Pseudo-science Attacks Irreducible Complexity (that is, the Temple of Darwin attacks REAL SCIENCE)

ICR ^ | September 10, 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[FormerRep]

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

[GodGunsGuts]

As per usual.

[GourmetDan]

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.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

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?...

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.

[xcamel]

Bingo.

Creationists and Obama use the same speechwriters..

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I’ve read the article, and it doesn’t support the claims being made about it.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

And you're trying to tell us that it is not what you do spamming FR with the same drivel every day?

Great argument! It sure beats knowing anything about the subject,I'm sure.

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL...last I checked, Obama is a Temple of Darwin fanatic. In other words, he’s one of yours. Nice try though :o)

[xcamel]

Please cite who [quote] FreeRepublic “scientists” [unquote] might be.

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)

[GodGunsGuts]

So what you're saying is that the most prestigious scientific body in the world has prostituted itself on behalf of the Temple of Darwin. I think it's high time we start drawing serious attention to that FACT.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Please cite who [quote] FreeRepublic “scientists” [unquote] might be.

Would you care to share with us your scientific credentials?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

So what you're saying is that the most prestigious scientific body in the world has prostituted itself on behalf of the Temple of Darwin. I think it's high time we start drawing serious attention to that FACT.

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.

[FormerRep]

Obama?

[xcamel]

Nice try on the diversion... not working though.

How about your bonafdes for a change, or are you one of the FR “secret scientists” ?

[antiRepublicrat]

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.

[DungeonMaster]

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.

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.

[DungeonMaster]

Is "under oath" supposed to mean something here? Perhaps that he isn't lying about what his opinion really is?

Ironic. Imagine an evolutionist saying "so help me God".

[GodGunsGuts]

Yes, Obama...he’s one of your fellow evo co-religionists. Haven’t you heard?

[jimt]

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” ?

Ridiculous.

[FormerRep]

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?