Give your one best shot - against evolution

1) Diversity (micro-evolution) is feasible to a great extent until 'fine tuned irreducible' complexities or systems become destroyed (during an hypothetical macro-evolution); at this point the organism or entity must necessarily degrade, devolve, and/or perish.
2) 'Fine tuned irreducible' complexities and systems take place on stellar levels, atomic levels, organismic levels, and anthropological levels and can never spontaneously generate.
In sum, evolution of fine-tuned irreducible complexities and systems defies any empirical mechanism.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
/b]

---

The FIRST formation of hemoglobin per se does fit the definition of a FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY or SYSTEM. Referring to your biochemistry text(s), OBSERVE the structure of hemoglobin with the iron atom covalently embedded in an extremely harmonious yet critically complex formation/phenomenon, a formation which cannot be mutated or reduced without degradation and devolvement (i.e., as per 'sickle-cell' and other anemias). For such a structure to ORIGINALLY arise by chance-statistics, artificial or natural selection, or even current experimentation is not feasible, especially without the genetic system(s). How much more impossible would it be to empirically conceive that the HEMOGLOBIN'S EXTREMELY COMPLEX MULTI-TIERED DNA-RNA-ENZYMATIC GENETIC SYSTEMS(s) found within eukaryotes ever themselves evolved from a precursor.The structure of the homologous hemoglobin (the iron embedded molecule found in all blood) is not a FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY in your context, nor is the EXTREMELY COMPLEX MULTI-TIERED DNA-RNA-ENZYMATIC system that codes it, because it is not species-specific (or 'kind'-specific), it is found in all bloody life forms.Thus while even appealing to Darwinian frameworks, a PRECURSOR FOR HEMOGLOBIN IS IMPOSSIBLE, from genetic grounds to statistical chance grounds and other empirical frames of thought.Any other systems we might evaluate? The credulity of your faith/biases and my faith/biases are at stake; not science’s/s'.Biochemical macro-evolution, whose raw mechanism would be DNA-MUTATION alone (and not genetic variation) must be concluded as illogical within all frameworks of scientific thought.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[i]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:I am interested in YOUR deductive reasoning; i.e., empirical mechanisms of how even just ONE "FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" (FIC) could possibly have developed from a precursor. Not Behe's nor Darwin's reasoning, both of which are grossly oversimplified in this matter; neither having provided anything in the way of detailed mechanisms; the latter speculated nothing about 'punctuated equilibria' (sudden ‘hopeful’ mutations).Consider any of the following FICs:
STELLAR: A vast mega-universe (itself a FIC) with innumerable sub-FICs if you will: The space-time continuum as we know it, a fine-tuned star system, solar system, galaxy-system, etc. Pick a FIC that first appears mundane: An asteroid, comet, lesser planet. Study it carefully, it probably is much more of a FIC then meets our existential senses.
GEOLOGICAL: (Too numerous) Depending on how you examine nature, it seems numerous systems would apply, not just the delicate hydraulic systems, O2 systems, ‘fields’ of nature, but also, peculiar lush land-masses, and any fruit(s) and any vegetation.
BIOLOGICAL: All life-forms (choose any), that each is a unique FIC despite the homologies.
PHYSIOLOGICAL: Cellular membranes (extremely complex), though you or I may dotingly argue that they graft easily. An EYEBALL (I know, not again) or any other species-specific sense, kidney, pancreas, heart, etc of almost any genus.
ANATOMICAL: i.e., A foot (or any other body member)
BIOCHEMICAL/MICROBIAL: (numerous): Blood cells, RBCs, WBCs, osteo and chondroblasts, tissues, etc.
PSYCHOLOGICAL: (alright, just one): Your last dream.
COMPUTERS: Your last program that you wrote.Note: Doubtless many of you will argue that sharing of FICs among different species, invalidates them. This thread of logic is doting and cantankerous. The syllogisms seem more clearly presented here. I apologize if they are not.In conclusion, like Aristotle, Luther, the Genesis logic of ‘like-kinds’, and other creationists here (please correct me JP if you disagree)
It immediately appears that there CAN BE NO INFERIOR PRECURSOR of any FIC and YOU AND I BOTH SEE THIS (at least to some extent) IS TRUTH.Note how each FIC (analogous somewhat it appears to each Species-Proper) is essentially OF ITS OWN KIND with DIVERSE VARIANTS. No viable mechanism to date has been proposed that links or even chains one FIC into another as a precursor, because each FIC is too unique and complex.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Floris O:
[B] You should read some books written by Dawkins, like the Blind Watchmaker. He explains perfectly well how the multitude of beings and complexity of life came to be this way. There have also been numerous astronomers, like Carl Sagan, who have emphasized that complexity can come out of simplicity, or small beginnings.Been there, done that. Dawkins did not explain irreducible complexities mechanistically, but ended up with just another 'hopeful monster theory'. Sagan is too fearful for my faith/biases. At least Neische did not talk like star-trek. Whatever Sagan says just fills my hopes with doom and gloom. By the way, Sagan could have spent more time on relativistic cosmologies instead of Newtonian ones. Sagan adored UFO's; that goes completely against my faith/biases. What a stench to my 'fundismental' nostrils. What a cancer in my life-hopes and faith/biases! Yeeach.Give me a mechanism of hope and joy which I currently see in computers, life-forms, and the rest of the 'creation'/'univers'. Don't fill me with Sagan-cancer and I won't fill you with Graham-crackers.
I tell you my faith/biases, please tell me yours directly.What, you have no faith/biases ? Like the thousands of scienteests who are PAID to be evolutionists, they have no faith/biases, right ?I'm not paid to be a 'fundy' with money, trust me on that.Anyway, thanks for the response. Hope to get a better grip later.

The prominent evolutionists I have known, that is professors, have been PAID to be evolutionists in their research and in selecting candidates for research studies involving stipends in the USA... you know, tax dollars.I trust Shrap, and the others aren't being paid to find 'Lucy' and other hoaxes.Hey O',Shrap can at least see a 'JOKE' in my apparent overly-paranoid rebuttal of evolutionists being merely paid, financially. Sorry, I may have oversimplified the financial motives of evolutionism. (Nothing compared to those other non-financial motives for justifying free-played lusts, lewdness, pride, despair, suicide, murder, or perhaps mastering ones own destiny at the expense of another person's, etc. (Not us of course, probably myself foremost))'Don't need to curse out on the web to make a ‘MEANINGFUL’ point, i.e., that I need to be like Spock. I’m intimidated enough by my own ineptness at debating truth, my sins, failures, etc. I get your meaningful logic (if there be such a thing). Your intimidation(s) are readily atoned and forgiven by me. So are the painfully evil Taliban massacres. Consider ‘sucking up’ (if you will) the following:'JOY', that elusive term many evolutionists seem to despise as arbitrary, meaningless, perhaps, without form or order, chaotic, a 'chance phenomenon', a-scientific, illogical, etc. ...Searching for origins gives most 'sane' persons a certain degree of 'REJOICING in TRUTH', another example of an FIC Now back to FICs (FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITIES): what a JOY (oops, there’s the ‘j’ word again), to see SUCH GREAT ORDER amidst all this ENTROPY AND MEANINGLESSNESS. MY SINGLE BEST SHOT AGAINST EVOLUTION e.g.,:The human 'eye' is the most cited example, because its evolution (micro or macro) from any precursor defies any precursor-chain-like mechanism. To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (Charles Darwin in The Origin .of Species, 1859.)As a foot specialist/surgeon, I specialize mostly in the 'foot', another FIC. It simply is too fine-tuned an FIC; every biomechanical lever, fulcrum, joint, osseous-bump, etc. is precisely placed in the foot to allow utmost exquisite and perhaps 'joyful' locomotion (if you will), allowing the average person to walk 100,000 miles on the average and perform numerous other unique complex events: FICs like, ballet, running, jumping, gait- variances peculiar to humans, climbing, kicking, prancing, Karate, skiing, swimming, biking, and hosts of other uniquely complex events. Practically all pedal events are real-time FIC’s.
Warning: Do not let a foot-surgeon resect a vestigial-like sesamoid bone from the first metatarsal, nor a heel spur from the calcaneous; your locomotion will likely become about 10% degraded (i.e., 5000-10,000 miles lost), and become less-'joyful'. You may even sue in un-joyful despair and anger.
Unless broken, a FIC like 'the foot' can not be improved-upon inherently, as well. Don't believe me. Trust the medical literature in this matter. The same holds true for all other medical system specialty/systems; they’re all FICs.
Read the Blind Watchmaker again. Dawkins seems to respectfully address how (F)ICs are generated; he seems to believe in them. I believe in them and tremble at their complexity. It is written, The Devil believes and trembles, too. All Evolutionists do (or did at some point) too: (Consider the following scripture that demonstrates ‘bias’ in evolutionary scientistsRom 1.20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retainh God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, DEBATE, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. KJVWell, thanks ALL for the negative feedback. Got to go to Haiti tomorrow for about a week.
God bless/Good Bye

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gary Reason:
[B]No Proven Links. Where are the links other than theory?Not just where are the links? ... Where are the CHAINS (other than in theory)?

You've heard it say "the missing link" (i.e., Lucy). But for evolution to be viable, the chain with all its linkages must be manifest in the fossil record. Aside from a few fossils constructed primarily from pig's teeth and perhaps rickets-diseased human bones (perhaps enough to fill a human grave or two) there is nothing: No linkage is apparent at all ('chains'). For a human 'chain' of linkages to viable, I need to see tens of thousands of intermediary osseous forms (really millions to be scientific) because of the osseous complexity of humanity compared with 'chimp-like' precursor-civilizations, and the uniformitarian model. Rapid P.E./survival of precursor-civilizations is unacceptable for explaining accelerated DNA-mutations here. Note: Innumerable (chains of) civilizations with flexible DNA-mutations are required for macro-evolution. This takes a lot of faith to believe. I can't even believe one DNA-mutation ever took place that was beneficial to survival, let alone the billions required.
The same is true concerning fossils of 'primal-life forms' (if there be such a thing).

Actually, yours seems the same opinion of everyone, at one time or another, on this forum (though they may deny it). The human gross anatomy and physiology defies comprehension, let alone its exceedingly complex microbiology, neurology, psychology, ethics, and spirituality. As a physician (podiatrist) who constantly deals with humans and persons (not synonymous), I perceive that they all, to some extent or other, don’t believe evolution could account for themselves and their illnesses.While in some cursed pain, their sufferings bring about their sobering reality (in their eyes), that evolution just isn’t so. Realizing that evolution(ism) is taboo in medicine, it is never unscrupulously used in counsel and healing. Sure the patient is sometimes a hardened evolutionist (atheist); but this does not stop this physician from seeing the patient’s subconscious redemptive faith in God, i.e., that became darkened by a sin-cursed nature. A physician’s fiduciary redemptive sympathies, too, are tantamount to healing a difficult patient; doctors always play on their patient’s faith. Any counsel that the patient has evolved/mutated into his dilemma is counted as unscrupulous counsel; the verdict reads guilty in any court of law. Moral: the patient is a real person, not an empirically evolved substrate.Now, the evo believes that our bodies and psyches naturalistically came about a molecule or 2 at a time from slime-substrates over a few millennia, like a colossal 3-D puzzle, that has miraculously come together seamlessly, and is now fortuitously manifest. His naturalistic faith is astonishingly greater than mine, a meager YEC physician. I can’t believe in any sort of naturalistic organ creation, organelle creation, or even enzyme creation without some (cursed-redemptive) design by God, let alone the vast harmonious collaboration(s) of these organs, organelles, and enzymes. Not to mention the vast aperceptive and abstracting depths of the human psyche.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: Ever heard of malaria? Sickle-cell?

---

--Thanks, for your input, Joe.--Ah, back to that old micro- vs. mega- evolution ship-wreck.--Yes, Joe, I treat malaria in Haiti almost every month; the strain is far less resistant than some of those in Central America, Africa, and Southern Asia (to the best of my knowledge). Haitian malaria goes into permanent remission in most cases when treated by quinine (Quinamm) or chloroquine. ‘Appears this strain is no where near as evolved (in resistance) as the other strains, which require repeated regimens of quinine; expect re-occurrences in the resistant strains.--What a curse this parasite has evolved into; albeit, not as bad in Haiti. Perhaps because of the shortage of medicines in Haiti, the malarial-bug (I forgot its name and the mosquito vector) is not hard pressed to evolve via mutation-spots, extra-chromosomal DNA, plasmids, meiotic anaphase mutations, mitotic DNA-replication errors, and/or other built-in limitations of variability.--What? I don’t like the connotation(s) of built-in limitations of variability; sounds too designed, deterministic, unoptimistic, etc.? But consider the alternative (my brain) (or should I say my soul?), when mutations occur without limitations of variability: Microbial population extinction would result, due to unrestrained decay within the non-neutral chromosomes of the holistic organisms/population violating the set-in interdependent biochemical and physiological complexities. The malarial strains will never thus become anything more than the mosquito-vectored parasites that they are.--How coincidental and concocted that all organisms are currently doomed as punctuated into their limited variability under the Mega-ToE, and are thus punctuated forever into the kinds that they are. The rest of this discourse is probably spam to you:--Its not too late too jump off the (Mega-ToE) boat, Joe. You may be quickly forced to jump on the god-of-the-gaps life-raft . From there proceed to theistic OEC and/or the theistic gap-theory of Genesis 1.1-2. Once, that Titanic begins to sink, a YEC-Gospel ship awaits you, one with a benevolent cursed-redemption design that unabashedly sails well with all the cosmic observed data.--Respectfully, does this answer your question?

​

[This message has been edited by Philip, 07-02-2002]