Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
The article does not adress the question at all !!
Not even a mention on how abiogenesis ( or its mechanism) to form a rudimentary living organism capable of evolutive proccessesn could emerge !!!
You have nothing there !!
Originally Posted by Ryal Kane
The question was not about abiogenesis. It was about irriducible complexity.
The article linked explained how evolution could produce it.
It answered your question.
Abiogenesis is not evolution. No doubt you have been told this over and over again. If you refuse to learn then there is nothing anyone can teach.
Ryal Kane
So....let's carry this on in this thread. Son of Him, why do you shift the goalposts so ? Does the link I posted not adequately explain irreducible complexity? If not, explain why. Saying it does not explain abiogenesis is correct. That's because you didn't ask about abiogenesis.
Irreducible complexity is a double wammie for evolutionists to deal with in their quest to defend their theory. Not only do they have to explain their complexity, they also have to explain their sudden appearance.
It is easy to demonstrate how skeltons could have evolved, but when it comes to the sudden apparance of jawed vertebrates it is quite a bit more difficult to explain how their blood evolved into existance and even more how the immunity system appeared so quickly in a rather advanced state of complexity.
In fact, it is actually a triple wammie because these irreducibly complex systems that appear so fast also are extreamly interdependant and interwoven with other complex systems, so as not to be able to function on their own. Thus, they could not have evolved independant of other irreducibly complex systems.
Irreducible complexity is a double wammie for evolutionists to deal with in their quest to defend their theory. Not only do they have to explain their complexity, they also have to explain their sudden appearance.
It is easy to demonstrate how skeltons could have evolved, but when it comes to the sudden apparance of jawed vertebrates it is quite a bit more difficult to explain how their blood evolved into existance and even more how the immunity system appeared so quickly in a rather advanced state of complexity.
In fact, it is actually a triple wammie because these irreducibly complex systems that appear so fast also are extreamly interdependant and interwoven with other complex systems, so as not to be able to function on their own. Thus, they could not have evolved independant of other irreducibly complex systems.
I read some of it and I even searched it for Punctual Equilibrium and did not find even one referance. So, you have failed to address the issue. You only attempt to address irreducible complexity, you did not address Punctual Equilibrium as it relates to irreducible coplexity. Also, you did not address the issue of interdepenablitity as it relates to irreducible complexity.
So, I presented three points, and you gave me a rebutel for one of them. If you can not produce at least a rebutel for my other two point, then we will have to declare this a no show on the part of evolutionists.
Try reading the entire article. Section two states:
2. Classification
Possible routes of Darwinian evolution can be
classified into four fundamental categories, as
outlined below.
Read through the four catagories which address interdependability with respect to irreducable complexity among other things. It even addresses interdependability in some of the specific examples Behe has used! Unfortunately, you might have to read the whole thing (all five pages of it) instead of doing a find on a particular word, but I'm sure you're up to it.
I find it very odd that in going over the material, you did a word search for a complex phrase and decided that the absence of that phrase proves that the article didn't discuss a certain topic! In your earlier post, you didn't ask about punctuated equilibrium, nor did you ask about anything RELATED to it! Now evolutionists are declaired 'no show[s]' in not addressing a topic you didn't challenge?
Seriously, go back and spend the five minutes it takes to read the article. Then re-read the article to get a handle on the vocabulary it uses and you will see that it is very complete (and concise for those with slower reading) in addressing irreducible complexity and related subjects. You will have to excuse the author for not using the same words as you, but the information is there.
__________________
“there may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice,
but there should never be a time when we fail to protest.”
I read some of it and I even searched it for Punctual Equilibrium and did not find even one referance. So, you have failed to address the issue. You only attempt to address irreducible complexity, you did not address Punctual Equilibrium as it relates to irreducible coplexity. Also, you did not address the issue of interdepenablitity as it relates to irreducible complexity.
So, I presented three points, and you gave me a rebutel for one of them. If you can not produce at least a rebutel for my other two point, then we will have to declare this a no show on the part of evolutionists.
That is because we're talking about irreducible complexity, not about puntuated equilibrium. The problem of irreducible complexity can be addressed without using a term of which you didn't even get the name right. Actually read the article in stead of doing a word search on it. It might help you understand the issue.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
I've always liked punctual equilibrium better. Fashionably-late equilibrium is just so self-centered.
Good one!
__________________ The high, the low, all of creation God gives to humankind to use. If this privilege is misused, God's Justice permits creation to punish humanity~~ Hildegard of Bingen cited in, Earth Prayers from around the World
Claiming something is Irrudicable complex Bugs ME!!
Really, on my list of pet peevs, it ranks in at about #4. I could go into the others, but it would just delay the thread.
The problem with claiming soemthing is irrudicable complex is that you are admiting that something is beyond you, and thus limiting your own intelligence. Essentially you are saying that it is so complex, you cannot hope to ever understand it, and thus should not even bother to try.
I believe that nothing is so complex that it cannot be understood (except perhaps certain human behaviors... ).
Claiming evolution is irrudicably complex (to me) is like claiming you cannot understand evolution. You are admiting that you cannot understand it, so we should not bother.
Life is complex, but it can be understood. biolopgy is complex, and it can be understood. Nuclear fission is complex, but it can be understood. Clacules is complex, but can be understood. And string theory is really really complex, and it can be understood, and lets be honest, evolution is definetly not as complex as string theory, and it can be understood.
So the irrudicably complex argument is nothing more than an admitiance to faliure. Lets not give up. Come up with a theory that is better (not a critique) and then see how the two stand against each other, which explains more in a more efficient and correct manner, and then let us see which is right.
It is easy to demonstrate how skeltons could have evolved, but when it comes to the sudden apparance of jawed vertebrates it is quite a bit more difficult to explain how their blood evolved into existance and even more how the immunity system appeared so quickly in a rather advanced state of complexity.
The problem though, is that at no time have you actually demonstrated that blood clotting appeared rapidly, not have you demonstrated that blood cloting first appeared in the jawed vertebrates, nor have you determined which state is an advances state of complexity, since there are in fact a large number of sequentually more complex blood clotting systems. Clearly you have not read up on this and here is a lonk containing a number of references to the evolution of blood clotting, including academic journals and textbooks.
lets not hear you mention blood clotting again in an IC capacity until you have gone through those articles, otherwise you are just being disingenuous.
here is a simple evolutionary process which results in a 2 step process as a result of gene duplication (often dismissed by creationists as not adding information)
Adding Complexity
Could evolution take this rudimentary system and produce a multilayered cascade of factors? Just watch. Most serine proteases, including trypsin and thrombin, are auto-catalytic. That means that some extent they can activate themselves, in many cases by cleaving a few amino acids to switch on their active sites. So, we could diagram the actual functions of our ancestral plasma protease (which we'll call protease A) like this:
As we have seen, the inactive form of the protease (A) is changed into the active form (A*) when two things happen: it is bound to tissue factor (TF) and it is activated by tissue proteases, including our protease itself (that's the autocatalytic part). This means - and this is important - that our protease is actually involved in cutting two things: Fibrinogen, and also itself, converting A's inactive precursor protein into A*.
Now, let's suppose that a gene duplication occurs in the gene for our protease, producing a new (B) version of the gene:
At first, just like most gene duplications, this is no big deal. Proteins A and B are identical. Each can bind to TF, each can cleave fibrinogen into fibrin, and each can activate itself or its sister serum protease. So nothing has really changed - we've just got two copies of the same gene. But now let's suppose that a mutation in the active site of B changes its behavior, making it a little less likely to cut fibrinogen and a little more likely to activate protease A. In essence, this would change the relationship between these previously duplicate genes to something like this:
Suddenly, the ability of A to bind to TF becomes much less important. If B can saturate all of the available TF-binding sites itself (by virtue of its EGF domain), then the TF-mediated activation of B, combined with B's affinity for A, will result in a rapid activation of A, producing plenty of activated A to convert fibrinogen into clottable fibrin. Sounds good. But why would natural selection favor a mutation like this in B's active site? Simple: it would increase the efficiency of the clotting process by producing a 2-level cascade. Look closely, and you'll see that our 1-step clotting system required a direct interaction with TF to activate each protease. The new 2-step system allows each TF to activate a protease B, each of which in turn can activate scores or hundreds of A's. With so many more active proteases in the neighborhood of the injury, clotting can now occur more quickly, increasing the chances of surviving a hemorrage. Exactly the sort of stuff that natural selection favors.
Step back for a second and think about what we've just seen. A simple gene duplication sets the stage for the selection of active site mutations that would dramatically improve the clotting process. Gene duplications are neutral mutations, the sort that occur all the time and therefore, given enough time, are highly probable. Once the duplication has taken place, any mutation in the active site that shifts the preferences of the active site in the direction I have mentioned will be strongly favored. And that means that a true 2-step system will evolve very quickly.
In fact, it is actually a triple wammie because these irreducibly complex systems that appear so fast also are extreamly interdependant and interwoven with other complex systems, so as not to be able to function on their own. Thus, they could not have evolved independant of other irreducibly complex systems.
again, you have failed to demonstrate any of this and are just making baseless assertations and a false claim to victory. I am not explicitly saying you are wrong at this stage, but the point of the matter is that your statements are nothing more than hot air.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Good one! 
).
Linear Mode
