“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. But I can find no such case.”
Examples of such a “complex organ(ism)”, not known in Darwin’s time are
the ATP Synthase Molecule, and the bacterial flagellum, both of which require all their components to even exist. Clearly they were not ‘formed by successive, slight modifications’ as Darwin required. Where did they come from?
They both evolved naturally, as even the most cursory search of the internet for both subjects will show you.
An attribute can have more than one uses. An organism can evolve with two unrelated attributes, both useful. At one point or another these attributes may work together in tandem and evolve together a function that neither could produce on their own.
Things do fall together in the right order from time to time. This doesn’t prove anything.
Evolutionary theory hasn’t been standing still since Darwin wrote his little book you know.
“Irreducible complexity” means a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It seems to me that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin theorized.
No. Michael Behe has decided that, in his opinion, these require all their components to come into being simultaneously and without any prior intermediary step.
On the one hand, Behe’s claims are hardly unchallenged. (Specifically, to my knowledge there has been a significant amount of evidence dragged up regarding the evolution of the flagella.) On the other hand, Behe has not in any way demonstrated the accuracy of his claim. Even at the point where Behe first raised the issue (before his peers had the chance to go out and poke holes in his theory) the best that could be said for Behe’s claim was that we had not yet discovered the evolutionary mechanism leading to those two examples.
Declaring that something is irreducible is not in any way proof that it is irreducible and Behe has provided no proofs beyond his own asserted beliefs.
I can agree with that statement. Science, however, is a progressive unfolding of discoveries, correct? At the time Darwin made his asserted beliefs, these organisms were unknown. Only the advent of the electron microscope uncovered them. So, to date, they fit our best definition of ‘irreducible organisms’, do they not?
There is no evidence they ‘evolved’ from anything, correct?
I’m not sure about the ATP, but we do have evidence that the flagella evolved and how it occurred. I do not know whether all the information is in, yet, but we certainly cannot claim, as Behe has done, that evolution could not have occurred, here.
(One of the serious objections to Behe’s position is that he has recently repeated the claim that there is no one looking at the flagellum issue when a web search brings up dozens of such studies.)
Just to jump in here, I find the “Irreducibly Complex” argument to be lacking.
Behe and his followers point to a chemical system and say that it could not have developed in its present form through the addition of elements. They neglect the possiblilty that the present form of the reaction chain came about from the removal of elements from a less efficient precursor system.
Adding one or two extra steps into a reaction is conceivable, and can turn any “irreducibly complex” system into one that isn’t “irreducible”. The current pared down systems are the result of a few billion years worth of fine-tuning.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Projector Emeritus, Grand Academy of Lagado
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
sigh, I wonder if anyone listens to me =) I think I already stated half the arguments I just saw since my last posting.
Anyway…
Who says that it was an ORGANISM that evolved first? It’s certainly possible for a molecule to have been randomly thrown together that had the ability to catalyze its own formation no? There is no interaction withen itself. Only with it and the system. Eventually this molecule will be dominant in it’s environment. Soon another molecule might come along where it somehow reacts with this self-replicating enzyme. Oooooohh, evolution occured. Rinse lather repeat until the end of time.
This simply ignores the irreducible complexity argument since it is not an organism.
That is an interesting statement and one I hadn’t considered. What are its implications?
By definition, the less inefficient precursor would still be ‘irreducibly complex’ if the removed element were non-functional. If it were functional, it could not have been removed without eliminating the organism.
Did nature made a mistake initially producing an inefficient organism? or, had the removed element been functional at one time (thus an integral part of an irreducible organism) and later discarded as unecessary? “use it or lose it” -perhaps because the other elements became more efficient).
We’re still stuck with the question how did the less efficient precursor evolve? On the issue of Bored’s molecular aggregation, we still don’t have life. (but I now have a headache).
“Did nature made a mistake initially producing an inefficient organism?”
No, efficiency is not an issue if you don’t have competition.
Lots asnd lots of inneficient organisms out there CB. My horses excrete 90% of what they eat undigested, and can’t bleed off heat if they exert themselves for an extended period. They also can’t throw up and can die from a bad case of gas.
If you were efficient you wouldn’t have a tailbone or an appendix. Your pelvis and backbone would be shaped differently your knees redesigned, and your internal organs would be protected instead of exposed. etc. etc. etc… Since you evolved and weren’t created, you lack these common sense improvements.
Satan - why the request for those who believe in creationism to support it with factual evidence? One of the basic tenants of christianity is faith. While I personally am able to reconcile scientific evidence with my beliefs in creationism as documented in Genesis, many “believers” choose not to. When asked why they believe a certain way, most would probably say because they choose to. Why do you believe in evolution? Maybe because you choose to?
Yes not life–yet.
Eventually that molecule will carry out another process of life, and another and another and another until we have life.
This is of course all theoretical.
Willbo, there are a number of posters on this board who fit into various categories roughly identified as Theistic Evolutionsts. When looking for the whys and the First Causes, we look to God, but when looking for the method, we look to scientific investigation and come up with Darwin and his successors. No problems with your post up to that point.
However, there are people like the state school board of Kansas and some members of the Oklahoma state legislature who go beyond the position of “our” Theistic Evolutionists and insist on a literal 6-day event occurring roughly 6,000 years ago. To believe this in their own homes and churches is OK. To thrust it onto our schoolchildren is wrong. Discussing those “young earth” proposals is generally the background to threads such as this one.
I agree that thrusting it upon our schoolchildren in a 9th grade biology class probably isn’t the most appropriate place, but the discussion of the creation story in a world history class as matter of religion’s historical impact and influence upon our society would be appear to be appropriate. I am not attempting to change this into a religion in school thread, my original point, is that faith does not always need to be supported by factual scientific evidence, as currently known by man. What would be the point of faith if we always had to have proof.
Dr. F…I could be wrong here, but I think that Behe and his ilk are under the impression that evolution only occurs by additions to the genome–never subtractions (see “Darwin’s Black Box”; pg 187; Behe.)
That is most likely why they neglect any consideration that an organ could have once been more complex, yet less efficient.
Just to toss out the obligatory link:   THIS is one of the better sites for refutations of IC arguments.
This isn’t the real problem with Behe… his arguments are 100% correct but falls short of being as brilliant as the TRULY GREAT thinkers… Marx… Lenin… L. Ron Hubbard… because he has FAILED to extend them BEYOND biology into the TRUE REALM OF THEIR application, namely ARCHITECTURE, in which the TRUE ARCH cannot stand upright EXCEPT IN ITS ENTIRETY… obviously proving you atheist bastards that GOD HIMSELF created ARCHES ex NIHILO…
Hi, first time poster and I have read all of “Creationists Strut your Stuff”. Could anyone quote me a circumstance which would incontrovertibly prove evolution false? If its not falsifiable then its not valid surely. I ask purely out of curiousity.
Damnit, I knew that would happen! I read through 10 pages of posts and the information is on the very last page that I missed by accident. I would still like a more specific example. Would Dawkins angel (i.e. bipedal man with wings) count? If so why?
