Good article commenting on more junk science.
Posted on 01/23/2012 8:53:06 AM PST by fishtank
Study Finds Molecules Evolving in Wrong Direction
by Brian Thomas, M.S. | Jan. 23, 2012
Which is more complex—a typical man walking across a street, or a blind man carrying a legless man across the street?
The blind and legless partners are more complex simply because they have more interacting parts. But this increased complexity not only results in less functionality, it also doesn't provide any additional information about how sight and mobility could have originated.
Evolution is supposed to explain how complicated biological machines, such as legs and eyes, developed without an intelligent person to design and build them. A paper in Nature described one way nature may have added complexity to a biological machine. However, the study also showed how powerless natural processes are to generate complicated working machinery.1
Biologist Joe Thornton, University of Oregon professor and the study's senior author, has a laboratory with facilities dedicated to "reconstructing history with the experimental strategies of molecular biology and biochemistry to rigorously test hypotheses about the mechanisms of evolution," according to his university website.2
His latest attempt involved rebuilding hypothetical protein components of the ring-shaped base of a vital molecular machine called V-ATPase, which is found in yeast.3 The idea was that if his team could reconstruct "prior" versions of this protein, then they could put together a story explaining each evolutionary change that led to today's V-ATPase structure.
But the best they could do was to explain how it de-evolved. The version of V-ATPase found in today's yeast appeared to the researchers to be like the previously mentioned blind and legless men—damaged versions of an originally more effective V-ATPase.
The study authors wrote that because "losses occurred" in the history of V-ATPase, "the complexity of the ring increased," and that their study results "provide no evidence that VmaII [a V-ATPase protein component] evolved novel functions in addition to those that it inherited."1
In response to this research, biochemist and well-known critic of neo-Darwinian evolution Michael Behe told Evolution News:
The most glaringly obvious point is that, like the results of [evolutionary microbiologist Richard] Lenski's work [with 50,000 generations of a bacteria], this is evolution by degradation. All of the functional parts of the system were already in place before random mutation began to degrade them. Thus it is of no help to Darwinists, who require a mechanism that will construct new, functional systems.4
Behe also wrote:
One can say, if one wishes, that a congenitally blind man teaming up with a congenitally legless man to safely move around the environment is an increase in "complexity" over a sighted, ambulatory person. But it certainly is no improvement, nor does it give the slightest clue how vision and locomotion arose.4
So, even though today's version of V-ATPase might be more complex than the original version, it is not better, more efficient, or more effective.5 In fact, it only shows that natural processes like mutations degrade living systems—the opposite of evolution.
References
Finnigan, G. C. et al. Evolution of increased complexity in a molecular machine. Nature. Published online January 9, 2012, accessed January 13, 2012 Joe Thornton's Lab. University of Oregon. Posted on pages.uoregon.edu, accessed January 13, 2012. For ATPase information, see Thomas, B. 2009. ATP synthase: majestic molecular machine made by a mastermind. Creation. 31 (4): 21-23. Behe, M. A Blind Man Carrying a Legless Man Can Safely Cross the Street: Experimentally Confirming the Limits to Darwinian Evolution. Evolution News. Posted on evolutionnews.org January 11, 2012, accessed January 13, 2012. Thomas, B. 2008. More Than Just 'Complex.' Acts & Facts. 37 (12): 15.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Article posted on January 23, 2012.
Good article commenting on more junk science.
lol
Hey! Look, I know none of the equations, science, and evidence support atheistic evolution, but just throw in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 years to any argument, and Time becomes the wild card in the Sophistical game.
More complex still is a blind man carrying a legless man across a street while reading an article about it in braille. Unless the legless man read it, or maybe they both do. Need more research on that.
Give 500 monkeys 2000 typewriters all of eternity, and they still wouldn’t come up with the babble of evolution.
Not only is evolution not science, it’s also not logical. I know there aren’t any, but I’d like to see a single species observed to have “evolved” from one species into another new one. There’s not a single one. Because it doesn’t exist.
Very interesting but I’m not convinced by the logic. I assume that, like the combination of a legless and blind man, the molecules in question have become more complex and have continued to perform their original functions using a different configuration.
If such a thing were possible, I think a blind man and legless man merging together would indeed be more complex and might benefit by virtue of 2 brains, 2 personalities. 4 ears, 4 arms, etc.
It was, after all, their analogy.
Well, if you’re into logic, then you know that evolution isn’t logical. So that can end that conversation right there.
—would indeed be more complex and might benefit by virtue of 2 brains, 2 personalities. 4 ears, 4 arms, etc.—
But would it have been better? I understand that half of all two brained entities end up in divorce.
We don't observe God creating living things out of nothing in a flash. He takes his time. It took 13.7 billion years to create us.
Hey decimon, thought you might like to see this! :-)
Please, please go away, creationists.
You are making we educated Christians look almost as stupid as liberals and Muslims.
If you insist on the earth only being around 4k years old, you may as well also decide that the earth is only one second old, and we’ve just been imprinted with our memories.
I have lots of questions about evolution, I also have logical questions about this article.
You mean two brained humans, lots of animals either pair for life or never pair.
If we use a married couple as the example you can add procreation and reduced expenses living together to the benefits. And following the divorce, one organism will probably end up better than before.
Well, the big difference between a married couple and a couple of animals is that the humans have human consciousness and are made in God’s image. They have free will, while the animals basically live off instinct.
It complicates things, as time has proven. ;)
Fair enough. But there is NO logic in the argument (theory) of evolution. Affirming the consequent means absolutely nothing, logically speaking.
Every Christian is a creationist, but not all creationists are “young earth” creationists. Intelligent design does not = youth earth creationism.
I have always thought that the Pterosaurs are proof of intelligent design. Here you have this creature with radically different design in limbs, joints and other attributes that just appears, bamb, on the scene perfectly adapted to fly. If you look at the mechanics of the wing and the body, the specialized finger bone, it is obvious that it was designed. I do believe in evolution but I don’t think it is the only force at work.
Exactly what I was thinking. Great album, btw.
I just realized that’s Chi Chi Rodriguez on the cover.
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.