Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Irreducible Complexity (Final nail in the coffin on theory of evolution)
Idea Center ^ | 1996 | Michael Behe

Posted on 05/12/2012 6:25:29 PM PDT by CaptainKrunch

Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
With this statement, Charles Darwin provided a criterion by which his theory of evolution could be falsified. The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It's a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.

Darwin, meet Michael Behe, biochemical researcher and professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls "irreducible complexity." In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function.

As a simple example of irreducible complexity, Behe presents the humble mousetrap.

Shown above is a modified sketch of Behe's mousetrap as taken from http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/mousetrap.htm.

It contains five interdependent parts which allow it to catch mice: the wooden platform, the spring, the hammer (the bar which crushes the mouse against the wooden base), the holding bar, and a catch. Each of these components is absolutely essential for the function of the mousetrap. For instance, if you remove the catch, you cannot set the trap and it will never catch mice, no matter how long they may dance over the contraption. Remove the spring, and the hammer will flop uselessly back and forth-certainly not much of a threat to the little rodents. Of course, removal of the holding bar will ensure that the trap never catches anything because there will again be no way to arm the system.

Now, note what this implies: an irreducibly complex system cannot come about in a gradual manner. One cannot begin with a wooden platform and catch a few mice, then add a spring, catching a few more mice than before, etc. No, all the components must be in place before it functions at all. A step-by-step approach to constructing such a system will result in a useless system until all the components have been added. The system requires all the components to be added at the same time, in the right configuration, before it works at all.

How does irreducible complexity apply to biology? Behe notes that early this century, before biologists really understood the cell, they had a very simplistic model of its inner workings. Without the electron microscopes and other advanced techniques that now allow scientists to peer into the inner workings of the cell, it was assumed that the cells was a fairly simple blob of protoplasm. The living cell was a "black box"-something that could be observed to perform various functions while its inner workings were unknown and mysterious. Therefore, it was easy, and justifiable, to assume that the cell was a simple collection of molecules. But not anymore. Technological advances have provided detailed information about the inner workings of the cell. Michael Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, states "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10^-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." In a word, the cell is complicated. Very complicated.

In fact, Michael Behe asserts that the complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit the exact same irreducible complexity that we saw in the mousetrap example. In other words, they are all-or-nothing: either everything is there and it works, or something is missing and it doesn't work. As we saw before, such a system cannot be constructed in a gradual manner-it simply won't work until all the components are present, and Darwinism has no mechanism for adding all the components at once. Remember, Darwin's mechanism is one of gradual mutations leading to improved fitness and survival. A less-than-complete system of this nature simply will not function, and it certainly won't help the organism to survive. Indeed, having a half-formed and hence non-functional system would actually hinder survival and would be selected against. But Behe is not the only scientist to recognize irreducible complexity in nature. In 1986, Michael J. Katz, in his Templets and the explanation of complex patterns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) writes: "In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific explanations for these complex systems, but the final patterns that they produce are so heterogeneous that they cannot effectively be reduced to smaller or less intricate predecessor components. As I will argue ... these patterns are, in a fundamental sense, irreducibly complex..." Katz continues that this sort of complexity is found in biology: "Cells and organisms are quite complex by all pattern criteria. They are built of heterogeneous elements arranged in heterogeneous configurations, and they do not self-assemble. One cannot stir together the parts of a cell or of an organism and spontaneously assemble a neuron or a walrus: to create a cell or an organisms one needs a preexisting cell or a preexisting organism, with its attendant complex templets. A fundamental characteristic of the biological realm is that organisms are complex patterns, and, for its creation, life requires extensive, and essentially maximal, templets."

The bacterial flagellum is a cellular outboard motor that bears the marks of intelligent design. Taken from http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/motor.htm.

Behe presents several examples of irreducibly complex systems to prove his point, but I'll just focus on one: the cilium. Cilia are hair-like structures, which are used by animals and plants to move fluid over various surfaces (for example, cilia in your respiratory tree sweep mucous towards the throat and thus promote elimination of contaminants) and by single-celled organisms to move through water. Cilia are like "oars" which contain their own mechanism for bending. That mechanism involves tiny rod-like structures called microtubules that are arranged in a ring. Adjacent microtubules are connected to each other by two types of "bridges"-a flexible linker bridge and an arm that can "walk" up the neighboring microtubule. The cilia bends by activating the "walker" arms, and the sliding motion that this tends to generate is converted to a bending motion by the flexible linker bridges.

Thus, the cilium has several essential components: stiff microtubules, linker bridges, and the "motors" in the form of walker arms. While my description is greatly simplified (Behe notes that over 200 separate proteins have been identified in this particular system), these 3 components form the basic system, and show what is required for functionality. For without one of these components, the system simply will not function. We can't evolve a cilium by starting with microtubules alone, because the microtubules will be fixed and rigid-not much good for moving around. Adding the flexible linker bridges to the system will not do any good either-there is still no motor and the cilia still will not bend. If we have microtubules and the walker arms (the motors) but no flexible linker arms, the microtubules will keep on sliding past each other till they float away from each other and are lost.

This is only one of many biochemical systems that Behe discusses in his book, Darwin's Black Box. Other examples of irreducible complexity include the light-sensing system in animal eyes, the transport system within the cell, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting system. All consist of a very complex system of interacting parts which cannot be simplified while maintaining functionality.

Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”(Behe, M, 1996b. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech given at the Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm). By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected. Thus, Behe’s latest definition of irreducible complexity is as follows: “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.” (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/) Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."



TOPICS: History; Religion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-157 next last
There is also the huge problem for evolutionary theory that it is impossible for a male/female reproducing species to evolve from an asexually reproducing organism.  Which of course would have to happen to explain the current circumstances of the known world that we now find ourselves in.

Bunch of chemicals laying around in a puddle millions of years ago.  These chemicals somehow coalesces into a ready formed complex single celled asexually reproducing organism, which then must keep reproducing by asexual reproduction.  How then does this organism randomly produce both a separate male and separate female organism simultaneously to kick off male/female reproduction?

It has been said, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.

 

1 posted on 05/12/2012 6:25:41 PM PDT by CaptainKrunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
There is also the huge problem for evolutionary theory that it is impossible for a male/female reproducing species to evolve from an asexually reproducing organism.

How do you prove that it's impossible?

2 posted on 05/12/2012 6:31:11 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Great article. thank you


3 posted on 05/12/2012 6:33:11 PM PDT by bubman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It’s not impossible, but the probability of two pairs of simultaneous mutations, at the same time and place (time - hours or days, place - within a few feet) to produce two cells that can join and produce two new organisms (male and female) that then breed to reproduce themselves, is lower than the probability of you properly guessing the winning numbers for the Powerball game for every single drawing since the beginning of the game.


4 posted on 05/12/2012 6:36:26 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Not if it was designed to do that.


5 posted on 05/12/2012 6:38:14 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
I'm not at all sure that a sexually reproducing species could not evolve from an asexully reproducing one. In fact, there are a large number of species that do both: under some conditions they throw off buds or shoots or clumps or, essentially, they propagate clones; under other conditions they can reproduce from male-female processes. Heck, even potatoes can do this.

Nevertheless, I love Behe and think his "Irreducible Complexity" has great heuristic value. He has sparked a very challenging debate.

6 posted on 05/12/2012 6:42:08 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious." George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Designed to do that by who/what?


7 posted on 05/12/2012 6:42:37 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Designed to do that by who/what?

That's a different question.

Intelligent Design only posits that there was a designer, and a design. It doesn't say who the designer was or dissallow the ability to evolve being part of the design.

8 posted on 05/12/2012 6:49:15 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

As a college biology instructor, I never “taught” evolution. When we got to those chapters I encouraged the students to research the topic and make up their own minds. Occasionally someone would ask me if I believed in evolution. My answer was”do I think that, given enough time, something is going to come out from the mud puddle behind my house and say it’s ready to go to medical school?” The students would laugh and I had made my point without directly breaking the science department rules.


9 posted on 05/12/2012 7:00:29 PM PDT by Former Fetus (Saved by grace through faith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
A not so simple example Behe used is the clotting of blood after a wound.
There must be feedback mechanisms to prevent the clotting from spreding further than the wound or occurring so slowly as to be ineffective.
The clotting releases materials that both induce clotting and retard it. The balance is infinitely delicate.
Removing or imbalance in any of the multiple steps leading to clotting and stopping it and it doesn't work.
Any creature that could not control the clotting of its blood would not live long.
10 posted on 05/12/2012 7:01:34 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Anyone can see the domestic dog as proof evolution as a mechanism in nature exists. Dogs are descended from certain canids, but no longer are like them at all.

Mankind, in domesticating and diversifying the breeds of dogs have truly changed them in a relatively short span of years.

People have a tendency to ignore how long millions of years really is. It’s incomprehensible to our minds which dwell on lifetimes. All of civilized human history (being generous) is 1/100th of a million years. It’s 1/65000th of the length of time that has passed since the last dinosaur died. It’s 1/450000th of the amount of time the earth is believed to have had a solid surface.

I’m not saying there’s no God, and that we aren’t here as an act of Creation, but there are two possibilities in that case - Either God created the earth and deliberately made it look 4.5 billion years old and animals to have progressed to some degree at least through evolution, OR, Evolution was simply the tool God used *for* the act of Creation.

I personally tend toward the latter - I see too many hallmarks of Intelligent Design in the Universe. I chuckle as modern Science with a straight face said the Universe spontaneously became something out of nothing.

At the same time, I cannot hold to the faith of those who say the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is total bunk when it’s obvious that it’s not (or we were purposely mislead.) That doesn’t mean I discount research like that above - I welcome honest and educated disagreement, as it forces me to rethink my own positions. And regardless, my convictions do not lessen my wonder at God - It strengthens it, as I see the rules upon which He built the Universe as elegant at a scale that leaves me in far greater awe than the comparatively simple act of crafting a man from clay.


11 posted on 05/12/2012 7:03:29 PM PDT by Heavyrunner (Socialize this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Premise:
Life designed itself.
Ergo, the converse is also true:
A rock also designed itself.
A diamond is a rock.
Ergo diamonds design thremselves.
Reductio ad absurdam


12 posted on 05/12/2012 7:06:56 PM PDT by bunkerhill7 (Life on the Rock?? Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
There must be feedback mechanisms to prevent the clotting from spreading further than the wound or occurring so slowly as to be ineffective.

Reproduction is generally considered to be one of those feedback mechanisms. If the organism left descendants, he had what it took to survive.

13 posted on 05/12/2012 7:17:09 PM PDT by Lady Lucky (Non-compliant, not govt-issued, and not voting for Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
There is also the huge problem for evolutionary theory that it is impossible for a male/female reproducing species to evolve from an asexually reproducing organism. Which of course would have to happen to explain the current circumstances of the known world that we now find ourselves in.

Bacteria share DNA, which the "male" bacterium inserts into the "female" bacterium through a specialized pilus called a "sex pilus". In other words, sexual reproduction existed long before multicellular organisms ever existed.

This article contains quite a few deliberate misrepresentations of what evolution is. The "irreducible complexity" meme, for example--nothing has ever been shown to be "irreducibly complex"; in fact, we break systems down so that we can look at a single component of that system, an act which would be impossible if there were any such thing as "irreducible complexity". Many proteins, when made in vitro self-assemble into the exact same supposedly "irreducibly complex" structures that living organisms produce. Even the most complex structures are made of small, often identical subunits that only fit together one way...

14 posted on 05/12/2012 7:18:57 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7
Premise: Life designed itself. Ergo, the converse is also true: A rock also designed itself. A diamond is a rock. Ergo diamonds design thremselves. Reductio ad absurdam

That requires an assumption that it's not possible for a Creator to have designed it so that the converse must be true.

I do not impose any assumptions about the limitations of the Creator.

15 posted on 05/12/2012 7:22:59 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
I have brought of the fact that most of all in nature need a male and female part to reproduce. Without one or the other offsprings can not be produced. It would seem that it is a very uneffective system. So why in nature if every species of plants an animals needs a male and female to produce an offspring. Some try to say that in the beginning humans were of both sexes and produced offsping with out a mate if this is true how then did all the plants along with all the animals go from this form into the present form of needing a mate to produce an offspring. It seems like a very chancy system and not a lot of hope for advancement of a species of any kind.
16 posted on 05/12/2012 7:23:38 PM PDT by guitarplayer1953 (Grammar & spelling maybe wrong, get over it, the world will not come to an end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heavyrunner

The real argument is not between those who believe the universe was created over a six-day period 6000 years ago and those who believe that’s a metaphor for events that began 15 billion years ago.

The real argument is between those people, and those who claim that the universe willed itself into existence from nothing.


17 posted on 05/12/2012 7:36:26 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Actually sexual reproduction is easy to explain by evolution. First comes the evolutionary phenotype for hermaphroditic animal species, followed by the evolutionary modification of a genotype/phenotype for males and females of a species.


18 posted on 05/12/2012 7:47:19 PM PDT by Kirkwood (It's not a lie. It's a composite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
Behe's theory is rubbish.

From … http://www.sirc.org/articles/intelligent_design.shtml we have ...

“Intelligent design makes no room for the idea of bad design, and irreducible complexity itself suggests a bad design strategy. Making complex things all at once so that they only work if all of the components are present and fully operational is an inefficient way to put something together. Are we to assume that not only is this intelligent designer mysterious, but also that he, she or it is perhaps a bit rubbish? The best explanation of complex systems in nature, which encompasses all of the bits that do 'work' and all of the bits that don't, is that they evolved. Positing a designer with their own private reasons for designing things badly is simply a step too far in what is claimed to be a scientifically grounded inference to the best explanation.”

19 posted on 05/12/2012 7:58:05 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Behe assumes an incompetent designer.


20 posted on 05/12/2012 8:07:35 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

evolution is a religion for some; belief in evolution, despite it’s vast logical holes and irreconcilable differences with the scientific method, ultimately requires the exact same FAITH in the unknown and the unproven that belief in God does.


21 posted on 05/12/2012 8:10:08 PM PDT by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lady Lucky

“Reproduction is generally considered to be one of those feedback mechanisms. If the organism left descendants, he had what it took to survive.”

Stated that simply it sounds like a circular reasoning.


22 posted on 05/12/2012 8:32:59 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Except there are intermediate steps along the way to sexual reproduction. Note the flat worms which are same sex, and go through a penis fencing stage to fine out which is the loser (which one gets stabbed by the other’s penis and gets to be the female this time).

That shows the big disadvantage to the notion that a structure has a function, or doesn’t have a function. Without a part, it may have a different function, or may function differently.

The internal cell complexity is indeed interesting, but it has the interesting trait of separate inheritance. The mitochondria have different DNA from that of the rest of the cell.

Note that we have thousands of parasites living on us (yes, I wash too, as I expect you do, but we still have parasites). Those provide useful characteristics that in some cases add functions. It may be that mitochondria were t one time a parasite, that provided a useful function, and now is so essential that no human can survive as a human without them. That ability to bolt in entire living creatures at the sub-cell level permits adding several functions at a stroke.

Of course that insight to the internal workings of the cell was not available to Darwin. Unlike religion where older writings are often thought to have more validity, Science continues to grow, develop, learn, and document.


23 posted on 05/12/2012 8:43:15 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch
From “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones… excerpts are from pages 229 and 230.

Complexity sends mixed messages about progress along the evolutionary road. The earliest sponges had a mere half-dozen cell types, but humans have hundreds. There has, even so, not been much increase in that measure of complication over millions of years, since fish have about the same number as ourselves.

Too often, the notion of progress is used as a code word for perfection, the chain of being in a different guise. The term should be employed with caution. Some see an arrow of time in biology, as in physics, but in the opposite direction – a relentless tendency to improve, just as the universe has a built-in trend towards chaos and disorder. That is too optimistic. Some lineages get more complicated, some simpler, and much of life has to struggle to stay in the same place.

Note: The book “Darwin’s Ghost” is a modern update on contents in Darwin’s “Origin of the Species.” Chapter names are the same, with modern knowledge added in.

24 posted on 05/12/2012 8:45:04 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
“The “irreducible complexity” meme, for example—nothing has ever been shown to be “irreducibly complex”.

I think you miss the meaning of the term. Complex things can be broken down into simpler parts but it is their functioning together that makes them into a complex organism instead of just a package of various parts.

The irreducible part is the fact that removing any one certain parts makes the whole stop functioning as a unit.

Rather like removing one part of a universal joint from a car.

25 posted on 05/12/2012 8:58:57 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Heavyrunner

I am largely in agreement.

But caveat on your dog analogy.

1st, dogs were deliberately bred for traits.

2nd, despite their VAST differences from each other - they still have the same DNA. Same species.

How is it that very similar animals are different species, somehow “mutating” different DNA pairings? They were able to kill off or add chromosomes? This I do not get. Even if the “mutation” is true - generally, mutants are defective, and never get much chance to mate. Why do mutants somehow seem to both sprout everywhere and survive positively in evolutionary theory?


26 posted on 05/12/2012 9:23:28 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Technological progress cannot be legislated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

First, let me state a few things. A friend of mine who was a biologist believed in evolution. He was a Christian. To him there was obvious evidence of evolution. I have to admit after reading the complex literature he gave me he was right, there is obvious evidence of evolution. Coming to this realization was difficult to me for a while then I decided that God works in mysterious ways, has laws the universe runs on and He uses those laws to make things happen.

Now this from Behe, “irreducible complexity”. I think Mr. Behe has hit something that may have merit but the example that the poster thought was the best example to me is not a good one. I can see several ways where this example he gave of the “cilium” could have evolved. I suggest that it could not have happened suddenly but we have seen many examples in nature of process in a system that have been abandoned by the organism but are still in the genes so they keep being reproduced. In this case the complex structure of the cilium could have evolved from hairs that were sensors, themselves evolved from the skin of the cell that transmitted information to the cell when something touched it. It may have been an accident that when the evolved hair moved under certain conditions that the the cell was propelled. Once that happened the cells that were propelled would have logically been exposed to more food. Each minor increase in propulsion would have enhanced even better propulsion.

Now all that being said, I remind you I am not a scientest, I’m simply an engineer. I have never designed a system that accidentally performed a function that was not designed into it but then again I don’t design chemical systems that reproduce and several generations in a day.

There are some things I know. For instance there is a God in the heavens. God created the heavens and the earth. Whether he created them out of something or nothing I can’t say and to me doesn’t matter. If he created it out of something he created the something it was created out of.

I know, it may sound a little corny. How do I KNOW that God did these things and they didn’t just happen by accident of chance? I know because God has spoken to me through His Holy Spirit which communicated to me that what I told you is the truth. Once that happens, you just know.


27 posted on 05/12/2012 9:23:39 PM PDT by JAKraig (Surely my religion is at least as good as yours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JAKraig
27 Which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature?

I believe Jesus was not just talking about worrying in Matthew 6:27 (NKJV) but also, as Creator, spoke deeper to the biggest philosophical or metaphysical problem I have with Evolution - something can't will itself to change its nature, its composition.
28 posted on 05/12/2012 9:38:15 PM PDT by time4good
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JAKraig

You would have to believe that the cillium and it’s over 200 various proteins and other structures “mutated” all at once. If only 150 of those proteins came together just right, you’d still would not have a functioning Cillium. Therefore, there would be no benefit for Nature to actually Select.

It must be made complete at that moment, which requires odds far too high to be possible.

One can take a basic biology course in college and still understand the extreme complexities of even the simplest cells. These other people are busy quoting others to get their opinions, but anyone who knows even the basics of what it takes to transcribe and translate DNA, for example, would know that it is impossible for nature to have done this on it’s own.

Evolution only works when people, through ignorance, pretend that organisms are very simple. When in reality, even the smallest cell is more complex than the computers they type on.


29 posted on 05/12/2012 10:12:10 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Behe assumes people can think logically. I don’t think you can logically explain to me how a functioning strand of DNA, complete with all the proteins and mechanisms required to transcribe itself into mRNA or even just to replicate, could have come together all at once to produce a living cell that can reproduce and maintain homeostasis.

Taking a step further, I don’t think you could logically explain to me how a cell’s membrane could have randomly come together to shield the newly formed DNA from the outside elements.

Taking another step, I don’t think you can explain to me how a mitochondria, with its proteins that literally resemble a type of pump that creates the ATP through gradient differences of Hydrogen, could ever come together through a mere singular mutation.

And, lastly, I don’t think you can explain how the particular examples the author used in the article could have come together all at once.

Unless it is formed complete, there is nothing that nature can even select from.

Evolution only succeeds as an argument among people who don’t understand the extreme complexities of even the “simplest” cells.


30 posted on 05/12/2012 10:21:41 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
Evolution only succeeds as an argument among people who don’t understand the extreme complexities of even the “simplest” cells.

Well said, sir, well said!

A pastor whom I used to discuss similar issues with noted that, in Darwin's day* they didn't have the electron microscope, and didn't realize the truth of this statement. To them, life simply became simpler, less complex, as it got smaller.

*Not that I oppose the idea of evolution. But I *do* not agree with abiogenesis. The Universe is just not old enough to generate Life, so soon, if ever.

Sauron

31 posted on 05/12/2012 10:57:47 PM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
Evolution only succeeds as an argument among people who don’t understand the extreme complexities of even the “simplest” cells.

Well said, sir, well said!

A pastor whom I used to discuss similar issues with noted that, in Darwin's day* they didn't have the electron microscope, and didn't realize the truth of this statement. To them, life simply became simpler, less complex, as it got smaller.

*Not that I oppose the idea of evolution. But I *do* not agree with abiogenesis. The Universe is just not old enough to generate Life, so soon, if ever.

Sauron

32 posted on 05/12/2012 10:58:04 PM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
Evolution only succeeds as an argument among people who don’t understand the extreme complexities of even the “simplest” cells.

Well said, sir, well said!

A pastor whom I used to discuss similar issues with noted that, in Darwin's day* they didn't have the electron microscope, and didn't realize the truth of this statement. To them, life simply became simpler, less complex, as it got smaller.

*Not that I oppose the idea of evolution; I think it's God's mechanism to keep life "fruitful and multiplicative," so to speak. But I do not agree with abiogenesis. The Universe is just not old enough to generate Life, so soon, if ever.

Sauron

33 posted on 05/12/2012 10:59:58 PM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sauron
Sorry about the TRIPLE post.

Been on FR for years, and I know to give the board a few seconds pause before moving on when I click "post."

This time, however, there was a 30-second wait, which was rather unusual. I waited 30 secs, it refreshed the screen, and I hit "post" again, certain that it hadn't accepted my mouse click.

34 posted on 05/12/2012 11:02:54 PM PDT by sauron ("Truth is hate to those who hate Truth" --unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

BTTT


35 posted on 05/12/2012 11:15:17 PM PDT by TrueKnightGalahad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

I have pondered this kind of stuff for many many years. When you look at the biology especially in the manner described above, it seems inconceivable that it could have simply self assembled from elements in the periodic table. Then you think about conciousness, and just wow...carbon and calcium and iron, and many many other atoms just formed into molecules that make it so you can think and perceive the universe, it seems virtually impossible. Then you look into the macroscopic world, and look into space and appreciate how unimaginably huge just our galaxy is much less the universe.

Then you get into intelligent design and creation. Though good arguments can be made for it, the main problem I have is “If the biology is inconceivable to just self assembled because even the simplest organism is insanely complex, and we cannot create one by simply putting the raw ingredients together, and the human mind is so complex that it is impossible for it to just have come about...I do not see any logical jump to state that it must have been created by something infinitely more large and complex than we are. I’m not saying it couldn’t have been, however, that leads to the question of how something infinitely more complex than we are came into existence itself.


36 posted on 05/13/2012 12:15:36 AM PDT by dsrtsage (One half of all people have below average IQ. In the US the number is 54%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Sharing DNA in bacteria is not the same as reproduction in humans.
The bacterial injected DNA may merge with the whole genome
of the recipient. With humans, I’m sure you know,
the genome of male and female contribute 1/2 of the total
genome of the offspring. What is usually sent to other bacteria
are small amounts of DNA, not whole or even half genomes...
it’s just called “sex” cause it is somewhat reminiscent
of what goes on with mammals, and also cuz evolution is
“true” therefore it must be a precursor to mammalian sex...

You mentioned that when certain proteins are “made”
in vitro they self assemble...why did you use the term “made”
Aren’t you admitting that the proteins had to be made? Or
could the experiment be done by dumping in random amounts of
chemicals in a solution, and then leaving them alone(no heat,
energy, catalysts, structural organization) , then
looking for self assembly of a structure? Why do you think
that is never done by researchers?

Also the term irreducibly complex means that any active
biological structure can only contribute to an organisms
life cycle in its complete working form. It
does not mean a system cannot be broken down to it’s component
parts.
If any part is missing(like a structural protein, or an enzyme, fer
instance) the biological structure cannot work. Therefore
the system had to be completely competent at the beginning.
A nonworking precursor structure waiting for the right component
to evolve may not find itself in the new
generations genome( see genetic entropy)

Don’t forget the genes/and control mechanisms(epigenetic
domain) and its’ products transport has to evolve also.
Plus there has to be selective pressure. If the organism
successfully survived before the “evolution” of the new structure why
would it need the new structure in the first place? Chemicals
don’t work with a telelogical goal..they got no brains to
see the future...(neither to we for that matter)


37 posted on 05/13/2012 12:28:21 AM PDT by Getready (Wisdom is more valuable than gold and diamonds, and harder to find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: time4good
...the biggest philosophical or metaphysical problem I have with Evolution - something can't will itself to change its nature, its composition.

You think that Evolutionary Theory posits that organisms will themselves to change?

38 posted on 05/13/2012 1:41:46 AM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Heavyrunner
Either God created the earth and deliberately made it look 4.5 billion years old

God doesn't deceive or lie. He didn't create the earth and all its wonders just to trick us. How could we have faith in a trickster? We know from meteorites like the one that hit California recently with time-of-bigbang-H2O, that water and complex chemicals were in a state of existence 'in the beginning'. If something in the universe looks 4.5 billion years old, it is. If human bones dating to 15,000 years ago are found, they are. Genesis touches on the subject of a time on earth of warrior angel-human hybrids, but is vague on how long these warring giants and their armies were allowed to persist before God put the kabosh on them. Adam lived for 930 years, Enoch had his first son when he was almost 70 while Noah had his first son at age 500 (and lived almost to 1,000 years old). IMO, those who hold to a 6,000 year thing, have simply miscalculated the length of time of biblical generations. Math to date the past (or predict the future coming of the Messiah) based on the 'modern' notion of a generation being 25 or 30 or even 50 year increments simply doesn't work, and leads to the illusion of a trickster God.

39 posted on 05/13/2012 2:01:49 AM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Not this again...


40 posted on 05/13/2012 2:43:18 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Michael Behe Responds to Critics of his New Book “The Edge of Evolution”
Amazon.com | June 27, 2007 | Michael Behe
Posted on 06/30/2007 10:08:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1858855/posts

A Conversation with Dr. Michael Behe
From Sea to Shining Sea | 9/25/07 | Purple Mountains
Posted on 09/25/2007 2:24:25 PM PDT by PurpleMountains
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1902040/posts


41 posted on 05/13/2012 4:47:29 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (FReepathon 2Q time -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Behe assumes an incompetent designer.

You assume to know the "mind" of such a designer.

42 posted on 05/13/2012 5:01:26 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CaptainKrunch

Michael Behe the Al Gore of the Creationist movement


43 posted on 05/13/2012 7:02:09 AM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heavyrunner

You can breed dogs to produce many different traits of DOGS but you’ll never get a horse.

That’s the point of this article.


44 posted on 05/13/2012 8:13:13 AM PDT by thatjoeguy (MAYDAY! MAYDAY! We are so going in ! !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain
It is easy to assume it all happened magically when you don't really understand what is going on. Behe has admirers among creationists, the less educated someone is the more likely they are to be a creationist. Behe has not gained acceptance among biologists who actually understand living processes.
45 posted on 05/13/2012 8:33:00 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
"How is it that very similar animals are different species, somehow “mutating” different DNA pairings? They were able to kill off or add chromosomes? This I do not get. Even if the “mutation” is true - generally, mutants are defective, and never get much chance to mate. Why do mutants somehow seem to both sprout everywhere and survive positively in evolutionary theory?"

LOL.  Correct.  The world as we know it would have to be entirely the result of generations upon generation upons generations of mutations in the theory of evolution for all of this to spring from single celled organisms.  Single celled organism that are really complex organisms that cannot be reduced past a certain point or they would not function.  Meaning, somehow that puddle of chemicals would have to simulaneously (miraculously) "produce" the required separate parts for the cell to function, then somehome (miraculously) arrange those parts to fuse together in the proper order.

Of course, anything could happen over billions and billions of years.  Just plug in your own fantasy and it could happen.  Even Obama could become a right wing anti-communist zealot given enough billions of years of "evolution" I suppose.  Uhh yeaahhh.. .  Doubt it.

 

46 posted on 05/13/2012 9:13:40 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch (Freedom is what's fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RaisingCain

"Behe assumes people can think logically. I don’t think you can logically explain to me how a functioning strand of DNA, complete with all the proteins and mechanisms required to transcribe itself into mRNA or even just to replicate, could have come together all at once to produce a living cell that can reproduce and maintain homeostasis.

Taking a step further, I don’t think you could logically explain to me how a cell’s membrane could have randomly come together to shield the newly formed DNA from the outside elements.

Taking another step, I don’t think you can explain to me how a mitochondria, with its proteins that literally resemble a type of pump that creates the ATP through gradient differences of Hydrogen, could ever come together through a mere singular mutation.

And, lastly, I don’t think you can explain how the particular examples the author used in the article could have come together all at once.

Unless it is formed complete, there is nothing that nature can even select from.

Evolution only succeeds as an argument among people who don’t understand the extreme complexities of even the “simplest” cells."

Brilliant!  Thank you. 

And what you so succinctly described is the inescaple truth of irreducible complexity.

 


47 posted on 05/13/2012 9:24:13 AM PDT by CaptainKrunch (Freedom is what's fair.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Sorry Captain. There are plenty of examples of asexual organisms (e.g., bacteria) occasionally exchanging genes. For examples: bacterial conjugation, which according to Wikipedia’s correct definition “is the transfer of genetic material between bacterial cells by direct cell-to-cell contact or by a bridge-like connection between two cells....conjugation is a mechanism of horizontal gene transfer as are transformation and transduction although these two other mechanisms do not involve cell-to-cell contact.” These normally asexual beastes are nearly perfect intermediaries between asexual and sexual creatures. Evolution wins again, and always will. Evolution is not a hair-brained theory....it’s a generally accepted theory.


48 posted on 05/13/2012 10:01:22 AM PDT by nuss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JAKraig
there is a God in the heavens. God created the heavens ...

Where was God before the heavens were created?

It makes more sense to say that God's place is beyond existence.

49 posted on 05/13/2012 10:07:12 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sauron
The Universe is just not old enough to generate Life

Just how old is the Universe?

50 posted on 05/13/2012 10:17:25 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-157 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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