Replies

It's actually not a bad argument, as their arguments go -- at least it's half right, which is 50% more than most -- although irreducible complexity is probably their best argument. Darwin himself admitted the theory falls if you can produce a structure than can't be reached by incremental changes; of course he would have to admit that, since, after all, the production of a counterexample is always sufficient refutation of a theory. The problem with irreducible complexity is in proving irreducibility. They usually just point to complexity and say, "see, too complex." None of their counterexamples have really held up. It's not even clear how you prove irreducibility, so they've taken to "improbably" complex. That makes the bar a lot lower. Still not convincing.

The funniest thing I've seen on this thread is a claim that the conversion of mass from energy is somehow a violation of the Second Law. It's almost as st00pid as that cartoon where the kid explodes the professor's head by "proving" that atoms can't exist because the protons repel each other. I have seen that one as recently as ten years ago. Hilarious.

No need for the scare quotes around "force" when talking about gravity, BTW. That really is a force.

I agree with you. I was just a little worried that you were losing your sense of humor, and I was just trying to look out for you.

Keep up the good work, and keep the laughs coming

although irreducible complexity is probably their best argument

The very first living organism had to have
1. The ability to live and
2. The ability to reproduce.

It seems to me that this is the ultimate challenge of irreducible complexity.

An article in Scientific America talks to this dilemma:
"We started with trillions of random RNA sequences. Then we selected the ones that had catalytic properties, and we made copies of those. At each round of copying some of the new RNA strands underwent mutations that turned them into more efficient catalysts, and once again we singled those out for the next round of copying. By this directed evolution we were able to produce ribozymes that can catalyze the copying of relatively short strands of other RNAs, although they fall far short of being able to copy polymers with their own sequences into progeny RNAs."

"we made copies" and "directed evolution" sounds a lot like Creation.

The Origin of Life on Earth