Skip to comments.Pseudo-science Attacks Irreducible Complexity (that is, the Temple of Darwin attacks REAL SCIENCE)
Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as being irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses. The very structure of these systemswith their interdependent parts working all together or not at alldemands a non-Darwinian, non-chance, non-piecemeal origin.
A team of evolutionary molecular biologists thinks it may have refuted this concept of irreducible complexity. In a recent study, the researchers focused on a specific cellular machine involved in protein transport and claimed that it was indeed reducible to its component parts. But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Thanks for the ping!
Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology.
Is ICR defending astrology as well?
Is "under oath" supposed to mean something here? Perhaps that he isn't lying about what his opinion really is?
If we went to Mars and found a threaded metal bolt, it could be explained as a random natural phenomenon through the application of statistical possibilities, however slight.
(Monkey + Typewriter) X Time = Shakespeare
However, common sense says it can't happen.
This has been explained to evolutionists ad nauseum, with no effect. They repeat the same misrepresentation even after having the truth explained to them.
If you would actually read Dr. Behe's testimony instead of letting hack evolutionist websites do your thinking for you; you would see that Dr. Behe testified that ID was falsifiable in the same manner that astrology had been falsified.
But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
You should never accept a statement by an evolutionist at face value. Their minds don’t work correctly and their statements are likewise false.
Behe actually testified that ID was falsifiable just as astrology had been falsified.
In an evo mind, that translates into the false statement that you saw.
Your side lost. Deal with it.
==But hey, don’t let the truth get in the way of your beliefs.
I wonder if the evos realize that their entire worldview can be summed up by the very last word of your reply.
1 in a billion chance? Acceptable.
1 in a trillion chance? Acceptable.
One trillionth in a trillion chance? No problem.
Such unquestionable acceptance smacks of blind faith to me, which is what they suggest they just can't accept.
Darwinists sometimes naively point to 'evolutionary' iterations in technology without grasping the numerous intelligent decisions and multiple concrete changes in design and manufacturing for even small product upgrades. The reality is, changing most decently-optimized products requires numerous simultaneous changes to maintain function and efficiency such that it is an improvement over the old product design.
A biological example would be the shift from a reptilian lung to an avian lung. What makes a reptilian lung work in its environment is quite different from the optimal design for an avian lung, and requires substantial redesign. Not gradual 'evolution.' The same could be said for innumerable other biological features (such as different eye designs, bones, urea excretory systems, etc.) found in such a proposed transition. Evolutionism has embarassingly become a 19th-century word story unable to cope with the specifics and complexities of modern scientific discovery.
“This is a Meta-article that contains no peer reviewed site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever.”
It appears that the assumption of your statement is that FreeRepublic “scientists” are not intelligent enough to read an article of this nature and conclude that it is a “Meta-article”. Were you attempting to dissuade others from actually reading the inflammatory material and deciding for themselves? The article itself is not that brilliant, yet you threw up a warning like you were addressing a sixth grade school lab experiment. How incredibility paranoid.
So we found part of one of the crashed missions. Next!!!
You saying this, is priceless. Please continue.
Mr. Thomas just can’t seem to complete the chain of logic in his arguments. He tries to alter the statements of the researchers (note: the researchers did in fact do research and not sit in a room brain storming the ‘what ifs’) to say something completely different than their article clearly states. Thomas implies that that the authors assume that the component parts were static in an unchanging environment and suddenly, magically assembled into mitochondria. That is absolutely not what was said. The researcher identified equivalent function in a very primitive archaebacteria. The components present are functionally the same in energy transport as eukaryotic mitochondria. They state that uptake of archaebacteria and assimilation of their component function would result in an internalization of a membrane function. This is hardly a revelation. The idea of biomass assimilation as a catalyst to subsequent alterations in form and function have been around for decades. Nice to see that they’ve finally modeled this in a properly controlled study.
Ultimately, Mr. Thomas once again has drawn conclusion from an incomplete or misunderstood reading of the source material. At least this time he did not cite himself as a source - although he did double source 1 and 2 (another no no.).
The study authors are:
aDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Clayton 3800, Australia;
bDepartments of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and
fMicrobiology and Immunology and
cBio21 Molecular Science and Biotechnology Institute, University of Melbourne, Parkville 3010 Australia;
dDepartment of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520; and
eHoward Hughes Medical Institute, New Haven, CT 06520
As per usual.
I understand. I just didn’t know if you knew the truth about Behe’s testimony. I’ve seen it misrepresented so many times that I’m sick of it.
I've actually read the article in question from PNAS. It's a joke. They don't actually support the contentions presented in both the abstract, as well as the popular press releases, and one gets the impression that Dr. Lithgow, et al. produced it more for its "gotcha wowsers" effect than anything else. The science in the paper simply doesn't support the claims being made about the paper.
Creationists and Obama use the same speechwriters..
I’ve read the article, and it doesn’t support the claims being made about it.
Great argument! It sure beats knowing anything about the subject,I'm sure.
LOL...last I checked, Obama is a Temple of Darwin fanatic. In other words, he’s one of yours. Nice try though :o)
I didn't know JimRob had enough money left over from the freepathons to employ any. (notwithstanding the creationist postings do seem to make the freepathons much longer now)
Would you care to share with us your scientific credentials?
We could also start by pointing out that the evodiots on here who like to lecture about "science" don't know the first thing about it.
Nice try on the diversion... not working though.
How about your bonafdes for a change, or are you one of the FR “secret scientists” ?
Behe’s Black Box was refuted long ago. You know it’s bad when the book supposedly got a more rigorous pre-publication peer review than most scientific journals (according to Behe), yet three of the reviews would have resulted in a rejection, and one “reviewer” didn’t even see the book. Interestingly, it was the opinion of that last one that convinced the publisher to publish the book.
I have to hand it to Behe though, the book did force the scientists to defend the current state of science, and forcing such a defense is always good, at least the first time, then rehashing the rejected stuff starts to get old.
In an evo mind, that translates into the false statement that you saw.
Wow what a difference when you phrase it that way! I guess words mean things. I'm trying to think of how one could falsify ID though.
Ironic. Imagine an evolutionist saying "so help me God".
Yes, Obama...he’s one of your fellow evo co-religionists. Haven’t you heard?
For me, ID or creationism seems possible.
But “young earth creationism” that wants us to disregard what we have discovered about the world, is seriously flawed.
And that’s what GGG pitches.
So a loving God created all this, and gave us intelligence just to fool us ? Some great game of “Gotcha” ?
Sorry, I missed the other comment by x about speechwriters, hence my confusion about your statement.
I have no idea what his beliefs are, nor do I particularly care. On each of your threads I have sought only to provide criticism. I have criticized badly applied articles and supported the statements made by your usual sources where they were correct.
You cannot say that I’ve ever been patently disrespectful in either regard.
Still, I am ever disappointed in Mr. Thomas. He always seems like he has a point to make but never gets around to developing it. Perhaps if he were allowed more than a page to expound?
Nothing ironic about it. There's no contradiction between a belief in God and a belief in evolution.
God could have created the universe to evolve, couldn't He ?
If “creationism seems possible”, how can you turn around and rule out biblical creation in the same breath? Is there some sort of partisan prejudice driving you to seemingly contradict yourself, or do you have evidence that biblical creation is not true?
Bachelor of science in chemistry, Truman State University, which included undergraduate research involving the synthesis of N-methylbenzohydroxamates and the subsequent investigation of the effect of substituent variation on their nucleophilicity via the α-effect by electrochemical and NMR methods, and the correlation with single electron characteristics in reaction transition state.
Master of science in chemistry with an emphasis on synthetic organic chemistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; completed my thesis on the synthesis, characterisation, and structural interpretation of novel 1,3,4-oxadiazole bearing bent-core liquid crystals.
Have worked in the pharmaceutical industry since grad school, working on a wide range of research projects that include the synthesis and conjugation of insulin-bearing PEG conjugates; the development and synthesis of novel small molecule pharmaceutical candidates; the development of differential scanning calorimetry methods for the testing of pharmaceutical compounds; and the development of large-scale column chromatographic methods for the purification of proteinaceous vaccine components derived from genetically engineered microorganisms.
And, I am able to spell the phrase "bona fides."
So what are yours?
Of course that begs the question, "Have we found one?" Common sense runs into reality.
An arch is a beautiful thing, mechanically strong and efficient, and removing any one part of it causes it to collapse. If I were so inclined I would say it was designed upon seeing one, yet we see such arches created by natural processes. My conclusion is that complexity is often in the eye of the beholder.
Would be interesting, except that the theory doesn't put forth evolution as completely random.
LOL. Look in the mirror.
And what is your scientific background?
“Please cite who [quote] FreeRepublic scientists [unquote] might be.”
To who, then, did you address your warning and what was your fear?
I believe he did in post#43. Mine is available in my bio page.
Sorry, didn’t read your post above. So your an organic chmist, not a biologist. Just as I don’t know squat about what you work on, you don’t know squat about cell biology.