David M
Well-Known Member
Thats pretty funny coming from someone who just said "improbable that they all happened by chance" without providing any statistics.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Irreducible complexity exists - cannot be refuted
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
Thats pretty funny coming from someone who just said "improbable that they all happened by chance" without providing any statistics.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
That one I don't know; but I've read his 'The Blind Watchmaker', and it's pretty good. Perhaps you should give it a try.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Your inability and/or unwillingness to understand evolutionary theory makes neither the theory of evolution invalid, nor irreducible complexity valid. Additionally, when lay people attempt to criticize the knowlege and work of experts, the results are terribly embarrassing.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Which is claimed by exactly no-one.
Well ,except you, that is... :sarcastic
Mate, everything has self-organising mechanisms...
It's called the laws of physics.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
A couple of points....
1) Evolution has been about more than Darwin for nearly a century. Science progresses over time.
2) DNA organizes itself based on chemistry.
3) I doubt you read a book who's title you can't remember... but if you did, you would know that evolution isn't simply random chance. Mutation is random, but Natural Selection is not.
4) there is no evidence for irreducible complexity. Every irreducible system proposed has a less complex and thus more reduced forerunner already in existence.
wa:do
1) Evolution has been about more than Darwin for nearly a century. Science progresses over time.
2) DNA organizes itself based on chemistry.
3) I doubt you read a book who's title you can't remember... but if you did, you would know that evolution isn't simply random chance. Mutation is random, but Natural Selection is not.
4) there is no evidence for irreducible complexity. Every irreducible system proposed has a less complex and thus more reduced forerunner already in existence.
wa:do
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Let me just clear this noise with just two videos. One is about 7 minutes long and the other is about 10. Both are from very respected biologist and both of them refuting Michael Behe's notion of IC.
This is what Behe said while testifying....
“any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition is nonfunctional” (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/4:Whether ID Is Science Page 74 of 139)
[youtube]m2alpk8PUd4[/youtube]
Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked.flv - YouTube
[youtube]a_5FToP_mMY[/youtube]
Irreducible Complexity? The Bacterial Flagellum - YouTube
Now that we got that out of the way...what else do you have..?
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
Natural selection is not chance. The selection criteria are very strict: Each organism must live long enough to reproduce, and the cumulative rate of reproduction must be more offspring than necessary to replace the current population.
Now that you understand this basic principle, I'm sure you will realise the error of your assertions lol.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
The opposite of "impossible" is what, then, according to you?
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
True, but it's far from being a complete mystery... it certainly isn't a big enough gap to squeeze a deity into.
wa:do
Matthew78
aspiring biblical scholar
Okay. Which attempts at refuting Behe's argument did you find lame? There are several so you have more than one to choose from.
Vague reasons? Such as?
What do you mean by "put together"?
Can you cite a source on "arch theory" so I can know you're representing it correctly?
What kind of answers are you looking for? There's plenty more to evolution than just Darwin. Even Darwin's ideas have been modified over time. Darwin got the main theory of evolution right-desecent with modification as a result of natural selection combined with random variation-but many of the subsequent details have been modified by later research. This happens all the time.
If it helps to understand better, Newton derived a mathematical formula to describe the universal law of gravitation. Now physics has evolved far beyond Newton, but, his formula is still useful and research has modified our ideas about how gravitation works. Newton got some things right and other things wrong. Ditto with Darwin. Darwin got some ideas right and some ideas wrong.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
The laws of physics - yes!
Organisms evolve into more complex structures due to the laws of physics as well as Darwin. Why do insects, DNA, plants and people just happen to be symmetrical? It's not just random chance - it is directed by the force of nature - the cosmic order.
Why do particles strive for perfection - it seems as if DNA does not stop evolving until its intrinsic inner coding mechanism has reached its full potential. This cannot just be due to chance - but in accordance with the eternal guiding Force.
I agree with this point.
DNA follows a self-organising pattern - not by random chance.
It follows the laws of physics as determined by the Force of the Universe.
Last edited:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Symmetry is efficient but not all living things are symmetrical. Even symmetrical organisms aren't perfectly symmetrical. Humans aren't.
wa:do
wa:do
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
There is a section towards the end of Dawkins' book that describes his 'arch' theory. He even admits that the odds of this happening are too high to count it as a serious scientific proposal. He just concludes that it could be 'possible'.
nnmartin
Well-Known Member
Let us have a look at some Quantum Bio Physics to debunk the myth of random happenings:
..initial experiments performed by John Cairns, incubated E. coli cells that were unable to grow on lactose, on media containing lactose and on parallel media without lactose. If, as claimed by standard Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, mutations always occur randomly in relation to the direction of evolutionary change, then the same rate of mutation would be expected to be observed in both sets of cells. However, Cairns discovered that after a prolonged period of starvation, mutations that allowed the E. coli to utilise lactose increased in frequency. It appeared that the presence of lactose specifically enhanced mutations that allowed the cells to eat the lactose. The E. coli cell appeared to be able to direct its own mutations.
The ability of the living cell to measure the positions of fundamental particles within the DNA double helix will be determined by the composition of its environment, in this case, the presence of lactose. Lactose arms the quantum measuring devices of the cell, enabling it to measure the position of the DNA protons that (potentially) encode the beta galactosidase enzyme. The cell may then perform a dense series of measurements on the position of DNA bases that will perturb the dynamics of those protons. Quantum measurement may thereby cause adaptive mutations and drive evolution.’
- so we can see from this experiment that organisms/DNA may well have a way to direct their own evolution and random chance is not the driving principle.
So how do the quantum devices come into being in the first place - what gives them the power to know how to effect change?
Perhaps due to the mysterious Force as mentioned in other threads.
..initial experiments performed by John Cairns, incubated E. coli cells that were unable to grow on lactose, on media containing lactose and on parallel media without lactose. If, as claimed by standard Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, mutations always occur randomly in relation to the direction of evolutionary change, then the same rate of mutation would be expected to be observed in both sets of cells. However, Cairns discovered that after a prolonged period of starvation, mutations that allowed the E. coli to utilise lactose increased in frequency. It appeared that the presence of lactose specifically enhanced mutations that allowed the cells to eat the lactose. The E. coli cell appeared to be able to direct its own mutations.
The ability of the living cell to measure the positions of fundamental particles within the DNA double helix will be determined by the composition of its environment, in this case, the presence of lactose. Lactose arms the quantum measuring devices of the cell, enabling it to measure the position of the DNA protons that (potentially) encode the beta galactosidase enzyme. The cell may then perform a dense series of measurements on the position of DNA bases that will perturb the dynamics of those protons. Quantum measurement may thereby cause adaptive mutations and drive evolution.’
- so we can see from this experiment that organisms/DNA may well have a way to direct their own evolution and random chance is not the driving principle.
So how do the quantum devices come into being in the first place - what gives them the power to know how to effect change?
Perhaps due to the mysterious Force as mentioned in other threads.
Last edited:
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
You seem to be somewhat confused. :sarcastic
Evolution is a result of the laws of physics.
It does not exist beside or in addition to them.
First off, as has been pointet out, things aren't always symetrical, and even when they appear to be, once you look a bit deeper they often are not symetrical after all.
Secondly, the non-random element you are looking for has a name. It's called Natural Selection, not cosmic order, whatever that is.
You need to separate between particles, atoms and molecules. DNA would be an example of the last one. Also, they do not 'strive' for anything. They just follow, as mentioned before, the laws of physics and chemistry. Nobody claimed that it was due to chance. Quite the opposite. And if by 'guiding force' you mean the laws of physics and chemistry, then we agree. If you mean something else, I think you might need to elaborate somewhat.
What do you mean 'the force of the universe'? :sarcastic
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Redefining words is really the only refuge of evolution-deniers, I'm afraid.
E. Nato Difficile
Active Member
The problem is that the definition of irreducible complexity changes whenever someone attempts to refute it.
For the sake of argument, I'll accept that certain biological structures are "irreducibly complex" in the sense that Behe describes in Darwin's Black Box: they need all their parts to function. The human heart is a pump and valves, and if you take one away, it doesn't perform its function. Fine.
However, anti-evolutionists conveniently change the definition of irreducible complexity when it suits them, from "a system that needs all it parts to function" to "a system that can't evolve through a Darwinian mutation-selection process." In the biological world, hearts range from muscular tubes that push blood and nutrients to complex multi-chambered organs. The concept that the human heart couldn't conceivably have evolved from a simpler structure is one that no biologist would take seriously.
-Nato