Human Devolution

[I_am_not_mafia]

I admire your persistence, Mathilda. You really do take time to write and explain this subject that keeps on being repeatedly opened as a "new" topic in atheist subforum, but do you really think that once you disprove their allegations, properly address their criticisms, and show them what the facts really are, that they will embrace reality and leave myths from the Bible?
Schooling system already failed at Pulse, he already refuses to read any science book or listen to any facts so what makes you think he'll listen to you? Maybe this tactic does not work and their problem lies elsewhere.

Thanks Fake Messiah. Two reasons really. I see it more as a way of demonstrating to all the lurkers that these theists have no grounds for their arguments. There will be loads out there who have heard what people like Pulse say but  actually want to know the truth.

It also really annoys me when people like Pulse deliberately try spreading ignorance. I hate to think of zealots like him going away and boasting how there are questions atheists can't answer because all they did was copy and paste some pseudo-science they didn't understand but which sounded plausible.

[Pulse]

I do look to creation dot com for much information, I haven't linked to them because for 30 days am not allowed to link after registration, but yes, I am very open about going to creation 

dot com for information, I have found them very helpful in my pursuit of truth and are they staffed by capable scientists, mostly with Doctorates. I do of course look to other sites as well, I will try to make that more 

clear despite not being allowed to link for another month or so, I apologise for any confusion in not making things clearer.

Mathilda I can see you have very little understanding of what irreducible complexity is “Irreducible complexity is a term used to describe a characteristic of certain complex systems whereby they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality.” (creation dot com)

I really have no idea why you would think it has anything to do with the ecosystem, and am quite frankly shocked at your answer.
For example the ATP Sythese enzyme is a marvel of Engineering and had to have each of its component parts work from THE BEGINNING, to work properly, any part missing makes it useless. How could it possibly gradually evolve??

[Jesster]

Only people who obsess over creationist websites would take the term "devolution" seriously.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Mathilda I can see you have very little understanding of what irreducible complexity is “Irreducible complexity is a term used to describe a characteristic of certain complex systems whereby they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality.” (creation dot com)

I really have no idea why you would think it has anything to do with the ecosystem, and am quite frankly shocked at your answer.

Your use of the phrase "still maintain its functionality" suggests that it has been designed for a specific purpose. You are presupposing certain things to be true.

Either way, if you remove a species from an ecosystem then it can entirely collapse. For example, remove plankton and the entire food chain disappears.

If you are 'quite frankly shocked' then you are quite frankly ignorant. Ecosystems are also self organising systems.

I notice that you have not contested the idea that the idea of irreducible complexity completely ignores the fact that systems develop and change over time.

Take certain bridges. They can be irreducibly complex because if you remove any part of it then it will collapse. But that ignores the fact that it developed over time using scaffolding that was then removed once it could support itself. It doesn't matter if they evolved or were designed. Either way they depended upon the presence of other components before reaching the form where a creationist would call them irreducibly complex.

---

---

As I said, I can evolve many different systems that cease to function if you take away one component.

[Cyberman]

Only people who obsess over creationist websites would take the term "devolution" seriously.

And fans of the Super Mario film. Assuming they exist.

[Jesster]

Only people who obsess over creationist websites would take the term "devolution" seriously.

And fans of the Super Mario film. Assuming they exist.

Don't you dare mock one of my favorite horrific movies that should never have been made that I love anyway!

[Aristocatt]

You guys are not giving devolution the credit it deserves.

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/D...se_Set_72)

The devolution card was a crucial card to be able to put in your deck if you were dealing with a status inflicting opponent in the original card game. Especially if you had pokemon like charizard that would lose their energy cards after attacking. It had a niche role, but that niche role really changed the meta.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Not to mention it gives us the episode Threshold in Star Trek: Voyager.

On thinking about it, yeah, maybe it's a concept.

[Pulse]

Mathilda I can see you have very little understanding of what irreducible complexity is “Irreducible complexity is a term used to describe a characteristic of certain complex systems whereby they need all of their individual component parts in place in order to function. In other words, it is impossible to reduce the complexity of (or to simplify) an irreducibly complex system by removing any of its component parts and still maintain its functionality.” (creation dot com)

I really have no idea why you would think it has anything to do with the ecosystem, and am quite frankly shocked at your answer.

Your use of the phrase "still maintain its functionality" suggests that it has been designed for a specific purpose. You are presupposing certain things to be true.

Either way, if you remove a species from an ecosystem then it can entirely collapse. For example, remove plankton and the entire food chain disappears.

If you are 'quite frankly shocked' then you are quite frankly ignorant. Ecosystems are also self organising systems.

I notice that you have not contested the idea that the idea of irreducible complexity completely ignores the fact that systems develop and change over time.

Take certain bridges. They can be irreducibly complex because if you remove any part of it then it will collapse. But that ignores the fact that it developed over time using scaffolding that was then removed once it could support itself. It doesn't matter if they evolved or were designed. Either way they depended upon the presence of other components before reaching the form where a creationist would call them irreducibly complex.

---

---

As I said, I can evolve many different systems that cease to function if you take away one component.

Again Let's look at the ATP Sythese enzyme which is a marvel of Engineering and had to have each of its component parts work from THE BEGINNING, to work properly, any part missing makes it useless. How could it possibly gradually evolve?? Not to mention myriads of other nano machines in the cell, that's what Behe was referring to, not bridges or ecosystems. I am concerned you put too blind much faith in GA.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

God's nads, are people STILL taking irreducible complexity seriously?? This nonsense was debunked almost the minute Behe opened his yap about it.

Boru