As if the Michael Behe vs. Richard Dawkins (and virtually everyone else) debate wasn't enough to read...now I come here and find out that even Massassians are arguing about Irreducible Complexity. Dear spirits, what is this world coming to?

We could argue about how retarded PETA is instead, if you wanted.

I'm no evolutionary biologist, but Irreducible Complexity (IC) seems to be nothing more than a Creationist or Intelligent Design (I'm aware that there is a difference) attempt to prove that evolution fails to explain how complex systems such as the eye evolved from more simplistic systems. Didn't Darwin himself explain how the eye could have evolved? I don't really see how there's any room for Irreducible Complexity when evolution does indeed explain how complex systems evolved from simplistic systems. I don't understand how simply stating that certain systems are too complex to have evolved from simplistic systems makes it true. Isn't this just another round of "OMG the universe is teh complex to not have teh creatorz"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 <-- Richard Dawkins explaining how the human eye could have evolved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8 <-- Ali G on science, evolution, and creation (language warning).

Yeah, covering your ears and screaming "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" is how academics win debates, too.

You can argue about PETA if you wish, but my point was proven last time, and I would have nothing more to add.

I would read Behe's book, and I know Creationists would call me close-minded, but when not a single scientific journal supports your conclusion, I'm a bit hesitant in what may very likely be a waste of my time.

Complex systems evolve from simple components because complex systems are better.

The eye probably started as a single bundle of light-sensitive neurons. Different kinds of pigments allowed more light sensitivity, more neurons allowed better vision, and you could get a sharper picture if the cluster is in a particular configuration. The human eye is still pretty simple (cone count is concentrated around the center of vision) and it has some errors (blind spots caused by utterly retarded neural and vascular tissue placement).

All life on earth is a colleciton of simple components contributing to a complex system. Hell, eukaryotic cells can hardly break even on glucose metabolism without the help of a symbiotic microorganism. Mitochondria even have their own DNA, and they reproduce at a self-regulated rate.

Their DNA isn't even a double helix. Which shows that either our DNA and mitochondrial DNA evolved independently of each other or abiogenesis produces self replicators at a much greater frequency than we conventionally think

What, that PETA are a scary bunch of terrorists with their heads in their asses?

!

That was retarded.

well spotted

Feel free to review the thread. My opinion on the subject was stated and it hasn't changed. I hardly see this thread as the time or the place for a dead discussion where both sides pretty much decided to agree to disagree.


That's why it's so funny. I guess Ali G just isn't for everyone. That just makes it all the more fun for me.

Can the Creationist and Intelligent Design advocates in the house please explain why there's a need for Irreducible Complexity when evolution explains complex systems. Evolution can be explained without God and without Irreducible Complexity and I fail to see how there's room.

if there was a debate about PETA, I was probably involved (unless I missed it) and then there is absolutely no way we "agreed to disagree."



...she did that while she was running an animal shelter. PETA isn't an animal rights movement, it's a franchise of animal shelters. They kill over half of the animals they take in, they have a standard operating policy of killing certain breeds of animals, PETA employees have been brought up on charges of felony animal abuse for carrying out PETA SOP and the US DEA is currently investigating them for mishandling their enormous inventory of the drugs they use to murder animals.

Basically every animal rights movement other than the terrorist groups they finance condemn PETA for being corrupt and evil. We will never, ever agree to disagree about PETA because I am right and you didn't even read the damn pamphlet before you slapped on the bumper sticker.

Your assumptions are once again illogical. I'm not a member of PETA, therefore much of your post is already invalid. I find the rest of your post irrelevant, except for maybe the part about about us not actually agreeing to disagree. I'm not necessarily referring to you when I state that, because you're obviously incapable of agreeing to disagree on a philosophical issue where right and wrong can't possibly be proven. Besides, if I remember correctly, my overall response was generally nothing more than that I believe that PETA does more good than harm, and you could never prove otherwise when it comes to cold hard facts. Therefore it's a ridiculous debate to have and I don't really care enough about the issue to partake. Feel free to start another PETA thread if you folks deem it necessary, but as I've already stated, my point was made and I don't have anything else to contribute. I hardly see an evolution thread as a place to discuss this matter. Evolution, unlike PETA (not to be confused with animal rights in general) is actually a worthy topic for discussion, in my opinion.

What? Only his last sentence mentioned you. How does that make the rest of his post invalid?

rescuing animals = right.
slaughtering them = wrong.

hey, how about that

I'm pretty sure that his first and last sentences mentioned me and as I've already stated, I hardly see this as the time or place.

I would agree with the first half of your statement, and depending on how you define "slaughter" I may even agree with the last.

...soooooooo, it would appear your username is innapropriate?

Thats without even touching;

Destroying research
fire bombing
vandalism
death threats
breaking and entering
violent assault

That doesn't invalidate his claims.

I already pointed out that PETA is run by a psychopathic ice queen who gets her rocks off killing animals, and I pointed out that PETA kills over half of the animals they rescue (including animals they liberate from testing facilities), and I pointed out that PETA employees have been brought up on felony animal abuse charges for following standard operating procedures for their shelters, and I have pointed out that PETA maintains a gigantic stock of the chemicals they use to kill animals and keep such poor records that the US DEA is investigating them for it.

I am also extremely capable of providing references and data to support all of those statements, however in my experience you do not have sufficient cognitive faculties to comprehend such evidence.


considering the fact that all of his personal beliefs are constructed from falsehoods perpetuated by vapid large-breasted blondes, I would indeed say that MentatMM's name is extraordinarily inaccurate. This is hardly a new joke, however.

EDIT: Also, something I missed


How was anything I posted illogical? Do you even know what logic is? this is retarded

Yeah I found out what a Mentat was about a fortnight ago.

Right on. I guess the creationists are done responding and a PETA argument has erupted. I'm going to go get some rum, I'll be back in an hour.

Please excuse me for attempting to participate in a discussion regarding evolution. I didn't realize that my very existence was so offensive that people that know nothing about my character are so obsessed with destroying it that they would purposely derail a decent thread to do so. I've been a member of this community on and off since 1999, but I'm no longer interested in being harassed because I don't subscribe to the community philosophy and I'm through with arguing with people who don't know the difference between opinion and fact. Logical fallacies are one thing, but personal attacks are another. Admins please delete my account. Good day.

actually you could quite easily argue that the modern day animal rights movement is an appropriate topic for an evolution thread. i imagine the the diet of human beings has affected, and likewise been affected by evolution. did humans evolve to be able to eat meat? (back in the hunter/gatherer stages of mankind) indeed in some circumstances have we become dependent on it? i think that the consumption of meat could be (as is) completely relevant. and in that light i believe a discussion of people who try (sometimes violently) to keep other from eating meat is also relevant. you could have quite a grand discussion on weather man affinity for meat is simply "what evolution left behind"

I don't think Mentat's ever going to read that.

Yes. Mentat has "won" the argument and therefore his continued presence is no longer required.

And yes, humans did evolve to eat meat. As many as ~1 million years ago we survived almost solely on mammoth meat. It's very possible that our need to hunt mammoth (since there were no other food sources available) is why we evolved into a technological species (since you can't kill a mammoth without tools of some kind).

It's also possibly the source of canine domestication.

damn! and i actually had a decent argument there too! and that does not happen every day!

Mentat is so cool on every topic except his animal rights bull****.

It's just that he loves to throw his animal rights bull**** in on every topic....

Actually, I brought it up this time.

Now we won't see him for a month.

We didn't really evolve specifically to eat meat. We evolved to be very flexible in our diets, supplemented by the intelligence to alter our food by cooking. This allowed us to get more nutrients out of food that our body was not really made to handle, including vegetable matter (cooking breaks undigestible material down into forms that we can extract energy from) and meat (we lack the intestinal fortitude to deal with large quantities of raw meat). Chimpanzees, eat small amounts of meat, but it is not known if our common ancestor did so, or if the behaviour developed later (whether it arose independently or was learned from early humans).

Preserved mammoth meat contains the precise ratio of omega 3 and 6 fatty acids required for humans.

Uhh, no we don't?