Posted on 03/08/2018 11:04:53 AM PST by fishtank
Well said.
“Feel feel to post from the science version of CRacked magazine.”
I did not post anything pro or con.
I do note you moved to perjorative language, instead of posting evidence.
I pointed out that you made an assertion without facts, indicating bias or pre-belief.
Evidence for your view would demonstrate incremental development of the type of vision the mantis has.
If you have such evidence, please post it. If not, OK.
It is not my job to teach you science.
NOW I am done.
What does “irreducibly complex” even mean? Go study fractals, chaos theory, and cellular automata (all straightforward mathematical concepts), then get back to us about “irreducibly complex”.
To preemptively shatter your notion of “irreducibly complex”:
A human being develops from the fusion of just 2 cells into 1. Therefore the “irreducible complexity” of an adult human, literally, can be reduced to that single cell.
Likewise, any other species can be “reduced” to a single cell - some of which are, in fact, quite simple (yes, not trivially so).
Once that’s established, then the whole discussion reduces to the variations between embryonic cells, and the still-unanswered question of how _those_ got started (being rather hard to find in the fossil record).
This does not preclude the existence/involvement of God, just raises the point that _how_ God went about creation is nowhere close to explained-in-detail in Scripture. “God said...” - yeah, I got that, but as an engineer I’m legitimately curious about the process between “said” and “and there was”. That God is depicted as somehow a being of light also indicates that He does not operate on the same sense of time as we do (i.e.: sees everything, from moment commencing creation to the far future, all at once) so the concept of “day” was strained for the first few “days” and may not mean 24-hour periods as we know them as the term continued being used to describe the remainder of “the first 7 days” (24 hours, 10 billion years, what’s the difference to God?).
That does not undermine TToE even the tiniest bit.
...
But the deceivers at the ICR say it does.
Preying Mantis`s evolved from very large aliens who landed here millions of years ago and were eaten by dinosaurs except for two, Adamantis and his wife Evemantis. Together they started what is known now as the Preying Mantis family. The aliens` original stereoscopic eye system did not evolve any further due to the fact that it was already perfect.
Odd tangent:
I just turned 50.
I now have a decent sense of what a century is.
A full lifespan is about a century.
10,000 years is 100 centuries - a hundred lifetimes end-to-end.
That. Isn’t. Long.
And it _certainly_ isn’t long enough for everything we know happened to happen.
For example: there are hard-to-dispute geologic characteristics indicating “Pangea” existed, and broke into the continents over time. That leaves about 5-9,000 years for the Ark’s kangaroos to head for what would be Australia AND for Australia to move some 5-7000 miles away. Given that current continental drift is measured in inches per year, the initial post-Flood continental velocities would have to be ... hard to take seriously.
Stop it...you’re embrassing yourself.
And THAT is exactly the kind of rhetorical dodge that exemplifies the evolutionist position.
You know what the concept means. Either explain HOW and WHY the concept is "specious," or give the proper "scientific" term that defines an equivalent concept.
We all know you won't and can't, but you'll still give yourself credit for refuting another "flat-earth" type with your superior intellect.
Well. I guess that's the end of scientific discovery. Freedumb2003 has weighed in, we can all go home now.
Oh please. Fractals, chaos theory, and cellular automata, are "magic" words you're using to cloud the issue.
Furthermore, your "syllogism" is a laughable straw man. Where the hell is "irreducible complexity" in the premises?
You just pulled it out of you hate like all the other discovery channel scholars.
"Preemptively shatter," indeed!
LOL! Too funny.
Meet the Appletons!
September Storm, an unreleased Neil Diamond song.
Hey, it’s the lead article that brought out the meaningless “irreducible complexity”, other magic words, and pulled ‘em all from hate of anything actually trying to understand how natural systems work and what that all implies (”OMG! Implies history more than 10,000 years! MUST DESTROY! Fling vapid insults! Repeating ‘God!’ is enough, you heretic!”).
Hey, fact is: complex systems can & do arise from simple principles. Every living thing starts from a single cell, so complexity obviously arises from simple. I’m not “clouding”, I’m honestly trying to understand and see how those actually apply in real systems. If that terrifies you, that’s on you.
“Find a modern horse skeleton at the Jurassic era strata.”
Bad example.
A modern horse is the product of artificial selection, aka selective breeding.
It is unlikely that any modern horse, including wild horses, were not descendants of horses domesticated at one point or another.
So how does the lack of domesticated features in Jurassic fossils support TToE?
And again, you're playing word games in conflating something that is "complex," with a complex "function."
Certainly the structure of a snowflake is "complex," but all the characteristics of the snowflake's complexity are resident in the properties of water. "Irreducible Complexity" describes a structure that IS NOT explainable by the properties of the constituent parts.
And for the record "hate" was a typo. I meant to say your syllogism pulled irreducible complexity out of your "hat." Just like your statement "Every living thing starts from a single cell, so complexity obviously arises from simple." "Single" and "simple" are not synonymous, and you know it, but you wrote it anyway.
Then what part of an embryonic cell turning into a full-grown adult (whatever species) is “irreducibly complex”? We just figured out that mantises have 3D vision - why is that grounds to immediately declare it “irreducibly complex”?
CRevo Wars...
Interesting.
Not my argument. I'm simply addressing your erroneous comments about irreducible complexity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.