Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

Discovery Institute ^ | February 18, 2004 | Michael J. Behe

[RightWingNilla]

Thank you. It's a calling, like the priesthood or military special ops - not everyone can do it, and because of that I tend to take my medical education rather seriously.

Oh Brother.

Meanwhile, were all waiting for what you mean by "changes" in post #182.

[Virginia-American]

Nutcase" would be overstating the issue, but he definitely shows the signs of what's known as a "crank" -- someone who gets fixated on a favorite alternative theory and has grandiose ideas about revolutionizing science

From one of the reviews VadeRetro linked to:

On page 233 he compares his great discovery to those of Newton, Einstein, Pasteur and Darwin.

The people rest.

[Trinity_Tx]

Wow... Thank you.

I'm still just dipping my tows into the water, trying to get a mental grip on all of this... I read these threads every day, and your post was the most well-written answer to my only real sticking point in the whole debate so far.

[realpatriot71]

It is quite likely that earlier forms of life had no genetic code, for example.

Really? When was the last time you saw any living organism without a genetic code. "Life" is life is life, there is no definition outside of what is objective about the cell. Furthermore, "life" requires too many necessary conditions (read: a few million correctly balanced biochemical rxns), all in perfect equilibrium, to be called "life" - you cannot build life one rxn at a time, a even a few hundred rxns built at a time would not be enough to be called life - you see all the rxns of life are already dependant on other rxns already existing and in place, and these rxns are comepletly dependant on another set of rxns. You can't escape this.

[realpatriot71]

Medicine is hardly self-sacrifice, even if it is difficult.

You have no clue . . .

[realpatriot71]

Meanwhile, were all waiting for what you mean by "changes" in post #182.

"Changes" can range from radiologic assault of the cell to hemochromocytosis to hypokalemia to increased pH - ALL of which will have profound effects on the cell and it's ability to survive.

verstehen sie?

[js1138]

You have no clue . .

I have some clue. My grandfather was an M.D.; my father is an M.D.; my brother is an M.D.

How about some activities that involve equally long hours, but do not pay, such as raising an infant?

[longshadow]

"Festival of Self-Sacrifice" placemarker

[RightWingNilla]

*sigh*

Lets see…in response to BMCDA who wrote in post #181:

It is true that the biochemistry in a cell is intimately tied together, as you express it, but not to such a degree that every small change causes the whole system to break down .

To which you responded in the next post:

Really?! This is inconsistant with what can be objectively seen today in medicine . . . one - small – change --> leads to disease of the cell, and it ceases functioning properly or outright dies.

Now since you are a student at a “top medical school in the country”, you really should know that while some changes certainly can be disruptive, many have been objectively demonstrated to have no effect on cellular physiology or survival. Moreover relatively large changes (i.e. genetic) often results in no phenotypic change in whole organisms.

Either you used incorrect wording, or you were being intentionally misleading.

[RightWingNilla]

Forgot to ping you in post #209.

[realpatriot71]

you really should know that while some changes certainly can be disruptive, many have been objectively demonstrated to have no effect on cellular physiology or survival. Moreover relatively large changes (i.e. genetic) often results in no phenotypic change in whole organisms.

Once again I'm talking about the cellular level of functioning - how many cells do you think die in one day in your body without any specific perturbances? Cellular dysfunction and/or death is the basis of all human disease. Disturb too many, and you get disease. That is about as basic as it gets. If you don't understand this, it is because you do not understand medicine.

[RightWingNilla]

Once again I'm talking about the cellular level of functioning

Hello? Did you bother to read what I wrote?

"you really should know that while some changes certainly can be disruptive, many have been objectively demonstrated to have no effect on cellular physiology or survival."

Disturb too many, and you get disease.

This is a far cry from "one small change".

[realpatriot71]

This is a far cry from "one small change".

You obviously don't understand, not every small change leads to a cellular problem, but all cellular problems leading to human disease do occur as a consequence of rather small changes in cellular function - just like not all mammals are bears, but all bears are certainly mammals.

[js1138]

I supposw it depends on the meaning of "small".

[RightWingNilla]

I supposw it depends on the meaning of "small".

Am I logically impaired today or is our medical student friend here doing some serious backpedalling?

[RightWingNilla]

not every small change leads to a cellular problem

*phew!*

It took a bit of work, but I had faith you'd get there eventually.

[js1138]

You have made the tragic error of assuming that your opponent uses words consistently.

The only use of the word "change" that is relevant to a discussion of evolution is changes in the germ line, the specific instance of DNA that participates in reproduction.

Other changes in DNA can result in disease, but they are not relevant to evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

"Why am I reading this thread?" placemarker.

[js1138]

because I'm her placemarker ;^)

[Junior]

because I'm her placemarker ;^)

Who's placemarker?