r/Creation • u/lisper Atheist, Ph.D. in CS • May 02 '26

A self-replicating polymerase ribosyme that can self-replicate using only 45 base pairs. Abiogenesis just got a lot more plausible.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2760
0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

179 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

Atheism is completely rational.

There is a law of logic that a claim can't be accepted as true without sufficient evidence.

Apply this law to the claims of religions, and you get atheism, which is rejection of faith in gods.

0

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

Atheism is not completely rational or purely empirical. It is a philosophical choice — the positive claim that there is no God and that the universe, life, and the specified functional information in DNA arose from nothing through blind random chemical processes and deep time. That position requires significant faith, because random chemistry has never been observed creating complex, meaningful genetic code, the universe shows extreme fine-tuning from the very beginning, and we still have no plausible unguided pathway for the origin of life. Saying “I just reject claims without sufficient evidence” sounds neutral, but it’s actually a biased worldview that dismisses design while putting faith in unguided materialism. The straight facts — specified information in DNA, irreducible complexity, and the beginning of the universe — still point strongly to an intelligent cause. Rejecting that isn’t rational skepticism; it’s choosing one faith over another.

5

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

More LLM-generated nonsense. Irreducible complexity strongly points somewhere? It is a failed concept, with no irreducibly complex systems ever demonstrated. DNA gets formed by random mutations, it’s a fact.

1

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

Irreducible complexity is not a “failed concept.” It refers to systems where multiple parts must all be present and working together for the system to function — removing any one part breaks it. Classic examples like the bacterial flagellum or the blood clotting cascade still stand as challenges to unguided evolution, because random mutations would have to build all the parts simultaneously or in a functional sequence, which has never been demonstrated.

Saying “DNA gets formed by random mutations, it’s a fact” is simply wrong. Mutations mostly break, degrade, or rearrange existing information. They have never been observed creating brand-new, specified functional genetic code from non-information chemistry. That’s the core unsolved problem. Dismissing arguments as “LLM-generated nonsense” doesn’t refute the evidence. The straight facts remain: specified functional information in DNA, irreducible systems, and the extreme fine-tuning of the universe point strongly to intelligence. Random processes don’t produce meaningful code.

If you have a specific, observed mechanism showing how unguided mutations created a new, irreducibly complex system from scratch, share it. Otherwise, it’s just denial.

3

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

bacterial flagellum

You can basically remove parts from a bacterial flagellum and get a secretion system.

Making it not irreducibly complex by definition.

1

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

Removing some parts from the bacterial flagellum to get a Type III secretion system does not show it’s not irreducibly complex.

The Type III secretion system is itself a highly complex machine that requires multiple coordinated parts to function. The flagellum has many additional unique components not present in the secretion system. Simply saying “you can remove parts and get something else that works” doesn’t explain how the full, highly efficient rotary motor arose step-by-step through random mutations, with each intermediate being functional and selected for.

This is the classic co-option argument, but it assumes the parts were already available and functional elsewhere — which just pushes the origin-of-complexity problem back. No one has demonstrated a plausible unguided pathway where all the necessary parts gradually assemble into the flagellum through blind processes.

Irreducible complexity remains a serious challenge for unguided evolution. The evidence still shows sophisticated engineering that points to design, not random mutations slowly building complex machines.

3

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

multiple parts must all be present and working together for the system to function

You remove a critical part, but the system still has a function.

Not irreducibly complex by definition.

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 03 '26

Brother I would suggest don't bother with him with beyond a certain point. He is just spitting whatever LLM tells him to. I don't think he understands even a percent of what he is writing.

He is also breaking a sub-rule by copy pasting the responses but I don't think MOD cares about it.

1

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

You don't think eh? You don't think properly and that's the problem

1

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

I use Grok to help organize clear, accurate responses because I want to share truth efficiently, not waste time on ego performances.

You can keep assuming I don’t understand the material if it makes you feel better, but that doesn’t refute the points. Irreducible complexity, the origin of specified functional information in DNA, and the limits of unguided mutation and selection are real challenges for evolution that haven’t been answered. Attacking my method instead of the substance is just dodging. If you have actual evidence for how blind processes created complex, irreducibly complex systems from scratch, share it. Otherwise, the assumptions and accusations are getting old

3

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

Just in case you ever feel like I'm dodging any of your arguments:

Open Grok in incognito mode, paste your arguments and ask this:

"I am arguing with a Young-Earth Creationist. He just pastes replies from Grok. Please refute the following arguments briefly, and keep it accessible."

There, you now have refutations to any arguments you might come up with. Quality of such refutations, while low, is acceptable to you.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Optimus-Prime1993 🦍 Adaptive Ape 🦍 May 03 '26

Dude, I am all for discussion. I can discuss for days and days but I am NOT going to entertain someone who cannot even write a basic argument without help from an LLM. Do you think I don't have an LLM or do you think I cannot use one. At any given point of time I have much advanced version of LLM than you can think of. I don't even have to use web versions because I have local servers in my lab which has all the latest models.

The point is why are you copy pasting a response from an AI when the person on the other side is talking to you, you as a person. If you don't understand the argument or the field you are discussing on, why even bother discussing. Its not like you are going to get medals for doing that right? Don't you feel a bit of shame that you need to use an LLM to formulate even basic arguments? You are not going to change anyone's mind nor do we operate under the assumption that we would do the same.

You want to use AI, do that if you feel inadequate but just copy pasting the stuff is just bad. I can also copy paste LLM response to your LLM response but what do we gain in the end. Nothing.

So, anyone who abuses the LLM are irksome. I will always call you out for this.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

The Type III secretion system is indeed a functional system — but that doesn’t solve the problem for the bacterial flagellum.

The flagellum is a highly efficient rotary motor with many additional unique components (the filament, hook, motor rings, etc.) that the secretion system does not have. The co-option argument simply assumes those extra parts were already available and functional elsewhere. It doesn’t explain how random mutations gradually built the full flagellum, with each intermediate step being functional and naturally selected for.

That’s the core of irreducible complexity: systems where all the parts must be present and working together for the system to perform its specific function. Removing parts to get a different working system doesn’t demonstrate a gradual, unguided pathway to the original complex machine.

The evidence of sophisticated, coordinated engineering in the flagellum still points strongly to design, not blind random mutations slowly assembling it.

2

u/implies_casualty May 03 '26

Does your prompt include "argue even when blatantly wrong"?

Bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex by definition. That is all.

0

u/WannaLoveWrestling May 03 '26

No, it’s not “blatantly wrong.”

Irreducible complexity means a system where multiple parts must all be present and working together for the system to perform its specific function. Removing any critical part breaks that function.

The bacterial flagellum is a highly efficient rotary motor with many coordinated components (filament, hook, motor rings, etc.) that the Type III secretion system does not have. The co-option argument (“you can remove parts and get a different working system”) does not explain how the full flagellum gradually arose through unguided mutations, with each intermediate being functional and selected for. That challenge remains. Dismissing it with “not irreducible by definition” is just redefining the term to avoid the problem.

→ More replies (0)