Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh...
*Note: feel free to attack me Darwin-bots, but I'm not buying (and the usual disclaimer: I am not pro-creationism.)
Ping.
Make sure you post this at least once a day for the next month I guess. We have feeble memories.
This is a good example of the lack of objectivity of scientists who are predisposed to believe evolutionary theory. And creationists are also guilty of the same type of thinking at times. It is the human condition.
They "deduced" something that existed (supposedly) 450 million years ago using computers. They they whipped up some in the lab - "this ancient thing". Then they find that a modern day hormone complements it.
The level of presupposition is huge. The reliance on computers to make up something is staggering.
And voila! we've "proved" that there is no irreducible complexity is not a valid argument.
Believe it if you will. I find it unconvincing. We are now making up facts through "scientific method" and using made up facts to support a belief.
I know it will be accepted hook line and sinker around here by committed evolutionists, but I dont' find it convincing. I believe this is a human foible. It recurs over and over in these postings.
ampu
Mathematicians do proofs; experimentalists obtain observations or data.
An experiment can disprove a theory, or it can provide data that is consistent with a theory. But it cannot "prove" a theory to be true.
It's been about time to give it up since around 147 years ago.
I can make a computer say anything I want it to say.
"Computational methods". Programs don't write themselves. And this isn't the first time pro-evo's tried to foist computer "simulations" to "prove" evolution.
Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon. Or at least that's what I learned in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL science class.
Leave computer simulations to Michael Crichton when he writes his next novel.
Good article but they're not going to give it up anytime soon. There's quite a few anti-science descendants of monkeys around here who are irreducibly ignorant and quite proud of it!
Well, after reading that story, I am totally convinced we and the rest of the universe are here by chance.
"...and must be the work of a creator, since the absence of any single part makes the whole system void."
That's one extremely large assumption. How, exactly, does the absence of a single part voiding the system prove the existence of a creator?
The horrible truth is that the game must go on, even if it comes down to, "Hit the ball, drag God."
When the load becomes too much to bear, we'll finally either leave the load behind or give up the game altogether.
How are they certain they synthesized the receptor in the lab correctly?
What do they base this "synthesis" on?
"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.
"Evolution assembles these complex systems by exploiting parts that are already present for other purposes, drawing them into new complexes and giving them new functions through very subtle changes in their sequences and in their structures," Thornton said.
While the mutually dependent parts do not evolve to be perfectly complementary to one another, after molecular exploitation, they cleave together and create an illusion of irreducible complexity.
And this doesnt sound to "solid" to be considered undeniably reliable.
It sounds like they think they know what goes on and create the needed results filling the gaps with the supposed theory.
Has Michael Behe responded to this? What does he have to say?