Time to Give It Up [Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity]

Seed Magazine ^ | 4/10/06 | Britt Peterson

[ECM]

Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh...

*Note: feel free to attack me Darwin-bots, but I'm not buying (and the usual disclaimer: I am not pro-creationism.)

[Junior]

Ping.

[bkepley]

Make sure you post this at least once a day for the next month I guess. We have feeble memories.

[Coyoteman]

Darwin-bots...

That is a pretty rude greeting to fellow freepers with whom you may simply disagree.

You want macro-evolution? Here are some examples. I assume you will reject them, but others may find them more acceptable.

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[NonLinear]

This cross-generational partnership is made possible, Thornton explained, by the similarity in form between aldosterone and the ancient hormone that once partnered with the receptor.

"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.

So a hormone-receptor pair evolved because the hormone can bind with the receptor of a previous hormone-receptor pair.

And so that hormone-receptor pair must have evolved because the earlier hormone can bind with the receptor of a previous hormone-receptor pair.

"Why, it's turtles all the way down, of course."

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 360 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"*Note: feel free to attack me Darwin-bots, but I'm not buying (and the usual disclaimer: I am not pro-creationism.)"

Such a lovely personality.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

This is a good example of the lack of objectivity of scientists who are predisposed to believe evolutionary theory. And creationists are also guilty of the same type of thinking at times. It is the human condition.

They "deduced" something that existed (supposedly) 450 million years ago using computers. They they whipped up some in the lab - "this ancient thing". Then they find that a modern day hormone complements it.

The level of presupposition is huge. The reliance on computers to make up something is staggering.

And voila! we've "proved" that there is no irreducible complexity is not a valid argument.

Believe it if you will. I find it unconvincing. We are now making up facts through "scientific method" and using made up facts to support a belief.

I know it will be accepted hook line and sinker around here by committed evolutionists, but I dont' find it convincing. I believe this is a human foible. It recurs over and over in these postings.

ampu

[Logophile]

However, a paper published in the April 7th issue of Science provides the first experimental proof that "irreducible complexity" is a misnomer, and that even the most complex systems come into being through Darwinian natural selection.

Mathematicians do proofs; experimentalists obtain observations or data.

An experiment can disprove a theory, or it can provide data that is consistent with a theory. But it cannot "prove" a theory to be true.

[AntiGuv]

It's been about time to give it up since around 147 years ago.

[jec41]

placemarker

[muir_redwoods]

"Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh... "

I'll be happy to educate you. Tuition is $20K a semester. I'll get back to you when your check clears.

[Mr Rogers]

I haven't been so shaken in my beliefs since Brian Williams announced that Jesus had actually walked on ice covering the Sea of Galilee.

This does NOT, in any way, solve irreducible complexity. It is equivalent to claiming you found a bolt in the car that could be used with a nut in a different location, and this therefor shows how fuel injection evolved from carburetors...

[Filo]

Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...

Just show me planetary formation in a lab. Just show me the big bang in a lab. Just show me. . .

Well, anything you don't want to believe in, really.

Serious cop out, but what the heck, eh?

[manwiththehands]

Thornton and his co-investigators used computational methods ...

I can make a computer say anything I want it to say.

"Computational methods". Programs don't write themselves. And this isn't the first time pro-evo's tried to foist computer "simulations" to "prove" evolution.

Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon. Or at least that's what I learned in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL science class.

Leave computer simulations to Michael Crichton when he writes his next novel.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon."

That automatically rules out ID.

[eddie2]

You dare doubt the authority of a Computer?

I keep wondering how a single cell with three billion bites of information evloved so quickly. I mean at one mutation per year your looking at three biilon years. That sounds like a mighty fast rate of mutate.

[VadeRetro]

You seem unusually defensive for someone who's in the thread on post 2. Especially when you claim to have no preordained issues.

[VadeRetro]

I doubt you can expect that Nobel Prize just yet. The mutation rate for unicellulars is usually a lot better than 1 per day, much less 1 per year. We're talking about organisms that in many cases tend to divide every few minutes.

And then you have that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And then you have that lots of experiments are going on in parallel with the best out-competing the rest.

Your model doesn't look very realistic.