• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

More Complex than Previously Thought - The New Scientific Mantra

rhutchin

Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
335
Location
DC Area
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist, YEC
The creationists at ICR are at it again. They've been reading the journal, "Nature," and it's not looking good for the evolutionists.

http://www.icr.org/article/8193/

"Once again the oft-repeated phrase "More complex than previously thought" has been used to describe new research cataloguing thousands of proteins produced from the human genome.1 This groundbreaking biotech news is undergirded by two recent papers published in the journal Nature that describe what has been called the first rough draft of the human proteome.2,3

Unlike DNA sequencing, the extraction, isolation, and identification of proteins is no easy task. To be able to characterize the large diversity of proteins in different tissues, the technologies and chemistries need to be diverse and complex. Nevertheless, technological progress and new instrumentation has advanced to where this can be realized on a much larger scale.

Because the population of proteins (types of proteins and their amounts) differ between tissue types, many different types have to be studied. One study sampled 30 different human tissues while another did 27. Not only do populations of proteins differ in various tissues, but the same gene that encodes a type of protein can make different variants of it called isoforms. Even after a protein is made, it can be altered by cellular machines for different purposes in a process called post-translational modification.4 Thus, a catalogue of proteins for each tissue must be created to fully understand the diversity of the proteome. In fact, the task is so daunting that one of the lead researchers believes "that the human proteome is so extensive and complex that researchers' catalog of it will never be fully complete."1

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of these new reports is the discovery of hundreds of new proteins from regions of the human genome previously thought to be non-coding junk. One paper found 193 such proteins with 140 of those being produced by pseudogenes—a category of DNA formerly classified as broken genes or genomic fossils, but now proven to be important functional features of the gneome.2,5 As noted by one of the researchers in an interview, "This was the most exciting part of this study, finding further complexities in the genome" and "The fact that 193 of the proteins came from DNA sequences predicted to be non-coding means that we don't fully understand how cells read DNA, because clearly those sequences do code for proteins."1

Taking a slightly different approach, the other research team found 430 new proteins produced by alleged non-coding DNA regions of the genome.3 And 404 of those originated from RNA producing areas located in between protein-coding genes called long intergenic non-coding RNA (lincRNA) regions.6 Interestingly, one of the stipulations for being called a lincRNA gene is that they supposedly don't produce proteins..."More complex than previously thought" has now become the standard response of scientists probing the mysteries of the cell.

References

1. Anonymous. 2014. Extensive Cataloging of Human Proteins Uncovers 193 Never Known to Exist. John Hopkins Medicine. Posted on hopkinsmedicine.org May 28, 2014, accessed June 5, 2014.
2. Kim, M. S. et al. 2014. A draft map of the human proteome. Nature. 509 (7502): 575-581.
3. Wilhelm, M. et al. 2014. Mass-spectrometry-based draft of the human proteome. Nature. 509 (7502): 582-587.
4. An analogy: Imagine that a car mechanic has a stack of blueprints (genes) to make several different kinds of cars (proteins). We may assume that he does, indeed, produce one sort of car for each blueprint, however that's not what happens. Instead, the mechanic makes a few changes to each blueprint, and he produces a variety of cars (isoforms) from each blueprint. We may think, "That's fine. I can follow that." But then, after the mechanic is finished, we see another mechanic come in and start making his own modifications to the cars already made (post-translational modification).
5. Tomkins, J. 2013. Pseudogenes Are Functional, Not Genomic Fossils. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 9.
6. Tomkins, J. 2014. Mouse Study Shows 'Junk DNA' Is Actually Required. Creation Science Update. Posted on icr.org January 15, 2014, accessed June 5, 2014.
 
The creationists at ICR are at it again. They've been reading the journal, "Nature," and it's not looking good for the evolutionists.
It's looking fine for 'evolutionists.' Unless and until 'The creationists at ICR' can show that 'complex' means fuck-all against evolutionary theory, there's no problem for evolutionary theory.
 
No matter how complex a natural system may be, it can never be as complex as an intelligent being capable of creating it from scratch.

If evolutionists are in trouble for acknowledging the growing complexity revealed by their experiments, creationists are in infinitely more trouble, because their complexity is even farther away from being adequately explained.

"It always existed" becomes a less useful hypothesis the more complex something is shown to be. This is an insurmountable problem for creationists, along with theists generally.
 
No matter how complex a natural system may be, it can never be as complex as an intelligent being capable of creating it from scratch.
Simple rules can create things that are far more complex than the rules, so that isn't necessarily true. Maybe I don't get what you mean?
 
No matter how complex a natural system may be, it can never be as complex as an intelligent being capable of creating it from scratch.
Simple rules can create things that are far more complex than the rules, so that isn't necessarily true. Maybe I don't get what you mean?

That is almost the default position for a scientist. We see complex objects and systems that are governed by simple rules all over the place.

The problem is positing an intelligent creator - supposedly unbound by any rules at all - that pre-dates any natural systems and in fact designed and implemented them. The argument that the universe and life are too complex to exist without a supernatural all powerful intelligent creator leads to infinite regression or is at least not parsimonious.

In summary:
1. If complexity requires a creator then where did the infinitely complex creator come from?
2. If rules can create vastly more complex systems - complex enough to fit the god description - then such rules are an adequate explanation of the universe. Positing a rule derived god, in the absence of evidence, adds an unnecessary level of complexity even if it is emotionally satisfying for some people.
 
Simple rules can create things that are far more complex than the rules, so that isn't necessarily true. Maybe I don't get what you mean?

Apparently, evolutionists have not yet found the simple rules to support their speculations.
 
Simple rules can create things that are far more complex than the rules, so that isn't necessarily true. Maybe I don't get what you mean?

Apparently, evolutionists have not yet found the simple rules to support their speculations.
I don't see the problem of chemical reactions, mutations, and selective pressure.
seems like simple rules to me.
 
Simple rules can create things that are far more complex than the rules, so that isn't necessarily true. Maybe I don't get what you mean?

Apparently, evolutionists have not yet found the simple rules to support their speculations.

There is a difference between "Evolutionists (sic) have not yet found" and "rhutchin is not aware/doesn't accept what scientists have found"
 
Simple rules can create things that are far more complex than the rules, so that isn't necessarily true. Maybe I don't get what you mean?

Apparently, evolutionists have not yet found the simple rules to support their speculations.

There is a difference between "Evolutionists (sic) have not yet found" and "rhutchin is not aware/doesn't accept what scientists have found"

True, however, if evolutionists had actually found those rules, why would they keep them secret. Even you don't appear to know them.
 
Simple rules can create things that are far more complex than the rules, so that isn't necessarily true. Maybe I don't get what you mean?

Apparently, evolutionists have not yet found the simple rules to support their speculations.

There is a difference between "Evolutionists (sic) have not yet found" and "rhutchin is not aware/doesn't accept what scientists have found"

True, however, if evolutionists had actually found those rules, why would they keep them secret. Even you don't appear to know them.
They are common knowledge. A simple recurrence relation generates the  Mandelbrot Set, which is pretty complex (its boarder is infinitely long, although its area is finite).

From this, one can see that the principle "very simple rules can generate complex, unpredictable behaviors*" is true.

*The area of the M-set has not been calculated exactly due to its complexity.
 
Hardly 'new'; Science has been finding out that things are more complex than previously thought for at least 6,000 years.

That you (or the idiots at ICR) are unaware of this indicates only that you (or they) are uneducated. It says nothing about the usefulness nor the validity of science.

Stuff is really complex. Nonetheless, we are now able to use our understanding of this complexity to do things that people of past centuries would have thought magical.

In the middle ages, lots of people thought it was possible to communicate over long distances using witchcraft; but they were wrong - that isn't possible, despite being such a simple concept that even an illiterate peasant can be persuaded that it is true.

Today, it actually IS possible to communicate over long distances; but rather than simply saying 'Oh, that's witchcraft', we have a rather more complex scientific approach, that is NOT readily grasped by illiterate peasants; and sometimes is even beyond the ken of well trained telecommunications engineers - despite their education on such matters as multiplexing signals in fibre-optics to maximise bandwidth.

The world increasingly goes from simple (but wrong) explanations, that ignorant people can conceptualise, but can't use; to complex (but accurate) explanations, that ignorant people can use, but can't conceptualise.

The truly ignorant see this, and say "I don't understand how it works, so I shall fall back on presumptions of magic".
 
Hardly 'new'; Science has been finding out that things are more complex than previously thought for at least 6,000 years.

That you (or the idiots at ICR) are unaware of this indicates only that you (or they) are uneducated. It says nothing about the usefulness nor the validity of science.

Stuff is really complex. Nonetheless, we are now able to use our understanding of this complexity to do things that people of past centuries would have thought magical.

In the middle ages, lots of people thought it was possible to communicate over long distances using witchcraft; but they were wrong - that isn't possible, despite being such a simple concept that even an illiterate peasant can be persuaded that it is true.

Today, it actually IS possible to communicate over long distances; but rather than simply saying 'Oh, that's witchcraft', we have a rather more complex scientific approach, that is NOT readily grasped by illiterate peasants; and sometimes is even beyond the ken of well trained telecommunications engineers - despite their education on such matters as multiplexing signals in fibre-optics to maximise bandwidth.

The world increasingly goes from simple (but wrong) explanations, that ignorant people can conceptualise, but can't use; to complex (but accurate) explanations, that ignorant people can use, but can't conceptualise.

The truly ignorant see this, and say "I don't understand how it works, so I shall fall back on presumptions of magic".

That's a roundabout way to say that complexity means problems for evolution. Evolution still has not identified simple processes that can produce complex organisms. They like to think that known biological processes can do this but they have not been able to confirm this through research.
 
Hardly 'new'; Science has been finding out that things are more complex than previously thought for at least 6,000 years.

That you (or the idiots at ICR) are unaware of this indicates only that you (or they) are uneducated. It says nothing about the usefulness nor the validity of science.

Stuff is really complex. Nonetheless, we are now able to use our understanding of this complexity to do things that people of past centuries would have thought magical.

In the middle ages, lots of people thought it was possible to communicate over long distances using witchcraft; but they were wrong - that isn't possible, despite being such a simple concept that even an illiterate peasant can be persuaded that it is true.

Today, it actually IS possible to communicate over long distances; but rather than simply saying 'Oh, that's witchcraft', we have a rather more complex scientific approach, that is NOT readily grasped by illiterate peasants; and sometimes is even beyond the ken of well trained telecommunications engineers - despite their education on such matters as multiplexing signals in fibre-optics to maximise bandwidth.

The world increasingly goes from simple (but wrong) explanations, that ignorant people can conceptualise, but can't use; to complex (but accurate) explanations, that ignorant people can use, but can't conceptualise.

The truly ignorant see this, and say "I don't understand how it works, so I shall fall back on presumptions of magic".

That's a roundabout way to say that complexity means problems for evolution.
No, it isn't.
Evolution still has not identified simple processes that can produce complex organisms.
Yes, it has.
They like to think that known biological processes can do this but they have not been able to confirm this through research.
Nothing is confirmed through research. Research attempts to disprove things. If, as with this question, no disproof has been found despite a massive effort to do so, then you have a theory.

Proof is for mathematics and whiskey.
Confirmation is for Catholics and High Anglicans.
Creationism is strictly for the birds.
 
In the middle ages, lots of people thought it was possible to communicate over long distances using witchcraft; but they were wrong - that isn't possible, despite being such a simple concept that even an illiterate peasant can be persuaded that it is true.
Umm, I'm pretty sure the whole "no such thing as psychic activity" thing is a myth perpetuated by those who evolved psychic powers and control what scientific knowledge the non-psychic classes have access to. No non-psychic will ever successfully prove psychic powers exist. And guess what, there is enough pain in the psyche of the exploited lower classes that the psychic upper classes will never reveal themselves. Keeping many non-psychic lower class slaves is... a bit complicated, and sometimes requires wars to be staged to subdue the non-psychic population and make them willing to do menial labor to support the psychic upper class.

The thing is they can only set you on the path to do work- control you for a little bit, and rely on your ignorance and good will that they manipulate out of you to push you forward. And then you get wise to them, develop too much resistance, and they have to kill you if you refuse to join their evil, manipulative system. Of course, they always play it out as a car wreck, drug overdose, or something else (induced cancer or whatever). Doesn't even matter if I tell you this, the message will be psychically repressed. It's only by banding together that non-psychics can resist. Unionize- you are be watched, and manipulated by an immoral elite, who has no intention of ever letting you have a good life.
 
In the middle ages, lots of people thought it was possible to communicate over long distances using witchcraft; but they were wrong - that isn't possible, despite being such a simple concept that even an illiterate peasant can be persuaded that it is true.
Umm, I'm pretty sure the whole "no such thing as psychic activity" thing is a myth perpetuated by those who evolved psychic powers and control what scientific knowledge the non-psychic classes have access to. <snipped dystopian fantasy>.

Well I am 100% sure that the whole "no such thing as psychic activity" thing is not only true, but is demonstrably true - it is as certain a fact as ANY fact we humans have ever tested.

Watch this video. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, start at the 34 minute mark; but I heartily recommend that you watch the whole thing. Several times if need be.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs-Azp0i3k[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs-Azp0i3k

There may well be many things that are out there that we don't know about; but it is 100% certain that none of them are both powerful enough to affect human brains, and have sufficient range to get from one brain to another. All of the things that can do that are well known, well understood, and don't allow for psychic abilities.

Any ideas you have that conflict with this simple fact are wrong. Far more wrong than suggesting that a tomato is a suspension bridge, or that the Moon is made of Stilton cheese.
 
Well I am 100% sure that the whole "no such thing as psychic activity" thing is not only true, but is demonstrably true - it is as certain a fact as ANY fact we humans have ever tested.
That's the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. Scientific progress is purposefully limited in the areas that would point towards knowledge of psychic activity. The problem is they have a bunch of non-psychic fools who repeat the "facts" that they've been led to observe about the non-existence of psychic abilities.

Then again, if you were psychic, you'd lie about psychic abilities. It's just the way it is- you cannot keep a docile slave class with the knowledge that all of the advances and riches you enjoy is due to your psychic ability, and your exploitation of the non-psychic class for your own pursuits.
There may well be many things that are out there that we don't know about; but it is 100% certain that none of them are both powerful enough to affect human brains, and have sufficient range to get from one brain to another. All of the things that can do that are well known, well understood, and don't allow for psychic abilities.
Bilby- the only people allowed to do research into physical sciences that could lead them towards knowledge of psychic activity are psychic themselves. The point is, you are either a member of the non-psychic underclass and you believe the lies you've been taught about the various scientific theories that "prove psychic abilities do not exist", or you are psychic, and you're lying.

Any ideas you have that conflict with this simple fact are wrong. Far more wrong than suggesting that a tomato is a suspension bridge, or that the Moon is made of Stilton cheese.
Ok, whatever. I believed the lies I was told at one point in time, because I didn't want to believe in a psychic overclass. It would be too horrible to know that there was a group that was willing to do anything to enslave and use those with lesser ability, while they party and enjoy the good life at the expense of those without psychic ability.

There is a reason all research points away from psychic abilities, and it is not the non-existence of psychic abilities. Well, unless something else is going on. Either way, I'm not going to fucking work.
 
That's the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. Scientific progress is purposefully limited in the areas that would point towards knowledge of psychic activity. The problem is they have a bunch of non-psychic fools who repeat the "facts" that they've been led to observe about the non-existence of psychic abilities.

Then again, if you were psychic, you'd lie about psychic abilities. It's just the way it is- you cannot keep a docile slave class with the knowledge that all of the advances and riches you enjoy is due to your psychic ability, and your exploitation of the non-psychic class for your own pursuits.
There may well be many things that are out there that we don't know about; but it is 100% certain that none of them are both powerful enough to affect human brains, and have sufficient range to get from one brain to another. All of the things that can do that are well known, well understood, and don't allow for psychic abilities.
Bilby- the only people allowed to do research into physical sciences that could lead them towards knowledge of psychic activity are psychic themselves. The point is, you are either a member of the non-psychic underclass and you believe the lies you've been taught about the various scientific theories that "prove psychic abilities do not exist", or you are psychic, and you're lying.

Any ideas you have that conflict with this simple fact are wrong. Far more wrong than suggesting that a tomato is a suspension bridge, or that the Moon is made of Stilton cheese.
Ok, whatever. I believed the lies I was told at one point in time, because I didn't want to believe in a psychic overclass. It would be too horrible to know that there was a group that was willing to do anything to enslave and use those with lesser ability, while they party and enjoy the good life at the expense of those without psychic ability.

There is a reason all research points away from psychic abilities, and it is not the non-existence of psychic abilities. Well, unless something else is going on. Either way, I'm not going to fucking work.

O... K....

<backs slowly away>
 
That's the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. Scientific progress is purposefully limited in the areas that would point towards knowledge of psychic activity.
Purposefully?
They designed the scientific method in order to avoid having to face up to psychic activity?
Wow. I've seen some conspiracy theory claims in my time, but that one's a doozie.






Much is explained.
 
That's a roundabout way to say that complexity means problems for evolution. Evolution still has not identified simple processes that can produce complex organisms. They like to think that known biological processes can do this but they have not been able to confirm this through research.
In fact, nothing is simpler than saying "god did it" and nothing is easier to believe, which explains its popularity through the ages. People love their succubi.
 
Yawn.

It's still the same old teleological argument.

"I cannot understand how natural forces can create something as complex as a snowflake, therefore I know exactly how snowflakes are created: a magical being magicks them into existence. QED!"

I don't know, therefore I know. It's no different from the structure of the primary argument used by UFO nuts.
 
Back
Top Bottom