The "simple cell" is more complex than mankinds most complex factories (genesis, quote)

[Mikelee81]

Focusing on only the flagellum



If all components aren't there, we don't have an operational machine. You put three tires on your chevy truck, it doesn't go 3/4 less better. It doesn't work until all four tires are working.

This evolving is not SCIENCE. It is Science fiction. It is Religion that requires greater FAITH that a Creator designed it for this function. It is the only rationale conclusion.

And we come to this conclusion by using what we observe... Science.

No one would conclude a car came into being without an engineer. It is a rationale conclusion.

[distraff]

Originally Posted by lee9786

Focusing on only the flagellum



If all components aren't there, we don't have an operational machine. You put three tires on your chevy truck, it doesn't go 3/4 less better. It doesn't work until all four tires are working.

This evolving is not SCIENCE. It is Science fiction. It is Religion that requires greater FAITH that a Creator designed it for this function. It is the only rationale conclusion.

And we come to this conclusion by using what we observe... Science.

No one would conclude a car came into being without an engineer. It is a rationale conclusion.

These "simple cell" have been through 3.7 billions of years of evolution. They are almost certain to be far more complex than the original organism.

[Eusebius]

Good post. How did the single celled amoeba even know what an eye and all the ocular parts pertaining to it along with the nerves from it and a brain to interpret what the eye sees and turn it right-side-up in the brain? How did the amoeba know what a kidney is, a heart, a liver, pancreas, epidermis, hair, etc. etc. etc. all working together at the same time? I could go on and on. Truly it took a Creator to make it all work. Also, if evolution is true, how did so many millions of different animals appear all at once? Did all those amoebas figure out how to make all those millions and all of a sudden they put their little brains together and created them all?

[distraff]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Good post. How did the single celled amoeba even know what an eye and all the ocular parts pertaining to it along with the nerves from it and a brain to interpret what the eye sees and turn it right-side-up in the brain? How did the amoeba know what a kidney is, a heart, a liver, pancreas, epidermis, hair, etc. etc. etc. all working together at the same time?

Evolution does not work by organisms deciding to evolve. They work by natural selection and mutations.

Also, if evolution is true, how did so many millions of different animals appear all at once? Did all those amoebas figure out how to make all those millions and all of a sudden they put their little brains together and created them all?

Natural selection and mutations.

[Mikelee81]

Originally Posted by distraff

These "simple cell" have been through 3.7 billions of years of evolution. They are almost certain to be far more complex than the original organism.

Sure it has.

What came first - the protein needed to make the DNA/ information or the information required to make the protein.

Not to mention cell membrane to prevent cell lysis which consists of proteins, phospholipids (requiring fat synthesizes accomplished by smooth endoplasmic reticulum which in itself is extremely complex).

It's all FANTASY. A dangerous Religion which historically has led to Genocide.

[distraff]

Originally Posted by lee9786

Sure it has.

What came first - the protein needed to make the DNA/ information or the information required to make the protein.

Yes, DNA requires proteins to replicate and proteins require DNA to be created.

That is the reason for the RNA world. RNA can replicate without proteins.

Not to mention cell membrane to prevent cell lysis which consists of proteins, phospholipids (requiring fat synthesizes accomplished by smooth endoplasmic reticulum which in itself is extremely complex).

Yes, modern cell membranes are pretty complex and require proteins. That doesn't mean ancient cell membrane were that way.

[WhipperSnapper 88]

Originally Posted by lee9786

If all components aren't there, we don't have an operational machine. You put three tires on your chevy truck, it doesn't go 3/4 less better. It doesn't work until all four tires are working.
.

Where you make your mistake is assuming that the chevy started out as a four wheeled vehicle. Of course the chevy could not survive with only three wheeles in the form itis today. But, perhaps the Chevy started out as say.... a tricycle. Over thousands of years the truck began to form a fourth wheel because that fourth wheel would allow for it to better adapt to it's enviroment and be more suited for it's surrounding. After the fourth wheel developed, the once tricycle then began it's journey into developing into what we know as the chevy truck today.
Simple. And what a ridiculous metaphor btw.... but it's your game so I'll play by your rules. You can apply this same concept to any adaptation in any living organism. It will work all the same.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by distraff

Evolution does not work by organisms deciding to evolve. They work by natural selection and mutations.

How did millions of different species of bugs, birds, and all kinds of animals burst onto the scene all at once? How does natural selection work with that?

Natural selection and mutations.

Natural selection does not make a man out of a fish. That would be unnatural selection. Fish make fish. Humans make humans. Chimps make chimps. Elephants make elephants.

I watched scientist on t.v. describe how fish grew arms and legs and climbed out of the water and eventually shed their swim suit and grew hair and turned into chimpanzees and those chimps turned into humans. Really. I'm not making this up. I recorded it. They should relinquish their title of "scientist." They are anything but.

[distraff]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

How did millions of different species of bugs, birds, and all kinds of animals burst onto the scene all at once? How does natural selection work with that?

Are you talking about the cambrian explosion?

Natural selection does not make a man out of a fish. That would be unnatural selection. Fish make fish. Humans make humans. Chimps make chimps. Elephants make elephants.

Yes, fish make fish, but with slight variation. Compound this process and you get something totally different than the original.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Good post. How did the single celled amoeba even know what an eye and all the ocular parts pertaining to it along with the nerves from it and a brain to interpret what the eye sees and turn it right-side-up in the brain?

How did the amoeba know what a kidney is, a heart, a liver, pancreas, epidermis, hair, etc. etc. etc. all working together at the same time? I could go on and on.

Truly it took a Creator to make it all work. Also, if evolution is true, how did so many millions of different animals appear all at once? Did all those amoebas figure out how to make all those millions and all of a sudden they put their little brains together and created them all?

All of a sudden? Their brains? Huh? WTF? Only illiterate or stubborn Creationists make such a pathologically stupid claim, in fact. You do know it took millions of years for the variations to appear, amidst the mass and relentless extinctions of many many more species or versions or particular changes that didn't "fit" the available niches, right? (This being exactly how it works, of course...)

You do know that, right? Or else.... hmmm... perhaps you really are quite far gone....

Well anyhow, no: uhmmmmm.... actually, it's Not a good post at all. It just parrots the usual demonstrably illiterate silliness of the Genesis/Creationist crowd, with their obvious absence of even the basics of how it does, in fact, demonstrably work.

Heck: come on down to the lab and I'll quick-like show you! Or better yet, you should just do any of the most basic research studies yourself! But be prepared to be really depressed at the results you'll get, if you're intellectually honest.

Your silly answers and comments continue to assume there's no functioning bio-logic behind the Evolution of the "complex" from the "less complex". However, despite how you'd like that to be so, natural Evolution is not the same as the evolution of the design of a car, silly person! In which, if you put your 1999 Lexus out in the field, but where it does not have the ability to rebuild itself time and again, over hundreds of millions of cycles even in a single given decade (much less over, let's say, 13M years...), but with minor changes to test out, and then where it goes out and finds a driver to test the latest "iterative design" against a background of automotive problems in the real world. And then, you'd have a 2012 Lexus? How silly.

But now, we open-minded humans, in fact, do have an easily observed and functioning system of biochemical logic called "reproducing DNA", coupled with "tRNA", both of which can and do constantly lead to mutations of the organism's genome!

(Oh BTW, Big-E, I'm still waiting for you to deny any of the KNOWN key steps and elements of functioning Evolution. Are you ever going to show me where any of it's all wrong? No? Understandable, since after all, you can't..).

So now... where were we?

Oh yeah: DNA always mutates, and it even does so at a more or less predictable and observed rate (basic atomic theory coupled with basic biochemistry) so it can also serve as a rather crude time-clock for the rate of Evolution!

And obviously, such random changes will be almost always fatal, but then statistically, next in occurrence; neutral, and on very few occasions, offering some potential positive benefits.

Still with me, logically?

When that does happen, of course, the DNA reliably remembers those changes, since after all the resulting improved version is more adept at survival through whatever advantage(s) were provided by those mutations! So the organism then goes about reproducing a few hundred million of the new test cells carrying that improvement, and possibly some others that have lain dormant until this latest improvement facilitates them (I called that "vectored evolution" in my own research on this topic... Dr's. Venter & Lenski called it something else, but it's the same idea.).

Knowing , of course, that the existing external ecosystem is also not static, but is in fact, quite volatile (Yellowstone, Krakatoa, some massive earthquake, changes over time in the earth's biochemical makeup which then favors some specie's "version" over another's. And thus, over time, so-called stable populations of an organism may well, and in fact have demonstrably gone extinct or just faded out, only to be functionally replaced with something that provides a better "fit". No big intellectual problem here, at least not for those of us scientifically-minded folk...)

So just being given half a chance to go out and be tested will create a simple enough and obvious net positive effect, and if it does offer an advantage, voila, mai oui!, as the French might say; it BINGO gets duly incorporated, all without some unnecessary "Hand of God" or external designer. (This too hard for you to grasp, Big-E?)

And the complexity thus understandably builds, despite your particular inability to figure out how.

Your particular and oft-demonstrated lack of scientific and technical knowledge in a rather complex subject area does not, in any way, prevent of slow the existence or growth of complexity or improvement in anything! To that point, tell me about the "evolution" (small "e" this time; don't go all funny on me...) of the Titan V rocket engine as they advanced the design for that macro-rocket motor over the years?

You don't understand the deep math and physics of that either, do you? (Heck; maybe you do, but I'm guessing not...). So... does this therefore then establish that it must have some magic supernatural intervention to have happened? Noting of course that it cannot try out different nozzle shapes ON ITS OWN, as DNA can.

F-1

Launch Vehicle Propulsion

Finally, since you guys all love to quote those AiG & "Carl Baugh" cited lies & bloviations from his ridiculous Creation Institute on the design of the eye, and it's seemingly "Irreducible Complexity" arguments… read this if you dare. I'll even supply the fresh Lithium flashlight batteries soz you can do it under your bedsheets late at night, so no-one will have to know you're advancing your actual scientific knowledge!

Image Detail for - http://www.bedroomfurniturespot.com/bedroom/images/articles-bed/reading-under-covers.jpg

Now then...

first: this simple graphic...

Image Detail for - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e1/Stages_in_the_evolution_of_the_eye.png/300px-Stages_in_the_evolution_of_the_eye.png

Then this article...

(No. 1: starter's version for the super-basic thinker..)

http://noblesseoblige.org/2009/05/27...ebunked-again/

Then, moving on up in intellectual complexity...

A) "The precursors of complex systems, when they are not useful in themselves, may be useful to perform other, unrelated functions. Evolutionary biologists argue that evolution often works in this kind of blind, haphazard manner in which the function of an early form is not necessarily the same as the function of the later form. The term used for this process is "exaptation".

The mammalian middle ear (derived from a jawbone) and the panda's thumb (derived from a wrist bone spur) are considered classic examples. A 2006 article in Nature demonstrates intermediate states leading toward the development of the ear in a Devonian fish (about 360 million years ago).[79] Furthermore, recent research shows that viruses play a heretofore unexpectedly great role in evolution by mixing and matching genes from various hosts.

Arguments for irreducibility often assume that things started out the same way they ended up—as we see them now. However, that may not necessarily be the case. In the Dover trial an expert witness for the plaintiffs, Ken Miller, demonstrated this possibility using Michael Behe's stupid mousetrap analogy. By removing several parts, Behe's nemesis Miller made the object unusable as a mousetrap, but he pointed out that it was now a perfectly functional, if unstylish, tie clip." The limited-intellectual assumption that any existing object always existed in exactly that format or with that specific intention, and could not have existed as a less-involved object, is irrational on it's face.

Or...

The Flagellum Unspun

And finally, if you really want to set this all straight in your head, alone in your basement but where you don't want to openly and finally be seen to be agreeing with the truth, there's this specially logical presentation by the ever-wondrous QualiaSoup.

Esp. the comments about Michael Behe's tacit admissions in court, under oath, where he wriggled himself out of what his distorted nonsense and outright lies had posited.

Irreducible complexity cut down to size | Science | guardian.co.uk

And finally, I duly note these truths in evidence, so far irrefutable...

"A brief Q & A on Evolution and Intelligent Design: Is intelligent design a scientific alternative to contemporary evolutionary theory? No. Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."

from: List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In summary, I'll also add in this comment, which is so very self-evident in discussions on this volatile topic, and yet, it's at the basis for much of the fervent and rabid denials of Evolution. It's substantive validity is, of course, obvious:

The ongoing "argument from personal incredulity," [as such sentiments hve been appropriately described] has been a weapon of little value in the anti-evolution movement.

Anyone can state at any time that "they cannot imagine how evolutionary mechanisms might have produced a certain species, organ, structure!"

Such statements, obviously, are entirely personal – and they say so much more about the technological and educational limitations of those who make them than they do about the functional limitations of Darwinian and more modern versions of the various mechanisms of Evolution.