Irreducible complexity exists - cannot be refuted

[nnmartin]

There are plenty of lame attempts at refuting irreducible complexity - but that is all they are - attempts.

Many vague reasons as to why certain structures evolved but not how they all happened to be put together as a complex whole. Take the Bombardier beetle for example -

Also the Arch theory - that even more complex designs came about by chance and then just magically morphed into a simpler one by chance.

It's about time someone came up with some real answers to evolution or at least accept that there is way more to it than Darwin.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's about time someone came up with some real answers to evolution or at least accept that there is way more to it than Darwin.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Any competent biologist will tell you that there's "more to it than Darwin". A militant refusal to know what you're talking about results in little more than vapid pedantry.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are plenty of lame attempts at refuting irreducible complexity - but that is all they are - attempts.

Many vague reasons as to why certain structures evolved but not how they all happened to be put together as a complex whole. Take the Bombardier beetle for example -

Also the Arch theory - that even more complex designs came about by chance and then just magically morphed into a simpler one by chance.

It's about time someone came up with some real answers to evolution or at least accept that there is way more to it than Darwin.

Your post seems like a broad complaint, which is hard to address. It would be more interesting
if you'd elaborate on some of these arguments. That would give us something to discuss.

 

[jarofthoughts]

There are plenty of lame attempts at refuting irreducible complexity - but that is all they are - attempts.

I see you have completely convinced yourself.
Now let's see if you can convince me.
Good luck.

Many vague reasons as to why certain structures evolved but not how they all happened to be put together as a complex whole. Take the Bombardier beetle for example -

Here: Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design and here: Claim:The bombardier beetle cannot be explained by evolution.

Also the Arch theory - that even more complex designs came about by chance and then just magically morphed into a simpler one by chance.

If the arch costs resources to keep, then it will likely be selected against after it has lost its purpose.
There. That was easy.

It's about time someone came up with some real answers to evolution or at least accept that there is way more to it than Darwin.

Wish granted.
You will no doubt be happy to learn that the Theory of Evolution has come a long way since Darwin and we now understand much better why the basic concept outlined by Darwin is correct.

 

[nnmartin]

The explanation of the Beetle is a reasonable theory in general.

But it's simplifying the issue too much - think of the millions of tiny adjustments the beetle needs to make at the molecular biochemical level to develop from one stage to the next - improbable that they all happened by chance.

It brings me back to what I have mentioned before - an extra factor guiding the process.

I am not saying it is God, but it seems as if DNA has some self organising mechanism.

 

[nnmartin]

. A militant refusal to know what you're talking about results in little more than vapid pedantry.

I must belong to The Militant Creationist League then.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am not saying it is God, but it seems as if DNA has some self organising mechanism.

What is the last book you've read on biology, biochemistry, or some closely related field?

 

[Revoltingest]

But it's simplifying the issue too much - think of the millions of tiny adjustments the beetle needs to make at the molecular biochemical level to develop from one stage to the next - improbable that they all happened by chance.
It brings me back to what I have mentioned before - an extra factor guiding the process.
I am not saying it is God, but it seems as if DNA has some self organising mechanism.

Evolution is not by chance, nor do the changes happen all at once. Great time & population sizes are needed.
While mutations are randomly generated, the fitness function created by reproduction & survival created your guiding mechanism.

 

[doppelganger]

Grammar.

Problem solved.

 

[Revoltingest]

I must belong to The Militant Creationist League then.

Is that the one with Wonder Woman?

 

[nnmartin]

What is the last book you've read on biology, biochemistry, or some closely related field?

I did recently read 'The Blind Watchmaker' (Dawkins) - utter garbage.

He has the unique ability to turn what could be said in a short paragraph into a whole chapter. As usual - he gives no answers just vague probability statistics.

 

[nnmartin]

While mutations are randomly generated, the fitness function created by reproduction & survival created your guiding mechanism.

I would say that to be the other way around.

Random mutation and the evolution thus generated is part of a bigger picture.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did recently read 'The Divine Watchmaker' (Dawkins) - utter garbage.
He has the unique ability to turn what could be said in a short paragraph into a whole chapter. As usual - he gives no answers just vague probability statistics.

Perhaps you could debunk some of his arguments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did recently read 'The Divine Watchmaker' (Dawkins) - utter garbage.

How would you know?

 

[nnmartin]

Perhaps you could debunk some of his arguments.

Well for a start his whole book is just one monologue of general vague ramblings.

Every thing according to him is just by chance pure and simple , even the creation of DNA. He really is an incompetent buffoon.

How would you know?

He goes on to tell us that because the creation of DNA is not impossible to have occurred by chance then it is possible. What kind of a thesis statement is that?

 

[Revoltingest]

He really is an incompetent buffoon.

I guess that settles it.

 

[doppelganger]

I did recently read 'The Divine Watchmaker' (Dawkins) - utter garbage.

He has the unique ability to turn what could be said in a short paragraph into a whole chapter. As usual - he gives no answers just vague probability statistics.

Read real philosophers on the subject. And no, Josh McDowell does not count.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There are plenty of lame attempts at refuting irreducible complexity ...

"We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Ruling, Judge John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District





Behe's argument from incredulity fails time and time again.

 

[fantome profane]

I am not saying it is God, but it seems as if DNA has some self organising mechanism.

Natural selection is a "self-organizing mechanism".

I did recently read 'The Divine Watchmaker' (Dawkins) - utter garbage.

I doubt you read it very carefully or thoughtfully. You didn't even read the title carefully enough.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He really is an incompetent buffoon.

(Don't go there, JS. :no