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 ...
This is NOT a pro-creation thread. It is a pro-ID thread which makes it an anti-creation thread.
That reminds me. When are YOU going to answer the question?
Is God the Intelligent Designer?
You are shifting the goal posts. We were discussing the science of extrapolation which I posted at least three links.
According to Behe and the IDers, they came from the primordial soup.
Thank you for your encouragement, dear sister in Christ!
I simple understand the difference between science and religion, and your questions make it painfully obvious that you lack even a basic understanding of science.
So it is back to the misdirection, would not be easier just to answer the question?
So you cannot observe the fossils, or compare them to other fossils, or have them reviewed by other paleontologist to see if they come to the same conclusion?
This one:
"What quote mining would that be, Ira?"
Let’s take a look at the original text in the correct context, •
Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.
it would be the part that is in bold underlined text
Ira, the only question I see is the title of the article and the answer to that question is:
I don’t think so. I really don’t need to argue for irreducible complexity to agree Darwinism is false.
Negative to that ColdWater. You see, ID is the camels nose method of saying that Creation is what happened. Christians can not have Creation taught, so it gets rebadged, “Intelligent Design” is more palatable, as it sidesteps, for now, the idea that God was involved. Not anti-Creation at all, but thanks for your concern.
Extrapolation is not science, no shifting here. Extrapolation is a mathematical function. sorry.
Yes, yes, I am but an ignorant man in sack cloth. You have no knowledge of me beyond what is written here. I have a great understanding and love for science. Discovery can be fun, learning is great, knowledge is good.
I do understand the limits of science also, it is not the be-all, end-all of knowledge. The blind, lemming-like love for the Theory of evolution is breath-taking at times. Science can NOT explain the origin of life itself, much less the origin of any species.
That is, beyond the formulation of a non-verifiable Theory. All any one of who espouse Creation or Intelligent Design say is “Show Me”. Show the intermediate form of animal that points to ‘evolution’. Can’t do it, they aren’t there. Do not confuse adaptation with evolution. They are different.
One is a form change, but the animal is still what it is. You can breed for a beefier cow, but it is still a cow. That cow will not ever be or produce a precursosr to a sheep.
Science is but a tool, not a religion. Be not blind to its limitations.
My question stands. Unanswered. Why do you stand and point at Gods word and effectively say, “You Lie!”?
Yeah you’re prabably right... /s
Except that you have no explanation for mankind having any description of dinosaurs around 5,000 years ago.
I think you and Kozak should get together and maybe refine your evolution explanations. Evolution descriptions [just-so stories] are as lacking as those pictures saying that a led to b led to c, d, and finally e.
The argument for irreducile complexity has never been truly addressed by these stories in that to change from one kind to the other with lots of ‘beneficial’ mutations the bacteria or organ would first have to be rendered completely useless before enough good changes happened to make it more highly functional.
Missed the point, as usual.
I never said anything about not being able to observe the fossils.
While examining fossils and analyzing them for chemical composition, physiological structure, etc, is science, interpretations are not.
Interpretations based on worldviews fall into the philosophical realm, which many deny exists in science, but nevertheless does.
Working from the no God, not intelligence, naturalistic materialism POV, one could conclude (rightly or not) that they evolved from each other based on similarities.
But based on similarities, coming from a worldview that posits a creator, one could just as easily see common design in the fossil record.
The decision that the similarities indicates evolution and common descent is a philosophical one because while variation within species has been observed, the kinds of major changes claimed by the ToE have never been observed. They are only assumed, extrapolated, if you will.
Whether you consider evolution to be the most logical explanation or not, the fact is it has not been observed and therefore does not fall into the category of the criteria of science. Logic is philosophy.
“The argument for irreducile complexity has never been truly addressed.”
Only in your mind.
In areas spanning the globe and geographically isolated from each other no less.
But that evidence doesn't count, dontcha know, because it's not *real science*.
Evos have decided that no dinos could have ever existed at the same time as man. Period. End of story.
That makes it fact just like the ToE is a "fact" (they think).
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.
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.