Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as being irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses. The very structure of these systemswith their interdependent parts working all together or not at alldemands a non-Darwinian, non-chance, non-piecemeal origin.
A team of evolutionary molecular biologists thinks it may have refuted this concept of irreducible complexity. In a recent study, the researchers focused on a specific cellular machine involved in protein transport and claimed that it was indeed reducible to its component parts. But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Nothing ironic about it. There's no contradiction between a belief in God and a belief in evolution.
God could have created the universe to evolve, couldn't He ?
If “creationism seems possible”, how can you turn around and rule out biblical creation in the same breath? Is there some sort of partisan prejudice driving you to seemingly contradict yourself, or do you have evidence that biblical creation is not true?
Bachelor of science in chemistry, Truman State University, which included undergraduate research involving the synthesis of N-methylbenzohydroxamates and the subsequent investigation of the effect of substituent variation on their nucleophilicity via the α-effect by electrochemical and NMR methods, and the correlation with single electron characteristics in reaction transition state.
Master of science in chemistry with an emphasis on synthetic organic chemistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; completed my thesis on the synthesis, characterisation, and structural interpretation of novel 1,3,4-oxadiazole bearing bent-core liquid crystals.
Have worked in the pharmaceutical industry since grad school, working on a wide range of research projects that include the synthesis and conjugation of insulin-bearing PEG conjugates; the development and synthesis of novel small molecule pharmaceutical candidates; the development of differential scanning calorimetry methods for the testing of pharmaceutical compounds; and the development of large-scale column chromatographic methods for the purification of proteinaceous vaccine components derived from genetically engineered microorganisms.
And, I am able to spell the phrase "bona fides."
So what are yours?
Of course that begs the question, "Have we found one?" Common sense runs into reality.
An arch is a beautiful thing, mechanically strong and efficient, and removing any one part of it causes it to collapse. If I were so inclined I would say it was designed upon seeing one, yet we see such arches created by natural processes. My conclusion is that complexity is often in the eye of the beholder.
Would be interesting, except that the theory doesn't put forth evolution as completely random.
LOL. Look in the mirror.
And what is your scientific background?
“Please cite who [quote] FreeRepublic scientists [unquote] might be.”
To who, then, did you address your warning and what was your fear?
I believe he did in post#43. Mine is available in my bio page.
Sorry, didn’t read your post above. So your an organic chmist, not a biologist. Just as I don’t know squat about what you work on, you don’t know squat about cell biology.
While I certainly find it plausible that you don't know squat about what I work on, you would be incorrect in assuming that I don't know anything about cell biology. Especially since my present position deals with GM microorganisms.
No problem. Most evolutionary scientists believe in God.
I've never seen such an arch naturally created and neither have you. There are cut outs in rock, but that is hardly an arched structure of independent aligned stones dependent upon a perfectly place keystone. Manmade arches are supported during construction by other bracing, precisely because the parts won't stay in place until they are all in position. What would you conclude upon seeing the equivalent of the Arch de Triumph on Mars? That it was naturally occurring? Its statistically impossible to disprove.
GGG -
I have some serious questions for true ID’ers. I’ve asked them on other ID threads but everyone seems to point back to biblical creation rather than sticking to “true” ID.
Do you know of any here?? Someone who will explain things from an ID perspective and not interject phrases like “Before the Fall,” or “God?”
I forgot to mention that it was found inside of 2 million year old sedimentary rock.
But, but, you don’t have a Ph.D.! Kent Hovind has one, so he’s more believable.
There are numerous natural arches formed by the subsurface weathering of the strata, collapsed caves or sinkholes which leave the more solid ridge intact. Google up some natural arches and you’ll find some great photos.
Yeah, I know, it's my fault for being suckered into the job market at a time when it was uber-hot.
Gaah! Even though you said it in jest the old value argument of MS vs PhD is still irksome. I think TQC will verify that we of the Masters level do as much of the physical, mental and report/grant/budget writing as a PhD. The only functional difference is the starting salary that a dissertation can earn you over our “poor misunderstood” thesis.
True....but all the same, I think there's a bit more complexity involved in a manufactured archway than there is in a naturally-occurring one. Complexity involves more than just surface appearance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.