Qualiasoup Wrong Again on Eye Evolution!

Qualiasoup tried to refute irreducible complexity. Unfortunately, he never actually refuted the idea because he presented a straw man version, attempting to refute it by lining up eyes of different complexity. Irreducible complexity has NOTHING to do with common descent. It's an arguement concerning the causal powers of random mutations and natural selection. I guess Qualiasoup never studied what Michael Behe has actually written....or he has intentional misrepresented it. Either way, this video shows why Qualiasoup is wrong....AGAIN!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v480/n7376/full/nature10689.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21251-first-top-predator-was-giant-shri...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-million-year-old-super-predator-remarkabl...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• qualiasoup
• irreducible
• complexity
• onceforgivennowfree
• Evolution
• eye

[chasingimagination1]

2 words: common ancestors.

Scientists can link the progress of the eye to its ancestors and slowly but surely you will find how each eyes of different species developed. Therefore just because they are different species doesn't mean they aren't related to one another. After all, evolutionary theory points out we are related to Xenoturbella(worm).

[KittenKoder]

I so hope that this is satire. There is no way a truly thinking human could ever be this dishonest or unintelligent. First point, he didn't even claim it proved that's what happened, he proved (and said so) that it can happen, which based on religious qualifications makes your entire video false, wrong, and even evil.

[TavrenElkair]

(3) Take the English language, for example. If you had a paragraph of 500 random characters (letters, punctuation, numbers, etc.), there are a huge number of MEANINGFUL sequences and variations that can exist. But if a single spelling, punctuation and grammatical error makes a sequence wrong (non-functional), there are FAR MORE wrong "inaccurate" sequences than right "accurate and meaningful" ones. The same sort of situation works with biology/life. It does NOT make the huge improbability vanish

[TavrenElkair]

(2) The mechanics and specified information within life (DNA, Proteins, etc.) are functional specified structure and sequences with a quantifiable result and function. There are tons of molecular structures and Amino Acid (or Nucleotide) combinations that are at best harmful and at worst entirely useless. Though the functional combinations are certainly many, as science shows us, no where near all of them are. You're arguing from the stance that most combinations are valid. But they are not.

[TavrenElkair]

(1) If you compare this issue of "random chance" and probability to a lottery, there is no actual specified functionality there. It's just a random set of numbers. The odds of any of the trillions of possible combinations, until one combination of numbers is chosen, is the same. But in this equation, ALL combinations are answers, but only one combination matches one winning lottery ticket. Biology and complex mechanical systems (comparable to life), are NOT nonsensical random numbers...

[TavrenElkair]

@C0br4Br0s You're basically arguing that there is no functionality, just the illusion of functionality. There is no purpose, just the illusion of purpose. That if any outcome is possible at all, than any of those possible outcomes is a likely result. That's an extremely convoluted and typically intentionally cryptic argument and stance to make. You're arguing that ANY result is a "right" result, but this is definitely not so. In fact, disease caused by mutation shows such thinking to be wrong.

[TavrenElkair]

@C0br4Br0s "For example the rabbit does not digest all the nutrients it eats so it must eat its own poop to prevent malnutrition. Where is the intelligent design in that? I could give other examples. The mosquito only lives about 1 day and than it dies. Beatles are so stupid and blind they have no survival chance."

And where is successful Natural Selection, if it's the dominant method of evolutionary progress or extinction? Natural Selection selects, it does not create.

[TavrenElkair]

@TavrenElkair "All possible sequences are NOT valid." I missed the most important word there. ;-).

For instance, what if we put together a page of 50 possible coloured-ball sequences as being valid (beneficial) and the rest not being valid. Person B can still easily pick out all those sequences on purpose, while the blinded Person A is in just as much trouble, if not more, because there's MORE sequences he has to get right, not just 1.

[TavrenElkair]

@C0br4Br0s "No matter which result occurs, the probability of that result beforehand was astronomically SMALL."

But it has been demonstrated quite clearly in science that not all sequences of Amino Acids result in a useful usable Protein. You're essentially arguing, "If ANYTHING is the possible outcome, then ANYTHING is plausible." But it is not. Not all possible sequences are valid. And how's your argument for being fallacious? "It exists, therefore it happened." Circular much? lol

[angellicvoices]

I think you've misunderstood Qualiasoup. Organisms like bacteria do seemingly "pop" up from nothing. But its not nothing that they pop up from, theres a set of circumstances. For example, maybe for a type of bacteria to appear, light energy, oxygen and other elements are required. An opened jar of peanut butter would develop bacteria. Over time organisms such as bacteria may develop certain attributes to help them function and survive better and one of these attributes may have been the eye.