Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Preadaptation: A Blow to Irreducible Complexity?
ACTS & FACTS ^ | November 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; bible; biology; catholic; cellbiology; christian; christianity; christianright; creation; darwin; darwiniacs; darwinism; dna; evangelical; evolution; evoreligionexposed; god; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; molecularbiology; notasciencetopic; politics; preadaption; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; spammer; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-183 next last
To: tongass kid

I just noted that google shows where you get your quotes. You just regurgitate from the creation websites.


141 posted on 11/18/2009 9:56:20 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

I have not regurgitate or quoted any web page.


142 posted on 11/18/2009 10:08:09 PM PST by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: tongass kid
My recent post is an accurate representation of the several creation websites recently visited.
143 posted on 11/18/2009 10:08:17 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tongass kid

I find it hard to believe that you do not frequent the creationists’ websites.


144 posted on 11/18/2009 10:11:29 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Please provide the address that you believe was quoted and we can then do a comparative analysis. A web search of recapitulation theory brings up numerous web pages and some are creation and many are non creation sites. What is the big deal? The information is accurate and you do not wish to dispute it.
145 posted on 11/18/2009 10:16:44 PM PST by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: csense
"you gave readers the potential impression that you were speaking from authority,"

I simply stated the truth, I didn't claim it as my own. Definitions are definitions. It's pretty difficult to maintain the integrity of the definition if it is reworded. I suspect that you, like your mentor GGG, would have preferred that I make it up so long as I used my own words. You would have a whole lot more credibility if you showed equal concern when confabulated "Bravo Sierra" is posted. Since you you found it necessary to corroborate my post you; a) didn't agree with it, and b) found it substantiated.

146 posted on 11/18/2009 10:17:42 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: tongass kid

My recent post is accurate and I assume you agree with it because you do not dispute it.


147 posted on 11/18/2009 10:43:33 PM PST by ColdWater ("The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Ira_Louvin

So, you still say that animals change to become other than they are now, a different kind. Silliness.

A wolf into a chihuahua is possible because both are dogs. The genes for all the secialized forsm are present in the original, just bred for over the years. Specialization like that actually REMOVES genetic information from the animal.

While I do call small dogs rat-dogs, in amillion years, they will NOT mutate into rats, they will be dogs.

Show the common ancestor of the sheep and cow AND the intervening forms that common ancestor went through to differentiate into 2 separate and distinct animals, which CANNOT be interbred now.


148 posted on 11/19/2009 4:34:41 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

News Flash, God IS the Intelligent Designer. Praise God that that is true!

God designed all that is, intelligently and with purpose. And God (not some mysterious unknown designer) is NOT dead at all, but lives.

Take all your basic building blocks, in your primordial soup and jumble, mix, mash, mutate, rearrange, combine, recombine, react, and so on. There is noway, statistically to make it work that just exactly the correct, right, needed permutation of the elements, molecules come together and make life.

Life was designed, intelligently, by God.


149 posted on 11/19/2009 4:40:16 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

It’s no sham, nice try. For me at least, it is making the idea that you are a CREATED being (does that scare you?) a little more palatable to those who would deny the existence and presence of God.


150 posted on 11/19/2009 4:43:56 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
A wolf into a chihuahua is possible because both are dogs. The genes for all the secialized forsm are present in the original, just bred for over the years.

So are you saying a wolf has lots more genes than a dog? Do you have any evidence for that?

151 posted on 11/19/2009 8:19:25 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Cicero
Maybe they were predatory fish.
152 posted on 11/19/2009 8:30:51 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

Number of? Not what I was saying. But the Variablilty present in the original dogs has been bred down to specific traits.

Breeding for a ‘pure’ trait will remove the variability that was initially present. AND, in any case, it is still a dog.


153 posted on 11/19/2009 8:37:08 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
Number of? Not what I was saying.

You said "The genes for all the secialized forsm are present in the original." What did you mean by that, if not that the original had more genes than the specialized forms do? Where was the "variability that was initially present" stored, if not in the genes?

154 posted on 11/19/2009 9:21:12 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

OK, short version of this.

Male parent - traits for legs X= longer O = shorter

Female Parent - Same traits.

They BOTH have the vaiability to produce either shorter or longer legged offspring. Their offspring have the possibility of:

1 XX

2 XO

1 OO

If you are breeding for a shorter legged animal, you select those that are OO and breed them to produce the traits you wanted. In doing so, you have specialized them, removing the variability. There is NO more X trait, a net loss.


155 posted on 11/19/2009 9:32:12 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
They BOTH have the vaiability to produce either shorter or longer legged offspring. Their offspring have the possibility of:

So if all the chihuahua info is available in the wolf, and the traits combine as you say, how come we never see any chihuahua-sized or dachshund-shaped wolves?

156 posted on 11/19/2009 9:49:20 AM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

LOL, what kind of circular ‘logic’ are you using to form these questions? To paraphrase yours:

“If all the information for all of todays dog breeds was not present at some point in their wild ancestors, where did it come from?”


157 posted on 11/19/2009 10:27:25 AM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
“If all the information for all of todays dog breeds was not present at some point in their wild ancestors, where did it come from?”

Mutations and other genetic changes. Short version: wolf gene is STEP. A mutation changes that to STOP. New information, new breed.

158 posted on 11/19/2009 12:08:28 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

There is NOT a wolf gene, try again. A wolf is an organism that is composed of cells within which are MILLIONS(?) of genes.


159 posted on 11/19/2009 12:09:52 PM PST by RoadGumby (Ask me about Ducky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
There is NOT a wolf gene, try again. A wolf is an organism that is composed of cells within which are MILLIONS(?) of genes.

Now you're just being evasive. I was using an example along the lines of your #155. Let me expand it a little and see if you can follow it:

You posited a trait for long legs, X.

Let's let the word STEP represent the gene that controls that trait.

A small mutation in that gene turns it into a new word, STOP. Presto, new information. And maybe STOP turns out to control the trait for short legs.

You asked me where the information would come from. A process something like that is where the theory of evolution says it would come from. And mutations of that general sort have been observed many times.

Now, you insist that all the information necessary to make a chihuahua is already in the wolf. Where is it, if it's not in additional genes, and why does it never make a chihuahua-sized wolf?

160 posted on 11/19/2009 1:17:05 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-183 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson