Posted on 11/16/2009 6:19:30 PM PST 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 irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies. The very structure of these systems--with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all--demands design, not chance.
Nevertheless, a team of evolutionary molecular biologists think they may have refuted irreducible complexity. They recently studied the parts of a particular cellular machine involved in protein transport, claiming that it was actually reducible to its component parts...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
The argument for irreducible complexity does not need to be addressed or explained using evolutionary thinking....it stands on it own or it does not.
Outside the ICR echo chamber...it does not.
What a relief. The evos say it wasn’t so, and it wasn’t.
I’m so glad that they are here to enlighten us and be the FINAL WORD on everything and all things.
Where would be be without evos to set us straight?
Interpretations based on worldviews fall into the philosophical realm, which many deny exists in science, but nevertheless does.
That we observe a bunch of storks about the same time a bunch of babies are born does not establish a causal relationship.
And yet the historical sciences – whether evolution, archeology, anthropology, paleontology or Egyptology – all of them do just that (declare a correlation to be a causation) in coping with a spotty historical record. If every creature that ever lived left a complete record of itself, there would be less story telling.
Truly, among the historical sciences the principle is that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
And yet in the hard sciences, e.g. biology, chemistry, physics – the reverse is true, “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
The two principles stand in opposition to each other.
And for that reason it is inappropriate to superimpose the microbiologists’ findings in the laboratory onto the paleontologists’ observations in the dig.
Or to put it another way, there is no finding in the microbiologists’ laboratory which can falsify an alternative explanation for the paleontologists’ observations, e.g. God the Creator, panspermia (alien seeding,) collective consciousness, Gaia.
And so the evolutionist may think he is being objective by declaring variation plus natural selection as the explanation for the paleontologists’ observation. But as you say, it is not objective at all but rather a presupposition of naturalism, i.e. methodological naturalism.
It is philosophy.
It’s not “evos”....it’s molecular biologists and biochemists that took a look at the evidence presented, laughed about it, then produced a function of a sub-structure of the claimed irreducible structures. You know...real scientists doing real science.
The text of the research articles are apparently too technical or difficult to find. Google must be freakin’ broken in the ICR echo chamber.
Claim: The sub-units of structure X have no function, they are (make up a term) “irreducibly complex.”
Fact: Sub-unit of structure X has a function on its own.
Theory FAIL
That you will ignore the fact is irrelevant to the failure of the theory outside the echo chamber.
You mean scientists that are supposedly considered intelligent designing experiments to demonstrate that they can assemble something complex?
And in what way does this invalidate the concept of an intelligent designer designing something?
Science has NOT disproved that there was intelligence or design behind the order and complexity that we see in the universe.
It has not disproved the creation account in the Bible.
The naturalistic materialistic philosophy argues against it, but that is not disproving it either.
My comment was in regards to your response in post 100 to MB about dinosaurs living at the same time as humans.
This one that you made......."Man had no description of dinosaurs 5000 years ago because there were no dinosaurs 5000 years ago. Something “big” with a “big tail” written in a story book is not a dinosaur."
Now, when did microbiologists take a look at the evidence and produce a function of a sub-structure that addressed your comment about dinos living 5,000 years ago?
Is that the kind of relevant science that they are working on?
Story book? Something man made up?
Like Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"?
Very enjoyable post! Have you ever planted an garden? It's interesting to consider food bearing plants compared to weeds. Evolution would seem to be entirely selfish so why in the world would a tomato or a carrot or a potato evolve. They spend all of their energy making very nutricious fruits that do them no good at all. Compare that to the weeds that grow along with the plants. If you don't keep up with the weeds the food bearing plants don't have a chance. Why would a plant bother to evolve that way? Weeds have all the advantages. They do now work in the sense of bearing fruit, they spend all of their energy in laying around, sucking up all the nutrients and sunlight and reproducing. They seem to be all genetalia in a plant sense. Kind of reminds you of some people doesn't it. Evolution would favor them and destroy plants that bear fruit.
You claiming "scientists" are the Creationist "God"? No, I mean scientists finding function where IC/ID says there can be no function....you know, what I said not what you want to think I said. Strawmen abound!
And in what way does this invalidate the concept of an intelligent designer designing something?
It does not because that was not what was claimed. There is no need to scientifically invalidate something that has not been scientifically validated....claiming "God did it" does not scientifically validate that "God did it" in order for someone else to waste their time in generating science that says that "God did not do it." Don't have to disprove that which is not proven.
Science has NOT disproved that there was intelligence or design behind the order and complexity that we see in the universe
That claim was not made. Science has disproved the evidence provided for irreducible complexity. Strawmen abound!!
It has not disproved the creation account in the Bible.
It has not and that claim has not been made. Science has disproved the twisting of science used to attempt to prove the account of creation in the Bible, nothing more.
They did not. Microbiologists provided evidence to disprove irreducible complexity in flagella....IC FAIL!
Never not once in the history of books has there ever been embellishment of any kind on any page.....ever.
I notice the book also mentions dragons multiple times. That does not mean that dragons ever actually existed.
Changing the subject to something else does not make a large vegetarian big-tailed animal a dinosaur.
Well, a Darwinist would argue that apples (for instance) evolved so that some animal would come along, eat them, and then eject the seeds a day or two later, perhaps miles away. That wouldn’t work with the kinds of seeds that animals deliberately ate for food and thus destroyed, but if animals could be fooled into eating the fruit and incidentally carrying the seed to new fertile ground without being aware of it, it would help the plant to spread. Beneficial for all concerned.
Then different kinds of apple trees would compete to see which could produce the best tasting and most popular variety.
Of course, God would do the same thing, for the benefit of both trees and apples, so this Darwinist theory doesn’t displace the story about the origin of different plants that bear seeds and fruit in Genesis. In fact, I suspect that this theory can explain why apples would get bigger and better over time (and much more quickly when humans started breeding them) but it doesn’t really explain how they came about in the first place.
Excellent analysis, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you so very much for the outstanding essay/post!
Projecting [a big vegetarian animal] a little bit are we?! I don’t recall any mention of them being vegetarians only. Maybe it would be too close to home for you if they are meat-eaters
So all the accounts from history about dragons are just make-believe too [ in your no-so-humble opinion anyways]?
Wonder if, after several centuries pass, the historians will look upon evolution as make believe fairy tales too. That would be poetic justice w/ a little irony.
Projecting [a big vegetarian animal] a little bit are we?! I don’t recall any mention of them being vegetarians only. Maybe it would be too close to home for you if they are meat-eaters
So all the accounts from history about dragons are just make-believe too [ in your no-so-humble opinion anyways]?
Wonder if, after several centuries pass, the historians will look upon evolution as make believe fairy tales too. That would be poetic justice w/ a little irony.
Projecting [a big vegetarian animal] a little bit are we?! I don’t recall any mention of them being vegetarians only. Maybe it would be too close to home for you if they are meat-eaters
So all the accounts from history about dragons are just make-believe too [ in your no-so-humble opinion anyways]?
Wonder if, after several centuries pass, the historians will look upon evolution as make believe fairy tales too. That would be poetic justice w/ a little irony.
They were not meat eaters. The Bible says they "eateth grass as an ox." Here I thought you knoew what you were talking about.
So all the accounts from history about dragons are just make-believe too
No, all the fairy tales about dragons are just make-beleive. There are no "accounts" of dragons in history, only manufactured stories of mythical fire-breathing flying beasts with little ole Man slaying them with pig stickers.
I don't believe in the boogy-man, tooth fairy, santa claus, or the Z-monster ever existed either.
Glad you recognize Darwin's work as a book of stories. Which book is it that mentions big, vegetarian animals with big tails?
Seems to me that there isn't really a lack of evidence about what could be dinosaurs; just a lack of evidence that evos are willing to consider, and consider valid.
And the catch is, is anything that is problematic for the ToE is dismissed off hand; it's just written of as not *real* evidence.
Nothing will ever be found to disprove the ToE in evos eyes, because nothing will ever be allowed that will disprove it.
Very convenient.
Another aha moment. Earlier I said:
“I don’t recall any mention of them being vegetarians only. Maybe it would be too close to home for you if they are meat-eaters.”
You assumed I meant the Bible [I did} and you ignored the “I don’t recall” sentence beginning which just goes to show why evolutionary thinking is so muddled what with all the assumptions and ignoring words or phrases that clarify the intent of the author.
‘Lighten up Francis!!!’ :’) Just having a little fun with you ES.
I've read lots of books, some having dinosaurs in them. Jurrasic Park was pretty cool, but that doesn't mean dinosaurs are currently alive on an island.
DO tell of all this evidence of dinosaurs from 4400 years ago. One passing mention of a large vegetarian animal in a particular story in a book is no more evidence of dinosaurs living 4400 years ago than a quarter under my pillow and a missing tooth is evidence of the tooth fairy. Something stirred up some river mud....must've been a 50 ton dinosaur.
When you can't provide evidence that dinosaurs existed 4400 years ago...do the usual by making random accusations about something or someone else.
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.