Debate:Specified complexity/TheOneTrueArchive

Hi, I can't begin to elaborate how many things you have misrepresented here. However, today I will be talking about the concept proposed by William Dembski: Specified complexity. The concept of specified complexity is COMPLETELY misrepresented here. I hope that you will either change the information here, or at least tell me where you SPECIFICALLY disagree with me. Rather an unpleasant way for an introduction... but I will try to define specified complexity correctly... Here I go.

SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY In this context the word complex refers to OBSERVABLE biological functions which are intricate and detailed. Specified refers to a SPECIFIC role it seems to have. In other words specified to a certain situation. Allow me to bring an example. Think of sexual arousal. The response to sexual stimuli involves number of changes that come with the anticipation of sex. Physical changes that are visible and also many psychological factors. The Human sexual response cycle involves the brain interpreting a stimuli and the phases of human sexual response cycle. These changes, involving multiple systems working together would no doubt be classified as complex (intricate and detailed), at the same time they are SPECIFIED to sexual reproduction.

Another example would be enzyme Rhodanese. It is a mitochondrial enzyme that detoxifies cyanide (CN−) by converting it to thiocyanate (SCN−). This is the body's chief defense mechanism against cyanide. In fact, any known treatment of cyanide poisoning comes from the effect of this enzyme. Without this enzyme even the smallest amount of cyanide (cigarette smoke, certain fruit seeds etc.) could have been easily lethal! The function of Rhodanese is no doubt intricate and detailed... However, it is also specified to cyanide. On an unrelated note, I will raise another point about Rhodanese. Without the existence of Rhodanese even the slightest contact with cyanide would no doubt be lethal to any living thing. Rhodanese could not have developed by adaption over time, since adaption would require chronic exposure to cyanide over population. But even the SLIGHTEST contact (let alone chronic) with cyanide would have resulted in histotoxic hypoxia.

Another example would be the sense of balance. Sense of balance or equilibrioception is one of the physiological senses related to balance. It helps prevent humans and animals from falling over when standing or moving. Balance is the result of a number of body systems working together: the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) and the body's sense of where it is in space (proprioception) ideally need to be intact. The vestibular system, the region of the inner ear where three semicircular canals converge, works with the visual system to keep objects in focus when the head is moving. This is called the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). The balance system works with the visual and skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. Visual signals sent to the brain about the body's position in relation to its surroundings are processed by the brain and compared to information from the vestibular, visual and skeletal systems. No doubt this would classifed as complex (intricate and detailed), but it is also SPECIFIED to our NEED of equilibrium.

Another example would be blood clotting or coagulation. The mechanism of coagulation involves activation, adhesion, and aggregation of platelets along with deposition and maturation of fibrin. No doubt this would also, after OBSERVATION, be classified as complex (inricate and detailed)... but again it is also SPECIFIED to the cessation of blood loss from a damaged vessel.

Another example would be the corneal reflex. The corneal reflex, also known as the blink reflex, is an involuntary blinking of the eyelids elicited by stimulation of the cornea (such as by touching or by a foreign body), though could result from any peripheral stimulus. Stimulation should elicit both a direct and consensual response (response of the opposite eye). The reflex occurs at a rapid rate of 0.1 seconds. The purpose of this reflex is to protect the eyes from foreign bodies and bright lights (the latter known as the optical reflex). The blink reflex also occurs when sounds greater than 40-60 dB are made. The reflex is mediated by: the nasociliary branch of the ophthalmic branch (V1) of the 5th cranial nerve (trigeminal nerve) sensing the stimulus on the cornea, lid, or conjunctiva (i.e., it is the afferent). the temporal and zygomatic branches of the 7th cranial nerve (Facial nerve) initiating the motor response (i.e., it is the efferent). the centre (nucleus) in the pons of brain stem. No doubt this would also be called complex, but it is also SPECIFIED to eye defense.

Another example would be the feeling of pain. No doubt the brain cortex, involved in the feeling of pain, and the physical responses would be considered intricate and detailed. But pain also motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future. It is also specified to protecting yourself from damage.

Evolution in the most trivial sense of changes of heritable traits over time, and the concept of natural selection are observable. These small changes do occur. And nobody disagrees here. The problem comes when we move on to Universal common descent. The mechanism of common descent would require the explanation of specified complexity. And the example of such changes. If we say that the wolf and a dog could have had a common ancestor, this would be a logical claim consistent with THIS defintion of evolution... Since the changes are EXACTLY what would be anticipated from such a process. The changes from an ape like creature to homo sapiens requires a mechanism that would be able to explain more complex changes that are also SPECIFIED. I come up with only two options... Either there is a naturalistic mechanism other than just natural selection, which we do not know, and holds the key to such OBSERVABLE phenomena. Or there is intelligence behind this. I am anticipating a response. Farewell --Kingdamian1(talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Christopher (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You say "I can't begin to elaborate how many things you've misrepresented here" could you provide an example? If we're currently presenting a straw man of William Dembski's pseudoscientific idea it should be corrected as soon as possible. Then we can debunk what he actually said. Christopher (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * your explanation of specified complexity is flawed. I have given the correct definition. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it called irreducible complexity? Or is it similar to intelligent design/creationism? Christopher (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake they're apparently different things. Christopher (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * after reading my arguments... Either edit the information... or tell me where I'm wrong--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are we wrong? How is our definition different from yours? Christopher (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You claim it is pseudo scientific... Whereas I gave real life examples and demonstrations... You claim that such complexity can be explained by Darwinian, naturalistic approach... Whereas I explain why it can't... Additionally... you represent specified complexity as us not understanding something and using this to our advantage... WHICH IS DEMONSTRABLY WRONG... I get the impression you did not read my initial argument completely.--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Having actually read through the page we don't appear to have a very clear definition.
 * Could you provide citations for the cyanide bit (as in citations for all of your claims, not just the existence of Rhodanese)? (Mainstream scientific ones, not AiG or other creationist organisations because I can't trust that they aren't making the whole thing up). Christopher (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The argument of Rhodanese IS NOT FROM ANY CREATIONIST WEBSITE... I don't understand what you want me to provide... You want a wikipedia page for Rhodanese?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I want citations for everything you say, I'm not going to put in any effort to fact check a creationist. Christopher (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Google Rhodanese... Google cyanide poisoning... Read both pages in WIKIPEDIA... Get back to me!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not do my own research, provide citations for everything you say that isn't common knowledge. Christopher (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, could you qualify "tiniest amount" in terms of mass (with citations of course)? Christopher (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by provide citations... The rhodanese bit is COPY PASTED from wikipedia... Since you are UNWILLING to check... you will have to take my word for it--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking your word for anything, provide bloody citations! It's not hard. Also don't cite Wikipedia, cite what Wikipedia cites, anyone can edit it. Christopher (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cites.... Anseeuw, K; Delvau, N; Burillo-Putze, G; De Iaco, F; Geldner, G; Holmström, P; Lambert, Y; Sabbe, M (February 2013). "Cyanide poisoning by fire smoke inhalation: a European expert consensus.". European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. 20 (1): 2–9. doi:10.1097/mej.0b013e328357170b. PMID 22828651........... as a source that in an ADULT with the presence of rhodanese... Levels of 0.5–1 mg/L is already considered mild poisoning... I REPEAT this is in an ADULT (not a small life form)... WITH THE PRESENCE OF RHODANESE (the lethal does WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY lower had such defense mechanism not been active)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere! Now you can explain how this disproves common descent/"macroevolution". Christopher (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Attention Kingdamian1, as the top of this page says, "Please keep it civil!" As one of the site moderators (of Rationalwiki, not of this debate), I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implicit ad hominem attacks, i.e. "I REPEAT this is in an ADULT (not a small life form)". Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyanide is a cellular toxin... Any exposure to cyanide, prior to rhodanese would have been INVARIABLY lethal! Hence, rhodanese must have evolved WITHOUT prior chronic exposure to cyanide... How does this, SPECIFIED COMPLEX function fit into a naturalistic view?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bongolian, how's that an ad hominem? Christopher (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I interpret that him as calling his opponent (you) a child. Maybe he meant something else though. Bongolian (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the context it's clear he's saying "for an adult it takes X amount of cyanide to kill them, imagine how little it would take to kill some tiny microorganism". Christopher (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation you provided didn't say that any exposure to cyanide prior to rhodanese development would be lethal in small organisms. Also, rhodanese could have evolved with another "function" other than preventing cyanide poisoning. Christopher (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing means that Rhodanese just HAPPENED TO BE useful against cyanide... This is not science... This is an assumption made to defend a belief in Darwinism!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) that only addressed part of what I said, the other was your lack of a citation. 2) it's called a, you may say there's no evidence that rhodanese has any other functions and to my (very limited) knowledge you'd be correct. However, you still haven't provided any evidence that the solutions to the supposed problems with evolution are to replace it with your God. Christopher (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided many examples... if you do not have much understanding in cyanide posioning... why did you jump on this... you could have easily disputed other example... In the end i provided to explanations for such functions... Either intelligence... or an unknown mechanism OTHER THAN just natural selection!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really know why I started on the cyanide example but don't change the subject. Respond to my last comment. Christopher (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... I do not believe in common descent to start with... However... you could make an argument that these changes were directed by INTELLIGENCE (not an unguided process)!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Respond to my last comment. Christopher (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did... Specified complexity cannot be attributed to chance... AT LEAST you would have to provide examples... I cannot think of any other answer than intelligence in the case of such specified complexity... you are welcome to give an alternate explanation... however, keep in mind, that if it is a NATURALISTIC explanation... you would have to provide an example!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are changing the subject (perhaps not on purpose) you haven't yet responded to this comment. It's not anything special, I just don't like it when people change the subject. Christopher (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which one? Can u ask again?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's why you weren't answering me. I'll copy paste my exact words: 1) that only addressed part of what I said, the other was your lack of a citation. 2) it's called a, you may say there's no evidence that rhodanese has any other functions and to my (very limited) knowledge you'd be correct. However, you still haven't provided any evidence that the solutions to the supposed problems with evolution are to replace it with your God.
 * could you respond to that? I hate it when the subject is changed halfway through a debate. Christopher (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you said that you have a limited knowledge in cyanide poisoning... I thought there was no reason for me to press you... I will need to explain the basics... Cyanide binds itself to cytochrome oxydase c... it is a large transmembrane protein complex found in bacteria and the mitochondrion of eukaryotes.
 * It is the last enzyme in the respiratory electron transport chain of mitochondria (or bacteria) located in the mitochondrial (or bacterial) membrane. It receives an electron from each of four cytochrome c molecules, and transfers them to one oxygen molecule, converting molecular oxygen to two molecules of water. In the process, it binds four protons from the inner aqueous phase to make water, and in addition translocates four protons across the membrane, helping to establish a transmembrane difference of proton electrochemical potential that the ATP synthase then uses to synthesize ATP... Cyanide binds itself to this enzyme... Thus preventing cellular respiration... This results in histotoxic hypoxia... EVEN thought the person is breathing... the oxygen is not being distributed... The lethal dose, as with ANY TOXIN... depends on the body mass... To put it into perspective... about 50 bitter almonds (not the ones you eat!) would be enough to produce a lethal dose in an ADULT... it would be about 7 in an infant... 3 in a small dog... The poisoning occurs WHEN rhodanese is OVERLOADED... of we suppose that rhodanese didn't exist... Poisoning would occur with the smallest amounts!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Could you respond to that comment now? All of it? I'm determined not to let the subject be changed. Christopher (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are doing... This debate was about something else than cyanide poisoning... Any medical encyclopedia would confirm my explanation of cyanide poisoning mechanism... What I am trying to say is that common descent would require an explanation for such things... like I put it... You people are giving the most trivial explanation of evolution.... WHICH I AGREE WITH... and then move us to common descent... You would have to provide an explanation for SUCH SPECIFIED functions... If you check the sense of balance example... it requires different functions working together and being compared by brain to give a sense of equilibrium... How do these sort of specified complexities fit into a Darwinian context? P.S I have given a thorough explanation of cyanide poisoning... Please, stay on what the subject of the debate was in the first place! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to address one of your points, you're trying to move onto one of your other points. We'll get into the balance thing in a minute. If you really don't want to talk about your cyanide example, cross it out like this which produces this and that'll be taken to mean you conceded that the cyanide thing isn't evidence against common descent. Either do that or answer my comment. Christopher (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the mechanism of cyanide poisoning. I'm disputing that the mechanism of cyanide poisoning is evidence against common descent. (Just to clarify as one of your comments implied I was disputing said mechanism). Christopher (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how much it is evidence against common descent... It is an argument against a naturalistic view. Against an unguided process being responsible...I personally do not believe in common descent... There are people who do believe that such a process was GUIDED... The argument is AGAINST No intelligence being present... Which one of your questions was not adressed?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've provided multiple links to it and copy pasted the text when you previously asked which one I meant but I'll do it again. I mean this comment:


 * 1) that only addressed part of what I said, the other was your lack of a citation. 2) it's called a, you may say there's no evidence that rhodanese has any other functions and to my (very limited) knowledge you'd be correct. However, you still haven't provided any evidence that the solutions to the supposed problems with evolution are to replace it with your God.


 * You changed the subject (quite possibly without realising it) when I first said this. Now you have a chance to address this comment. All of it please. Thanks. Christopher (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have explained the mechanism of action of rhodanese... I have shown the mechanism of action of cyanide poisoning... I have shown the tiny amount it takes for poisoning with rhodanese being present in an adult... Without ANY DEFENSE mechanism in a smaller life form smallest amount of cyanide would be lethal... What do I fail to show???? This mechanism is better explained as a result of INTELLIGENCE, because a random process is unlikely to have developed an enzyme whose function is to defend us against a VERY LETHAL poison without prior exposure...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've given up on trying to get you to answer that comment. What you've failed to show is that one poorly cited example disproves common descent when compared with . I provided a solution to your problem, rhodanese could've originally developed for a purpose other than cyanide poisoning prevention. Christopher (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't cited anything, the one citation you did provide didn't seem to support many of your claims. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)!

I do not agree that there is masses of evidence for common descent... That being said.... Rhodanese DOES NOT DISPROVE COMMON descent per se... It disproves the idea of NO INTELLIGENCE.--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's loads of evidence, click on the link.
 * I'll try and sum up your basic argument, feel free to correct me if I misrepresent your position.
 * Your argument is that cyanide without rhodanese would be deadly in small amounts, as it would be deadly in small amounts any creature who was exposed to it pre rhodanese would die. Because they'd die, they wouldn't have a chance to evolve the resistance to cyanide without devine intervention. Quite badly put but am I mostly correct? Before I attempt to refute this I'll check with you that I'm not misrepresenting your position.
 * I'm doing this because this debate is getting really long. Christopher (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The argument is correct... I would love to hear your refutation... THAT BEING said... i didnt ask u to refute my points... but i would love to hear them!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to sign! Christopher (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Devine intervention is a mockery on your part... Without an intelligent GUIDE... as opposed to a random process!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a number of things wrong with this argument:


 * 1) Against the mountain of evidence for evolution (which I suspect you'll deny) it's a tiny potentially unexplained piece of evidence that doesn't warrant changing the theory.
 * 2) Even if it was unexplainable (I have a potential explanation that's a bit vague, I freely admit it isn't very good as I'm not a scientist). The fact that something is unexplainable does not mean it was done by god. If you want to say it was done by god then fine, make a testable prediction based on your devine intervention hypothesis. If you can't make a testable prediction your idea is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
 * 3) Here's my rather vague rubbish explanation: rhodanese initially developed for some other function (I'm not a biochemist so I won't suggest what) then had the side effect of preventing cyanide poisoning.
 * 4) Why couldn't one mutation have led to rhodanese production, the organism reproducing and slightly less of it's offspring die because there's one less method of death?

Sorry if any of this is unclear, if it just tell me. Christopher (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * God, I can't tell what I mean so I doubt you'll be able to. Christopher (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

NONE OF WHAT you are saying makes ANY SENSE in medicince, anatomy or biology... SUCH IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS CANNOT develop by chance as a biproduct of something else somewhere... THIS IS NOT SCIENCE... this is an assumption made to defend a naturalistic, darwinistic concept... You are free to believe it... Don't tell me it is supported by science... I DO NOT BLAME YOU for a limited knowledge in cyanide poisoning... And i have tried to leave this subject... But you are persistent--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Rhodanese serves a VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTION... You are exposed to small amounts of cyanide... potentially, on regular basis... Fruit seeds, cigarette smoke etc. all contain cyanide... Rhodanese is VITAL... SUCH FUNCTIONS CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY A RANDOM unguided process!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This argument is NOT AGAINST common descent... YOU COULD argue that common descent was guided by either an unknown mechanism other than just natural selection... or intelligence!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with common descent... but that is an argument for another day. Today... we focus on an unguided process vs intelligence!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence it was done through devine intervention? What testable predictions does your hypothesis make? Christopher (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I claim that this in itself is evidence for an INTELLIGENT designer... My testable hypothesis is that... if this is the work of a designer... We will find many such functions in life... You tell me... am i wrong?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a testable prediction we already know that stuff like rhodanese exists, if we already know that it exists it isn't a prediction. I'll give you an example, (I may get some details wrong but you get the basic idea) when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity it explained the orbit of mercury which differed slightly from what was predicted by Newtonian gravity. However, as the orbit of mercury was well known before Einstein formulated his theory, this wasn't a prediction. Einstein then predicted that when a solar eclipse happened we'd see a star in the wrong place, as no one knew we'd see the star in this place this was a prediction. (Einstein was proven right). You have to provide an example of your hypothesis saying "X will be Y" then X being shown to be Y. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Other functions... will be found... which will also display specified complexity! I gave other examples above... I can give hundreds more!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't clarify. The prediction has to be different to what evolution predicts. Otherwise it isn't evidence for anything. Christopher (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It also has to be specific. Christopher (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You are probably using evolution in it's most trivial sense (change of heritable traits over time)... I DO NOT disagree with such changes through natural selection... Hence... A dog and a wolf could have had a common ancestor... Since the changes between a wolf and a dog are CONSISTENT with natural selection... WHAT i disagree with is an UNGUIDED PROCESS and UNIVERSAL common descent... SINCE the mechanism for these changes IS DIFFERENT from dog-wolf change... You have to either provide an example of such random changes through natural selection developing specified complexity... or stop claiming that this theory is supported by science!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop changing the bloody subject. Provide an example of a prediction made by your pet hypothesis that was later proven to be correct. It has to disagree with what the theory of evolution would say and be specific. Christopher (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct the dictionary... It has to disagree with what a NATURALIST view would say... I could make a prediction that specified complexity will be found in different life forms... I predict that the Specified complexity FOUND in these life forms will contradict the purely naturalistic view!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This "debate" is a bit of a mess, is it ok to make subsections?


 * I agree with Kingdamian1 that the current page is confusing because it redirects to Complex Specified Information and doesn't clearly explain specified complexity. This should probably be discussed in the talk page of the article.


 * In this book review (one of Wikipedia's references): "Bradley and Thaxton introduce the notion that "design detection" was similar to archaeology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) particularly as depicted in Carl Sagan's fiction, and forensic investigations. They also apply Leslie Orgel's 1973 concept of "specified complexity" to life and rephrase it as a sort of measure of information. In short, Bradley and Thaxton's short chapter on the origin of life set the agenda for William Dembski's whole career. "


 * In 's biography, Wikipedia claims "In his book The Origins of Life, Orgel coined the concept of specified complexity, to describe the criterion by which living organisms are distinguished from non-living matter. " (Leslie Orgel was a real biologist who published many papers focusing on detailed mechanisms that could have contributed to abiogenesis). In other words, specified complexity may have started as a scientific hypothesis (I don't have the book, I can't tell) but then was repurposed by ID proponents. This document from 2003 provides a discussion about Dembski's ideas but doesn't address Kingdamian1's specific points.


 * In this 2016 paper (from Nature's Scientific Reports) the authors conclude "The present study, for first time, provides strong evidence that there was a rhodanese functional adaptation in response to changes in dietary resources in giant panda. " In short, scientists are working on it, and it may take 10 years or 100 years before we get a complete picture, there is no need to jump to conclusions here. --Cmonk (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is NO SUCH A THING as adaption to cyanide... What you provide DOES NOT ADRESS THIS issue... if evolution is true than an organism had to ADAPT TO CYANIDE... This is LAUGHABLE... Any MD will tell you this ANY GIVEN DAY... Cyanide is a CELLULAR toxin... It is one of the most lethal poisons known to humanity... Rhodanese is SPECIFICALLY designed to protect us from it... Plus... This debate has turned into a cyanide discussion... Please, pay attention to my whole argument... Specified complexity is observable and demonstrable... And is a STRONG argument against purely Darwinian views. Rational wiki has done nothing but made fun of a LEGITIMATE argument which I am ready to defend! P.S I'd like to see which incompetent person claims adaption to cyanide... The above examples are  just what I could say from the top of my head... I can bring hundreds of such examples which clearly DEMONSTRATE specified complexity... Name a major function in humans and I will give at least 2 different complex mechanisms which are SPECIFIED to each other (in other words, only make sense if the other is present)... and work together for our benefit... If such a thing can happen through an unguided process... with only natural selection... I would like to see an example... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The last link I gave you is for a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper is titled "Dietary resources shape the adaptive changes of cyanide detoxification function in giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca)", is freely accessible, and lists a number of authors (He Huang, Shangmian Yie, and others). I do not know any of these people, but I trust published peer-reviewed literature until somebody can prove it wrong. If you think the research is wrong, please contact Nature and convince them to retract the paper. If you think that I misinterpreted what the paper says, then could you please cite the relevant text that shows my misunderstanding? I do not care much about cyanide (and herbivore adaptation to plant cyanide is not a controversial topic as far as I can tell), but it was your first example. Addressing all your points at once would be unreadable, so I think it best to go progressively. --Cmonk (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your peer reviewed article makes NO MENTION of the development of rhodanese (rhodanese developement MUST HAVE HAPPENED without prior exposure... since prior exposure would have been LETHAL)... You also dodge a question... How does SPECIFIED complexity fit into a Darwinian context?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you don't reject the idea that herbivores can adapt to cyanide, but you claim that the rhodanese pathway itself couldn't have evolved? From what I understand, research into the evolution of specific molecules is recent and ongoing, and I don't know what the state of the art is. This paper states "The Cdc25s display sequence similarity to rhodaneses and are thought to have evolved from a bacterial, rhodanese-like protein " and gives a few references but I couldn't access them. At this point, I can only conjecture (like Christopher did) that a rhodanese-like molecule evolved very early in some ancestral cell, maybe to be able to digest some naturally occurring resource (maybe cyanide itself, like, maybe something chemically similar).


 * You gave an explanation of the cyanide mechanism, but you never said how you conclude that evolution of rhodanese is impossible (you only said that you don't know how it could have happened).


 * Earlier you said "Rhodanese just HAPPENED TO BE useful against cyanide... This is not science... ". I reject that last sentence. It seems to me that we are talking about at the molecular level. The abstract of this 2013 letter (Nature) (full text) says "Metabolic systems thus contain a latent potential for evolutionary innovations with non-adaptive origins. Our observations suggest that many more metabolic traits may have non-adaptive origins than is appreciated at present ", and in the text "Many enzymes are capable of using various substrates, which can further increase network complexity and the potential for exaptation. "


 * It is possible that the explanation has already been written in some paper that I can't access, or maybe it will be in the future. Since most of my answers are going to be "I don't know" and "maybe", you may not find them satisfying, but if you want more, you need to contact an actual expert (and potentially get the same answers). I do not intend to dodge anything (although I may not have the time/motivation to go through dozens of examples of things for which we may or may not have an explanation yet), but (a) my understanding of evolution isn't hindered by subjective concepts such as "specified complexity" (to the extent that I understand your explanation), (b) evolution of biochemical pathways is an active area of research, so there are many things that we don't know yet. --Cmonk (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a mutation or an evolutionary process known to produce specified complexity? What you claim about rhodanese origin is not supported by research... this is ASSUMED TO SUPPORT darwinistic view... according to your claim rhodanese exists by chance... and such VITAL enzymes cant evolve through chance... on top of this there was no PRIOR EXPOSURE TO CYANIDE.... since it would have been lethal... The body would not have known that Rhodanese would serve such an important function... pre rhodanese contact (let alone a chronic exposure) would have been lethal within about 10 minutes... SUCH IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS CANNOT DEVELOP BY AN UNGUIDED PROCESS Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still not quite sure what specified complexity is, but if you are talking about exaptation, then this 2011 paper gives examples (in anthropology, not molecular biology) and more references. The important point in this paper is that exaptation is a contentious topic and "more studies are needed ".


 * My "claim", as I clearly said, is a conjecture, but I think it is compatible with modern biology (if you have peer-reviewed papers that tell the opposite, please provide references+quotes). I don't know if rhodanese exists "by chance" (BTW, natural selection is not "chance", although the mutations are random). Your claim that "VITAL enzymes cant evolve through chance " is unclear: what do you mean "through chance"? what creature? why 10 min? what concentration? what temperature (or any other factor that could affect toxicity)? why can't they evolve? And in my hypothetical scenario, mutations would have to happen before exposure (this is how natural selection operates).


 * If you want an example of an actual expert describing in excruciating details potential evolution of the most ancient and vital set of proteins, the proton-motive complex, try this 2015 book (the research is new and ongoing, so a large part is hypothetical, but at least it is coming from a reputable biochemist). --Cmonk (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, read my original argument... I define what specified complexity is.... SINCE THERE WAS NO PRIOR EXPOSURE TO CYANIDE (had there been an exposure... The life form would die... cause there was no defense mechanism against it)... The body could not have adapted to cyanide... Without the existence of rhodanese... any amount of cyanide would be LETHAL... This implies that the body developed a defense mechanism against one of the most potent toxins without ever coming into contact with it (random chance). I again ask you to give an example of an evolutionary process known to be responsible for complex functions which are also specified...Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your definition doesn't matter, I can't find a peer-reviewed paper describing specified complexity. According to this book review "[Dembski's] notion of 'specified complexity', a probabilistic filter that allegedly allows one to tell whether an event is so impossible that it requires supernatural explanation, has never demonstrably received peer review, although its description in his popular books (such as No Free Lunch, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001) has come in for withering criticism from actual mathematicians ".


 * It seems that it is not a scientifically valid concept, so I can't give you any example until you provide peer-reviewed definition in reputable journal.


 * Mutations happen before exposure. The life form with the proper mutations wouldn't die. That is natural selection, and it is not random chance. The detailed molecular mechanisms are outside my expertise. The book I referenced above does provide detailed mechanisms for evolution of proton-motive complex. --Cmonk (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave observable examples of specified complexity... can you put my specific examples into a purely naturalistic context... Also... what is your field of expertise... I am an aspiring cardiologist and have some knowledge of medicine...Kingdamian1 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello! Me again, we don't care what your field of expertise is as 1) you could be lying and 2) one "aspiring cardiologist"'s opinion on evolutionary biology carries a lot less weight than thousands of evolutionary biologists backed up by actual evidence. Christopher (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You gave what you think are examples of specified complexity. Can you provide evidence that your god did it? Why should we have to prove that your god didn't do it? Christopher (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to have that discussion... but that is part of theology... you have to present a naturalistic view of specified complexity... because it contradicts the idea of NO INTELLIGENCEKingdamian1 (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think your concepts are scientifically valid, publish them in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and then the people on this website (and everywhere in the world) will have to accept them. Until then, your examples are your personal opinion on various biological phenomena. I think your concept of "specified" might be related to exaptation, which is contentious but purely naturalistic and published in peer-reviewed journals. More generally, evolution is the current naturalistic explanation for the progressive generation of complex biological systems ("specified" or not). I am not aware of any valid alternative.


 * My field of expertise is not really important, I follow the advice of potholer54 and do my best to check information in peer-reviewed journals, so that I don't get too confused with false claims about difficult scientific topics (climate science, evolution, particle physics). If you think highly complex molecular systems cannot evolve from (almost) nothing, please read Nick Lane's book (link above) about the proton-motive complex (he briefly talks about the poisonous effect of cyanide). But this is new, bleeding-edge research, and it is probably going to take decades before we see concrete results. --Cmonk (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It does look like I am talking to a robot... NO!!! I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EXAPTATION!!!! The whole idea of Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations being selected... Can you, using ANY PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL... give an example of the type of mutation or ANY EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS which would be able to give rise to different complex mechanisms functioning together for one purpose, which would be able to explain DESIGNED FEATURES... You can check my examples... And I CAN GIVE 100s more which DEFY the WHOLE IDEA of an unguided process using randomness!!! This IDEA is a disgrace to modern science... Prove it otherwise... May your next post contain an example! PS. An aspiring cardiologist means that currently I am not an expert or have any appropriate credentials...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It does look like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand evolution or science in general. I don't mind the occasional conjecture, but let me make my position clear: do the research yourself, or wait for the real scientists to publish their work.


 * To recap:
 * it seems the current article doesn't properly describe "specified complexity", and that should be addressed on its talk page
 * "specified complexity" is not recognized as a scientific concept (you conveniently dodged that point earlier) and not well defined (you can't know that something has "one purpose", that is a personal opinion stemming from limited knowledge; "designed feature" doesn't mean anything; you are the only one to see a pattern in your examples, it doesn't matter if you have a million of them)
 * your only argument seems to be that you can't imagine how evolution works, so it's not possible, which is totally unconvincing


 * Until you start to support your points with peer-reviewed literature (or at least some credible source), you are just giving your personal opinion. If the answers you seek haven't been published, the only reasonable answer is "we don't know yet". --Cmonk (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

1)Why does rational wiki make fun of William Dembski and not show both sides of the argument.... 2)you COMPLETELY ignored my question--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You completely ignored all my points, so there is no need for anyone to take yours seriously. Dembski is not a biologist (BTW, he himself claims to have retired from ID). There is no scientific debate, so no side to present. Specified complexity is not science, it is pseudoscientific nonsense. --Cmonk (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So... unless something is reviewed by evolutionist (staunch opponents of anything ID)... nothing can be scientific????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Dembski's biography says he's a mathematician, "David Wolpert [a highly qualified mathematician], co-creator of the No free lunch theorem on which Dembski based his book, characterized his arguments as "fatally informal and imprecise," "written in jello," reminiscent of philosophical discussion "of art, music, and literature, as well as much of ethics" rather than of scientific debate. " Even if it were "pro-evolution", specified complexity is nonsensical, which is why it is impossible to have a scientific debate about it. --Cmonk (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am highlighting a point that RationalWiki is EXTREMELY biased... Additionally, you seem to have a view... that unless something is peer reviewed... it does not matter... BUT THE PEER REVIEWERS in 99% cases are STAUNCH ATHEISTS and hate anything connected to ID. It's like asking Richard Dawkins to pass a peer review with the reviewers being YEC... I am saying that specified complexity is a STRONG argument... and should not be made fun of just because some atheists do not consider it fits THEIR DEFINITION OF SCIENCE!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Our viewpoint is biased as described here.


 * For scientific topics, if something is not peer-reviewed in a reputable journal or at least claimed by properly qualified experts, then it is probably worthless. Please spread this message as much as possible.


 * You need to present evidence for your 99% claim.


 * I am saying that your argument is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance, it has (almost) nothing to do with atheism. --Cmonk (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

i have seen this a lot of times... instead of genuinely debating something... you just vaguely say that I am ignorant... I could literally create hundreds of talk pages on rational wiki... this seems like a place where liberels come to vent...Can you specifically pin point where have i shown ignorance of evolution? i am not blaming you for not knowing exact mechanisms of molecular biology... or not having all the answers... but my initial post would make any rational person reevaluate... you can change the name if you do not like specified complexity... however my point stands that such mechanisms are better explained as a result of INTELLIGENCE!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Argument from ignorance (or incredulity; edit: my bad, the two are slightly different) doesn't mean that you are ignorant in general (I really wish you would read the links I give before commenting, do they not show properly on your device?). It means that you are claiming that you can't imagine a way for evolution to work, and then you conclude that evolution can't work, which is fallacious. There is no point debating a fallacious argument.


 * (edit) For instance, in the case of rhodanese, you said "The function of Rhodanese is no doubt intricate and detailed". This is a completely subjective assessment, how can you show that objectively? And then you said "it is also specified to cyanide". Show that. And then you still have to show that evolution couldn't possibly apply here (the whole idea of evolution is to explain how complexity arises naturally, so I really don't know what you are talking about).


 * I claim "we don't know yet", which is a perfectly valid scientific answer. You claim "it's impossible", which is a strong claim and requires strong evidence, and that is your responsibility. If you think you can do that properly, then you are welcome to try; just pick one example, because listing 100 examples of what you believe is impossible doesn't help at all. And in the end, you will still have to publish your work in a reputable peer-reviewed journal in order to benefit everyone. --Cmonk (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I claim that this is better explained as a result of INTELLIGENCE... I will repeat it again better explained AS A RESULT OF INTELLIGENCE... I personally DO NOT BELIEVE common descent... HOWEVER... my present argument is Intelligence vs an unguided process... For all I care... you could argue this was an ancient Martian civilization... In the case of Rhodanese we have 2 choices... Intelligent vs an unguided process... So my claim is that INTELLIGENCE better explains this... As for Rhodanese... I guess the word complex is relative... However it is the best I could get to what I meant... Rhodanese's chief function is to detoxify cyanide... Without this enzyme... Cyanide... in the lowest doze would be deadly... Treatment of cyanide by thiosulfate solution comes from the mechanism of this enzyme... What you are saying... is like saying WE DON'T KNOW WHAT the heart is for... or we don't know what the lungs are for... The effect of Rhodanese is clear... I have highlighted the controversy... I AM 100% sure that research will be done in this area and reveal AMAZING AND WONDERFUL stuff... HOWEVER... the existence of such mechaninsms is a strong indicator towards INTELLIGENCE... I stick with my claim!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * CaN yOu PeRhApS pRoViDe EvIdEnCc oF iNtElLiGeNt LiFe CrEaTiNg LiFe? WHO CREATED THESE iNtElLiGeNt LiFe FoRmS? 04:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * DEFINE EVIDENCE? What evidence would you accept?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SomETHING whicH abides BY THE scieTIFIC methOD. 04:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided many examples in my initial post... and I also demonstrated why the existence of such mechanisms is a STRONG EVIDENCE for INTELLIGENCE (as opposed to a random process)... if you want more of such REAL LIFE, OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, EXAMPLES.. I could provide someKingdamian1 (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @CBF AaaRGh! @Kingdamian1 I did not say what you claim. I am saying we (or at least I) don't know precisely how the set of genes responsible for rhodanese evolved. The effect of rhodanese may be clear to you, but you are also claiming that it is unique ("specified"?), and this needs to be shown. This 2007 paper (full text) claims "In spite of extensive studies, the true biological role of this enzyme is still an enigma. It is believed that rhodanese is involved in cyanide detoxification. However, there is some evidence that the enzyme may be involved in other functions including formation of iron sulfur centers, participation in energy metabolism, and functions as a thioredoxin oxidase. Matthies et al. (2004) proposed a physiological role for a rhodanese-like protein in the biosynthesis of molybdenum cofactor in humans. " (references stripped for clarity). It doesn't matter how sure you are that something will happen, you need evidence if you want to convince others. And so far you haven't provided any evidence, and you haven't demonstrated anything. --Cmonk (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO LISTEN????????? I do not believe that rhodanese evolved... you may believe it evolved..... BUT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW RHODANESE FORMED.... WE ARE talking whether this is GUIDED OR UNGUIDED!!!!!!!!!!!!Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SO iNteLliGenT deSig Ners of l Ife On EaRTh, coRRect? BUt who dESigNEd TheSE intELLige nt lIfe forms. IS tHIs also A proDU  ct of IntELLigent dESign? If SO, whAT deSIGned tHIs INTElligent desIGnER?   04:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * the questions you ask are theological in nature... and you might get a different response from different people... me, being a Christian... I will refer you to the argument of the first cause... and the immovable mover.... basically if this intelligence can DESIGN US... then it operates under different rules... and is not subject to the same laws as us....but again this is theology..Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(@Kingdamian1 I am addressing your previous comment) Why do you refuse to provide evidence? Your belief is irrelevant, and I am saying that I don't know. Please address the quote that I provided: is rhodanese a good example for "specified" in light of what scientists claim? --Cmonk (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

that quote you brought says NOTHING about rhodanese being a cyanide defense mechanism without prior exposure... THE MAIN POINT IS THAT THE BODY WAS NEVER EXPOSED TO CYABIDE BEDORE it developed a defense mechanism to one of the most lethal toxins in recorded historyKingdamian1 (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to answer the questions for you. You don't provide evidence because there isn't any. Rhodanese doesn't qualify as complex because you are unable to objectively define complex. Rhodanese doesn't qualify as specified because (a) specified isn't properly defined and (b) published literature (which I quoted) seems to say the opposite of whatever "specified" seems to mean. I conclude that rhodanese is not a valid example for your claim. --Cmonk (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1)if you dont like rhodanese example you can move on to my next one... or the one that is not a stumbling block.... 2)to recap... whether rhodanese serves other functions is not known... what is known.. is that it is bodys CHIEF DEFENSE MECHANISM AGAINST A CELLULAR TOXIN... and that there could not be a pre rhodanese exposure to cyanide... hence the body developed a VITAL ENZYME BY CHANCE....Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I like is irrelevant. You are the one claiming that rhodanese is a good example, and I showed you that it is not. So prove me wrong or accept that your example is neither complex nor specified. Once you do that, maybe we can try to figure out what you mean by "exposure", "body", "developed", and "chance". --Cmonk (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

No... you have not shown that my example is wrong... I am aware how little is known about this enzyme... and there might be different functions it serves....HOWEVER... IT IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT... that rhodanese is the bodys chief defense mechanism against cyanide... (you are probably exposed to cyanide once in a while... cigarette smoke, fruit seeds, etc.)... it converts cyanide into thiocyanate.. thus rendering it less harmful... PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF this defense mechanism.... ANY EXPOSURE TO CYANIDE WOULD BE LETHAL... especially to a smaller life form... SINCE THERE IS NO DEFENSE MECHANISM... simple right? complex means intricate and detailed... which is probably not the best explanation but will do.... specified.... as in it is used chiefly against cyanide..... A SUBSTANCE IT HAD NO PRIOR EXPOSURE TO Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone need more popcorn? This "debate" is starting to get good. 2d4chanfag (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"complex means intricate and detailed" No, this will not do. If you are unable to define it precisely, then there is no point wasting time with it. Rhodanese is not complex until you can provide proper definition and peer-reviewed reference.

So now "specified" is "chiefly"? Please define and provide peer-reviewed reference (at least that one should be easy).

The quote I gave earlier suggests that rhodanese might have other uses not necessarily related to cyanide detoxification. Couldn't rhodanese have evolved for one of these? (please provide evidence if you claim that it couldn't)

(before you say that I am not addressing all your points: please address the points one by one, if you keep adding more then some might get dropped) --Cmonk (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

specified complexity is an observation... it has not been payed attention to by mainstream science due to bias against ID... regardless it is a concept of a function both complex and speicfied.....In theory (unproven hypothesis).... rhodanese could have evolved for something else.... BUT THIS STILL LEAVES US IN THE SAME HOLE.... the body happened to develop (whether for some other purpose at first or not) a VITAL DEFENSE MECHANISM AGAINST A LETHAL TOXIN WITHOUT A PRIOR EXPOSURE.....on top of that... rhodanese is ubiquitous ( present in all life forms... including bacteria)... according to evolution.... suggesting a very long history..... Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course humans developed a defense mechanism for toxins and the ones who didn't are dead. The human body can deal with just about any thing in small amounts. Will maybe not plutonium or anything above it. 2d4chanfag (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You seem to think we need exposure to something before we can evolve resistance to it, that sounds like Lamarkian evolution not evolution by natural selection. Christopher (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This has turned into a cyanide conversation.... BUT LETS LOOK AT FACTS.... 1)cyanide is toxic to every life form from bacteria to man IN VERY SMALL DOSES.... 2)all of these organisms have a defense mechanism against cyanide.... 3)Potentially, any exposure (contact with cyanide)... before the evoluton of rhodanese would have been lethal....thus killing the life form.... 4)For an adaption to something... a life form needs a chronic contact.... to develop a defense mechanism...... 5)Any such contact prior to the existence of the defense mechanism would result in death.... 6) This particular mechanism is better explained as a result of INTELLIGENCE than an UNGUIDED processKingdamian1 (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * These are not "the facts". You still haven't provided a credible citation that any contact with cyanide pre rhodanese would've been lethal and where are you getting "for rhodanese to have evolved, an organism would need exposure to cyanide" (paraphrasing)? As I said above, that sounds more like Lamarckian evolution than evolution by natural selection. Christopher (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Natural selection keeps advantageous genes.... If the body had no exposure to cyanide... it wouldn't know rhodanese was advantageous... Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , before I explain what's wrong with that, could you just define evolution by natural selection in your own words please? (Please don't just Google it, be honest). Because you appear to not understand what evolution is. Christopher (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry... I DID GOOGLE IT... however my idea is essentially the same... the process by which organisms better ADAPT to their environment.... FOR AN ORGANISM TO BETTER ADAPT (develop a DEFENSE MECHANISM) to the environment which contains cyanide... THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPOSURE to cyanide... think of fur... Fur is an adaptations to cold weather... BUT IF THERE HAD not been an exposure to cold weather... there would not be an ADAPTION... So my argument is essentially the same... THIS BEING SAID... I have pointed out... that my original post was not intended to be a cyanide discussion... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you capitalise random words? Is there a problem with your keyboard? You still haven't properly defined evolution by natural selection, could you do that (it would be a bit pointless if you googled "what is natural selection" and copy pasted the definition, could you not?)? Christopher (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The theory of evolution by natural selection in the most trivial sense... would refer to adaption of organism to the environment with advantegous genes having more chances of being passed on... I DID NOT google natural selection because I didnt know... I googled it to better put it into words here... I capitalize certain words for emphasis... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There isn't "the theory of evolution by natural selection in the most trivial sense", there's the theory of evolution by natural selection! The idea that "macroevolution" or whatever you're calling it this week is more than just microevolution over a longer time period is pseudoscientific nonsense with no evidence to back it up believed only by creationists. Christopher (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have encountered this MANY TIMES... And the question is usually along the line... what would prevent bigger changes... Here is the answer... NOTHING... Google Tetra Amelia syndrome... That's one bigger change that has a potential to be passed on... What we deny is this process of evolution being responsible for mechanisms which show the evidence of specified complexity (balance, blood clitting, corneal reflex)... WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Where's the evidence for intelligence? You've yet to provide an example testable specific prediction that is different to what the theory of evolution by natural selection would predict that was later shown to be correct. Christopher (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Listen... let's call eye color change a micro evolution (variation etc.)... the eye color change is EXACTLY what would be consistent with a RANDOM process... Bigger changes (mutations)... such as Tetra Amelia syndrome, ARVD etc... could be classified as BIGGER changes also CONSISTENT with random mutations... What evolutionists claim is that a process of RANDOM mutations and natural selection can produce features that serve a SPECIFIC purpose and over time make them work together (balance, blood clotting)... SUCH BENEFICIARY evolutionary process/mutation HAS TO BE DEOMSTRATED... For intelligence I will use the teleolgical argument.... And the argument of prime mover.... I don't know why they are not sufficent!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer my previous comment, don't try and change the subject. Christopher (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I find your question IRRELEVANT in the present case... But I will answer that a proponent of ID can make a prediction that there will be Specified complexity found in life... This prediction cannot be made by a purely naturalistic supporter of evolution... BECAUSE THERE IS NO EXAMPLE of evolutionary process which would enable such functions to evolve... LET ALONE START FUNCTIONING TOGETHER FOR ONE... SPECIFIED PURPOSE (e.g balance)... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That fails as a proper scientific prediction because
 * It's vague, you've yet to define specified complexity properly.
 * You haven't shown it to disagree with what evolution predicts because you haven't shown why evolution couldn't lead to balance or cyanide resistance (to use some of your own examples). Christopher (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE.... This post was not designed to show evolution could not... IT IS DESIGNED TO SHOW THAT A PROCESS WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE could not... Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I would've thought it was obvious from the context I was referring to evolution by natural selection? Christopher (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Kingdamian1 You claimed multiple times earlier that "evolution could not". Do you recant that? --Cmonk (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not personally believe in Darwinian Evolution (not to be confused with how it is defined)... That being said... I CANNOT 100% disprove the idea that an intelligent being COULD in theory use such a process... I do not see much of evidence (as illustrated by an inability to bring an example of a TYPE OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS that would be responsible for such functions as blood clotting or balance)... of such a process... but I CANNOT DISPROVE it 100%... WHAT I AM ATTEMPTING to disprove is that RANDOM MUTATIONS... using natural selection could develop such mechanisms... AND A LIE THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT! If these mutations were overseen by an INTELLIGENCE... than by definition they were NOT random!!!! Which would be CONSISTENT with what we observe!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That was a simple yes/no question. I am going to take this as a no, that is you are still claiming that evolution couldn't have developed a rhodanese pathway (based on "disprove ... random mutations ... natural selection ... such mechanisms"). You said earlier "specified complexity is an observation". You haven't demonstrated that (since you are unable to provide definitions and references). Is it correct to say that your belief that rhodanese is complex and specified is unjustified? You also said "In theory (unproven hypothesis).... rhodanese could have evolved for something else". Are you saying that it could (unproven hypothesis) have evolved without prior exposure to cyanide? --Cmonk (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes... in theory it could... If you accept the probability of a vital defense mechanism forming accidentally... Then you should go and get checked for Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia (cause the chances of you having CPVT are higher)... THIS JUSTIFIES my claim... BETTER EXPLAINED as a result of INTELLIGENCE!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Please confirm clearly that your belief that rhodanese is complex and specified is unjustified. If you accept the possibility that a rhodanese pathway could have evolved "for something else" (your own words, we are not talking about "accidental"), then do you recognize that functional adaptation to cyanide could be possible afterwards (since then the organism would already have rhodanese available)? --Cmonk (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Unjustified by whom?... That could all happen in theory (unproven hypothesis)... But if we follow that theory (unproven hypothesis)... The cyanide defense mechanism is still a product of chance... Why would we want to take this unlikely explanation over INTELLIGENCE?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You've yet to show that INTELLIGENCE is a testable hypothesis, provide an example of a scientific prediction made by ID. Christopher (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Christopher... That has NOTHING to do with the evidence presented here... ON AN UNRELATED NOTE... I have brought the examples of predictions that would be consistent with ID and against a RANDOM, UNGUIDED PROCESS--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I'm not sure what on Earth you're saying. Could you just answer the question? I've already explained what the requirements for a scientific prediction are. Christopher (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

1) I do not think I am obliged to make predictions... since I provided solid evidence... 2)I have shown examples of predictions that can be made...e.g different specified mechanisms being present 3)These predictions (that there are other such SPECIFIED functions) WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT with an unguided process but rather an INTELLIGENCE 4)Therefore it is a strong argument in favor of INTELLIGENCE!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * (@Kingdamian1 I am addressing your previous comment) Unjustified by you. You claimed multiple times that rhodanese is complex and specified (not hypothetical). If you don't provide a justification (proper definition+proper references) then your claim is unjustified. Please confirm. I clearly said that the evolution for something else was hypothetical. If we "follow that theory", the first paper I mentioned in this discussion claims to provide strong evidence that a rhodanese functional adaptation to cyanide is possible. All that taken together contradicts your claim that evolution of rhodanese for cyanide detoxification is impossible. We haven't shown that it happened, but you failed to show that it is impossible. So rhodanese is not a good example for your claim. --Cmonk (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... NO... you have not provided papers which state that adaption to cyanide is possible without rhodanese... What your papers have shown... is that this enzyme is an enigma... WHICH WE ALREADY KNEW... if you google rhodanese... you will see how little you can find... It is body's chief defense mechanism against one of the biggest toxins in known history... In other words it is specified to cyanide detoxification... There is no evidence that such mechanisms can be produced by random mutations... Additionally, for some reason EVERYONE has ignored all of my other examples and jumped on to this one... I suppose the reason for this is.. because this is novel... I have NEVER encountered such an argument in any website... But I digress... all of you can use my other examples... A good one would be the sense of balance...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am using this example because you claim that it is a good example for your case and I showed that it is not. To recap my argument: you admitted that rhodanese could (hypothetically) have evolved without prior exposure to cyanide. My first paper shows that functional adaptation to cyanide is possible (the rhodanese genes could have already been there for another purpose). Please confirm (a) claiming that rhodanese is complex and specified is unjustified; (b) you failed to show that rhodanese couldn't have evolved. If you refuse to recognize that you were mistaken, there is no point bothering with your other examples. --Cmonk (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes... I have seen this too... threatening to leave! Well, I have no idea if it evolved for some other purpose initially or not... I CAN'T know this... I suppose it is possible... The main point still remains... That rhodanese is protecting us from cyanide... It is possible (as an unproven hypothesis) that the genes were there for some other purpose and HAPPENED to be useful against cyanide... The question is... WHY DO WE TAKE THIS UNLIKELY scenario over INTELLIGENCE?... Specified complexity is a term used to describe something... If you get the point what i am describing than the mission is accomplished for me... If you do not I will try to explain better!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first paper is strong evidence for functional adaptation to cyanide (it didn't just happen by accident). You have recognized that you failed to show that rhodanese couldn't have evolved, thus making your example invalid for your claim. Please confirm that claiming rhodanese is complex and specified is unjustified, or provide proper definition and references. --Cmonk (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This is getting mildly frustrating... This argument is about an UNGUIDED PROCESS vs INTELLIGENCE... What do they or you mean by functional adaptation to cyanide... Elaborate a little...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your useless capitalization has been frustrating for quite a while. I have no idea what you mean by unguided, since (in a manner of speaking) natural selection is guided by natural constraints. I suggest you read an entry-level manual about evolution, or watch Youtube videos about it (try potholer54's channel), because it seems you really have no idea what you are talking about. Please confirm that claiming rhodanese is complex and specified is unjustified, and then maybe we will talk about the paper. --Cmonk (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes... Usually others ask me to deny the Bible before continuing... Now you threaten to leave if I dont deny my argument... One problem though... You can leave whenever the hell you want!!!! As for potholer54... I listen to his videos almost daily... And I find them very entertaining and well made! I agree... Natural selection is not random... But mutations ARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Specified complexity is a DESCRIPTION... If you don't get this description... which I tried to explain in the first post... then I will try to explain in other words... I DONT KNOW HOW CAN A DESCRIPTION NOT BE JUSTIFIED (unless of course you can demonstrate it is not specified or complex)!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your so-called "argument" has been shown to be largely defective. Even your claim that rhodanese is necessary for low-concentration cyanide detoxification is potentially incorrect ("MST first detoxifies cyanide in cytoplasm and the cyanide which escapes from catalysis due to MST enters mitochondria. MST then detoxifies cyanide again in cooperation with rhodanese in mitochondria. ", 1999 article, abstract only). Almost everything that you have said has been either false or unjustified (clearly you didn't learn anything from potholer54 on this point). You utterly failed to defend your claim that evolution is impossible in your own example. Dembski's specified complexity is pseudoscientific nonsense, and you have been unable to properly define and justify complex or specified. You keep talking about description/observation, but all you have is your subjective opinion. Your writing has been chaotic, and your rhodanese example totally useless. At this point, rejecting the rhodanese example is the reasonable thing to do. --Cmonk (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The lengths to which you are willing to go... to confuse readers, and to undermine my statements is stunning. The existence of 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase (MST)... further complicates your situation... both of them initially convert cyanide to thiocyanate... This is a POTENT DEFENSE MECHANISM... If you spent 1/2 the time you spend on trying to criticize me, learning about cyanide poisoning you would understand this... Cyanide in binds itself to cytochrome oxydase c... It is the last enzyme in the respiratory electron transport chain of mitochondria (or bacteria) located in the mitochondrial (or bacterial) membrane. It receives an electron from each of four cytochrome c molecules, and transfers them to one oxygen molecule, converting molecular oxygen to two molecules of water. In the process, it binds four protons from the inner aqueous phase to make water, and in addition translocates four protons across the membrane, helping to establish a transmembrane difference of proton electrochemical potential that the ATP synthase then uses to synthesize ATP........ When it bind itself to this enzyme... This results in histotoxic hypoxia... Even though a person is BREATHING... the oxygen is not being used!... Treatment of cyanide is NOT EASY... The defense mechanism that body has (converting it to thiocyanate)... is not just some defense mechanism... it is almost like a procedure done in ER... Because thiocyanate will NOT be able to bind to oxydase c... What I am trying to show is that this is a WELL DEVELOPED mechanism against cyanide (in other words complex)... AND ACCORDING TO DARWINIAN THEORY THE BODY DEVELOPED THIS MECHANISM WITHOUT PRIOR EXPOSURE (without knowing cyanide)... since cyanide is VERY TOXIC! This is the main point!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your statements are all unjustified, your argument is without merit. The quote I gave suggests (I don't have access to the full article) that a very small quantity of cyanide would be taken care of by cytoplasmic MST. If that is true, then your claim that rhodanese is necessary for small quantity of cyanide is false. What is done in ER is irrelevant. You have never defined well developed, or complex, it is still your personal opinion. "according to darwinian theory the body developed this mechanism without prior exposure": another unjustified claim. You may believe that you know what you are talking about, but you have consistently failed to provide evidence. --Cmonk (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

STOP DOING THAT!!! It's really irritating... EVERY TIME WE START TALKING SPECIFICALLY... you generalize it... confuse it... I am working to type all this only to have cold water thrown on my face, while you display BREATHTAKING ARROGANCE!!!.... HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE for the 100th time.... A FACT... that the body has a SPECIALIZED defense against cyanide... Converting cyanide to thyocianate is A VERY POTENT METHOD OF DETOXIFYING IT... NO... This is NOT MY OPINNION... I bet you have been exposed to cyanide (cigarette smokes, fruit seeds etc)... BUT YOU have not experienced its effects! FACT: Body has a DEFENSE MECHANISM AGAINST CYANIDE... This defense mechanism is VERY EFFECTIVE... and your proposed explanation that it MAY HAVE evolved as something else and then become somehow utilized against cyanide is NOT SUFFICIENT... DO YOU DENY THAT THE BODY HAS A POTENT DEFENSE MECHANISM AGAINST CYANIDE? If you are sane... YOU WONT... SO NOW HOW DOES Darwinian, naturalistic principle account for it????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not falling for your attempts to sidetrack the conversation. Your rhodanese example is that (a) rhodanese is specified (b) rhodanese is complex (c) rhodanese couldn't have evolved. You have failed to define "specified" and show (a). You have failed to define "complex" and show (b). You have failed to show (c). Your rhodanese argument is a complete failure. --Cmonk (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... YES I HAVE... Rhodanese's chief purpose is to detoxify cyanide (specified to cyanide)... Rhodanese does that by converting cyanide to thiocyanate... This reaction is important for the treatment of exposure to cyanide, since the thiocyanate formed is less toxic. The use of thiosulfate solution as an antidote for cyanide poisoning is based on the activation of this enzymatic cycle.... In other words an effective, detailed, intricate method of detoxifying cyanide (complex)... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Summary of your claims
 * (a) "Rhodanese's chief purpose is to detoxify cyanide".
 * I don't mind if you want to use that as your first claim, but the problem with not giving a general definition of "specified" is that you can use a different one for a different example, so it is not very useful. Also a quote+reference would have been nice.
 * (b) "effective, detailed, intricate".
 * You added a new word (effective) without definition or justification. I still have no idea how to recognize detailed and intricate. If I try to describe a rock at the atomic level, I could argue that I have a very detailed and intricate description based on my personal feelings. But it is just a rock. Also a quote+reference would have been nice.
 * (c) Nothing


 * Discussion
 * What you just proposed for (a) and (b) are very specific to your personal opinion of rhodanese. I suspect that going to another example will lead to a different set of definitions, but they will be just as subjective, so they are not very useful.
 * Anyway, because you don't have a justification for (c), your example fails overall. If you also reject (a) and (b), then you can try again with another example. However, if you insist that (a) and (b) are valid like that, then the rhodanese example becomes a counter-example for your whole system and there is no point going through the other examples anymore (unless I misunderstood, your big claim is that (a)+(b) imply (c)). Which will it be? --Cmonk (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I dont understand what you are talking about... Why cant you keep it simple? Intricate, detailed (complex) is a description of rhodanese... I think that an enzyme converting cyanide to thiocyanate so that it will not bind to cytochrome oxydase c and thus prevent histotoxic hypoxia CAN BE DESCRIBES AS COMPLEX (feel free to disagree)... I agree that this enzyme is an enigma... but its chief function is to detoxify cyanide... Why cant I describe this as being SPECIFIED to cyanide... In other words specified complexity? THE PURPOSE OF THIS PHRASE is to make all of you understand what functions I have in mind... If I fail to show you what I mean... Then Ill try to explain it in other words... If you do understand... Then, Can we please move on...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We are talking about complex biological systems and cutting-edge science (with a lot of things we don't know yet). I don't want it to be complicated, it just is (we haven't even mentioned that rhodanese is actually part of a family, there are differences between species, and cyanide detoxification may or may not be the main function for some creatures). You keep saying "think", "feel", "have in mind". I have nothing against your feelings, but if you are going to claim something as enormous as "a specified complex thing cannot have evolved", then you need to show solid evidence, and so far you haven't provided any. So, is this all about your personal beliefs and feelings, or is this about science? --Cmonk (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I repeat that I do not accept common descent... HOWEVER... I am showing certain systems which illustrate evidence of iNTELLLIGENCE... Blind process CANNOT be responsible for something like a WELL DEVELOPED SYSTEM against a toxin it had no exposure to We all agree that the body has a well developed defense against cyanide... And the burden of proof is on evolution proponents to illustrate that such mechanisms can evolve with a combination of RANDOM mutation+natural selection....if someone wants to argue that these mutations were guided by INTELLIGENCE... then they are no longer random...Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't conclusively shown anything, you just keep making claims. You claim that evolution is impossible, so you have to show the evidence. And you haven't answered: is this all about your personal beliefs and feelings, or is this about science? --Cmonk (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No... It's about science... There is NO EVIDENCE that Naturalistic view can account for what we see... ONE OF THESE OBSERVABLE EXAMPLES IS RHODANESE... ANOTHER WOULD be sexual response mechansim etc... I claim that scientifically the evidence that such mechanisms can evolve through RANDOM mutation + natural selection is NON EXISTENT!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Earlier you said "such complexity ... Darwinian, naturalistic approach... I explain why it can't". Translation: you claimed to have shown that reaching "complexity" through "Darwinian" approach was impossible (but you failed to show anything). Now you want to claim that there is no evidence?


 * I already told you research is ongoing and is going to take time (probably decades).


 * According to this discussion it is estimated that there were around 50 million "scholarly research articles" in 2009 and that number is growing by about 1 million every year (I don't have a number, but biology papers could very well number in the millions). In order to claim that there is no evidence, you need to show that none of these papers contains the evidence that you claim doesn't exist, and you clearly haven't done that, you just keep making unjustified claims. And even if you could show that the evidence doesn't currently exist, you can't show that it won't exist in the future.


 * No matter how you look at it, you are just failing at making your argument. --Cmonk (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Except I am not... If an example cant be brought that Random Mutations + Natural selection can produce specified complexity... Then it SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT AS A FACT!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you are complaining about teaching/education? Let's stop the sidetracking and come back to your rhodanese example. So far, the best you did was provide a few subjective and restrictive definitions for (a) "specified" and (b) "complex". You haven't provided evidence of anything, and you definitely haven't shown that evolution of rhodanese is impossible.


 * Here is a deal: if you agree to stop wasting time and just reject your ineffectual rhodanese example, I can suggest a conjecture for the evolution of rhodanese (personal conjecture, not proof of anything). --Cmonk (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to listen to any theory you might have... I am not rejecting my point... Additionally... I have many, more famous examples... that nobody bothered to check... Rhodanese was not even number 1!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any theory, just a personal conjecture. And I am not talking about your whole system, but your rhodanese example really has no substance. --Cmonk (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I am unwilling to be a victim of your blackmail!...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion is public and I don't have any compromising information on you, so it's not blackmail, it's a deal, and you can negotiate too. How about you keep your example, but we at least agree on what it says and what it doesn't? --Cmonk (talk) 23:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rhodanese is just 1 example... GOOD EXAMPLE... but 1 example... You have to look at the WHOLE picture... Not just some examples but at the whole picture... What I am saying is that there is NO GOOD EVIDENCE to suggest that a BLIND process can develop mechanisms like these... THATS THE MAIN POINT!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am going to provide you with my personal conjecture (not scientific evidence) of how rhodanese could have evolved. Before that, I suggest that we agree on the following:
 * (a) you defined "rhodanese is specified" as "Rhodanese's chief purpose is to detoxify cyanide"
 * (b) you defined "rhodanese is complex" as "effective, detailed, intricate"
 * (c) you didn't provide evidence against, and I didn't provide evidence for, evolution of rhodanese
 * As far as I can tell, these 3 points are a factual description of what happened in this conversation. Do you agree? --Cmonk (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OF COURSE I DON'T.... RHODANESE DEFIES Darwinian Evolution... DEFIES IT!Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully. None of what I have written disagrees with your opinion, and I will not provide scientific evidence (although I will try to use what I read in scientific papers). Please confirm. --Cmonk (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It does disagree with what I say... Specified complexity DEFIES DARWINISM!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What I don't get is why you don't simply concede that theistic evolution has all the advantages over Intelligent Design? No offense. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really... ID is an argument... in itself... Theistic evolution 100% has advantage over Darwinism... since randomness CANNOT account for the complexity WE OBVIOUSLY SEE... however... judging from purely scientific side... There really is no evidence that such a process ever took place... and if such mutations did happen WHY DID THEY STOP?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, of course, that evolution is anything but random, right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In the most trivial sense... evolution means change of heritable traits over time... This, in itself is observable... we like to call it variation (to avoid confusion).... And we see these variations (eye color change, ring species etc.)... Natural selection is observable too... Although natural selection is NOT RANDOM... mutations are... AND SINCE THE TYPES OF MUTATIONS necessary for a process such as UNIVERSAL COMMON DESCENT cannot be given... We have to use the Occam's razor and dispose of this view...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Which invites the obvious question; how Occamist do you figure that the positing of some unfalsifiable, invisible designer entity is? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Occams razor states that the simplest answer is usually the correct one... When we find a design... the simplest answer is the designer... We have teleological examples... We have the NEED of the prime mover... And we really have NO ALTERNATIVE to a designer... So I am merely applying simple logic here--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Though, it's not as if proponents of evolution posit that there is no design. Clearly, there is. Indeed, without a design to explain, there would be no need for evolutionary theory (disregarding the fact that there'd be no humans or planet Earth without design... but I digest). We're faced with design; there are things, and said things are shaped in the way in which said things are shaped. That's the starting point — things look a certain way.


 * The problems begin when one posits that the design requires a designer — in other words, inferring the existence of [everything there is] + [some extra divinity], rather than just positing the existence of [everything there is].


 * Never mind the multiplication of problems which arises from superfluous specifics like said designer being some omnipotent, invisible ghost figure concerned with the sex lives of a particular species of mammal, et cetera. Clearly, all such wild conjecture is unecessary baggage of the exact type which Occam's razor neatly wraps up and places out by the curb in a jiffy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * But I have shown that such a design does require INTELLIGENCE... if you know ANYTHING about something like the corneal reflex... we clearly see that natual selection alone cannot be responsible... We can clearly see design... We clearly see functions that only make sense if the other function is present (i.e swallowing system, digestive system and the excratory system)... We see the NEED for the 1st cause... for the UNMOVED mover... AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY 0 naturalistic explanation for all of this....... No... Problems dont arise... I am not going to answer PERCEIVED FLAWS OF CHRISTIANITY to someone who does not acknowledge intelligence exists.... WOULD u try to explain why the earth is round to a person who doesnt believe the earth exists? OF COURSE NOT.--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * }

A call to order

 * @Kingdamian1 There is no explicit mention of Darwinism in the 3 points. Would it be acceptable if we add "Darwinian" in point (c)?
 * (a) you defined "rhodanese is specified" as "Rhodanese's chief purpose is to detoxify cyanide"
 * (b) you defined "rhodanese is complex" as "effective, detailed, intricate"
 * (c) you didn't provide evidence against, and I didn't provide evidence for, Darwinian evolution of rhodanese
 * Please confirm. --Cmonk (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean I didn't provide evidence against... Rhodanese is supposed to be evidence against DARWINIAN (purely naturalistic) evolution!Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You did not provide a properly peer-reviewed paper, which is the only thing that I consider scientific evidence in this conversation (remember earlier you told me this is about science, not personal belief or feelings). We can make it explicit.
 * (a) you defined "rhodanese is specified" as "Rhodanese's chief purpose is to detoxify cyanide"
 * (b) you defined "rhodanese is complex" as "effective, detailed, intricate"
 * (c) you did not provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence against, and I did not provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence for, Darwinian evolution of rhodanese
 * Please confirm. --Cmonk (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will prepare my conjecture and come back later (I don't know exactly when). --Cmonk (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure.. but remember... explanations such as it was by chance is not really an explanation!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't worry — we'll all work together to ensure mutual intellectual honesty when it comes to what does and does not constitute an explanation (i.e. what has and what doesn't have explanatory value, respectively). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm all for it... Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, we are in an area of biology where a lot is still unknown. Here I present my personal view. I may be partially correct or completely wrong, but this should not be used to draw unwarranted conclusions regarding evolutionary biology.

Scientific literature
 * Ploegman 1978 (full text available on "alternate access" websites) is one of the earliest description of bovine rhodanese (rhobov) and hypothesizes about its evolutionary origin
 * "Bovine liver rhodanese is a single polypeptide of 293 amino acids in which the halves of the molecule assume analogous tertiary structures in the absence of substantial sequence homology "
 * "It seems plausible that the two domains have arisen through a process of gene duplication and divergence by means of which their sequences have changed considerably but their conformational similarity has been preserved. "


 * Lynch 2007 gives a practical example of gene duplication+divergence unrelated to rhodanese
 * "increases in genomic complexity (through gene duplications) can lead to phenotypic complexity (venom composition) and ... positive Darwinian selection is a common evolutionary force in snake venoms "


 * Bordo 2002 gives an overview of existing rhodanese-like proteins
 * "<font style="background-color:#FFFFE0">An increasing number of reports indicate that rhodanese modules are versatile sulfur carriers that have adapted their function to fulfill the need for reactive sulfane sulfur in distinct metabolic and regulatory pathways. Recent investigations have shown that rhodanese domains are also structurally related to the catalytic subunit of Cdc25 phosphatase enzymes and that the two enzyme families are likely to share a common evolutionary origin. "
 * "<font style="background-color:#FFFFE0">From a structural viewpoint, rhodanese-like proteins are either composed of two rhodanese domains, with the C-terminal domain displaying the putative catalytic Cys as observed in Rhobov and RhdA, or composed of a single catalytic rhodanese domain, as found in GlpE "


 * Spallarossa 2001 focuses on GlpE
 * "<font style="background-color:#FFFFE0">Sequence searches through completed genomes indicate that GlpE can be considered to be the prototype structure for the ubiquitous single-domain rhodanese module. "
 * "<font style="background-color:#FFFFE0">the three-dimensional structure of GlpE is clearly related to that of the C-terminal (catalytic) domain of the other two rhodanese enzymes of known structure, Rhobov or RhdA. However, the connecting loops within the α/β rhodanese domain are shortened in GlpE to a minimal length, resulting in a 108-residue protein, while the C-terminal domains of RhdA and Rhobov are composed of 127 and 136 amino acids, respectively. "


 * Ray 2000 gives some information about biological role of GlpE
 * "<font style="background-color:#FFFFE0">GlpE, like bovine liver rhodanese, is capable of transferring sulfur from thiosulfate to thioredoxin 1 with relatively high affinity "
 * "<font style="background-color:#FFFFE0">The physiological role of rhodaneses is still in question. Cyanide detoxification has been proposed as a possible role, but given the low affinity for cyanide, this seems unlikely for GlpE. Rhodaneses may play various roles in sulfur metabolism "
 * "<font style="background-color:#FFFFE0">To our knowledge, the only phenotype identified to date for a rhodanese-like enzyme is that of CysA from Saccharopolyspora erythraea ... it is possible that CysA functions to synthesize thiosulfate [as] an intermediate in anaerobic biosynthesis of cysteine "

Speculation
 * Principle
 * At some point a long time ago, something like GlpE evolved to help synthesize some important molecule, maybe cysteine. Incidentally, GlpE has low affinity for cyanide, and at some point a mutation caused a duplication of its genome and the resulting protein may have been a little bit better at dealing with cyanide because of its special 3D conformation. Over time, small changes progressively increased the sequence dissimilarity between the two halves, making a more efficient cyanide detoxification molecule.


 * Example scenario
 * T0: population has access to food source with cysteine
 * T1: food source with cysteine decreases, but individuals with ability to produce cysteine survive (evolution of GlpE)
 * T2: 1 mutation replaces GlpE with ancestral archaic rhodanese, weakly capable to detoxify low levels of cyanide
 * T3: progressive mutations transform archaic rhodanese into rhodanese, allowing access to more and more previously inaccessible toxic resources

Discussion
 * The crucial step here is the mutation (T2) that transforms GlpE into archaic rhodanese. Archaic rhodanese doesn't need to be good at cyanide detoxification, it only needs to be tweakable under selective pressure. And then it can be slowly improved by accumulation of small mutations. I do not have evidence for archaic rhodanese, but scientific literature currently states that rhodanese is part of a large family of similar-looking molecules, and we don't know enough about them to draw conclusions yet. In order to test my ideas, I guess researchers could try to look for clues of these intermediate forms in current databases, or try to make some organism (bacteria, flies, mice) go through the process.


 * I am not claiming that this is the only way. Maybe archaic rhodanese could have come from completely different mutations, I don't know. Whatever the case, I see no good reason to think that rhodanese couldn't be the product of natural evolution. --Cmonk (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I find wrong with this speculation..... First it reinforces the idea that rhodanese started as a chance and HAPPENED to be efficient.... right there I have to stop you.... I do not think this is a better explanation than intelligence.... Such vital functions do not start out as RANDOM....

Second you mention that mutations developed this enzyme into a more complex form..... That's interesting... maybe you could bring an example of the type of mutation which has been known to do that.... Most mutations are NEUTRAL... Many are damaging.... And a very small few in bacteria are helpful (although not the type of mutations necessary for common descent).... So either there is another type of mutations that has been known to increase enzyme information... Or what you are saying is unscientific...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "rhodanese started as chance", and I explicitly stated that GlpE and my hypothetical archaic rhodanese are not efficient for cyanide detoxification. "mutations developed this enzyme into a more complex form": That's not "interesting", that's a completely expected aspect of evolution (Darwin probably didn't know about genes and proteins, but genes are at the core of natural selection). "maybe you could bring an example of the type of mutation": Did you even read what I posted? I gave you the exact name of the mutation with a Wikipedia link for more details (seriously, is there a technical issue with your device preventing you from seeing links?), and at the beginning a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper with relevant quote. "Many are damaging": unjustified. --Cmonk (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Bring an example again... clearily I missed it.... Many mutations result in damage (tetra amelia syndrome, ARVD etc.)........--Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The text is still there, please read it again (I already provided quotes, scientific references (with one example unrelated to rhodanese) and links). --Cmonk (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see an example of a mutation which would INCREASE the information in an enzyme... as far as I know such has not been documented... If you claim to have found papers giving such example would start a scientific revolution... I merely want to be part of it...Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your concept of information increase is meaningless. The Wikipedia page I gave you earlier has a section on (<= I just gave you a link, follow it and read the text slowly). --Cmonk (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

No I am not talking about Gene duplication!!!!!!1

Gene duplication is often cited as a mechanism for evolutionary progress and as a means of generating ‘new’ information. Here, a gene is duplicated (through several possible means), turned off via mutation, mutated over time, turned on again through a different mutation, and, voilà!, a new function has arisen.

Invariably, the people who use this as an argument never tell us the rate of duplication necessary, nor how many duplicated but silenced genes we would expect to see in a given genome, nor the needed rate of turning on and off, nor the likelihood of a new function arising in the silenced gene, nor how this new function will be integrated into the already complex genome of the organism, nor the rate at which the silenced ‘junk’ DNA would be expected to be lost at random (genetic drift) or through natural selection. These numbers are not friendly to evolutionary theory, and mathematical studies that have attempted to study the issue have run into a wall of improbability, even when attempting to model simple changes.31-33 This is akin to the mathematical difficulties Michael Behe discusses in his book, The Edge of Evolution. In fact, gene deletion5 and loss-of-function mutations for useful genes are surprisingly common. Why would anyone expect a deactivated gene to stick around for a million years or more while an unlikely new function develops?

But the situation with gene duplication is even more complicated than this. The effect of a gene often depends on gene copy number. If an organism appears with extra copies of a certain gene, it may not be able to control the expression of that gene and an imbalance will occur in its physiology, decreasing its fitness (e.g. trisomy causes abnormalities such as Down syndrome because of such gene dosage effects). Since copy number is a type of information, and since copy number variations are known to occur (even among people), this is an example of a mutation that changes information. Notice I did not say ‘adds’ information, but ‘changes’. Word duplication is usually frowned upon as being unnecessary (ask any English teacher). Likewise, gene duplication is usually, though not always, bad. In the cases where it can occur without damaging the organism, one needs to ask if this is really an addition of information. Even better than that, is this the type of addition required by evolution? No, it is not. Even if an example of a new function arising through gene duplication is discovered, the function of the new must necessarily be related to the function of the old, such as a new but similar catalysis end product of an enzyme. There is no reason to expect otherwise. New functions arising through duplication are not impossible, but they are vanishingly unlikely, and they become more unlikely with each degree of change required for the development of each new function.


 * There is no point copy-pasting some random garbage from creation.com, I already told you that only scientific arguments matter. --Cmonk (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you can point out a mistake... I continue with my assertion that your hypothesis is stupid to say the least... And that an example of information increase can't be given.... If your next post does not contain an EXAMPLE... Don't bother writing!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You have to provide properly peer-reviewed references, just like I did. --Cmonk (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree... Sometime its hard to dive in and find different stuff... So... I definitely appreciate your hard work.... Regardless... unless you are willing to provide an EXAMPLE there really is no point talking.... I am being very specific now... Example!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Example of what? You seem to be forgetting something important here: my claim is that I don't know, so I don't have to provide anything. Your claim is that evolution is impossible, so you have to provide evidence. Properly peer-reviewed scientific evidence. --Cmonk (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No that is not my current claim... My claim is that Darwinian Evolution (UNGUIDED) evolution is impossible..... And I have provided SOLID EVIDENCE for it... I find it paradoxical actually... You have mentioned couple of times that YOU DO NOT KNOW ALOT about cyanide and rhodanese.... Yet for some reason you spent most of your time on this!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)&mdash; Unsigned, by: Kingdamian1 / talk / contribs
 * You agreed earlier "you did not provide peer-reviewed scientific evidence against Darwinian evolution of rhodanese". --Cmonk (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh.... That is why you spent all your time getting me to agree with you... Pretty low even for RationalWiki... I have deomnstrated MULTIPLE times why an unguided process CANNOT develop complexity we see!!!! Feel free to disagree... but you will have to put specified complexity into Darwinian perspective!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Specified complexity is your subjective opinion. You haven't demonstrated anything, and you haven't provided acceptable (scientific) evidence for any of your claims. --Cmonk (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok... so let's do it the hard way.................... Sense of balance or equilibrioception is one of the physiological senses related to balance. It helps prevent humans and animals from falling over when standing or moving. Balance is the result of a number of body systems working together: the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) and the body's sense of where it is in space (proprioception) ideally need to be intact. The vestibular system, the region of the inner ear where three semicircular canals converge, works with the visual system to keep objects in focus when the head is moving. This is called the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). The balance system works with the visual and skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. Visual signals sent to the brain about the body's position in relation to its surroundings are processed by the brain and compared to information from the vestibular, visual and skeletal systems. No doubt this would classifed as complex (intricate and detailed), but it is also SPECIFIED to our NEED of equilibrium.............................. How does this fit into a Darwinian context?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you claim that it doesn't, then you have to provide scientific evidence to support your claim. --Cmonk (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Scientific evidence for something that has NOT BEEN DOCUMENTED??? I don't have to disprove fiction... this is a good explanation of equilibrium... You are asking me to disprove a "naturalistic" view of this... But so far I havent seen any.... There simply is NO DARWINIAN explanation for this complex function...... So what am I suposed to disprove?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it hasn't been documented? Have you carefully read the millions of existing scientific papers to arrive at this conclusion? Do you have foreknowledge of not-yet-written scientific literature? There is nothing wrong with trying to prove negative statements (there is plenty of evidence that objects don't fall up, and scientists can show that some enzyme doesn't have high affinity for some molecule). But it is your responsibility to write your claim/question so that it can potentially be investigated. --Cmonk (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh my goodness.... you seem to be one of those potholer54 bone headed comment section people who think they are being scientific............ Obviously I have NOT read millions of papers.... But both I and you (hopefully)... understand basics of Darwinian evolution... Random mutations + natural selection.... But in the example of balance (or really any major function).... interactions of many different systems are necessary.... Balance is not something trivial... it is IMPORTANT... In purely Darwinian model... nobody is keeping track of these mutations (let alone the fact that the type of mutations of information increase CANNOT BE GIVEN)... But here we have a VITAL function being performed by brain interpreting various information from different sources... These kind of complexities (which I call specified complexity)... SIMPLY CANNOT BE by Darwinian model.... Notice how you have to assume that they PERHAPS served some other function somewhere... but now have become important... This is pure BS... this is a sorry excuse for science... Ok... so how many models can you obfuscate this way???? Rhodanese was something else....... different mechanisms coming together for balance used to be for something else in our animal ancestors........ Sex arousal was for something else...... The feeling of thirst was originally for something else... but then throug mutation........... WHERE DOES IT STOP????????????????????????????????????????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you make a scientific claim (positive or negative), you have to present scientific evidence. --Cmonk (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This is starting to become a circular argument... Scientific evidence of how balance works.... how coagulation works.... how thirst works........ Which one of these would you want papers for?????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If your claim is "balance works like this (A) and that (B)", then you have to provide scientific evidence for A and B. However, it seems to me that your claim is "balance couldn't have evolved like so (C)". But you have never given a sufficiently detailed description of C. To be useful, your description should include details specific enough to be investigated (species, genes, proteins, external factors, etc.). If there are answers (positive or negative) for these details in published literature, that's great. But if an answer can't be found, the default is "we don't know yet". --Cmonk (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely 0 problem with not knowing... However the existence of these functions should prompt any RATIONAL person to re-think the position that RANDOM mutation and natural selection ALONE can be responsible... I have said that mutations do occur... But they are RANDOM... The feeling of thirst is SPECIFIED to the ability to drink water (it doesn't make ANY SENSE in the absence of hydration)......is ANYTHING BUT random... And is a VITAL function... The existence of the feeling of thirst ALONE... should prompt anyone to reconsider this STUPID theory....--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you claiming that you don't know, or are you claiming that you can show scientifically that Darwinian evolution doesn't apply in some specific cases? --Cmonk (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

THE WHOLE purpose of this is to show that DARWINIAN EVOLUTION (unguided process)... Is stupid... And I claim that these example are a perfect illustration of why!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question before trying to change the topic. Are you claiming that you don't know, or are you claiming that you can show scientifically that Darwinian evolution doesn't apply in some specific cases? --Cmonk (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I AM SHOWING that an unguided process (Darwinian evilution)... CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLe for complexities we observe!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You said that you have "absolutely 0 problem with not knowing", and I agree that there is nothing wrong with not knowing. I am only asking you to make it clear: can you offer scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution doesn't apply in some of your examples? --Cmonk (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I am confused quite frankly... The whole basis of Darwinian evolution is RANDOM mutation + Natural selection... And I show mechanisms which illustrate that a BLIND, UNGUIDED process could not have formed........ You look at the corneal reflex aka the blink reflex.............. It is clear that the purpose of this reflex ONLY makes sense if the eye exists..... Such complex mechanisms that serve a DIRECT purpose CANNOT come about by chance...... YOU CAN EASILY refute what I am saying.... By bringing an example.... however, in my experience nobody wants to do that..... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the one making the claims. Can you provide scientific evidence against Darwinian evolution in your examples? --Cmonk (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Their very existence goes against Darwinism.... Seriously, ignorance level is frustrating....... there is no Darwinian explanation to them...... SO WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DEBUNK???????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to understand why you don't answer the question, and I think I may have found a clue. The first time I read your list of examples, I was confused because they seemed to lack a conclusion. Based on your early discussion with Christopher, I inferred that your conclusion was the impossibility of evolution in those cases. But it was difficult to find a clear quote of you saying that, which is why I said "unless I misunderstood, your big claim is that (a)+(b) imply (c)" (which would be the logical thing to claim). From your recent comment "how balance works...", it seems I was indeed mistaken. You are working under the assumption that (a)+(b)=(c) (that is specified+complex=not evolved), which is why you can't see the distinction between describing a phenomenon and providing evidence against its evolution. This would also explain why you are so adamant with defending the (highly subjective) notions of specified and complex: you are under the impression that they constitute some form of "evidence" (even though they do not). Based on that, to answer your last question: what you are "supposed to debunk" is Darwinian evolution. However, you are currently unable to do so because your mistaken assumption prevents you from seeing that the phenomena that you describe are not evidence of anything.


 * In other words, my question must look as meaningless to you as your "argument" looks to me. Can you see how our views are different? --Cmonk (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes... I definitely see how our views are different... as in, you are unwilling to think at all....... According to Darwinian evolution... the diversity of life is the product of RANDOM mutations + Natural selection... Can we agree on this (simple yes or no)??????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take this seriously. You are using an assumption that is so obvious to "you" that you don't even question it. But you should because nobody else sees that. Regarding your last question: no, I do not agree. is about natural selection of small inherited variations (not "mutations", which you should probably define). --Cmonk (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I meant Neo- Darwinian evolution... Modern day evolution... do you agree? yes or no--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please think carefully about what you assume. When you say "Specified+Complex is evidence of non-evolution", the "is" must be demonstrated because it is not obvious. Since we need a common definition, I suggest Wikipedia's summary of . --Cmonk (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is that a yes or a no??????????? Does the main prinicple of modern evolution explain divesrity by RANDOM mutation + Natural selection.... if not what then????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a no. I provided a link to a summary of Modern Synthesis. If you don't like it, provide a valid scientific reference. But don't invent your own personal definition of what you believe evolution might be. --Cmonk (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

COPY-PASTE from wiki article on evolution..................................................Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome. When mutations occur, they may alter the product of a gene, or prevent the gene from functioning, or have no effect. Based on studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster, it has been suggested that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70% of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[95]

Mutations can involve large sections of a chromosome becoming duplicated (usually by genetic recombination), which can introduce extra copies of a gene into a genome.[96] Extra copies of genes are a major source of the raw material needed for new genes to evolve.[97] This is important because most new genes evolve within gene families from pre-existing genes that share common ancestors.[98] For example, the human eye uses four genes to make structures that sense light: three for colour vision and one for night vision; all four are descended from a single ancestral gene.[99]

New genes can be generated from an ancestral gene when a duplicate copy mutates and acquires a new function. This process is easier once a gene has been duplicated because it increases the redundancy of the system; one gene in the pair can acquire a new function while the other copy continues to perform its original function.[100][101] Other types of mutations can even generate entirely new genes from previously noncoding DNA.[102][103]

The generation of new genes can also involve small parts of several genes being duplicated, with these fragments then recombining to form new combinations with new functions.[104][105] When new genes are assembled from shuffling pre-existing parts, domains act as modules with simple independent functions, which can be mixed together to produce new combinations with new and complex functions.[106] For example, polyketide synthases are large enzymes that make antibiotics; they contain up to one hundred independent domains that each catalyse one step in the overall process, like a step in an assembly line.[107]...................................................................--Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a definition of mutation, not evolution. I accept as a definition of mutation. I am fine with Wikipedia's definition of : "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". --Cmonk (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2017

YES.... BY DEFINTION change (mutation) of heritable traits....... CAN WE AGREE THAT MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM???????????????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, change is not mutation. According to Wikipedia's section on, "The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation" and "Variation comes from mutations in the genome, reshuffling of genes through sexual reproduction and migration between populations (gene flow)." (please notice: there are multiple sources of variation) I only have a vague idea of what you mean by "random" (and isn't completely "random"), but I guess we can decide that on a case-by-case basis. --Cmonk (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you COMPLETELY out of your mind??? Have you had ANY education in this.... THE ARTICLE you provided states that MUTATIONS are the main drive of evolution..... SO CAN WE AGREE that these mutations are NOT GUIDED according to evolution.... and happen at random? IF WE CANNOT AGREE ON SIMPLE terms THERE IS NO POINT IN FURTHER CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "mutations are the main drive of evolution" Could you please specify which article and quote the relevant sentence? --Cmonk (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I DONT EVEN FUCKING care anyomre...... GIVE A MECHANISM for common descent on which we can FUCKING agree..... GIVE a mechanism which your feeble mind processes.... OR STOP TALKING TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I gave you a quote saying that variation comes from 3 things: mutations, reshuffling, gene flow. I don't deny that mutations happen, but they are not the only element. The closest that I was able to find to your claim is "evolution driven by natural selection" in the Wikipedia article on Modern Synthesis. I also found "In addition to being a major source of variation, mutation may also function as a mechanism of evolution when there are different probabilities at the molecular level for different mutations to occur, a process known as mutation bias" but that still doesn't exactly match your claim. Unless you can provide the exact quote (it is possible that I missed it), I reject your claim that mutations are the main drive of evolution. And provided that we keep in mind that "random" depends on the type of mutation and organism, and may need to be detailed later, I am fine with the claim that "mutations are generally random". --Cmonk (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok... can we agree... that with today's evolutionary view the process was unguided?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If evolution is driven by natural selection, then it would seem that natural selection guides evolution, and in this sense evolution is not unguided. If by "unguided" you mean that it doesn't have a pre-defined goal (like humans), then it is unguided. Without a definition of "unguided", I cannot answer your question. --Cmonk (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Natural selection is not change in itself.... NATURAL SELECTION makes sure the GOOD (advantageous) changes survive..... I AM ASKING... are the changes themselves RANDOM???????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the definition of evolution on which we agreed earlier, evolution is the change, so it is not random (because driven by natural selection). But if you are talking about variation then:
 * whether a variation is good or bad depends on environmental factors (for instance can protect against malaria), so it is not possible in general to talk about a "good" variation without giving the environmental context (and the context can change over time, so a variation can alternate between good, bad and neutral over the lifetime of individuals and across generations)
 * with the same caveats as before ("random" depends on the type of variation and organism, and may need to be detailed later), I am fine with the claim that "variations can be random" --Cmonk (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I WILL REPEAT THE QUESTION..... CAN WE AGREE THAT THE CHANGES in the genes....... according to today's view...... ARE RANDOM.... UNGUIDED??????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I already told you that without a definition of unguided I cannot answer. Are you saying that "unguided"="random"? Because I already told you that is not the case (natural selection is not random). As for the "changes in the genes", same answer as before: it depends on what kind of change and what kind of creature, but I am fine with the claim that "gene changes can be random". --Cmonk (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's quite apparent... You're thinking's errant... You're incoherent!!!

Gene changes or MUTATIONS.... the changes WHICH are then NATURALLY SELECTED..... DO THEY HAPPEN RANDOMLY???? Random or unguided.... MEANS that they occur in NO PARTICULAR order and ARE NOT OVERSEEN by anyone..... DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS for the final time??????????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Gene changes" are not all mutations (mutations, reshuffling, gene flow). Like I said earlier, with some conditions, "mutations are generally random". I can't say anything about the order (see quote about mutation bias above), and likewise I have no evidence for or against some overseer (in other words, I don't know). --Cmonk (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Our (ID) arguments revolve around 2 concepts..... Specified Complexity and Irreducible Complexity...... We try to illustrate that life displays characteristics which simply CANNOT be explained by modern theory of evolution............ Let me illustrate........... Let's look at eating........... Eating involves the feeling of hunger...... Swallowing system......Digestive system......... And the excretory system.............. Each one of these ONLY (and I mean ONLY).... makes sense if the other exists.... The feeling of hunger ONLY makes sense if the swallowing system exists..... swallowing system ONLY makes sense if there is digestion..... And digestion ONLY makes sense if excretion exists......... So... the problem would arise for you if I ask......Which one of these evolved first and how long did they exist without each other..... Please, tell me you are not so dumb to not understand my point??Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you are not so dumb to ignore everything we know about biology?


 * "digestion only makes sense if excretion exists": as usual, without definition it is ambiguous. don't really excrete,  eat and then diffuse their waste, and  eat and excrete through the same hole.


 * As to which evolved first and how, this is a well studied problem with massive amount of published literature. For a quick overview, try this Youtube video (10min).


 * I was expecting you to attempt to provide some kind of logical bridge between everything we have done so far and what you just said (pretending for a moment that I had accepted all your previous points), but instead of making it explicit you keep claiming that it's obvious without really saying anything. If the connection is so simple, why not just make it explicit? Is your "evidence" so special that dumb people are not allowed to understand it? Meh, you don't have any point.


 * If you want to argue that the digestive system couldn't have evolved naturally: learn how to build a logical argument, and provide scientific evidence. Otherwise you have nothing but empty claims. --Cmonk (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

FUCK ME! FUCK ME! FUCK ME!!!!!!

Are you a FUCKING robot?????? What we are demonstrating is that life displays signs of INTELLIGENCE.... Let me repeat that for people with Down's syndrome.... INTELLIGENCE...... I will repeat it for Autistic people.... SIGNS OF INTELLIGENCE.......     I have brought examples of various functions which are CLEARLY NOT UNGUIDED........ I AM NOT GOING TO LISTEN AARON RA............ People like him should be locked up in cages with the apes they claim to be....... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that RANDOM changes in genes can produce functions which follow OBVIOUS PATTERN!!!!!!!!!! Please.... STOP TALKING to me!!!!!!!!!! GO and fuck yourself!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Kingdamian1 - you have proved nothing. Stop ranting and swearing and just go away.

"It is a tale/Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing." 86.146.100.38 (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This page was created by ME... why should i be going away... You are not forced to respond!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

A request
Can 'someone' do a summary of the actual discussion points - there seems to be much verbiage and little actual content.

The 'bitter almond trees and peach trees' are immune to the cyanide/precursor they produce so there' seems to be about the level of the argument.

Evolution is the product of adaptation to needs, preferences and the environment, and the law of unintended consequences (which applies even when/particularly when other species exert pressure on a species to adapt). 86.191.125.251 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "much verbiage and little actual content" is the best summary for this discussion. Kingdamian1 claims that Dembski's specified complexity is a scientific concept (it isn't). He provided a list of examples allegedly showing that evolution is impossible. The second example was rhodanese (the first one was about sexual behavior and I guess nobody wanted to go there). I showed that he didn't meet his burden of proof. There were additional discussions about other topics (nature of evidence, how to test ID) that didn't really go anywhere. --Cmonk (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

All of you are free to mock me in whatever way you wish--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(Eating more popcorn) 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How much do 'evolution and the law of unintended consequences' interact? Human ears did start out as 'bits of jaw bone' after all.

Which drink is flavoured with 'slightly crushed peach/apricot seeds'? 31.51.113.89 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean... However... if you want to call Darwinism and common descent... science... then you should bring an example of the type of mutation or an evolutionary process that would be necessary for such things... So far no one does this... All you do is obfuscate!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

'Somewhere back in evolutionary history' jaws were composed of several bones - some of which evolved into ear bones. #You# have to define God-science.

And I was referring to an alcoholic drink (not thujone flavoured) 31.51.113.89 (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

You are free to believe that bovines and cataceans share a common ancestor for all I care... Stop making it look like it is a PROVEN FACT!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

So here's a theory
The main reason why Kingdamian1 has decided to spend the day arguing in circles favor of Intelligent Design is because today is 4/20 — and consequently, he's stoned out of his goddamned mind. Plausible? Yes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He must've lost track of time and started early because this has been going on since the 16th. Christopher (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I DO NOT ABUSE psychoactive drugsKingdamian1 (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Denial? Classic proof. Checkmate, theists. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand why you make such conclusion... Rational wiki is a joke... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In case it wasn't obvious enough to you — I'm joking. "Denial is proof", lol. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The elephant in the room
...Do we even tell him that entertaining the concept of an intelligent designer merely opens up another insurmountable problem? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SUCH A SHAME Christopher doesn't mention the TYPE OF MUTATIONS necessary... Would have started a MEDICAL REVOLUTION! Maybe an example in an organism... where such mutations have been documented!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't listen to the whole clip, I hear. For shame. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did listen... It's full of innacuracies (APPENDIX IS NOT VESTIGAL)............. Zahid, Aliya (2004-04-01). "The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ". Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP. 14 (4): 256–258. ISSN 1022-386X. PMID 15228837................ Before going on... a person should at least have a BASIC understaning of Anatomy--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * C'mon, buddy — give old Christopher a break, will you? Look at the "BIGGER PICTURE", like you said above? Because I assure you, an absolute pre-requisite of even having this discussion in the first place is that any and all heights of ignorance be forgiven a priori. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignorance? You want to talk about ignorance... Can you bring an example of A SINGLE MUTATION OR AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS known to develop specified complexity? Just one?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ...and that, kids, is where we get the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * NO!!! THAT IS NOT WANT I MEANT... I am specifically asking for an example of a mutation necessary... IF THESE CANT BE GIVEN... Why assume they exist?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Very good — the burden of proof makes a much belated (though all the more welcome) appearance! Now, that's one sturdy nut you brought up there, Kingdamian — why should we assume things exist for which proof can't be given? Let's ponder this. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @People in this section: I would like to get a confirmation from Kingdamian1 and it is going to take me a while to write my conjecture. Could you please wait for a while before changing the layout and adding more discussions? Thanks.
 * @Kingdamian1 The updates overlapped, could you please answer my comment above? --Cmonk (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Kingdamian, scroll up and reply to Cmonk. He actually deserves your attention. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Cmonk... I will reply to your comments in our section.... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * @Reverend... What proof of a designer would you accept... I can provide the unmoved mover.... the first cause.... and telological arguments as proof--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @King Whoa there. Please. The Unmoved Mover (UM), the First Cause (FC), and the Teleological argument (TA) have been around for a long time (since Aquinas, who, by the way, was the first to propose them to my knowledge) and have a lot of flaws. The three don't in any way argue for an intelligent designer or a god. The FC may just be a giant cosmic rock. Think about it. If a giant, cosmic rock falls off a giant, cosmic cliff and starts everything off, then we have an FC. The UM argument does much the same thing but states that there was a previously unmoved thing that sets into motion all other things. If the rock is first unmoved and then, by its own volition, falls and sets everything into motion, then we haven't an intelligent designer. The TA is a slightly better argument, but we can show that there are complex things that don't have designers, like innate human morality. Unless, of course, human morality was designed. Meh (You) 02:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... I don't know where to begin... You display breath taking ignorance... the article... Since the rock itself needs a CAUSE it is clear that the FC is something that DOES NOT OPPERATE UNDER our rules....... Same goes for the unmoved mover..... If you believe that human morality is a product of Random Mutations + Natural selecetion... I do not have any desire to continue this conversation... thank you!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, now, Kingdamian — there's no need to sound salty. Koi was just trying to participate in the discussion like the rest of us. You can't blame the boy for taking the time to engage with your talking points, can you? But, regardless. Give me some time and I'll get back to you, if your mood allows for it (hehe). Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I made this template because of this post. 03:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Throes popcorn at kingdamian) So... If a god/s did make us, which one/s did? And why did he/she/them put so much useless stuff in the human body? Geting old seems like a big flaw in the design. Or you know Wisdom Teeth or the Appendix or Male Nipples and I could go on. You humans have week bodys too. Get hit just right and boom, you're gone. Its all most sad. (Eating more popcorn) 2d4chanfag (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... where do I even begin... First Appendix IS NOT VESTIGAL......... Zahid, Aliya (2004-04-01). "The vermiform appendix: not a useless organ". Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan: JCPSP. 14 (4): 256–258. ISSN 1022-386X. PMID 15228837.................... PLEASE GET SOME UNDERSTANDING OF BASIC ANATOMY before "throwing pop corn".... NO ORGAN CAN BE PROCLAIMED vestigal... just because we do not understand its function as of yet... As in the example of the appendix... many organs were considered vestigal... Even if the organs are useless THIS HAS 0 INSIGHT to offer... This would be the example of de-evolution instead of evolution... And prove my point that RANDOM MUTATIONS + Natural selection CANNOT (WILL NOT... SHOULD NOT) be responsible for specified complexity! So... all you are doing is PROVING MY POINT... secondly... you are asking questions about THEOLOGY... It is purposeless to answer these questions if you dont accept INTELLIGENCE... WOULD U TRY to explain why the earth is round to someone who does not believe the earth exists????????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course the earth dose not exist. We are all in the matrix. You, my goodman can't prove I'm wrong. For all you know I am just a very good chatterbot. 2d4chanfag (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you might want to review thisKingdamian1 (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bahaha..GaGaha(choking and coughing on popcorn) The same can be said about this gory damn debate. You just can't think that there is something out there that mead humans, you're too smart for that. But come on now, its not like The Reaper is comeing to get us or anything. 2d4chanfag (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "NO ORGAN CAN BE PROCLAIMED vestigal"


 * So we can ignore pseudogenes, the tailbone, wisdom teeth, behavioural things like goosebumps, the palmar grasp reflex, and the plica semilunaris of conjunctiva? Good to know. Also, kudos to you for picking out the most obvious flaw in my argument (it was there on purpose!). The rock would also need a cause, but in this case, it doesn't because I don't want it to and because I need a first cause. Remind you of another, slightly more divine, being? Yeah, I thought it was the Goat at first too, but turns out, it's God. Surprise. God has no cause because.. because.. err.. beca- oh it's because we need him to have no cause so that we can have a coherent argument. But of course. Good thing he's exempt from the rules, too. Meh (You) 13:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * False. The only organ a human needs is the brain, but that brain dose need to be on life support. 2d4chanfag (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm, looking back at it again for a second, your statement says organs. Don't go all caps on me or all 'You display breath taking [sic] ignorance'. I caught the mistake already. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the body is full of vestigial structures and yes, the appendix is still vestigial. I'll dissect a quote then give the link. Quote,
 * "Far from useless, the organ is actually a storehouse of beneficial bacteria that help us digest food. The appendix evolved for a much dirtier, parasite-plagued lifestyle than the one most people live in the developed world today, Parker said. But where diarrhoeal disease is common, for example, the appendix is apparently vital for repopulating intestines with helpful bacteria after an illness. Another example of anatomy lagging behind lifestyle, according to Mount Sinai's Laitman, is collateral circulation. Certain systems of veins and arteries ensure blood flow when the main paths are blocked or damaged. The systems appear to be truly vestigial, at least for now."
 * Unquote. Now, let's go through it so you don't get to take anything out of context. While he does say that it stores beneficial bacteria, note that this was helpful long ago during a dirtier lifestyle. It is currently useless as we don't live dirty lives anymore and with things like probiotics and stool transfers we don't need an organ to keep bacteria for us. Also note that at the end, he says that both systems are vestigial. That's a vestigial organ for you. Read the full article here (I S2G don't quote mine). Meh (You) 13:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "breath taking ignorance" All the time. When someone is smarter then you, bring them down to your level and then beat them whit experience. 2d4chanfag (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh my goodness... please, at least re-read what you write... That is WISHFUL thinking... You want to assume that some organs were useful in prehistoric times and now are lost... This is NOT science... Just because we do not know the EXACT function of a single organ DOES NOT mean it doesnt exist.... NO ORGAN CAN BE PROCLAIMED VESTIGIAL!!!! But I will go one by one through your examples

1)pseudogenes... a section of a chromosome that is an imperfect copy of a functional gene..... This is expected... since your DNA is a copy of a copy of a copy from your ancestors....

2)tailbone-it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments—which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx. Additionally, it is also a part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which acts as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx. The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e., defecation, continence, etc.): the levator ani muscle, which include coccygeus, iliococcygeus, and pubococcygeus. Through the anococcygeal raphe, the coccyx supports the position of the anus. Attached to the posterior side is gluteus maximus which extend the thigh during ambulation.[8] Many important ligaments attach to the coccyx: the anterior and posterior sacrococcygeal ligaments are the continuations of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments that stretches along the entire spine. Additionally, the lateral sacrococcygeal ligaments complete the foramina for the last sacral nerve.[9] And, lastly, some fibers of the sacrospinous and sacrotuberous ligaments (arising from the spine of the ischium and the ischial tuberosity respectively) also attach to the coccyx.

An extension of the pia mater, the filum terminale, extends from the apex of the conus, and inserts on the coccyx.................... If you want to believe it is a remnant of a tail......go ahead... just don't proclaim it as science

3) Wisdom tooth each of the four hindmost molars in humans, which usually appear at about the age of twenty..... I don't know why would someone consider this as a remnant of some animal ancestry

4) Goosebumps Goosebumps are an automatic response to different stimuli (cold, feeling of awe, etc)... You can believe that it is a vestigial function... and a remnant of fur... But please, don't tell us its sceince...

5) Palmar grasp reflex I don't know what is vestigial about this... Just one of many reflexes that occur in new-borns... You might as well have brought the Babinski sign here...

6)Plica ....................... It functions during movement of the eye, to help maintain tear drainage via the lacrimal lake, and to permit greater rotation of the globe, for without the plica the conjunctiva would attach directly to the eyeball, restricting movement.............. Dartt, Darlene A. (2006). "The Conjunctiva—Structure and Function". Duane's Foundations of Clinical Ophthalmology. 2. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Chapter 2. Retrieved November 8, 2012.

Vestigial organs are a sign of de-evolution not evolution.... AND THEY WOULD PROVE MY POINT that evolution CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE for specified complexity!

Since I have shown that the type of mutations that would be necessary for ape-man (not to mention microbe-man) evolution.... And since these type of mutations have stopped occurring and their examples can't be brought..... I would use the Ocuums razor.... and dispose of this junk....

To answer your second question... Since we see signs of intelligence.... And the 1st cause is this INTELLIGENCE.... And he is able to design us.... THEN HE DOES NOT operate under the same laws.... So he should not be subject to same laws as us! NO I AM NOT BEATING YOU BY EXPERIENCE.... you are beating yourself by going through mental gymnastics to defend a WRONG POSITION! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (smiles whit a mouth full of popcorn) I was thinking about myself being experienced. 2d4chanfag (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a habit of saying "you can believe x, but don't say it's science" without explaining why it isn't science, it'd be great if you could do so in future. Christopher (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Because Darwinian evolution paints the picture.... and then tries to insert some trivial things that SEEM to be evidence.... And start the discussion around those trivialities... ANYONE SUPPORTING DARWINIAN evolution (random mutation + Natural selection)... Will have to bring AN EXAMPLE of a mutation or an evolutionary process that has been shown to develop specified complexity.... If these example (ON WHICH THE WHOLE THEORY RESTS) can't be given.... THERE IS NOT POINT in discussing trivialities........--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying, you also still haven't defined specified complexity. Christopher (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... you do understand what I am saying... The type of mutations necessary for processes that supposedly evolved by RANDOM MUTATION + natural selection NEED TO BE DEMONSTRATED.... Mutations do happen most are neutral many are damaging.... And a very small portion in bacteria can be called beneficiary (DIFFERENT kind of beneficiary...)... You will have to bring an example that mutations that would be responsible for functions such as balance, blood clotting, feeling of thirst, corneal reflex, gag reflex, cough relfex etc.... All of these functions serve VITAL purposes.... And I would like to see the TYPE of random mutation that has been demonstrated to increase these type of VITAL functions--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You still haven't defined specified complexity. Christopher (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I defined it in the first post... Since some of you are slow to comprehend.... I go on and give direct examples... So... now... where is the demonstration of such a mutation? If you are unable to bring it.... then tell us why is it ok to ignore such a MAJOR HOLE!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * But I am able to design a watch. That's a favourite analogy of the teleological argument. I am able to design a watch, no? And I am still subject to the same natural forces that operate on the watch, no? Look, a designer under the same laws as his design. "And he is able to design us.... THEN HE DOES NOT operate under the same laws.." You have some double standards though, eh? First you say there is no vestigiality, then you go on record above me to say that vestigiality proves your point? Make up your mind, man. Also, vestigiality is not a sign of de-evolution. Rather, vestigial body parts are parts that no longer have any use (beyond the superficial) to the organism as the organism no longer needs them because it has evolved. And yes, pardon me for assuming that before the modern era people lived in a dirtier world in which they didn't have access to modern medicine and in which a bacteria storing appendix would be useful. Now, wisdom teeth? Most get removed because if they don't, they are nigh useless or cause problems. Sometimes they don't even erupt. Quote:
 * "A vestige is a degenerative or imperfectly formed organ or structure having little or no utility, but in the earlier stage of development of a species performed a useful function. The reasons that wisdom teeth are now "outdated" are many:


 * "Until quite recently, our diet included mostly very coarse food, as well as impurities such as dirt and sand. This coarseness would abrade teeth so significantly that they would take up less space in the jaw. Permanent teeth were also frequently lost at an early age, which would create more space in the jaw. Because the diet was so coarse and hard to chew, the jaw itself would develop into a larger bone because of this constant workout. All of these factors would create more space for the wisdom teeth when they came in.


 * "The heavily processed diet of today does not produce the tooth abrasion or jaw development that we used to see. Modern dentistry has pretty much eliminated significant loss of permanent teeth at an early age. This leaves us with too many teeth and not enough jaw. The wisdom teeth still develop as they always have, but they have nowhere to go. When this happens, the teeth are considered "impacted," meaning that they are not in normal position and function. Quite often they can not be cleaned properly which results in tooth decay, gum decease and infections. These are some of the reasons why we have them extracted." --Read the source here.


 * As they have little or no utility, wisdom teeth are vestigial. Done. The palmar grasp reflex (PGR) is vestigial as well. It serves no purpose in newborns of 2 to 4 months. Before, it was a reflex used cling to the mother (baby monkeys can cling with enough strength to hold their body weight for around half an hour). Now, it serves no purpose. Vestigial. See sources here and here.


 * Pseudogenes. After a little digging, I'll give you that one, though a lot more research is needed. Well, I'm not giving you anything, as you don't even argue if they're vestigial or not. Your answer tells me what I already know. See the articles on pseudogenes that I read here and here.


 * The plica semilunaris of conjunctiva is a vestigial remnant of the nictitating membrane. I'm starting to question whether or not you really understand what vestigiality is. Mark me, I'll shout only once in this thread to get my point across. I don't do this often (read: ever), so listen up. VESTIGIALITY DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMETHING HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FUNCTION. Vestigiality means that it is a remnant of something that an organism once had but no longer does as it has been discarded in the evolutionary process.


 * The tailbone, again, is a vestigial remnant, which does not mean it has no function. It simply means that back in the day, our ancestors had some sort of tail structure (obv I wasn't there so idk if it was a tail or a short thingy or whatever) and, through the process of our evolution, the tail was made obsolete and the bones fused into the coccyx. The most likely explanation for the uses of the coccyx is that it evolved, then the body evolved to make use of this new (but still vestigial) structure. If you have something, you may as well use it, right? Meh (You) 16:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) If you defined it in your massive first post, define it again. I'm not re reading all that (and I didn't see a clear, unambiguous definition the first time I read it). 2) whilst your "NOT AN ADULT" comment wasn't ad hominem, saying "some of you are slow to comprehend" is an ad hominem. Don't use ad homs. Christopher (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Where do I begin.... You ARE NOT SUBJECT to the same laws as a watch... Does a dead battery affect you? Are you affected by the mechanisms of the watch? What you are trying to say... is that you are in the same physical dimension as the watch... which is irrelevant in this case........

Vestigial organs are whatever defintion you give to them....... I am gonna make up a vestigial function......ready...... Breath holding spells in children are a vestigial function from cetaceans when they were in water................ see how it makes sense..... YET I MADE IT UP........ The point is that you have to first assume that evolution happened..... that our ancestors had a tail or whatever...... And only then can you insert vestigial functions...... Which is NOT SCIENTIFIC.... if an organ appears to have little function or even no function........ WE LEAVE IT AT THAT.... imaganing that years ago ancestors had a tail.... and thats why we have the tailbone is NOT SICENCE!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait hold up skkkrrrrtttt we interrupt your normally scheduled programming for a breaking news flash: a dead battery isn't a law of nature. The watch and I are still subject to gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and the electromagnetic force. In addition we are both subject to the laws of physics. And just because you can 'change' the definition of a word on a whim doesn't mean you're actually changing the definition. Just saying. And, um, I really shouldn't have to say this, but your definition makes no sense. So really, it isn't a definition at all. Meh (You) 17:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

LISTEN...... You are not affected by the functions INSIDE THE WATCH..... plus... this intelligence is able to design the universe.... WHY IS HE SUBJECT OF THE laws he DESIGNED....... Are you subject to the laws you design for a computer? Laws you design for chess pieces?..... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Apparently we used to be cetaceans. No one who knows what they're talking about is saying we used to be cetaceans.[Cetacean needed]
 * 2)Answer my previous post.
 * (You can thank TOW's for the awful pun.) Christopher (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not affected by the rotating of gears because I'm not a watch. I'm pretty sure that's implied. As for the computer, I assume you mean the OS, but as I'm like, 99.99% sure I'm huma- wait let me check.. head, ears, legs, can think, has hands, etc... ok yeah I'm human. No I don't follow computer programming for an OS. And rules for chess? Sir, check your reading comprehension. I am talking about the laws of physics and nature, not the arbitrary rules that the chess pieces are assigned. The watch, the computer, the chess pieces and board, and I are all subject to the laws of nature. Not some superfluous rules that I come up with or the movements of the gears that I set in place. Meh (You) 17:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Christopher.......... I DID NOT SAY WE USED TO BE CETACEANS.... ACCORDING TO EVOLUTION we at some point shared a COMMON ANCESTOR................... I bring examples of specified complexity.... and I also explained that specified complexity describs functions which serve s SPECIFIED purpose and are also deatiled and intricate..... I BROUGHT MANY examples..... if you are unwilling to answer the question and only obfuscate... that is NOT CONSTRUCTIVE!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Koi.... They are subject to their laws (battery and their mechansim)... because they are a watch.... We (and our designs too0) are subject to a HIGHER law (laws of physics)..... This goes on ad infinitum..... This is why we see that there is a PRIME MOVER who created these laws!!!!!!!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But - surprise here - a watch battery isn't a law and neither are gears or mechanisms. The watch follows natural laws. Only. Gears, batteries, and mechanisms aren't laws. They're things. They aren't laws any more than the mapo doufu I'm making tonight is a law. Meh (You) 17:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

And again... you are obfuscating..... The point is WE DEVISED a MECHANISM of the watch....... We devised these mechanisms based on a HIGHER MECHANISM (natural laws)..... And this goes on ad infinitum....... THERE MUST HAVE BEEN a prime cause.... who started the mechanisms, laws etc.....--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a line in a song I've heard that pretty much describes you, Damian. "Ask him a question it glances off he obfuscates and dances" and while you all might call me a Francophile, at least you know I know where France is. Yes, we devised a watch mechanism. Yes, it is based off a higher mechanism. The point of this was to show you that both my design and I both follow the same natural law. Your prime [sic] cause isn't even part of this argument, as I was arguing against the teleological argument. Meh (You) 17:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's leave the watch argument for a second..... Natural law is a law WE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO.... These natural laws had to start at some point..... If the cause for these natural laws is INTELLIGENCE... then he MADE these natural laws......... Why are we subjecting him to what HE DESIGNED?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, fine. Let's assume, for a second, that he isn't subject to natural law (though as an FC or UM we don't even know that it was a sentient being, just that there was a cause or mover). Now we have to deal with the problem of evil. The PoE is pretty difficult to tackle, even when combining theodicies like Plantinga's FWD and the Creation Order theodicy. (Isn't it funny that suddenly we aren't debating vestigial structures?) Anyway, I'm at school, so I'll have to keep debating later. Consider that your position may be wrong though, and I'll certainly go over.. whatever it is you've provided. But can you provide retroactive citations? That way, I can read where you get your information from instead of just taking your word for it. And no, don't even think about mentioning it. Meh (You) 17:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem of evil and other "controversies" in Christianity are theological arguments..... And 1)they have to be addressed in a separate post..... 2)There is no reason to talk about them if you dont accept INTELLIGNECE... would you explain why the earth is round to someone who does not believe the earth exists?.....

To consider being wrong about INTELLIGENCE there has to be an alternative.... I dont see any! What citations do you ask for? Citations for what?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I have no idea what you're talking about. Christopher (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Which part of my writing is beyond your comprehension.... The part about the first cause... or about you being unable to support Naturalistic view?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The alternative would be that there is no intelligent design and that the universe came into being as we see it today by natural processes and laws. And don't ask, "Well what about before the Big Bang?" To which I answer that it doesn't really matter, does it? The Planck unit is the smallest meaningful amount of time anyway. Please note that I, for a moment, was acting as if Intelligent design was a reality when I brought up the PoE. It's a consequence of Intelligent design. Meh (You) 18:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That really is NO ALTERNATIVE... since I have illustrated that this universe is ANYTHING BUT a product of randomness..... Plus there is NO ANSWER to the prime cause..... PoE... is only relevant when we accept Intelligence and then start to question who this intelligence is (theology)..... You can argue that this intelligence is a magician for all I care.... Makes more sense than "naturalistic view"....... Naturalistic in itself means something we observe in nature....... Since NOTHING OF THE KIND has been observed.... AND ANY MODEL of "naturalistic view" goes against what we have KNOW from natural sciences (i.e Physics).......... I would argue that this "naturaistic" view is SUPERNATURAL.... and a BIGGER MIRACLE than INTELLIGENCE!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I still have no idea what you're saying, anyone else know? Christopher (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * He thinks humans are too complex not to be just random event. no miracles here. Just a roll of the dice. The galaxy is a big place for a god to put all has toy in one spot. 2d4chanfag (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that I meant specifically his last post. Christopher (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hold the phone for a second. Hey Kingdamian1, what if we come across life on other planets? 2d4chanfag (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I personally don't think that we will discover alien life... But I find the idea very intriguing..... Of course a lot of variables come into play when you say life (what life form etc.)...... But it would be really exciting... What does this have to do with Darwinism again?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Everything. It be a roll of the dice and I want to roll them. Also I'm out of popcorn. 2d4chanfag (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is the least of what you would have to do to promote "Naturalistic view"....... You would have to give evidence of abiogenesis..... Then develop a hypothesis of how it could have happened...... And after testing your hypothesis with predictions and EXAMPLES...... Proclaim it a Theory of Abiogenesis...... Since I can bring literally hundreds of examples of why abiogenesis contradicts science.... And there are really no good explanations..... There only reason anyone continues to suggest this is because the only alternative is INTELLIGENT DESIGN... and that would mean you would have to deny the whole rational wiki BS.... which is hard... so you would rather stick with your WRONG ARGUMENT.... than consider a VIABLE alternative so you would rather stick with your WRONG ARGUMENT.... than consider a VIABLE alternative--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There no argument here. Just need time. 2d4chanfag (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

King Damian I (Omen?) - you are not convincing anyone with your arguments. We can see evolution in action #now# - but no proof of God (why a male god - rather than a goddess, FSM, flame entity, multigender/collective entity, HAL 9000, stellar creature, Roko's Basilisk...?) presently sticking his fingers into life and changing it in ways that are inexplicable by current (or indeed any) science. 'Sticking the right sort of chemicals into a container and zapping them with electricity' produces amino acids, amino acids can be found in space produced by natural phenomena - and the universe is very large and very old and there is plenty of time for the chemicals to slosh around on planets and eventually produce replicas of themselves ... which eventually develop into us all (and even you).

And the problem of evil has very little to do with the case (The Bible says Thou shalt not kill' - but the NRA squawks bitterly if anyone tries to constrain gun sales).

Repeatedly saying 'you scientific believers are wrong, ID is right' convinces nobody. There are gaps presently inexplicable - and probably still will be when sentient species explore the universe and try and observe 'life coming into being.' 31.51.113.130 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting what you say! Evolution in the most trivial sense means "change of heritable traits over time". Indeed we are able to observe these changes, whether big ones or small ones (eye colour variations, ring species, etc.) This is observable! What we do not see is any of these changes resulting in specified complexity... the very notion of Darwinian common descent implies that there are types of mutations which over time can add up and produce specified complexity (sense of balance, blood clotting, etc.) Since the example of these mutations cannot be brought, I do not see any evidence that such a thing is possible, this is a simple argument! SO, it's really about your definition of evolution; if you mean changes, yes they do happen, and the big ones too (e.g. tetra amelia syndrome). But we do not see these changes being SPECIFIED..... RANDOM mutations + Natural selection CANNOT explain a mechanism such as balance (which requires interaction of different systems being interpreted by brain)....

You also say that there are chemical interactions which could have given rise to life and even me... Shame you fail to bring this proof... Would have won us both nobel prizes...

Second point you raise is THEOLOGICAL.... There is no point in explaining why FSM is stupid to a person who does not acknowledge INTELLIGENCE...... Would you try to explain why the earth is round to a person who does not believe the earth exists??????/--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You still haven't defined specified complexity. Define it. Christopher (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It's getting sort of old.... read at the top.... If you don't understand.... leave it to the people who do!Kingdamian1 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you already defined it at the top, copy paste the definition and only the definition here. It shouldn't be hard. Christopher (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY In this context the word complex refers to OBSERVABLE biological functions which are intricate and detailed. Specified refers to a SPECIFIC role it seems to have. In other words specified to a certain situation. Allow me to bring an example. Think of sexual arousal. The response to sexual stimuli involves number of changes that come with the anticipation of sex. Physical changes that are visible and also many psychological factors. The Human sexual response cycle involves the brain interpreting a stimuli and the phases of human sexual response cycle. These changes, involving multiple systems working together would no doubt be classified as complex (intricate and detailed), at the same time they are SPECIFIED to sexual reproduction. Another example would be enzyme Rhodanese. It is a mitochondrial enzyme that detoxifies cyanide (CN−) by converting it to thiocyanate (SCN−). This is the body's chief defense mechanism against cyanide. In fact, any known treatment of cyanide poisoning comes from the effect of this enzyme. Without this enzyme even the smallest amount of cyanide (cigarette smoke, certain fruit seeds etc.) could have been easily lethal! The function of Rhodanese is no doubt intricate and detailed... However, it is also specified to cyanide. On an unrelated note, I will raise another point about Rhodanese. Without the existence of Rhodanese even the slightest contact with cyanide would no doubt be lethal to any living thing. Rhodanese could not have developed by adaption over time, since adaption would require chronic exposure to cyanide over population. But even the SLIGHTEST contact (let alone chronic) with cyanide would have resulted in histotoxic hypoxia. Another example would be the sense of balance. Sense of balance or equilibrioception is one of the physiological senses related to balance. It helps prevent humans and animals from falling over when standing or moving. Balance is the result of a number of body systems working together: the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) and the body's sense of where it is in space (proprioception) ideally need to be intact. The vestibular system, the region of the inner ear where three semicircular canals converge, works with the visual system to keep objects in focus when the head is moving. This is called the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). The balance system works with the visual and skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. Visual signals sent to the brain about the body's position in relation to its surroundings are processed by the brain and compared to information from the vestibular, visual and skeletal systems. No doubt this would classified as complex (intricate and detailed), but it is also SPECIFIED to our NEED of equilibrium. Another example would be blood clotting or coagulation. The mechanism of coagulation involves activation, adhesion, and aggregation of platelets along with deposition and maturation of fibrin. No doubt this would also, after OBSERVATION, be classified as complex (intricate and detailed)... but again it is also SPECIFIED to the cessation of blood loss from a damaged vessel. Another example would be the corneal reflex. The corneal reflex, also known as the blink reflex, is an involuntary blinking of the eyelids elicited by stimulation of the cornea (such as by touching or by a foreign body), though could result from any peripheral stimulus. Stimulation should elicit both a direct and consensual response (response of the opposite eye). The reflex occurs at a rapid rate of 0.1 seconds. The purpose of this reflex is to protect the eyes from foreign bodies and bright lights (the latter known as the optical reflex). The blink reflex also occurs when sounds greater than 40-60 dB are made. The reflex is mediated by: the nasociliary branch of the ophthalmic branch (V1) of the 5th cranial nerve (trigeminal nerve) sensing the stimulus on the cornea, lid, or conjunctiva (i.e., it is the afferent). the temporal and zygomatic branches of the 7th cranial nerve (Facial nerve) initiating the motor response (i.e., it is the efferent). the centre (nucleus) in the pons of brain stem. No doubt this would also be called complex, but it is also SPECIFIED to eye defense. Another example would be the feeling of pain. No doubt the brain cortex, involved in the feeling of pain, and the physical responses would be considered intricate and detailed. But pain also motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future. It is also specified to protecting yourself from damage. Evolution in the most trivial sense of changes of heritable traits over time, and the concept of natural selection are observable. These small changes do occur. And nobody disagrees here. The problem comes when we move on to Universal common descent. The mechanism of common descent would require the explanation of specified complexity. And the example of such changes. If we say that the wolf and a dog could have had a common ancestor, this would be a logical claim consistent with THIS definition of evolution... Since the changes are EXACTLY what would be anticipated from such a process. The changes from an ape like creature to homo sapiens requires a mechanism that would be able to explain more complex changes that are also SPECIFIED--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Be succinct, DO NOT USE EXCESSIVE CAPITALS, do not swear, do not go over the same ground repeatedly, and spell prooper, and you might be more convincing.

What #you# have to prove is (a) rhodanese developed specifically and only to deal with cyanide rather than serving some other function (with the anti-cyanide aspects being a beneficial by-product: did sickle blood cells so mutate by chance or solely to protect against malaria?), (b) that cyanide is sufficiently common in the environment for rhodanese-as-anti-cyanide to be relevant and (c) that 'some (supranatural or alien) intelligence somewhere decided that 'it would be a necessary and useful thing' to so develop rhodanese (rather than some form of the game of life - and where does List of mistakes made by God fit into your theology?

And why are you concentrating on this rhodanese as an indicator of intelligent design (rather than 'the sense of beauty at (some aspects of) the universe in general, or 'humans, Neanderthals and others have developed the concept of a spiritual life' and similar arguments? 86.146.100.38 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I AM NOT CONCENTRATING on rhodanese alone....

Cyanide is a DEADLY poison.... You have most likely been exposed to it (fruit seeds... car exhaust... cigarette smoke etc.).... So this VERY EFFECTIVE natural treatment of cyanide (rhodanese).... IS VITAL.... Rhodanese can get overloaded with very little amount of cyanide today...... Small micro-organisms (rhodanese is present even in bacteria) without this enzyme would INVARIABLY die upon exposure.... THEREFORE... according to your worldview... THIS VITAL ENZYME (defense mechanism against a LETHAL toxin) developed WITHOUT PRIOR EXPOSURE (by chance).... WHICH IS ALL BUT BULLSHIT.... I am tire of repeating the same thing 100 times... I am sorry for cursing... But so far I have talked up to 5 or 6 members of this RationalWiki and ALL OF YOU SEEM FUCKED IN THE BRAIN!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No matter how many times you repeat the same thing it is still wrong, and wrong in every way - and to the casual reader you do seem to be concentrating on the cyanide-rhodanese link (rather than this being an accidental extra to some other function). The more you repeat your statements, and the more you use swearwords, the more you convince people against you.

If everybody here said 'OK you are correct' would you go away?

In fact - PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE - just go away (before you get perma-blocked). 86.146.100.38 (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You actually entertain the idea that Rhodanese might be accident? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Answering the question I think you are asking - rhodanese exists, and it appears to block cyanide - but that may not have been its original function: and you have not answered the sickle-cell comment.

Now PLEASE STOP SWEARING, PLEASE USE PROPER GRAMMAR AND SPELLING, AND PLEASE GO AWAY.

(I feel justified in shouting.) 86.146.100.38 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)