Replies

This complexity is found in many things. In fact, the making of a single protein is in itself an irreducibly complex mechanism and requiring many different parts of an organism to work together....Then because of introns, you need to tell the RNA what part of the gene to use for the protein and what not. You also need another part of the organism to tell the gene when to start producing protein, when to stop, and how much to make at any given time

Let me stop you right here. Not all genes have introns. Therefore, that part isn't irreducible. Nor are all genes regulated; some gene expression is constitutive. So that's also not irreducible. Even in the complex machinery of a eukaryotic cell, some parts sometimes simply aren't used all the time.

How reducible is the system? Well, no-one knows. RNA molecules substitute for DNA as carriers of the genetic code. They also can do enzymatic functions. We've evolved complexity over time, and even the simplest organisms are more likely degenerate versions of more complex predecessors, rather than remnants of ancestral primitiveness. But to say this complexity must always have been there is silly; one might as well argue that because brains are crucial to humans, no organism can exist without a brain.

But to say this complexity must always have been there is silly; one might as well argue that because brains are crucial to humans, no organism can exist without a brain.

What is more complex; your brain, the solar system, or even the entire Milky Way? What knows more about the other?
A human brain packs ten trillion cells… (this is what they call in the FBI – a ‘clue’)

Let me stop you right here. Not all genes have introns. Therefore, that part isn't irreducible. Nor are all genes regulated; some gene expression is constitutive. So that's also not irreducible. Even in the complex machinery of a eukaryotic cell, some parts sometimes simply aren't used all the time.

I did not say that all the above occur in all cases, but they do occur in most cases. In fact, that there are exceptions to almost any rule in the organism is indeed a sign of the complexity which cannot be accounted for by any materialist explanation. The fact that proteins are used only when needed is part of the complexity and part of the need for a strong regulatory mechanism. The regulatory mechanism needs to be so strong in fact that the source of many cancers spreading is the production of too much of a protein which regulates the duplication of cells.

We've evolved complexity over time, and even the simplest organisms are more likely degenerate versions of more complex predecessors, rather than remnants of ancestral primitiveness.

That's a very silly argument for an evolutionist to make. You are arguing for DEvolution not evolution now! Shows the desperation of evolutionists in the face of what modern science has found. Every single function of the human organism both affects and is affected by other parts of the organism. It is utterly impossible to randomly throw in a new function because like in a jigsaw puzzle every piece has to fit exactly where it belongs.

How reducible is the system? Well, no-one knows. RNA molecules substitute for DNA as carriers of the genetic code. They also can do enzymatic functions. We've evolved complexity over time, and even the simplest organisms are more likely degenerate versions of more complex predecessors, rather than remnants of ancestral primitiveness. But to say this complexity must always have been there is silly; one might as well argue that because brains are crucial to humans, no organism can exist without a brain.

Or more ironically, given that we're all conservatives here: There are companies that are cash-only, but if you removed the checking system, our modern free market economy would collapse. Likewise if you removed the gas stations, our modern free market economy would collapse. If you removed the gas-powered vehicles, our modern free market economy would collapse. If you removed the computer industry, our modern free market economy would collapse.

According to ID logic the conclusion is obvious: The Communists were right. Complex modern economies must be designed; they cannot evolve on their own from simpler beginnings.