Human Devolution

[Cyberman]

How could it possibly gradually evolve??

And there we have it. Argument from ignorance/personal incredulity.

[Ravenshire]

There is no controversy over GAs. If intelligent design was required then GAs wouldn't work. But they do.



Define what you mean by corrupting the genome.

If a mutation makes a mosquito more resistant to pesticides then how does this make the organism weaker? It actually improves the evolutionary fitness of an organism. This is why antibiotic resistance is on the rise for example.

---

Also complexity is not the defining feature of life. If it was then my computer would be alive. Or even a telephone book.

As Dr Carl Wielend writes; A mutational loss or defect can cause resistance. For instance, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the cause of TB, has an enzyme which (as well as its other useful functions) changes the antibiotic isoniazid into a form which destroys the bacterium. A mutation causes the loss of that enzyme and helps the pathogen withstand isoniazid.2 To give another example: the 4-quinolone antibiotics attack the enzyme DNA gyrase inside various bacteria. 3 An informationally insignificant mutation which results in the substitution of one amino acid by another destroys the enzyme/antibiotic interaction. More commonly, resistance arises through mutational defects that cause the inactivation of genes which control transport through the cell membrane. If the antibiotic is less efficiently taken up, it does not accumulate as readily to toxic levels.  

Genetic Antibiotic Resistance is devolution, not evolution.

I smell trip A's dirty sock. AAA is that you?!?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Evolution is not occurring in an isolated system. It is an open system because it is getting energy from the sun.

Order can arise locally at expense of entropy increasing globally. This is why snowflakes or other crystals form for example.

Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [L. Orgel, The Origins of Life, John Wiley, NY, 1973, p. 189]

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things.

Actually, DNA is not information, which is an abstract and symbolic quality. DNA is simply a string of amino acids which physically build other proteins.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

[brewer]

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??

bold mine

Can't spell the enzyme correctly, and don't know any more than you are spoon fed. I'll give you a simple reference for, well, a simpleton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase

I suggest you read the whole reference but if that is to much look at the evolution (oh no, the "e" word), and the different organisms where it is found. 

Again, science is not your strong suit and you are not helping your very tenuous cause.

[AceBoogie]

Wow, a theist who uses scientific concepts when they suit him or her, but ignores them when they don't... interesting, never saw this before.

[I_am_not_mafia]

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.

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.

A quick google search would have given you the answers. There's even a section on wikipedia about how ATP evolved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_syntha...P_synthase

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution during which two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality.

[ignoramus]

Ace.

What! You thought they just cherry picked the bible only!
No no no!, you see they have evolved too! Lol!

[brewer]

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!

If you leave out one of my fav bands I'll be morose.

[Pulse]

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.

A quick google search would have given you the answers. There's even a section on wikipedia about how ATP evolved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_syntha...P_synthase

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution during which two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality.

Quoting from the article you linked and emphasis mine;

"The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+
 motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[6][10] This complex then evolved greater efficiency and eventually developed into today's intricate ATP synthases. Alternatively, the DNA helicase/H+ motor complex may have had H+
 pump activity with the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+
 motor in reverse.[6] This may have evolved to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase."

 Remember ATP is the energy currency of the cell, before ATP Synthase formed there would be no energy currency for ANY PROCESS IN THE CELL, INCLUDING THE FORMATION OF ATP SYTHASE, ITS A VICIOUS CIRCLE MATHILDA.

It is obvious the article has a lot of "mays" and speculation, how did the two seperate components find each other and bind so neatly and became so wonderfully efficient? The article is pure speculation leaving many unanswered questions.

 How did the two components form and why? DNA helicase has a specific function, why did it find just the perfect H+ motor and "decide" "This will make a great component to make ATP synthase"? And THEN it went back to the DNA molecule and "said" "Right Ive deiscovered ATP SYnthase now CODE FOR IT so we can keep making it?" How did it become encoded after it miraculously formed??

If the above Materialistic Theory is correct, why doesn't DNA helicase randomly bind to other components in the cell, making it perform random functions, some of which would surely be deleterious to the cell, thereby stopping evolution in its tracks and causing the extinction of every living cell on earth? In other words why did it bind to a H+ motor, and Nothing else, and make a Perfect enzyme and then perfectly encoded it into the DNA??

I'd like to point out quoting from Creation dot com in an article called Abiogenesis? THE FOLLOWING:

 "But … ATP Synthase is coded for on the DNA. So to get ATP Synthase you have to have the DNA coding for it. But to get the DNA code for ATP Synthase transcribed so as to get ATP Synthase, you need ATP to drive the transcription process. However, to get ATP to drive transcription, you need ATP Synthase to produce it. No ATP Synthase = no ATP = no transcription of DNA coding for ATP Synthase = no ATP Synthase = no ATP…"   



"Dr Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, was a committed evolutionist and one of the earlier researchers into the idea of a chemical origin for life. He co-authored the book Biochemical Predestination in 1969 with fellow evolutionist, Gary Steinmanm, and it became a standard text on this subject. For many years he taught courses on evolution and the origin of life. Then he was exposed to some creationist writings and found them persuasive. He writes:

My own initiation into creationist scientific writing came in 1976 with the geological sections of Whitcomb and Morris’ The Genesis Flood, and somewhat later, A. E. Wilder-Smith’s The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. It soon became apparent to me that the creationist challenge to evolutionism was indeed a formidable one, and I no longer believe that the arguments in Biochemical Predestination (Kenyon and Steinman, McGraw-Hill, 1969) and in similar books by other authors, add up to an adequate defence of the view that life arose spontaneously on this planet from nonliving matter.’7

He is now a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the leading Intelligent Design organization."

Abiogenesis is a theory in crisis, there are so many mysteries in the nano machinery of the cell that scientists even today are dumbfounded, chirality for example is completely baffling ;

Cohen, J., 1995. Getting all turned around over the origins of life on earth. Science, 267:1265–1266.