Irreducible complexity

gasbanni

gasbanni

Joined
7 Jan 2007
Messages
8,836
Reaction score
1,230
Country
United Kingdom

Ignorance is bliss so if you want to remain blissful don't watch the you tube link, by way of an introduction Darwin thought that a gloop of primordial soup gave a start to life ........Darwin had absolutely no idea of the complexity of microscopic organisms ..........so let me introduce nano machines .......literally .......the flagellum motor ........nearlyn100% efficency 98,000 revolutions a minute can almost go in the opposite direction instantly ......If we can't design a machine that can do this.......how could this have come about ? Answers please .....
 
Sponsored Links
A midge's wings beat at 60,000 times a minute (according to Wikipedia).

Do you think some all-knowing being designed these lovely creatures - and all the other even less desirable ones?
 
Designed ......thats the crux of the question really, according to this chap " you'd have to be barking mad to say that the universe is not designed , it is designed " at about 5.28 he says this .....its designed from the bottom up ......This is from the Evolutionist by the way not the proponent of intelligent design.

Impudent elf your doing it again commenting on a post without looking at all the info on it, unlike the german professor interviewed in the original clip came from a totally non religious background when he looked at the evidence he was very suprised ........This is around 35.20 minutes in .........


Barking mad to think the universe isn't designed !
 
Last edited:
EFLImpudence said:
A midge's wings beat at 60,000 times a minute (according to Wikipedia).

Do you think some all-knowing being designed these lovely creatures - and all the other even less desirable ones?
Click to expand...
Ah you want to remain in bliss you haven't watched the video ! By the way 60,000 times a minute is about half the speed of some flagella......
 
Sponsored Links
British economist Paul Seabright was talking with a senior Russian official who was visiting the UK to learn about the free market. “Please understand that we are keen to move towards a market system,” the official said, “But we need to understand the fundamental details of how such a system works. Tell me, for example, who is in charge of the supply of bread to the population of London?”
The answer was nobody.

Like the Russian official who could not understand how a market can function and evolve without design or control, things that function by natural feedback only seem to be 'designed' to people with that tunnel-vision.
 
Gerrydelasel said:
British economist Paul Seabright was talking with a senior Russian official who was visiting the UK to learn about the free market. “Please understand that we are keen to move towards a market system,” the official said, “But we need to understand the fundamental details of how such a system works. Tell me, for example, who is in charge of the supply of bread to the population of London?”
The answer was nobody.

Like the Russian official who could not understand how a market can function and evolve without design or control, things that function by natural feedback only seem to be 'designed' to people with that tunnel-vision.
Click to expand...
Watch the gunter clip ! He had no theocratic inklings whatsoever, his mistake that he admits to was researching the subject ......you can hardly explain that as tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is not looking at opposing views surely ?
 
JohnD said:
...was born in 1958. The joke about bread supplies was circulating before he was born, so it is improbable that your quote is correct.
Click to expand...
As apocryphal as the tale seems, can you find an example of the story that predates him?
 
Last edited:
gasbanni said:
so let me introduce nano machines .......literally .......the flagellum motor ........nearlyn100% efficency 98,000 revolutions a minute can almost go in the opposite direction instantly ......If we can't design a machine that can do this.......how could this have come about ? Answers please .....
Click to expand...

Second result on google gives us the answer:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2015/07/07/4251468.htm
"So the creationist argument relies on us finding no evidence of individual parts of the motor having a role outside of bacterial flagella.

Luckily, individual components of the bacterial flagellar motor have indeed been found elsewhere. And they work. So the motor is 'reducible', and certainly not 'irreducibly complex'. "

Such examples are further evidence of evolution.

For further reading, I can recommend:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wonders-Li.../0007452675/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_bdcrb_top?ie=UTF8

Finished it a few weeks ago, and very interesting, including ways in which life may have first formed.
 
gasbanni said:
Watch the gunter clip ! He had no theocratic inklings whatsoever, his mistake that he admits to was researching the subject ......you can hardly explain that as tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is not looking at opposing views surely ?
Click to expand...

Günther says " I am convinced that the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible (and maybe also created spiritual beings like Satan in cases of evil design), also because naturalistic designers like space aliens would only shift the problem and create an infinite regress."
https://gbechly.jimdo.com/intelligent-design/

A man who get his ideas from myths and legends can hardly be described as a scientist.
 
JohnD said:
It would require more effort than I am prepared to spend. The joke is a very old one.
Click to expand...
Your silence is deafening; you usually go out of your way to post multiple links to support your position. What you mean is you just Googled it and couldn't find any examples; you just think the joke is an old one. But your assertion is unliklely since communist economic fallacy wasn't a common subject for joking before 1958, or at all really until Milton Freedman. Neither does it undermine my point in this thread.
 
Gerrydelasel said:
you just think the joke is an old one. But your assertion is unliklely since communist economic fallacy wasn't a common subject for joking before 1958
Click to expand...
Wrong on both counts.

You may be startled to learn that Communist thinking, public ownership, and the concept of the planned economy, which are three different things, have been discussed, promoted and attacked for at least 150 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top