War against Evolution?

Question

Let the fight on Evolution begin. Here is my first argument. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.Whats your views on this Atheist and agnostics? I really want to know

I see someone was angry with what I put.Oh well,Its the truth.Deal with it

Answer 1

Well, your argument is not original... you have copied and pasted it from a Liars For Jesus web site. That argument (irreduceable complexity) has been debunked, thoroughly and repeatedly. It is not 'scientific'... it is pseudo-science. It is not aimed at scientists... it is aimed at the scientifically illiterate, to whom it sounds plausable. To scientists, the argument for irreduceable complexity is idiotic.

The basis for your argument... that the complex living system had to have originated fully-formed... is patently false.

What serves you as a substitute for logic and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argument ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not represent a limitation of nature... it represents a limitation of knowledge or intellect. Additionally, it is intellectually dishonest... it does not ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge or intellect... it appeals to a fanciful, imaginary, supernatural entity to create the ILLUSION that your cognitive dissonance has been resolved. It substitutes 'faith' for fact, and 'belief' for knowledge. Neither faith nor belief are sufficient to sustain reason... they are only sufficient to sustain willful ignorance.

That is the epitome of self-delusion.

Answer 2

Ah yes, the old irreducibly complexity argument. "An eye that isn't perfectly formed isn't useful at all, so it must have been created." Being near sighted, I beg to differ. My imperfect eyes (they're not round enough) still give me quite good vision that still has to be corrected with glasses. An eye with a malformed lens, or even no lens at all, will still function, just not at 100%. There are much simpler eyes in nature that perform basic light/motion detection, thus being useful. So an eye is not like a mousetrap in any way.

Don't be so quick to say "it couldn't happen". You could simply not be bright enough to figure out how it could happen; you must prove it CAN NOT happen. That's tougher.

Answer 3

It is possible for evolution to co-exist with some kind of a creation theory, it just means that over time animals change. Why fight it? Isn't it possible for you to believe in a creator and evolution at the same time? From your perspective, couldn't god have created the earth and then the first spark or life, then allowed evolution to "make" everything else? Since god is all knowing, he would know that humans would eventually come to exist, and you could easily believe that he meant it so. Why "war" against science?

Answer 4

You could say that with everything we could even go as far as saying how was god created. God seems more complex than a watch so how would got just happen. I believe that the environment was just the right temperature to create life and it did. I am not saying that I am right or you are wrong I am just saying that is what I believe.

Answer 5

You do not understand evolution. You clearly do not even understand biology.

Go and read the Blind Watchmaker, by Richard Dawkins.

Or better yet, take a biology degree.

Answer 6

Sir, I've read behe, johnson, spetner, denton, etc..
They're good books. However, I highly advise you to take a more humble approach or you'll find yourself getting knocked around quite a bit.

cheerio

Answer 7

OK, gloves off

Irreducibly complex?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
and
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
also
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/icsic.html

Get some great evolution info here
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_01

and find out about the latest advancements here
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-science-evolution.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

War against evolution? Not even close.

Game, set, MATCH!

Answer 8

You should read Ann Coulter's new book Godless its hilarious

Answer 9

You have evidently only read one side of the argument. All of the examples you site have been discussed in depth and debunked. Not even your mouse trap anology supports you supposition. The parts of a mouse trap can be used for may other useful things. I would suggest reading the following:

The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
By Michael J. Behe
Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.
Scientists use the term "black box" for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?
How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.
Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications -- I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.
Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.

Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.
Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.
Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of "signal" chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.
Molecular machines are designed.



Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.
I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.
author bio author-recommended links educator resources

Evolution response to Michael J. Behe
The Flaw in the Mousetrap
Intelligent design fails the biochemistry test.
By Kenneth R. Miller
Michael J. Behe fails to provide biochemical evidence for intelligent design.



To understand why the scientific community has been unimpressed by attempts to resurrect the so-called argument from design, one need look no further than Michael J. Behe's own essay. He argues that complex biochemical systems could not possibly have been produced by evolution because they possess a quality he calls irreducible complexity. Just like mousetraps, these systems cannot function unless each of their parts is in place. Since "natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working," there is no way that Darwinian mechanisms could have fashioned the complex systems found in living cells. And if such systems could not have evolved, they must have been designed. That is the totality of the biochemical "evidence" for intelligent design.
Parts of a supposedly irreducibly complex machine may have different, but still useful, functions.

Ironically, Behe's own example, the mousetrap, shows what's wrong with this idea. Take away two parts (the catch and the metal bar), and you may not have a mousetrap but you do have a three-part machine that makes a fully functional tie clip or paper clip. Take away the spring, and you have a two-part key chain. The catch of some mousetraps could be used as a fishhook, and the wooden base as a paperweight; useful applications of other parts include everything from toothpicks to nutcrackers and clipboard holders. The point, which science has long understood, is that bits and pieces of supposedly irreducibly complex machines may have different -- but still useful -- functions.

Evolution produces complex biochemical machines.
Behe's contention that each and every piece of a machine, mechanical or biochemical, must be assembled in its final form before anything useful can emerge is just plain wrong. Evolution produces complex biochemical machines by copying, modifying, and combining proteins previously used for other functions. Looking for examples? The systems in Behe's essay will do just fine.

Natural selection favors an organism's parts for different functions.
He writes that in the absence of "almost any" of its parts, the bacterial flagellum "does not work." But guess what? A small group of proteins from the flagellum does work without the rest of the machine -- it's used by many bacteria as a device for injecting poisons into other cells. Although the function performed by this small part when working alone is different, it nonetheless can be favored by natural selection.

The blood clotting system is an example of evolution.
The key proteins that clot blood fit this pattern, too. They're actually modified versions of proteins used in the digestive system. The elegant work of Russell Doolittle has shown how evolution duplicated, retargeted, and modified these proteins to produce the vertebrate blood-clotting system.
Working researchers see evolution in subcellular systems.



And Behe may throw up his hands and say that he cannot imagine how the components that move proteins between subcellular compartments could have evolved, but scientists actually working on such systems completely disagree. In a 1998 article in the journal Cell, a group led by James Rothman, of the Sloan-Kettering Institute, described the remarkable simplicity and uniformity of these mechanisms. They also noted that these mechanisms "suggest in a natural way how the many and diverse compartments in eukaryotic cells could have evolved in the first place." Working researchers, it seems, see something very different from what Behe sees in these systems -- they see evolution.
Behe's points are philosophical, not scientific.



If Behe wishes to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with a divine intelligence, his point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share. However, to support that view, one should not find it necessary to pretend that we know less than we really do about the evolution of living systems. In the final analysis, the biochemical hypothesis of intelligent design fails not because the scientific community is closed to it but rather for the most basic of reasons -- because it is overwhelmingly contradicted by the scientific evidence.

Answer 10

If you don't use it, you lose it...look at pinky toes, third molars. You hardly ever *see* evolution as it happens....