discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=546
A basic prediction this article makes is that designing something leaves marks of the designing/building process. The article then gives 4 possible methods of falsifying this prediction:
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called junk DNA will turn out to perform valuable functions.
#1 has been consistently disproven every time behe et al. have produced something. If you remember, when I made OP for this, I mentioned them: the eye, the bacterial flagellum, and the blood clotting model. All three have been shown to be reducible. Then provided a link:
http://pandasthumb.org where you could find the information on this. So #1 is debunked.
#2 This is about as much a red herring as you can get. The process of decay destroys the overwhelming majority of skeletons before fossilization can take place. When we look at the fossil record, we get snap shots of the flora and fauna that existed in that region at that time, and so you will see 'organisms suddenly appear' in the fossil record even if speciation is gradual. This is akin to having a film to represent the advance of a species from dinosaur to bird. Each frame is a gradual transition, but a fire happens, representing the decay of dead corpses and only a handful out of the thousands of frames is left, which represents what's been preserved by fossilization. Therefore #2 is without support.
#3 Without knowing what luskin is referring to, this one is difficult to debunk, simply because I have very little information to go on. The existence of precursers, ie, less developed or simpler eye designs, which this one seems to make, disproves #1, creatures previously cited by creationists to show this point (fish in unlit chasms that have eyes that don't work) are in the process of losing traits that no longer serve to provide any form of advantage and therefore give no selective pressure to select against genetic anomolies without those traits. The existence of differing species using the same traits (dogs and lizards both using similer eyes) can be explained two ways: If they have a common ancestor, then they'll share common traits, alternatively, if you have a lock, and a set of magical evolving keys, then there's only so many ways the teeth of those keys can evolve to open the lock, ergo, they'll all develop the same basic look and function.
#4 This is a red herring if I've ever seen one, and goes to show Luskin knows little about the history of genetics. There was a period of time where we weren't sure if 'junk DNA' was partially assembled or randomly assembled bits of material for later use in manufacturing RNA and in the process of cell division. As we improved our methods of extracting DNA, we found this was not the case and so it's accepted that junk DNA has purpose. This neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creator, nor does it prove or disprove evolusion except by providing interesting targets for potential mutation.
What's more, is that reliance on a supernatural entity of infinite power and knowledge invalidates all these predictions, because such an entity can create and not leave any marks of design. Unless Intelligent Design denounces the existence of a supreme being within it's statement, it's unfalsifiable as far as I can tell, and therefore is not science.
There you have it, and this is why I specifically asked people not to spout irreducible complexity, it's an old dog with no legs, if you still think it's a good hypothesis, go check out dover, go check out panda's thumb, check out google. It's dead, quit digging it up.
Does any one still disagree that irreducible complexity is a valid hypothesis?
When it was initially proposed it was, any hypothesis is valid when it's initially provided, but after being falsified this thoroughly, it's time to move on or forge new predictions. Irreducible complexity is a bad flag to be waving, it's like putting up a pirate sign within cannon range of a british navy vessel when all your cannons have been disproven in puffs of logic. This is why I asked for something new when I made this post, you have failed to provide anything new or of value by positing the failed irreducible complexy hypothesis once again. This is a dead horse, quit beating it.
