Find the natural explanation.(and that explanation will not be a "just so story")
To PSS.. Your Yockey comment seems to have been answered by GGG in post 18, but your "interpretation" of Kirschner and Gerhart's work as "a modification and explanation of how the steps occurred!" of Darwin needs to be addressed. A modification lacking any description as to its extent can be pretty big. I would say that the modification guts Darwin. For many years now, I have posted this article by Dr. James Shapiro, A 21st Century View of evolution. Each time I posted it, the same response came from the Darwinists, they ignored or belittled it. Well, Kirschner and Gerhart's book contains a spitting image of Dr. Shapiro's arguments. So it leads me to believe that the Darwinist's novel embracing of the ideas behind Dr. Shapiro's arguments are an admission of the stark inadequacy of the neo-Darwinist paradigm. To give you an idea of how Dr. Shapiro fits into the scheme of things, here is something he wrote for the "Boston Review", A Third Way.
A further indication of the thinking of Dr. Shapiro is that he willingly and happily participated in an online conversation concerning his ideas on the ISCID(International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design) site whose fellows are the intelligent design ogres in the Darwinists minds. Here, How molecular biology opens up a 21st Century view of evolution.
Finally, K and G, if quoted correctly, still admit that Darwinism is inadequate to explain the genesis of the required elements of this new "vision",
QUOTE
‘… evolvability … is the greatest adaptation of all … Variation is facilitated largely because so much novelty is available in what is already possessed by the organism’ (pp. 252, 273). ‘The theory of facilitated variation opens up a new set of questions about the origins of the conserved core processes … [they] may have emerged together as a suite, for we know of no organism today that lacks any part of the suite. … The most obscure origination of a core process is the creation of the first prokaryotic cell. The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world of today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved’ (pp. 253, 256).
END QUOTE
The implication apparently being that, if lacking the core elements, the original cell could not have survived and therefore it could not have evolved into being.(a little bag of chemicals not being sufficient for life)
For more on Shapiro,
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.APS.augmented.pdf
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf
For more on evolvability...Evolvability
I will try to read Shapiro tomorrow. Thanks for the links!
PS Shapiro went on ISCID? He’s not an IDer is he?
"Find the natural explanation."
This is a rather vague standard. When should a scientist stop looking for a natural explanation and announce that the answer is magic?
That ISCID site is quite a site- got some pretty intelligent minds over there- Their discussions are a breath of fresh air compared to ones here on FR where the Darwinists offer nothign but insults as witnessed by Natufian’s post further down. They actually dig into hte meat of issues, and for hte most part agree to dissagree when they can’t reach agreement on issues. While I don’t agree with some of the ‘evolution + ID’ beliefs of some of hte members there, it’s again, a great site to discover hte underlying biological mechanics of many issues we discuss here on FR
[[The implication apparently being that, if lacking the core elements, the original cell could not have survived and therefore it could not have evolved into being.(a little bag of chemicals not being sufficient for life)]]
That is PRECISELY the point brought up in William’s article on “Life’s Irreducible Structures’- without metainformation present, there is no possible way single cells could utilize additional information ‘gained’ by mutation (not that mutaitons cause ‘gain’, but we’re being generous and allowing the evos the idea that mutations ‘in hte past’ caused all manner of ‘gains’ of information- and as Williams points out, once again, without ther being a system of metainformaiton present FIRST, any ‘gain’ in info is useless and disruptive- and coutnerproductive, and NOT conducive to macroevolution as Evos insist it was ‘sometime i nthe past’ (despite htere being any present evidence or demonstratable evidence that mutaitons could ‘add informaiton’ somethign that would be absolutely necessary for hypothesis of macroevolution)
So what they are saying is that is too complex and difficult for us to understand or try to explain so that means that God did it.
Nice try lots of big words however that still fails to answer a very simple question that I asked.
Please explain in detail how you would falsify that statement?