[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 17 KB, 340x427, 1277775424200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1430108 No.1430108 [Reply] [Original]

Is the system of DNA replication an example of irreducible complexity?

In other words, can any of the organic molecules pictured as active in replication, be removed without causing the whole system to fail?

I'm having trouble seeing how such an incredibly complex mechanism simply evolved randomly. It either works or it doesn't, there is no possible transition state that would be required for evolution to occur.

>> No.1430148

....wut?

>> No.1430155

don't feed the troll

>> No.1430168

>irreducible complexity

DURRRRRR, I NO GET IT

>> No.1430174

>>1430155
Just because I'm not asking how magnets work or what your favorite element is doesn't mean I'm trolling.

>> No.1430181

>>1430168
Jesus christ, is /sci/ always this retarded?

It's not a fucking difficult term you dipshit.

>> No.1430188

>>1430174
>Just because I'm fucking retarded doesn't mean I'm trolling.
Fix'd it for you. Thank me later.

>> No.1430192

>>1430108
It's like the double pump system of the heart. You can't gradually evolve from one to two, the change has to be complete within one instant or it doesn't work.

Mind boggling.

>> No.1430196

gb2 kansas

>> No.1430202

>>1430108
OP, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

>> No.1430207

>>1430188
>I can't explain it so I'll call him a troll.

Thank me later.

>> No.1430210

>>1430181
It's a term used by creationists, you dumbshit newb. Are you a creationist? Go find a religion board, faggot.

>> No.1430209
File: 75 KB, 301x300, genesis831245434809.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1430209

I get it. It's the old chestnut about "how can an eyeball evolve if it's not useful at the in-between stages?" It's an attempt at dis-proving evolution.

But just in case your serious: you're assuming that all complex systems are symmetrical in dimensionality. Just because the system stops working when you remove pieces doesn't mean that the pieces it is composed of could never assemble. Changes on geologic timescales are gradual, and enough time elapses after each change that the rest of the system adapts. The reducible parts you're expecting aren't there anymore because they were redundant and inefficient to reproduce when a better way was adapated, although that better way could not be used without the more primitive precursor.

... and furthermore, the in-between states of an eye have been identified and catalogued in marine wildlife, so fuck off.

>> No.1430216

>>1430108

You could remove several parts, it will serve a different purpose though. Truly crazy to think about how it evolved to such a state, if it evolved at all.

>> No.1430217 [DELETED] 
File: 279 KB, 580x4118, rage-FFFFUUUU.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1430217

Damn, I so butthurt /sci/ will not have an intelligent discussion, since this place is for intelligent people.

I'm so full of contempt I'm going to burst into a rage attack and kill all my neighbors just because they are uneducated blue collar workers who have never heard of sagan, tyson, hawkins or dawkins before.

behold...

FFFUUUUUUUUU!

>> No.1430218

>>1430192
My uncle was born with too many chambers in his heart, its not super incredible that that happens from time to time. It just wasn't beneficial for him. Im sure there are people born with no chambers, too. Its not surprising to me because hearts are extrapolated from basic design rules, dna, which all comes from one of two copies. If one copy, say, the sperm, has a slightly corrupted version of the rules, everything that is extrapolated from those rules will be weird as hell. I don't mean to lecture you or anything, I just like to talk about these things, it helps me decide what I believe about things.

>> No.1430221

>>1430210
No, it's a term used by everyone. Go read a high school biology textbook.

You're just a moron.

>> No.1430225

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_heart_tube

>> No.1430226

>>1430209
>fuck off
Great, thanks for that

But what about things which lack the ability to adapt? Isn't dna-level biomachinery made from physics, rather than following dna designs?

>> No.1430227

>Is the system of DNA replication an example of irreducible complexity?
not really
DNA could be evolved thing - I mean it can be evolved from the something else. And that "something else" mustn't exist anymore.

>> No.1430231

>>1430221
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

enjoy your non-scientific science

>> No.1430228

>>1430209
I'm not talking about eyeballs. If your eyeball doesn't work you don't end up dead.

If DNA replication doesn't work, you do end up dead. It's all or nothing.

>> No.1430235

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

>> No.1430241

>>1430221
Oh wow. Just wow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducibly_complex

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]

Please, go die in a fire, and stop holding humanity back.

>> No.1430250

If irreducible complexity is so easy to disprove, why does /sci/ get SO incredibly pissy about it? Name calling is a desperation tactic, as is saying you're too good to answer the question. This is coming from a devout atheist.

>> No.1430251

>>1430231
>is a nonscientific argument
>term was used first by Darwin, creator of the evolution theory
try again
IC is hypothetical thing (such as, for example, a graviton) but it doesn't mean it isn't scientific. Scientists agree that IC is the proof of the evolution being wrong (even evolutionists). Too bad it doesn't exist.

>> No.1430258

ITT:
"Complex systems don't work if you wreck them. Therefore no complex system could be built."

Oh grow up.

>> No.1430262

>>1430250
troll detected

>> No.1430264

>>1430250
If homeopathic medicine is so easy to disprove, why do medical doctors get SO incredibly pissy about it?

I GUESS THEY JUST HATE COMPETITION, AMIRITE?

>> No.1430267

I have a question:
What's wrong with you, USfags? I mean - in Europe no one believes in that creationist shit, not even theists. Everyone just know what evolution is and no one argue about that (unless one is Richard Dawkins, but he argues about evolution with americunts).

Explain it to me because I'm too stupid to understand that.

>> No.1430278
File: 115 KB, 469x428, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1430278

>>1430250
>devout atheist

>> No.1430277

>>1430267
>I'm too stupid to understand
they are too stupid to understand

>> No.1430280

>>1430267
The various cults of Christianity have a strong hold on us. It might happen to you too if you keep letting Islamic animals in.

>> No.1430296

>>1430267
>Richard Dawkins

I wouldn't use that arrogant fuck as an example, half of the scientific community hates his guts because he makes everyone else look like a smug faggot.

Also, there are just as many retards who misunderstand evolution in Europe as the U.S., you're just biased, and I can say this because I live in Canada.

>> No.1430304

its amazing how many dawkins haters you can find in 4chan

>> No.1430309

>>1430280
>Christianity
>cult

I'm getting tired of you fags calling a religion that simply tells you to be nice to other people a "cult".

>> No.1430313

>>1430309
>simply tells you to be nice to other people

lol

>> No.1430327

>>1430313
Christianity has some cool stuff to say, but a lot of that old testament stuff which contains the real crazy, that was around before him, right? If the jews believe in the old testament, it had to have been around pre-christ.

>> No.1430329

>>1430296
>biased
I'm not saying that Europe > USA or anything. It's just that I didn't know about creationists vs evolutionists wars until I've visited USA.
And BTW: what's with this "I can say this because I live in Canada" shit? If you are living in Canada, and haven't visited nor USA nor Europe... How can you possibly know anything?

>> No.1430330

>>1430309
17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Oh yeah. It's totally a religion about being nice to people. I mean, instead of explaining that it's wrong to follow another religion, you're just supposed to stone them to death.

Fact: Most christians don't read the new or old testament and know little to nothing about their faith.

>> No.1430630

>>1430330
You better shut up before I slap your shit with my Bible.