Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   "Irreducable complexity" reduced to simple molecular machines. Score another one for Darwin   (sciencedaily.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, darwin, Irreducable complexity, molecular machines, dogmas, National Academy of Sciences, Monash University, University of Melbourne, living things  
•       •       •

4190 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Sep 2009 at 8:44 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



254 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2009-09-15 7:49:16 PM  
popculturetees.comView Full Size
 
2009-09-15 7:55:50 PM  
"Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial." Professor Lithgow said...

"Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob's proposition, and shows that Darwin's theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be."


The way this definition of science operates is to outlaw any questioning of naturalistic evolution. Darwinists don't ask whether life evolved from a sea of chemicals; they only ask how it evolved. They don't ask whether complex life forms evolved from simpler forms; they only ask how it happened. The presupposition is that natural forces alone must (and therefore can) account for the development of all life on earth; the only task left is to work out the details. ~ Nancy Pearcey
 
2009-09-15 7:58:03 PM  
Don't expect this to be proof.

Sentences longer than 5-10 syllables confuse the God Squad.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-09-15 8:17:23 PM  
Evolution is far from conclusively proven. The fossil record does not show the millions of genuine transitional forms that evolution requires. No plausible mechanism for evolution exists. Unsurmountable difficulties exist in the rise of life from chemicals. All the facts point toward one possibility: life was created by an intelligent creator. This explanation may not fit into your definition of science, but it is still the most plausible explanation that scientific investigation (and just plain common sense) yields. Diehard naturalists cannot accept a supernatural cause for anything and so will continue to insist that there must be some way life has evolved (just the details are being debated!)but that is not a wise position, considering the nature of the difficulties as well as the stakes involved.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-09-15 8:20:29 PM  
Bevets: "Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial." Professor Lithgow said...

"Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob's proposition, and shows that Darwin's theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be."

The way this definition of science operates is to outlaw any questioning of naturalistic evolution. Darwinists don't ask whether life evolved from a sea of chemicals; they only ask how it evolved. They don't ask whether complex life forms evolved from simpler forms; they only ask how it happened. The presupposition is that natural forces alone must (and therefore can) account for the development of all life on earth; the only task left is to work out the details. ~ Nancy Pearcey


That's awesome, Bevets. Now can you try posting something that pertains to the article?
 
2009-09-15 8:21:13 PM  

NeedlesslyCanadian: Don't expect this to be proof.

Sentences longer than 5-10 syllables confuse the God Squad.


They have you surrounded, throw down your textbooks.
 
2009-09-15 8:23:17 PM  

CDP: Evolution is far from conclusively proven. The fossil record does not show the millions of genuine transitional forms that evolution requires.


somewhere archaeopteryx and tiktaalik are laughing at you.
 
2009-09-15 8:25:11 PM  
in before Bev... damn it
in before CP... damn it

and for the record evolution is provable fact and a scientific "theory" actually means something rather significant
 
2009-09-15 8:32:42 PM  
Doogh.
 
2009-09-15 8:38:43 PM  
I'm still slowly recovering from a fairly severe injury. I'm quite appreciative that I can walk again, even more so that I can ride my bike again; if only for an hour. I have a looooong way to go to rebuild my calve, and think that the boot I had to wear kind of farked with my knee a little. On the other hand, I am on a new bike, which I had ridden only once before my tib/fib. So I am wondering if being in a new position (as a new frame dictates) will allow my knee to become healthy again while I rebuild my leg, or will it make things worse (as that damned boot did).

\What? Bevets did it too.
 
2009-09-15 8:48:43 PM  
Obligatory README for what current theories about the mechanisms of evolution are saying: Darwinian Evolution in Light of Genomics (full text PDF link on the right)

Please read before spouting off about out of date, obsolete ideas about what the Theory of Evolution is saying. Then, if you want your mind blown, try reading some papers about the mysteries of the origin of the genetic code. Maybe start here (^) or here (^).
(disclaimer: the hypotheses in these two papers are fairly new and rough and still needed testing and refining, but they offer very thought provoking ideas)
 
2009-09-15 8:51:16 PM  
Did life evolve from a sea of chemicals?

Did complex life forms evolve from simpler forms?
 
2009-09-15 8:53:22 PM  

Bevets: "Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial." Professor Lithgow said...

"Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob's proposition, and shows that Darwin's theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be."

The way this definition of science operates is to outlaw any questioning of naturalistic evolution. Darwinists don't ask whether life evolved from a sea of chemicals; they only ask how it evolved. They don't ask whether complex life forms evolved from simpler forms; they only ask how it happened. The presupposition is that natural forces alone must (and therefore can) account for the development of all life on earth; the only task left is to work out the details. ~ Nancy Pearcey


I'm not why they would consider anything unnatural, after all, everything else in the known universe is natural, why would life be any different?
 
2009-09-15 8:53:56 PM  

mamoru: Please read before spouting off about out of date, obsolete ideas about what the Theory of Evolution is saying.


They're still trying to refute Lamarck for God's sake! They are arguing against a theory that science abandoned 150 years ago!
 
2009-09-15 8:54:24 PM  

TheOther: Did life evolve from a sea of chemicals?

Did complex life forms evolve from simpler forms?


Most probably.
Yes.
Next questions?
 
2009-09-15 8:54:41 PM  

TheOther: Did life evolve from a sea of chemicals?


Yes.

Did complex life forms evolve from simpler forms?

Yes.
 
2009-09-15 9:00:12 PM  
Bevets

I've mentioned this before. Forget about evolution in the organic sense. If there is intelligent design, it lies inside the atoms that make up the molecules that make up organic life. Keep looking for quotes that push the whole argument back to more primal stuff. Maybe some day you'll eventually get there.
 
2009-09-15 9:00:38 PM  
as a hardcore atheist. i stay out of these threads. too much stupidity and the fact that no matter what reasonable explanation you offer Theists, they are unable to grasp the logical profundity of Evolution (or science for that matter).

/but its fun to argue.
 
2009-09-15 9:02:29 PM  
Just watched the Andromeda Strain TV series, and just now looking at the 1971 movie. Kick, and so on .. . Note: the 1971 version is better.
 
2009-09-15 9:03:47 PM  

oldebayer: Keep looking for quotes that push the whole argument back to more primal stuff. Maybe some day you'll eventually get there.


Basically just find some more gaps and shove some God in there until science gets there.
 
2009-09-15 9:04:13 PM  

mandingueiro: as a hardcore atheist. i stay out of these threads. too much stupidity and the fact that no matter what reasonable explanation you offer Theists, they are unable to grasp the logical profundity of Evolution (or science for that matter).

/but its fun to argue.


As a Deist, the logical profundity of Evolution is what makes it so interesting. It's a simple, easy method of creating life, that self adapts, leaving God free to manage the rest of the universe.
 
2009-09-15 9:06:31 PM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: I'm still slowly recovering from a fairly severe injury. I'm quite appreciative that I can walk again, even more so that I can ride my bike again; if only for an hour. I have a looooong way to go to rebuild my calve, and think that the boot I had to wear kind of farked with my knee a little. On the other hand, I am on a new bike, which I had ridden only once before my tib/fib. So I am wondering if being in a new position (as a new frame dictates) will allow my knee to become healthy again while I rebuild my leg, or will it make things worse (as that damned boot did).


This study consists fo evaluation of all patients (77) involved in motorcycle accidents in a 31/2 month period at The Montreal General Hospital...

Of the 77 patients seen in the Emergency Room, 34 required admission (44.2%). Fifteen of those with severe injuries were admitted to the Surgical Intensive Care Unite and required aggressive therapy for a total of 150 days. Subsequently, the patients returned to regular hospital beds.
~ J. P. Haddad, M.D.
 
2009-09-15 9:07:09 PM  

Antimatter: ...leaving God free to manage the rest of the universe.


Yeah, those omnipotent beings have trouble multitasking
 
2009-09-15 9:07:14 PM  
Serious question: is Bevets a troll or does he sincerely believe what he tries to argue?

I've been here a couple years now and still don't truly know.
 
2009-09-15 9:07:40 PM  

Antimatter: leaving God free to manage the rest of the universe.


Gotta make sure those planets stay in orbit ;)
 
2009-09-15 9:07:45 PM  
Holy hell, subby, is spell-check that farking hard to turn on?

/enjoy your shiatfight.
 
CDP [TotalFark]
2009-09-15 9:08:51 PM  

FlashHarry: CDP: Evolution is far from conclusively proven. The fossil record does not show the millions of genuine transitional forms that evolution requires.

somewhere archaeopteryx and tiktaalik are laughing at you.


Some biology textbooks continue to present Archaeopteryx as the classic example of a missing link. Mader's 1998 Biology calls it "a transitional link between reptiles and birds," and William Schraer and Herbert Stoltze's 1999 Biology: The Study of Life tells students that "many scientists believe it represents an evolutionary link between reptiles and birds."

But both sides in the current controversy over bird origins agree that modern birds are probably not descended from Archaeopteryx. And although the two factions disagree about the ancestry of Archaeopteryx, neither one has really solved the problem. Following the logic of Darwin's theory to sometimes silly extremes, cladists insist that the ancestors of Archaeopteryx were bird-like dinosaurs that do not appear in the fossil record until tens of millions of years later. Their critics look to animals that clearly lived earlier, but have not yet found one similar enough to Archaeopteryx to be a good candidate. As a result, both sides are still looking for the missing link.

Isn't it ironic that Archaeopteryx, which more than any other fossil persuaded people of Darwin's theory in the first place, has been dethroned largely by cladists, who more than any other biologists have taken Darwin's theory to its logical extreme? The world's most beautiful fossil, the specimen Ernst Mayr called "the almost perfect link between reptiles and birds," has been quietly shelved, and the search for missing links continues as though Archaeopteryx had never been found.

Link (new window)

i132.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2009-09-15 9:08:53 PM  
 
2009-09-15 9:10:45 PM  

WFern: Serious question: is Bevets a troll or does he sincerely believe what he tries to argue?

I've been here a couple years now and still don't truly know.


If he's a troll, his consistency and dedication (as well as his capacity for self-delusion) are unmatched.
 
2009-09-15 9:13:15 PM  

Antimatter: mandingueiro: as a hardcore atheist. i stay out of these threads. too much stupidity and the fact that no matter what reasonable explanation you offer Theists, they are unable to grasp the logical profundity of Evolution (or science for that matter).

/but its fun to argue.

As a Deist, the logical profundity of Evolution is what makes it so interesting. It's a simple, easy method of creating life, that self adapts, leaving God free to manage the rest of the universe.


there's a huge difference between a Deist and a Theist.
 
2009-09-15 9:13:50 PM  
Antimatter: It's a simple, easy method of creating life, that self adapts, leaving God free to manage the rest of the universe.

If something as complex as life has simple, easy mechanisms to create and control itself on its own, then surely the rest of the universe is fine on its own as well, with it's own simple, easy mechanisms.

How much managing does "God" really need to do?

But I digress...

/btw, it may be "simple" on the individual reaction level, but life is an amazing complex and beautiful ballet of reactions.
//and the methods of its genesis are far from simple and required a few hundred million years (LGT an overview of provocative hypotheses about the origin of life - not the end-all-be-all, but interesting ideas nonetheless)
 
2009-09-15 9:18:02 PM  

FlashHarry: CDP: Evolution is far from conclusively proven. The fossil record does not show the millions of genuine transitional forms that evolution requires.

somewhere archaeopteryx and tiktaalik are laughing at you.


You are apparently not familiar with CDP's M. O.

.
 
2009-09-15 9:19:36 PM  

mamoru: Obligatory README for what current theories about the mechanisms of evolution are saying: Darwinian Evolution in Light of Genomics (full text PDF link on the right)

Please read before spouting off about out of date, obsolete ideas about what the Theory of Evolution is saying. Then, if you want your mind blown, try reading some papers about the mysteries of the origin of the genetic code. Maybe start here (^) or here (^).
(disclaimer: the hypotheses in these two papers are fairly new and rough and still needed testing and refining, but they offer very thought provoking ideas)


farkit, now i'll never get any work done tonight
 
2009-09-15 9:23:20 PM  
loonatic112358: farkit, now i'll never get any work done tonight

Heheh. Enjoy. That second Genetic Code paper, which hypothesizes and shows an energetically favorable order of the code assignments, completely blew my mind. Some of the math was difficult for me to follow, but still. Absolutely fascinating, and it will be interesting to see how it holds up in light of future research. :D
 
2009-09-15 9:25:01 PM  

ninjakirby: Of the 77 patients seen in the Emergency Room, 34 required admission (44.2%). Fifteen of those with severe injuries were admitted to the Surgical Intensive Care Unite and required aggressive therapy for a total of 150 days. Subsequently, the patients returned to regular hospital beds.
~


To clarify. I'm a cyclist. Hurt myself walking... X_X was admitted to the ER and spent two days in the hospital. Broke my tibia and shattered my fibula (in May) . in three more months the fibula should be able to take more impact than mere walking and I should be able to start stressing my leg more fully on the bike. I'm worried however that the walking boot tweaked my knee while it was necessary and my knee may be pissed about a new frame. And for good measure, you suck Bevets.
 
2009-09-15 9:25:38 PM  
Radio Lab did a very interesting episode on "Emergence," as in the emergence of complex, intelligent behavior from nonintelligent crowds. Essentially, order from chaos. Very big, very complex problem which essentially ever type of science has to deal with.

Their first example was ants. Ants are, if you did not know, remarkably stupid on an individual basis. The researcher interviewed claimed to have seen two ants tug a piece of twig back and forth, without ever really moving it, over several months. Both saw the twig as something that should be pulled, they were on opposite sides, so they frustrated each others efforts. Some days an ant would pull it one way, other days another ant would pull it another. They seems astoundingly dull, even for insects.

Now, the interesting thing is a fact we all probably know: ant colonies can achieve amazing feats of organization and engineering. It's absolutely fantastic the things these tiny creatures can achieve. Some ants will, before a rain, build a lip around their ant hill in order to keep out water if it floods. But still, individual ants are not intelligent.

So what about a queen? She's the queen, of course she gives orders, else why would they call her a queen? But she doesn't. The queen lays eggs, she is the colony's ovaries. She is protected because of her vital role in sexual reproduction, but she is not any more intelligent than other ants, nor does she direct them in their amazing feats of complex organization. It turns out, nothing directs them. A bunch of dumb parts come together into a complex whole which can accomplish feats that would seem astounding for non-human mammals, let alone tiny insects. They each have evolved a set of very basic instructions, and positive reinforcement does the rest.

What does that remind you of? Bunch of dumb things come together and somehow they form a very complex, very efficient whole. Multicellular life as a whole is an example of this. The brain is another. We know logically that there cannot be a little man your brain who directs your brain. There can't be a central intelligence. Where does its intelligence come from? From a little intelligence inside it? And where does that intelligence come from? And so on and so on. It's a recursive nightmare, it isn't true or even feasible. So we are left with what to some is a chilling conclusion: We are like an ant colony. There is a LARGE number of neurons with very basic behaviors, and through their interactions we get intelligence, we get consciousness.

/If you have never heard Radio Lab, go check it out now. Best show on public radio.
//I realize this isn't perfectly on topic, but I have a fever and nothing better to do.
 
2009-09-15 9:27:27 PM  

RemyDuron: What does that remind you of? Bunch of dumb things come together and somehow they form a very complex, very efficient whole.


Totalfark?

Naaahhhhhh.
 
2009-09-15 9:28:06 PM  

Antimatter: mandingueiro: as a hardcore atheist. i stay out of these threads. too much stupidity and the fact that no matter what reasonable explanation you offer Theists, they are unable to grasp the logical profundity of Evolution (or science for that matter).

/but its fun to argue.

As a Deist, the logical profundity of Evolution is what makes it so interesting. It's a simple, easy method of creating life, that self adapts, leaving God free to manage the rest of the universe.


But the rest of the universe needs no more managing than the development of life.
 
2009-09-15 9:31:04 PM  

mandingueiro: Antimatter: mandingueiro: as a hardcore atheist. i stay out of these threads. too much stupidity and the fact that no matter what reasonable explanation you offer Theists, they are unable to grasp the logical profundity of Evolution (or science for that matter).

/but its fun to argue.

As a Deist, the logical profundity of Evolution is what makes it so interesting. It's a simple, easy method of creating life, that self adapts, leaving God free to manage the rest of the universe.

there's a huge difference between a Deist and a Theist.


No there isn't. A deist believes in God, an omnipotent impersonal God, but still a god. They are theists.
 
2009-09-15 9:32:34 PM  

whatshisname: RemyDuron: What does that remind you of? Bunch of dumb things come together and somehow they form a very complex, very efficient whole.

Totalfark?

Naaahhhhhh.


I was gonna say teabaggers.
 
2009-09-15 9:39:20 PM  

Bevets: "Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines. These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial." Professor Lithgow said...

"Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob's proposition, and shows that Darwin's theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be."

The way this definition of science operates is to outlaw any questioning of naturalistic evolution. Darwinists don't ask whether life evolved from a sea of chemicals; they only ask how it evolved. They don't ask whether complex life forms evolved from simpler forms; they only ask how it happened. The presupposition is that natural forces alone must (and therefore can) account for the development of all life on earth; the only task left is to work out the details. ~ Nancy Pearcey


You base scientific inquiries off of previously attained knowledge. If you want to actually refute the fact of evolution, have fun, because all evidence everywhere points to it as the main driver of the diversification of life, from simpler forms to more complex forms (though there's no reason it can't work in reverse, if something simpler is more effective at reproduction).
 
2009-09-15 9:40:22 PM  
WFern 2009-09-15 09:07:14 PM
"Serious question: is Bevets a troll or does he sincerely believe what he tries to argue?
I've been here a couple years now and still don't truly know."


Back in the early/mid 2000's he would reply to people & debate, but he always stuck a canned quote in his response. You didn't miss much. Most of his arguments were accompanied by a biblical quote as 'proof'. As the years went by his personalized replies got fewer and fewer until he became bot like. I think I've seen maybe 1 original response out of him since 2007.
 
2009-09-15 9:41:37 PM  

RemyDuron: What does that remind you of? Bunch of dumb things come together and somehow they form a very complex, very efficient whole. Multicellular life as a whole is an example of this.


Yeah, I find this sort of thing fascinating. The foundation of human existence isn't some grand experiment, but rather billions of years of cellular evolution that figured out the best way to survive. The human body is basically a totalitarian government, wherein it evolved that it was best that some cells die for the benefit of all the others. Other cells specialize to the point of uselessness outside the body.

Each cell lives only insofar as it allows the greater to survive, and the best option found was pass individual control to our neurological hive mind. At the same time, our mind figured out how best to arrange itself for the benefit of all the other cells. We're like an incredibly complex Portuguese Man O' War.
 
2009-09-15 9:43:14 PM  
WFern 2009-09-15 09:07:14 PM
"Serious question: is Bevets a troll or does he sincerely believe what he tries to argue?
I've been here a couple years now and still don't truly know."


PS.
Rumor has it that Bevets does still argue sometimes in TF-only threads and this is just an act, mostly, for our amusement in liter-land. Any TF-ers wanna comment?
 
2009-09-15 9:45:58 PM  

BergZ: WFern 2009-09-15 09:07:14 PM
"Serious question: is Bevets a troll or does he sincerely believe what he tries to argue?
I've been here a couple years now and still don't truly know."

PS.
Rumor has it that Bevets does still argue sometimes in TF-only threads and this is just an act, mostly, for our amusement in liter-land. Any TF-ers wanna comment?


It's a rare occasion, but he still doesn't add anything relevant.
 
2009-09-15 9:47:35 PM  
Glomeration of the four's constructiviness
An intelligental substance permanent
I sensed the elemental tenderness
In the mind, in Nature's argument

To breed, to grow, to peak, to be reborn
Like a sine curve in an endless loop
The day's crescendo dusk adorn
A process ending in the crescent's droop

An example of what the substantial quartet can procreate
Synchronized they operate

Water feed earth's production
While fire is fed by air's viability
Which compose water's construction
The flux that strengthen earth's ability

Nature's own artful methodology
Where downfall becomes the interlude
Laws, which bases our current cosmology
Completing the constant vicissitude

From storm-beaten mountains to calm-running rivers
As old as the planets rotation
A work of an unknown intellact delivers
The symbiosis, the perfect combination

Water feed earth's production
While fire is fed by air's viability
Which compose water's construction
The flux that strengthen earth's ability

Still though. provoken by a fifth force
A dark companion, Vacuum, Devastation
But somehow the harmony stays on course
With the quartet's unity as profane creator

The result, arrangements filtered through our eyes
Several polarities evolveed into a symmetrical guise

To breed, to grow, to peak, to be reborn
Like a sine curve in an endless loop
The day's crescendo dusk adorn
A process ending in the crescent's droop


/Still waiting for that Geocentrism thread.
//WRU
 
2009-09-15 9:47:52 PM  

BergZ: WFern 2009-09-15 09:07:14 PM
"Serious question: is Bevets a troll or does he sincerely believe what he tries to argue?
I've been here a couple years now and still don't truly know."

PS.
Rumor has it that Bevets does still argue sometimes in TF-only threads and this is just an act, mostly, for our amusement in liter-land. Any TF-ers wanna comment?


I want a comment. =D
 
2009-09-15 9:48:36 PM  

ninjakirby: Uchiha_Cycliste: I'm still slowly recovering from a fairly severe injury. I'm quite appreciative that I can walk again, even more so that I can ride my bike again; if only for an hour. I have a looooong way to go to rebuild my calve, and think that the boot I had to wear kind of farked with my knee a little. On the other hand, I am on a new bike, which I had ridden only once before my tib/fib. So I am wondering if being in a new position (as a new frame dictates) will allow my knee to become healthy again while I rebuild my leg, or will it make things worse (as that damned boot did).

This study consists fo evaluation of all patients (77) involved in motorcycle accidents in a 31/2 month period at The Montreal General Hospital...

Of the 77 patients seen in the Emergency Room, 34 required admission (44.2%). Fifteen of those with severe injuries were admitted to the Surgical Intensive Care Unite and required aggressive therapy for a total of 150 days. Subsequently, the patients returned to regular hospital beds.
~ J. P. Haddad, M.D.


*golf clap*
 
2009-09-15 9:54:46 PM  

emkajii: *golf clap*


indeed
 
2009-09-15 10:19:33 PM  

mandingueiro: as a hardcore atheist. i stay out of these threads. too much stupidity and the fact that no matter what reasonable explanation you offer Theists, they are unable to grasp the logical profundity of Evolution (or science for that matter).

/but its fun to argue.


icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.comView Full Size


Don't give up the fight
 
Displayed 50 of 254 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.