If the cell is irreducibly complex how did it evolve?

Question

Meaning, since it needs all its parts to function, how did it come into being? How can something that needs everything to function survive?
Was the cell EVER simple?
This is the bacterial flagellum:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/images/v17n2_flagellum.jpg

The picture is from Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, so it's not made up by Answers in Genesis.

Why wouldn't Behe want to deal with it? He has everything to lose, being shunned by his own community, and he's not even a Christian!!!

Answer 1

Um, the bacterial flagellum issue has been put to bed, sweety. This is a court ruling on the "status" of Intelligent Design. It has been ruled NOT scientific. One of the issues raised was "irreducible complexity". Read through the ruling: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Answer 2

This is an argument from incredulity. Behe doesn't understand how this evolved and thinks he has to fill the hole in his understanding with a god, instead of trying to figure it out.

Molecular biology [or "modern biochemistry"] DOES indeed provide a very convincing basis for describing the evolution of life, at the molecular level, contrary to the central thesis of Michael Behe's book.

If you look at bacterial flagella, you find that some are indeed quite complicated, but others are more simple. For example, the basal body can vary with species - in E. coli there are four rings, in Bacillus subtilis two rings, and in Caulobacter crescentus five rings. I can easily imagine a scenario where a "primitive bacterium" might have one ring, and then you have a flagellum with two rings, then three, and so on. This is a "gradual, step-by-step" evolution, which is the antithesis of Behe's argument. Furthermore, this could easily happen through such well documented events as gene duplication, or a simple mutation in the DNA sequence which would then code for a different amino acid, perhaps allowing two copies of the same protein to dimerize together.

There is more information at http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html .

It took me less than 5 seconds to find this information using a google search. Ignorance can be treated, the cure is google.

Answer 3

You do realize that Behe is an IDIOT, right? Don't believe me, see what his OWN DEPARTMENT has to say about him: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm

I quote: "It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex. There is a well known evolutionary pathway for it. Behe just doesn't want to deal with it.

And the cell is not irreducibly complex either.

------------

Why would Behe not want to look at it? Because it tells him he's wrong and that he now has to publicly admit he was wrong. He loses his primary grant source (creationist research tanks like The Discovery Institute). In short -- his career is over.

He *HAS* to ignore everything that goes against his position because he's staked his whole career on an untenible position.

And don't kid yourself. On the stand, under oath, in a court of law, Behe had to admit the most likely creator was a god. He may not be a Christian, but he's still invoking a deity. Christians don't hold a monopoly on the whole 'deity' concept. Hindus have over 330 MILLION deities, after all.

Answer 4

Why might we desire an irreducibly complicated device for a foundation for creationism? sounds such as you have been fed a pink herring my buddy. i don't understand of any irreducibly complicated device. no count what you do, there is often some smaller area, enormously given the definition of a device. in case you bypass from macro to micro, there is chemical bonds, solid and vulnerable nuclear forces, etc. Creationism holds that we've been created by way of some bigger power, relatively than a spontaneous cellular technology that became into observed by way of evolution. i've got mentioned this in different responses, yet we presently have the technologies to construct virii from scratch, and given time, we would be waiting to construct finished organisms interior the direction of the comparable methods. that's extra solid to have confidence, that some entity with extra progressed technologies than our very own engineered the existence in the international, or that the statistical analogue of the empire state development being completely formed by way of detonating a bomb in a junkyard (i'm speaking approximately spontaneous cellular technology) occurred?

Answer 5

Did you happen to watch that program on SBS???
Evolution often proceeds by altering preexisting parts or by removing them from a system, rather than by adding them. This is sometimes called the "scaffolding objection" by an analogy with scaffolding, which can support an "irreducibly complex" building until it is complete and able to stand on its own.

So basically, there was something else supporting the organism until it's current mechanism became self-sufficient. But now that 'scaffolding' is gone and only the 'irreducibly complex' mechanism remains.

Answer 6

As opposed to Christians who think that the world is only 6,000 years old, real people who can use their minds know that the earth is extremely old. Evolution has been happening over billions of years.
Oops, you think that some being (God) wiggled his nose and out popped the earth. And what?!? This earth is a science experiment or some type of experiment, what for his jollies? Why would God do that, create people and then act like a spoiled child, threatening people to love him or forever suffer? Does that not sound like a spoiled child?

Answer 7

DNA receives from cosmic bio-photon transmitters specific coded messages to the forming cell structures, that according to
that transmitted code combine appropriately as the designated
structure

Answer 8

Just to let you know, you are asking a pure science question in the R and S section. Second, answersingenesis is not a good source of scientific data.

Answer 9

The cell is NOT irreducibly complex. That's patently ridiculous.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html gives the scientific analysis of that piece of garbage.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 10

It isn't irreducibly complex. You need to take a biology class.

Non-Believers
"Not Irreducibly Complex"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Non-Believers/