Debate:Specified complexity/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png
This is a Debate Page, and it has gone pretty badly down the muddy slope.
This debate now resembles something halfway between a mud pit and a hell hole.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

A call to order[edit]

@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
    • "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."
    • "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
    • "Sequence searches through completed genomes indicate that GlpE can be considered to be the prototype structure for the ubiquitous single-domain rhodanese module."
    • "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
    • "GlpE, like bovine liver rhodanese, is capable of transferring sulfur from thiosulfate to thioredoxin 1 with relatively high affinity"
    • "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"
    • "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 (gene duplicationWikipedia's W.svg) 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 neofunctionalizationWikipedia's W.svg (<= 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)— 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. Darwinian evolutionWikipedia's W.svg 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 Modern Synthesis/Neo-DarwinismWikipedia's W.svg. --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 itWikipedia's W.svg as a definition of mutation. I am fine with Wikipedia's definition of evolutionWikipedia's W.svg: "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 variationWikipedia's W.svg, "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 virus insertional mutagenesisWikipedia's W.svg 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 sickle-cell alleleWikipedia's W.svg 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. Carnivorous plantsWikipedia's W.svg don't really excrete, amoebaWikipedia's W.svg eat and then diffuse their waste, and JellyfishWikipedia's W.svg 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


The elephant in the room[edit]

...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.Salty.gifHamburguesa con queso con un cara Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 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)Facepalm.png 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 List of cetaceansWikipedia's W.svg 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)