Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There wasn't anything to prove. No verifiable examples of irreducibly complex biological structures have ever been brought forward.Your article didn't prove it's point. It was just silly.
We know that's true because humans wrote the bible.
Except natural selection can be observed happening, both in the fossil record and in life, so we can factor nature in to scientific equations. But you're right, we cannot observe God acting on His creation, so he cannot be included in scientific equations.
Of course it is! That's how evolution works! A mousetrap without the lock and trip makes a perfectly functional (if not a little bulky) tie clip too.
The flagellum that's often touted as irreducibly complex can lose 12 or so of it's proteins (in the same way the Mousetrap lost two of its five parts) to be reappropriated as a virulence system as used by Yersinia, also known as the Black Plague.
a very persuasive argument imho.
Tell me about how you've been dishonest in this discussion.
I can see where you get the idea that honest discussion is not possible.WHAT, ME dishonest? Perish the thought.
I can see where you get the idea that honest discussion is not possible.
That's because before it was a mouse trap it was a tie clasp, please try and keep up.
No. Genetic mutation is one of the inputs to the process which produces variation amongst individuals of a species. This range of variants is then subject to selection by the natural environment--i.e. natural selection.Isn't natural selection really just mutation, part of the creation process.
Same difference. If mousetraps reproduced and evolved instead of being made in a factory, then each stage of assembly would have to be a stage of improved usefulness over the previous stage--though not necessarily usefulness as a mousetrap.Er, no. Only after parts were removed did it become a 'tie clasp'.
Same difference. If mousetraps reproduced and evolved instead of being made in a factory, then each stage of assembly would have to be a stage of improved usefulness over the previous stage--though not necessarily usefulness as a mousetrap.
No, parts were added to make it a mouse trap, what's wrong with you? we are talking about evolution, populations change over time.
No. Genetic mutation is one of the inputs to the process which produces variation amongst individuals of a species. This range of variants is then subject to selection by the natural environment--i.e. natural selection.
Not a worthwhile thought experiment. Mousetraps are assembled in factories. There is no requirement that each stage of assembly produces a useful structure. Consequently, it is not surprising that disassembling the mousetrap in the reverse order does not result in useful structures.We're not talking about adding parts over time to produce a mousetrap from another contraption. We're talking about 'reducing' a working mousetrap to something other than a mousetrap by removing parts.
It could be, if the tendency to grow more fur was an heritable trait.If you mean that "those with thicker fur survive the cold winter" I agree. But I wouldn't call that an 'evolutionary' change the way we dummies understand the term.
It could be, if eating more food resulted from an heritable physical variation which allowed them to forage or hunt more effectively.It also could be that "those who ate more food and therefore had more fat survive the cold winter", but that too isn't an evolutionary change.
Isn't natural selection really just mutation, part of the creation process.
Yes; the point was that you can show that a mousetrap is not necessarily irreducibly complex by demonstrating how it could be produced by successive modification, where each stage is a functional mousetrap (or has some other function). This refutes Behe's claim that a mousetrap is an example of an irreducibly complex functional object.The subject is "irreducible complexity" to rebut evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?