc.
Give it some deep thinking please.
jan said,
October 27, 2009 at 4:56 am
Parker,
So what is your response? Get some help if necessary, but how about a response?
ADParker said,
October 27, 2009 at 6:08 am
Response to what? Your vague and nebulous swipes at science? You conflation of evolution and abiogenesis? Your silly straw man caricatures of what is actually being said in done in the relevant fields of science? What?
jan said,
October 29, 2009 at 5:44 am
Parker,
Your assertions are “vague and nebulous swipes” at reality. You have absolutely no quantitative sense of what it is you claim as reality.
jan said,
October 31, 2009 at 5:06 am
Parker, how can you call a philosophy “science”? Evolutionary philosophy (science), in no way shape or form, can prove that there are “scientifically based” study results that have quantitative adequacy, in supporting such broad-based claims necessary to prove living systems that are currently observable, assuming that the basis of such developments are the laws of physics and chemistry over vast amounts of time. You are delusional at best in your assertions. And, I would suspect, you hate religion. Or even if you don’t, you must look at the major influences of people that have tried to demonstrate the validity of long scale evolution as (in their minds) apposed to some other source living systems (religious or otherwise). Dawkins, P Meyers, . They seem to be happy bringing in the money, based on the current “hysteria”. Turn your descipleship to reason, not some arrogant, well compensated “philosophical” leader of the pack.
jan said,
November 23, 2009 at 4:16 am
Parker, so where is your responses to the above observations. Surely you must have the required “solid physically demonstrated” evidences that put all arguments to rest. I say this because of your seemingly confident stances, and assertions reqarding 1. an expressed apparent understanding of all of the variables involved in required progressive “biological” (as if that term hints at the ability required to fully describe and be a significant source of explanations………yah, in your mind………of the stages of development) steps involved in chemicals to living ecosystems……and 2. an unquestionable ascertainment of the ORIGIN AND SUSTAINMENT OF all of the physical components necessary in the the realities of what one may call “living ecosystems”. and 3-10,0000. ………etc. etc. etc. Why can’t you smell the bullshit your nose is deeply sunk in??????? I really pose this question in earnestness.
jan said,
November 24, 2009 at 5:58 am
What is keeping you from responding Parker? Are you too sensitive to the message? Are you finally realizing that you, and any other “grand scale evolutionists”don’t know or can “scientifically demonstrate” anywhere near the amounts of shit (nuevo synonym for “quantifiable data”) in order scientifically demonstrate the necessary requirements for your assertions? Or are you hiding out behind the guise of , “well, his words are not respectful enough…..and in fact they are down right disrespectful and vulgar. You fucking prick. Some years ago, “hollywood” discovered that “strong” language and what used to be considered vulgar topics, presented visually and in a seductive manner, SELLS SHIT!!!!!! WE CAN MAKE BIG BUCKS OFF OF THIS CRAP AND WHO CARES ABOUT THE IMPACT ON SOCIETY. SO I HAVE BOUGHT INTO THAT (you stupid fuck-head). AND WHY SHOULDN’T I?
Isn’t it funny, that, IN GENERAL, the same mechanaisms have chosen to support the vastly unsubstantiated assertions that “large scale evolution is “fact:”. And in the visually powerful and vastly insufficient manners that will appeal to it’s intended audiences YOUNG AND OLD….. including (you have no resistance to the shit) you and your symp-patriots?
One of my points is this…..On what basis do you find any kind of “language” objectionable?
get your head out of your ass and have a good conversation. Don’t you know that,
you have no basis for judgement regarding the “language” I use in this forum? Quit judging the totally irrelevant subjectivness of your values, and let’s get on with genuine efforts of “attempting” to understand, scientifically, the realities of, what, for some reasons, are observable to our conciousnesses.
(you prick)
Respectfully yours (asshole)
jan
ADParker said,
November 24, 2009 at 9:03 am
What ARE you talking about jan?!
Where did I ever make any complaint about your “language”?
As it happens I am a fan of the swear, and feel that the many prudes and puritans, as well as those who fail to realise that the overly simplistic “don’t swear” taught to children is only of use UNTIL they are old and educated enough to handle the language responsibly, are completely and childishly misguided, and that once mature enough the training wheels should be discarded. And that such language is a valuable tool of linguistic expression. As expressive enhancers: “That’s fantastic – no; that’s FUCKING fantastic!”
Is it that you too fail to grasp the basics of logical fallacy? And mistakenly assume that my pointing out your use of the Ad Hominem attack was about the language used? No, it was in the counter productive manner of such statements, on how “attacking the man” is a fallacious bit of rhetoric, both based, and directed at exciting, emotional not rational response.
(That is why Steve was reprimanded on the RichardDawkins.net forum for CALLING a fellow form member a fool – in direct violation of the forum rules – more that for saying “You guys are full of chihuahua terds” which he did in the same post [borderline personal attack – can be construed charitably as commenting on the value of ‘we’ said and not what we are.] He couldn’t seem to grasp it either. Surely it is not that difficult?!)
Now I too could call you a Numbnuts, fuckwit and fucktarded son of a bitch, but of what possible value would that be? Even if I do happen to find them most fitting.
And as for the actual topic; evolution. What’s the bloody point? Your tiny little mind (Ad Hominem just for you) is clearly too far gone for my words to get through the mental roadblocks you have set in place. I think I will happily leave that to the greater scientific community at large. Who quite readily accept that evolution, even to quite significant degrees and scope, is beyond reasonable doubt, and by far the best explanation (which is what a scientific theory is after all) for the diversity and nature (down to the genetics) of all life on this planet.
But go ahead; if you have a better explanation, or even a REAL debunking argument – means of falsification, then put in the work and change the world. I assure you, your conspiracy theory nonsense aside; if you could actually come up with such a theory, which actually had some merit, The Nobel prize (for a start) would be yours, and well deserved too. Get to it then.
jan said,
November 25, 2009 at 3:59 am
Hey Parker,
Thanks,
I couldn’t have said it any better to you:
“Your tiny little mind (Ad Hominem just for you) is clearly too far gone for my words to get through the mental roadblocks you (jan inserts: actually decades upon decades and layers upon layers of assumptions, assertions conjecture from the psuedo-scientific community. As well as countless attempts at all levels to make the “evidence” fit an AMAZINGLY TRITE, and the INCREDIBLE UNSUITABLY “MEASURED” VARIABLES which is required) have set in place.”
(In case nobody noticed there are my (jan’s) words between the second set of parenthesis in the above paragraph.)
jan said:
You STILL don’t see Parker. When will you progress from “Jack and Jill ran up the hill” type of conceptualization and move on?
jan said:
And, really, my point is pop-culture metaphoric language is not something I REALLY care about above all else. And I appreciate your comments there. One of my thoughts is that maybe this “language” is what it takes to attract the younger generation (those brought up on the various modern media phenomena, you name them) that seem to relish that kind of lingo.
My hope is that younger generations will have the opportunities to get interested in, and be able to formulate critical discernment regarding fallacious arguments versus what REAL SCIENCE truly is.
Parker said:
“But go ahead; if you have a better explanation, or even a REAL debunking argument – means of falsification,”
Falsification? FALSIFICATION? OF WHAT PARKER? Falsification of a bunch of FULLY SCIENTIFICALLY INADEQUATE ASSUMPTIONS AND VASTLY INSUFFICIENT DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE REQUIRED PROGRESSIONS PASSED OFF AS FACT BY A BUNCH OF REDICULOUSLY PREMATURELY ASSERTIVE FOOLS WHO HAVE BEEN INCUBATED OFF OF THE IGNORANCE OF THE PUBLIC? AND ITS FUNDING FOR DECADES???
Parker,
If “evolutionary science” is to actually become an acceptable explanation for the systems it purports to adequately explain, then, there must be demonstrated a much more sophiscated system of QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT ENCOMPASSING the apparent array of the hierarchy of levels inherent in the development of “chemicals” to living systems”. And THEN, adequate scientifically observed and recorded results that can substantiate those components that have been adequately demonstrated. Evolutionary “science” has done virtually nothing in this regard.
jan said,
November 26, 2009 at 5:28 am
“I think I will happily leave that to the greater scientific community at large. Who quite readily accept that evolution, even to quite significant degrees and scope, is beyond reasonable doubt, and by far the best explanation (which is what a scientific theory is after all) for the diversity and nature (down to the genetics) of all life on this planet.”
Parker, you continue to intrigue me. You have NO scepticism regarding the self proclaimed experts regarding these topics? Shit, I have some pacific coast beach front property to sell you from southwestern Minnesota!!!!!!!! for pennies on the dollar!!!!!! Welcome my friend
“The greater scientifically community at large” are only trying to figure out how to keep their funding going and their fat asses fed….. Dont you see that Parker??? And what do you mean “beyond reasonable doubt”? By those that want to have every body else believe that it is “beyond reasonable doubt” so that the funding will continue?
Parker, you are naive beyond belief. But be assured, you are not alone. There are hundreds of millions of persons in the world that take the “authoritarian” assertions as truth without adequate discernment.
stevebee92653 said,
November 26, 2009 at 6:20 pm
And the funding! You are right on. The funding keeps this bullshit going. These people would have to get real jobs instead of stealing people’s money to experiment on this bullshit. Atheism, plus funding (their stupid ass jobs), plus crazy. There probably is a bigger list, but those are what keeps this fantasy going. Like global warming. Did you see those hacked emails on global warming? Same scientists.
jan said,
November 28, 2009 at 5:10 am
Hey Steve. Have you run into some of the latest bullshit the philosophical hackers are promoting? “”The null hypothesis” and/or “neutral evolution”. etc . etc etc. It is like this in the minds of large-scale evoltutionary proponents. “Shit, we have run into a fucking brick wall with our assertions, that have worked so well until now to convince influence the “funding” powers that be.,…….. But FUCK
jan said,
November 28, 2009 at 5:34 am
(As an extension to the prior post that was accidently terminated)
Premature counter fuckyoulation requires me to start over………….
November 28, 2009 at 5:10 am
Hey Steve. Have you run into some of the realatively latest bullshit the evolutionary philosophical hackers are promoting? “”The null hypothesis” and/or “neutral evolution”. etc . etc etc. It is like this in the minds of large-scale evoltutionary proponents. “Shit, we have run into a fucking brick wall with our assertions, that have worked so well until now to convince and influence the “funding” powers that be.,…….. But FUCK , there are actually critical thinkers out their that, not only doubt these rediculously unsubstantiated fucking assertions reagarding the “deep history” (uuuuhhhhhh such a brilliantly descriptive term for the sake of our philosophical cause, and oh by the way there are so many more of that shit..) of chemicals to living systems. We must now come up with EVEN MORE FUCKLY VASTLY SCIENTIFICALLY UNSUBSTANTIATED IDEAS, ASSERTIONS. Not a problem. We are not SUBJECT TO THE LAWS THAT WE PROMOTE. WE ARE PROTECTED BY THE SOCIAL STATUS QUO INCLUDING THE DUMB FUCK SUPPORT OF THE MEDIA AND AND THE PURELY SYMPATHETIC POSITIONS OF THE INTEGRATED INSTITUTIONAL SUCKASSES THAT ARE PART OF THE CULMINATION OF SHIT THAT HAS INFILTRATED OUR “EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS” over the last decades…….
“We have the position to persist with vastly unsubstantiated assertions in a protected environment… And this situation allows us undeniable authority over society and it’s natural flow of resources. We shall persist, BECAUSE I LOVE MY POSITION OF POWER, I AM GETTING PAID VERY WELL AND I CAN PROMOTE MY PHILOSOPHICAL PREFERENCES ALL AT THE SAME TIME, WITHOUT ANY REAL RISK OF PERSONALLY DETRIMENTAL ACCOUNTABILITY…. I AM GOING TO KEEP ON KEEPING ON …(doesn’t matter what reality is….. as long as I personally materially and philosophically prosper) UNCONSCIOUSLY, ATLEAST, YOU ASSHOLES MUST BE VERY GRATEFUL TO THE INGNORANT MASSES, WHOSE RESOURCES (IN MANY SENSES) YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPLOIT TO YOUR ADVANTAGES AND THEIR DETRIMENT….. ETC ETC ETC (you fuckheads)
stevebee92653 said,
November 28, 2009 at 5:59 am
Where did this come from? Is it a quote that you added the expletives to? I am working on a new vid. I think you will like. On the asshole PZ Meyers. What a con artist. Are you aware of his majesty?
jan said,
November 29, 2009 at 5:19 am
Steve,
No quote from any of those philosophical numbskulls, masquerading as “scientists”. Just personal observations from publiclly available information that any thinking individual would see if anybody would give it any kind of study and thought.
Again, with the expletives, my hope is to attract the “younger generations” to the topics, and get them interested in the controversy. Scum language, in case you haven’t noticed, has been established by pop-culture, hollywood and tv media as no longer “sensationalism”, but the norm, or a requirement to get the box office or ratings to support their lifestyles. ((a start was as in the movie from years ago where some “movie idol” said “frankly scarlet, i dont give a damn) look at it now? Quite an “evolutionary” history in its own right eh, Steve?
jan
ADParker said,
November 29, 2009 at 7:35 am
Actually jan, that line never appeared in any movie. You should really do your research.
The line (from Gone with the Wind) is:
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
Movie trivia lesson now ends. 😉
jan said,
November 29, 2009 at 7:09 am
Steve,
I have to clarify the statements made above. You may understand, but others may not. Much that was said was out of SARCASM. Paraphrasing, in my own terms what, undeniably the STINKING SHITHEAD evolutionary philosophers NO DOUBT WOULD BE THINKING IN REGARDS TO INFORMATION PRESENTED………
Let me know if more explanations are needed, in your opinion, either for you or what your think is required for those looking into this specific forum.
jan
jan said,
December 1, 2009 at 5:05 am
Thanks for the clarification A D Parker. I must admit, I have dis-associated myself with any interest in what “hollywood” puts out any more in terms of personal entertainment. I believe “hollywood” has BEEMED ITSELF (so to speak) in to a position of unwarranted influence to “capture the imaginations” of the masses in, basically, anyway it pleases.)Promoting the financial interests of those involved. Without any kind of adequate considerations of the validity of the realities of the crap they propose. But after all, “technical applications” of “electronics” allows the manipulators to visually and auditorially promote their “self promoting ideas” to everybody exposed to the stream of
shit perpetuated by the industry. To me it is a blight on the ” integrity” (oh, shit I must remember, human conceptualization capabilities are just phenomena driven by natural processes that are vastly undemonstrated to have occured by natural phenomena)for these buttholes to “make a bunch of fucking money” Good stuff Parker. (you asshole)
Kyp said,
March 24, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Hey there,
the Evolution Glossary video doesn’t work here in Europe (since Sony rights), maybe you could fix it for our continent of science and inventions 🙂 Thanks in advance.
Furthermore, at this place I want to thank you so much for your interesting articles and videos. My story is similar to yours. I always wanted to believe in God but there seemed to be so much arguments for theory of evolution and against God. But finally, when I started to deal with my wish as God wants us to deal with, I saw, let’s say, “a way to truth”.
May Jehovah el’schaddai lead us
stevebee92653 said,
March 25, 2010 at 1:59 am
Thanks for the comment. The music on Evo Glossary is probably the reason you can’t play it. I should make a European version. I’ll let you know.
leathart said,
April 22, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Hey Steve, I was wondering if you could pass along the out of order bird evolution chart I know you’ve used before. I’m debating about 30 evolutionists at the moment and wanted to use this to give proof that inaccuracies are being taught. The only ones I can find are the clades with the birds dates and locations being cut out at he bottom of the picture (I wonder why). And I have to tell you, I am so glad I gave up my former lock step belief in this theory that has unfixable problems. Here is an example of the picture that has been altered:
stevebee92653 said,
April 23, 2011 at 2:30 am
That is the chart. The appearance of the species and locations of the fossil finds is on that chart is in my vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yS-r83aw6k
ADParker said,
April 23, 2011 at 3:35 am
As stevebee92653 said, that is the cladogram. Nothing is “cut off at the bottom.”
Such cladograms are not even about the timelines of the example images given, but rather the evolution that they demonstrate.
You will note that each image is linked by a line leading off the ‘main’ timeline, indicating that the examples given are related, and thus similar too those important evolutionary changes they are included to represent;
Sinosauropteryx is an example of a typical theropod with ‘dinosaur’ arms,
and Velociraptor is similar yet has the further adaptation of flexible wrists…etc…
Is Velociraptor a direct descendant of Sinosauropteryx? Don’t know, probably not, but that is not the point. Velociraptor is a descendant of those who developed that wrist, Sinosauropteryx is not. (Their common ancestor would not have had that wrist, that appeared after that split.)
And evidence suggests (not included in the cladogram of course, that is not what it is for) that these, features not individual species, evolved at different times, one upon the other.
Similar cladograms could be made that illustrate the evolution from fish to amphibians to early reptiles to mammals, then further refined to Primates then Humans, using examples that are alive today!
As the given examples only represent the developmental change. No one is claiming that they themselves are the direct ancestors of those that follow.
IN FACT that is precisely what those diverging lines off the main line are there to demonstrate.
stevebee92653 said,
April 23, 2011 at 4:33 am
That diagram was made to fool the innocent like it has you. It was shown numerous times on science channels without the slightest hint that it is out of chronological order and logical geographical location. “And evidence suggests….” Don’t you mean “imagination suggests…..”?
ADParker said,
April 23, 2011 at 5:04 am
stevebee92653 said:
“That diagram was made to fool the innocent like it has you.”
That is a childish empty assertion, and you know it
stevebee92653 said:
“It was shown numerous times on science channels without the slightest hint that it is out of chronological order and logical geographical location. “
I wouldn’t know about it having been shown “numerous times on science channels “, but you are correct; never has it been hinted, by any that understand it (and cladograms in general,) that “it is out of chronological order and logical geographical location”. Because that would be a hopelessly confused lie.
I understand that when applied to things you passionately deny; you think that it is ‘impossible” for you and your grandfather to be found in the United States of America, yet your Father in Spain. But presumably not in other contexts such as the one just given. But it is just farcically fallacious.
stevebee92653 said:
” “And evidence suggests….” Don’t you mean “imagination suggests…..”?”
No I don’t. If I had meant that, then that is what I would have written.
stevebee92653 said,
April 23, 2011 at 6:32 am
What the hell are you rambling about ADParker. My grandfather in the US? Father in Spain? No wonder you are an evo-believer.
leathart said,
April 23, 2011 at 5:52 am
Um, ADPARKER, that PRECISE cladogram is in one of my college science books with the time line at the bottom. I studied evolutionary biology/bio-mechanics in college. I’m not sure what you are talking about with your previous comment. You are clearly wrong here and are (no offense meant) speaking out of ignorance. It seems that you are simply trying to argue just to argue. I don’t know you from Adam but you are dead wrong, mate.
This was actually something I brought up to my professor and he gave me the most ridiculous answer in human history. He said something like ‘the fact that they are out of order and not even on the same continents has nothing to do with the evolution the chart shows’ . My response was something on the lines of ‘what are you talking about, all this chart shows is that there were different flying creatures in certain parts of the world that were completely out of chronological order’ He looked at me as though I had a spaceship growing out of my head. I was flabbergasted and I was a dye in the wool evolutionist and continued to be for years after. I have the book in storage and even have the scan of it in one of my computers. I just cant find it which is why I asked if Steve had it.
ADParker said,
April 23, 2011 at 6:31 am
leathart said:
“Um, ADPARKER, that PRECISE cladogram is in one of my college science books with the time line at the bottom.”
Okay, cool. Then perhaps you could copy that (if you can find it), provide a link to that image. Should be interesting.
leathart said:
“I studied evolutionary biology/bio-mechanics in college. I’m not sure what you are talking about with your previous comment. You are clearly wrong here and are (no offense meant) speaking out of ignorance. It seems that you are simply trying to argue just to argue. I don’t know you from Adam but you are dead wrong, mate.”
I have no problem at all with being corrected. What was I “clearly wrong” about exactly, and how so? Because “You are clearly wrong here” isn’t exactly helpful is it?
leathart said:
“This was actually something I brought up to my professor and he gave me the most ridiculous answer in human history. He said something like ‘the fact that they are out of order and not even on the same continents has nothing to do with the evolution the chart shows’. “
So much for any appearance of an appeal to authority on your claim to have studied this stuff in College (High school or University? The term “College” is used in different ways around the world.)
Because your professor was quite correct (not surprising as he/she is a professor in the relevant science.)
The chart does not show when or where those examples existed, but rather the (estimated) emergence of each of the traits mentioned. Multiple lines of evidence lead to the conclusions of what traits emerged in what order. Those examples are marked as recognisable descendants maintaining those traits, but not those that follow, as they are not on that same line after some divergence at or after that emergence. (It is just like we have innumerable examples of the steps that lead to the mammalian eye existent in the various organisms that live around us today – because that inherited those features, but their ancestors diverged before obtaining the other that came later.)
The geographic locations are a total red herring of course. But are of the sort that too often impress the scientifically illiterate believer.
leathart said:
“My response was something on the lines of ‘what are you talking about, all this chart shows is that there were different flying creatures in certain parts of the world that were completely out of chronological order’ He looked at me as though I had a spaceship growing out of my head.”
Can’t blame him. I would expect that he was surprised to find that you had not learned a thing on the subject, rendering you so incapable of grasping the meaning carried in the cladogram.
leathart said:
“I was flabbergasted and I was a dye in the wool evolutionist and continued to be for years after.”
Perhaps that was your problem. You should have tried to be a “thinking scientifically literate person” instead of a “dye [sic] in the wool evolutionist.”
leathart said:
“I have the book in storage and even have the scan of it in one of my computers. I just cant find it which is why I asked if Steve had it.”
Funny that you chose to correct me, but not stevebee92653, who said the same before me.
leathart said,
April 23, 2011 at 5:54 am
And thank you for the link Steve. Cheers…
stevebee92653 said,
April 23, 2011 at 6:32 am
Roger that. Good luck. Let me know how you do!
Kevin Clark said,
February 29, 2012 at 4:26 am
jan said;
“Apparently you have no idea what the Argument from Ignorance is. It’s a kind of logical fallacy; look it up.”
I know quite well what it is…. in essence it is inferring a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
This knife actually cuts both ways in this arguement on irreducible complexity. What you are failing to see as you attack someone else with this assertion of fallacy is that you are actually guilty of not also using it against the believers proposing that everything can be acheived in a stepwise evolutionary manner.
Their arguement ‘is’ an arguement from ignorance since they have not established the Philosophic burden of proof for their position to begin with.
It is your obligation in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for your position in the first place. If you have faith and believe ignorantly that your position is the only correct one then your commiting a fallacy until you provide the evidence to warrant taking your position.
Don’t play with matches because they can burn you…. would you like to see my evidence for my position?
So if you are promoting that every part of the organization of a living system can be attained via evolvable steps then provide the observable, testable evidence for your position. Once you provide this you will have satisfied the Philosophic burden of proof.
Until that time comes then any proposition can be entertained since they would all be an arguement from our collective ignorance of what actually is possible and happened in the past.