Slashdot Mirror

Refute Michael Behe's arguments about irreducible complexity at the bio-molecular level.

Shouldn't be hard for all of you scientists and thinking people, right?

Best,
-jimbo

Before all of you fundamentalist materialists pat each other on the back too much, maybe you can answer the problem of irreducible complexity on the molecular level cited here.

Best,
-jimbo

I wasn't trying to say that that particular molecule was a precursor to modern life. It is more of a proof of the concept that tiny self-replicating molecules do exist.

No biologist in the world believes that the first cell appeared, fully formed, out of nothingness.

The first cell was built out of smaller things that were not cells. My personal guess is that self-replicating molecules gave rise to virus-like entities that gave rise to proto-cells that gave rise to cells. Can I prove any of this right now? Nope.

But it is an explaination that doesn't require anything supernatural.

First off, Evolution isn't random

It is a system that builds on the successes of the past.

Once a mechanism has evolved, it doesn't have to evolve again.

A mechanism not only has to evolve, it has to establish itself in significant numbers in a viable population of organisms, and out-compete other similar mechanisms. This happens very infrequently, so the vast majority of mechanisms would have to re-evolve countless times.

The number of base pairs in a DNA molecule isn't really all that impressive when you consider that a single mutation can double the length of the molecule.

You seem to think something magical is going on, when all there is is chemistry.

I did read a number of the critiques from talk.origins and also Behe's response. Frankly, I found Behe fairly good at responding to his critics, more than enough for me to label this challenge to the evolutionary models of today as not adequately answered.

One of the typical tactics that I found disturbing in the talk.origins archive was the use of straw men. Behe never claims that the Krebs cycle is an irreducibly complex system but Keith Robinson spends much space demonstrating that the Krebs cycle isn't and tries to claim that this refutes Behe.

Another tactic was to claim that a large number of papers actually answered Behe's criticisms but wait! If you look at another link critical of Behe, you find a critic admitting that there isn't actually much in the literature discussing the areas that Behe raises. Behe himself addresses some of these papers and complains that some are guilty of spinning stories and not providing any chemistry or math to back them up. He calls this wishful thinking "Calvinism" from Calvin and Hobbes (not the protestant reformer). He complains about the lack of rigor in evolutionary thinkers when they examine blood clotting and several other elementary biochemical systems.

The point I'm trying to make is that evolution, while clearly explaining some things, isn't very helpful in others. It certainly doesn't explain everything yet and may yet be refuted by an intelligent design argument.

I don't think that it is kooky or even particularly imprudent to be reluctant to use the coercive power of the state to mandate the teaching of evolution without at least including the serious critics like Behe.

Instead of admitting the incompleteness of evolutionary theory and taking Behe and other challengers seriously there is fury and jihad from many supposedly dispassionate scientists. The sad storyy of Forest Mims and Scientific American in 1990 is a decent example. Mims was never going to write about evolution but about amateur science projects. His belief in creationism doomed his chances for permanent hire even though everybody agreed that his actual work was quite good. What was Scientific American asking Mims opinion on a subject that had nothing to do with his prospective job?

TML

I would again dierect you to www.arn.org There is such a thing as scientific creationism, VERY distinct from literally interpreting the bible's story of creation. There ARE flaws in evolution theory, especially macro evolution. The fossil record doesn't fully support evolution, and genetics, if looked at via the concept of "irreducible complexity," can be used to argue against evolution. All this is explained FAR better than i could ever do.

Anyone REALLY serious about learning about scientific creationism and/or the SCIENTIFIC arguments against evolution, should visit www.arn.org . See the section on Author's Pages, about half-way down the page. These are professors in different fields writing, not students like me (SHORT bio's are included if you click the link to a particular writer).

There is no 7,000 year chronology in Catholic doctrine so your point on carbon dating is untrue for a huge chunk of christianity. Ditto for the Orthodox and that section of protestantism that does not use a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

Science and religion do not necessarily have to be in contradiction. Where do you think Gregor Mendel was when he was growing those pea plants? He discovered the science of genetics working in the garden of a monastery. Try going out to the jesuitical observatory out in Arizona and argue with the tens of Jesuit/Astronomers that the pope funds to advance our understanding of the heavens. Let's not even try to categorize the important medical science work that is done at Catholic Universities and hospitals because the list would just be way too long.

It's exactly this kind of broad brush, false, misleading, anti-christian bigotry that drives the religious up a wall. You don't read what people are actually saying on the other side of the issue or you encounter a few yahoos and think that everybody on the other side is the same. Try reading Darwin's Black Box for a more serious discussion of the problem of intelligent design and evolution.

TML

Could it be that what creationists want is for evolution to not be given a state endorsement? Could it be that it isn't ramming creationism down people's throats that is the current situation but ramming evolution down people's throats? Read Darwin's Black Box and tell me that evolution is proven enough that we want the state to endorse it as a mandatory part of instruction and that it should be on the mandatory state tests. Diversity of permissible opinion is what creationists want because, frankly, creationists aren't that unified among themselves and it would be preferrable for the coercive power of the state to stay out. TML

A priori, creationists are not reasonable, they wish people not to think, and are hopelessly tied to a false myth. Well, that's three libels in five paragraphs. Bravo. Now try reading Darwin's Black Box and get back to me when you have something constructive to add. TML

Evolution may or may not be true. The relevant question for any school board is 'has this idea proved its case?' Should the state be involved in excluding alternate theories by making the teaching of this particular theory mandatory? When the state gets involved in supporting one or another scientific theory, we should react with caution, even alarm. Try looking at Lysenkoism to see how dumb an idea this can end up being.

I'm aware that Stuart Kauffman has interesting things to say about complexity theory and evolution, not that he seems to have garnered a great deal of support in the academic world for his position, but the relevance of computer scientists and physicists to biochemical and even anatomical biology doesn't lend them much credence over the ideas of any other logical minded, sober layman IMHO.

Science, even evolutionary science, doesn't necessarily imply atheism but there are idiots who twist and misuse it to advocate atheism (funny, I don't hear as much moaning and groaning about this as I do about crank creationists). It is this unscientific attempt to debunk God that has conservatives among others up in arms. The pope doesn't have a particular problem with evolution as a mechanism that God used to make his creation. And that's as it should be. Religion's in the truth business too.

Science is the struggle for truth no matter where it leads you. But atheism cloaked in science says that a priori you can't include God in the mix regardless of whether or not he exists and is acting or has acted on a system being researched. That's like the little boy hiding behind one finger. Evidence of intelligent design should be as valid in evolutionary biology and biochemistry as it is in archeology and pathology.

When anti-religious bigotry travels under color of science is it any surprise that people of faith resist it? The crank who defends God doesn't effect the existence of God any more than the crank who defends Darwin say anything about the validity of Darwinism. But there are real scientists who question evolution.

I strongly recommend Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" for a biochemical look at evolution and the current problems it has. You can find a link at Behe's page as well as links to criticism of the book and rebuttals to the criticism. Does Behe prove his case? Well enough for me to say that the state should not give evolution a monopoly position in the curriculum.

TML

therefore, even if Darwin's theory of the origin of species is eventually disproved or superceded, any creationist theory dependent on this timeline would still be wrong.

Thank you. You are right in this point. I do add, however, that refuting _a_ creationist timeline does not prove evolution.

Michael Behe and Philip Johnson have some interesting scientific critiques of evolution.

In the spirit of open-mindedness, may I present

Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity,

Philip Johnson, and

Access Research Network.

I can only vouch for the writing of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, and must warn you that there is "young-earth snake oil" to be avoided, but probably not at these sites.

In the spirit of open-mindedness, may I present

Molecular Machines and Irreducible Complexity,

Philip Johnson, and

Access Research Network.

I can only vouch for the writing of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, and must warn you that there is "young-earth snake oil" to be avoided, but probably not at these sites.