Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Indeed. So many people on Facebook and Twitter and even on SOTT only read the headline and never get to the article so on of this length does present challenges. Maybe we ought to write articles with a bullet point synopsis at the start and then in the text of the article expand each of the bullet points. A lot of scientific research is presented in this manner - an abstract which summarises the work and then a detailed explanation.
On the topic of how best to 'reach' people. I think the only solution is a combination of styles and approaches. Over the years, many forum members have, at one time or another, said that they don't post so much because someone has always already said what they were going to say. Our response has always been to tell them that's not a good reason not to post. There are many different personality types/temperaments and ways that people absorb and retain information. Much of the difference is dependent on the style, tone and even the words a writer uses. So as we've already noted, not only is repetition necessary for most people to 'get' an idea, but it's also very useful to have different people say the same thing, or something similar in their own words/style, because there is always the chance that someone will 'get' your way of saying it rather than someone else's.

For example, check out Florian's take on this general topic that we just published on Sott.


It's a good example of how a different approach may appeal to different people.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Here, yet again, I think the devil is in the details. We can't know in advance or directly whether or not we are aligned with the truth, but if we accept that we learn and grow through adversity and challenge, and overcoming them, then alignment or not with the truth (as it relates to human evolution and ultimate purpose) would be determined by the extent, not to which we have an easy life, but the extent to which we can handle the challenges with increasing ease.
Sometimes we can "know in advance". But it does require a certain kind of "faith" to really be comfortable with that I think. Otherwise I think you kind of sum it up to say "if we accept that we learn and grow through adversity and challenge, and overcoming them" which to me seems the logical approach that has merit in itself. Still, there is a possibility I think to also grow in "faith" which may help make things go "smoother".

The Wave Chapter 25: A Walk In Nature Among The Names of God Where We Have An Interview With the Vampire And Discover a Cosmic Egg
Q: (A) Okay, you say that knowledge is supposed to protect from trauma and confusion. On the other hand, all is lessons, so trauma is a lesson. Why are we supposed to work to avoid a lesson?

A: You are correct, it is a lesson, but if you have foreknowledge, you are learning that lesson early, and in a different way.

Q: (L) So, if you learn the lesson in a different way, does that mitigate the need or the way or the process of the way of learning at the time of transition?

A: Yes. Smoother.
 

Jones

Jedi Council Member
Some words about the theory of evolution by Alan Gourlay - I can't find much about him on the internet other than to say that he writes on matters to do with Governments and Constitutions. His basic take on the subject is that the theory of evolution is a mass manipulation tool.

Chapter 5.

CREATIVE EVOLUTION?


The struggle between capitalist and socialist dreams has caused incredible misery and millions of deaths, but no one bothers to ask if either is a valid human objective or 'scientific' in any sense that the term might reasonably be used. If anyone has brought the matter up then they have been carefully kept from explaining the situation in any way meaningful to the public.

The invalidity of these deadly dreams is the secret of the evolution myth; and human manipulation is the reason for the evolution myth.

Evolution - A Decisive Proof of Manipulation.

A short review of the evidence disproving the evolution myth.
Why does the peacock have such a large and colourful tail?
Answer: To attract his mate. Nature has evolved a wonderful courtship ritual for that purpose.

You will find (or have already found) that evolutionists have what they call `a plausible explanation' for everything. Obviously an explanation of sorts can be devised to explain everything imaginable, but do these explanations have any relevance to fact? What if we ask why the sparrow does not need a large and colourful tail to attract a mate?

The explanations evolutionists give do nothing to explain why nature, in her blind unconcern for all things, should evolve birds of fancy colours when brown or black would seem to serve equally well. Or, for that matter, why would nature evolve birds at all?

Because they are necessary for this or that purpose, the evolutionists reply. But nature does not care about this or that purpose, nature knows nothing and cares nothing. Nature is a purely physical mechanism. Nature, without life, is a bare rock, and only after the complicated arrangement of life is complete do any or all of the oddities of life serve some purpose. Nature has no concern with reason. Nature neither knows nor cares; nature is blind, deaf and dumb.

The trouble with evolutionists is that they look at a complete system and seek to explain the finished product in terms to suit their religious need. If we begin at the beginning we find their plausible explanations are meaningless drivel explaining nothing. Does the earth want birds and bees? Does the water want fish? No!

But it All Happened by Chance, say the Evolutionists.

Chance, in physics, is a mathematically verifiable proposition. Any logical or scientific theory that depends on chance can be tested.

In a sound materialist logic any theory would begin with its mathematical status. This would be especially important to people claiming logic and science as their only guide. It is a very relevant point when we realize that mathematics is considered as being the ultimate form of scientific confirmation.

Chance evolutionary theory does not have the honour of mathematical support despite the fact that evolution is the sole base for the materialist philosophy.

Professors Sir Fred Hoyle & N.C. Wickramasinghe.

Two competent mathematicians, Professors Sir Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe, published (1981) a book called 'Evolution from Space' in which they ridicule the theory of chance evolution as something mathematically impossible. They say:

. . .there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is... an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.' They also say of evolution theory, 'If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or scientific training into the conviction . . . this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.'

Hoyle, long a proponent of the atheist viewpoint, while on a lecture tour of Australia (1982) said:

'REJECTION OF DARWINIAN EVOLUTIONARY BELIEFS ARE CRUCIAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE ON EARTH'.... and 'Once you believe in the evolutionary theory that the weakest go to the wall and that nothing can be done about the selection process, then it's an open invitation to the kind of political behaviour we've had over the last century. One has almost built world wars into the system at that point.' (EA).

Hoyle also points out that if a theory is correct then the pieces fall rapidly into place. New horizons open up and benefits accumulate.

This is the opposite to what has happened with the evolution theory. 'Evolution' has saddled humanity with a dead whale. A hundred years and many millions of dollars have failed to bring it to life. Meanwhile millions of lives have been lost, incredible amounts of pain and suffering have been inflicted and countless man-hours of scientific effort have been misdirected. No theory concocted by human mind has ever been so carelessly used to such destruction of human life and happiness.

Dr. H.B. Holroyd.


Professors Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are not alone in finding that evolution by chance fails utterly the test of science:

Dr. H.B. Holroyd, Ph.D., mechanical engineer and physicist, and retired head of the Department of Physics, Augustana College, Illinois, USA, independently came up with much the same conclusions in an article headed 'Darwinism is Physical and Mathematical Nonsense' published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly of June 1982. In proposing that gigantic human errors should in future be called Darwinian. He suggests that in a scale of human errors the Darwinian error is the Mr. Everest of errors. He goes on to make the following comments:

'The Darwinian error was caused by the failure to use necessary mathematics.'

`. . .for we have seen far beyond dispute, that the infinitesimally probable designs of organisms could not have been produced in a googol of operations of random change and selection.' [a googol is 10 to the 100th power and represents a number greater than the number of atoms in the known universe.]

'Darwinism is physical and mathematical nonsense, and it is logical nonsense as well, for a sound thinker does not assume anything which must be deduced from his theory. Darwinism is, indeed, far more a blunder than a theory, and physical scientist should have shown this clearly and effectively decades ago.'

'It is not surprising that Darwin, with his weak scientific education should fail into error; but it is surprising that the great physicists and chemists of his time and following should not have taken time enough to point out the errors effectively.'

'Physical scientists, who know higher mathematics and are capable of analytical thinking, should never have allowed the thoroughly mistaken mechanical theory of evolution to reach such a degree of apparent certainty in the thoughts of nearly everyone.'

`It is ironical that Darwinians, who have made great efforts to destroy superstitions, should themselves be responsible for one of the worst superstitions of all time.'


The conflict of rationality in the evolution position is highlighted by the fact that the evolution theory is promoted and defended by humanism. The religion that raves against myth, emotional dependence and dogmatism is no less blind that the worst of theistic religions.

Even the religious dependence of the humanists however does not explain how such an error could be introduced into scientific thought and maintained there in spite of its obvious lack of substance. It is only when we understand the relevance of chance evolution theory to human manipulation that we realize why this confidence trick would be performed by a powerful international institution. The tax free foundations of the U.S.A. poured $millions into the education system and it is evident that the sole purpose of this 'generosity' was to influence the acceptance of chance evolution theory as the sole 'scientific' teaching.

Norman Macbeth.

The above is the answer as to why the public was not made aware that evolution theory is no more than a mish-mash of faith and confusion. Original Darwinism was replaced by the 'Synthetic Theory' and of this Norman Macbeth (author of Darwin Retried)in a 1983 interview makes these comments:

'It is rather strange to say this, but the Synthetic Theory has never been formulated. It was a vague consensus that was never formulated in any detail. This means that they were able to achieve remarkable agreement, because nobody knew what it was all about .... ' He goes on:

'But a much deeper and more penetrating analysis of the problem was put together by Professor Ronald H. Brady ...in the quarterly called 'Systematic Zoology' for December 1979 .... I think it destroys the idea of natural selection, and this is certainly the opinion of many people at the American Museum of Natural History. The whole basis for the Synthetic Theory is shot to pieces right there in his article.'


The educated seem confused! Although believing life only physical they find it difficult to see life as something that is restricted by the same laws as rocks and minerals. But all physical things are made of physical materials and the form that they take does not make them less subject to natural law. Neither slow gradual evolution nor evolution by sudden great leaps, has any valid explanation within natural law.

Giovanni Blandino.

Here is what Giovanni Blandino S.J. wrote in his book, Theories on the Nature of Life(1969):

'Summing up, we may say: In the hypothesis of equiprobability, the probability that a regular structure should form, either by generation or by gradual evolution, is equal to the probability that the same structure should form immediately from matter irregularly arranged. That is to say: by varying the ways of formation, the probabilities do not vary. (Principle of invariableness of probabilities)'

Blandino is quite definite that the creation of life or of any other structure is, in a system of equal chance, impossible.

To finish making the point that chance evolution theory is in conflict with natural law, I should also like to say that it is not only the mathematical law that is violated, as we saw above the 'Natural Selection' part of the theory is also considered by competent people to be entirely invalid. The 'Second Law of Thermodynamics' is also violated. The second law states that the universe is running down, that simplification of structure is the natural state. We have this reflected in the fact that the genetic pools of nature also destruct. This confirms the mathematical law that complex structure cannot form by chance.

Evolution theory is disproven by the laws of nature and is not a properly formulated scientific theory.

The Fossil Evidence.

Leading authorities admit what is now too obvious to cover up: the fossil evidence also, DENIES evolution.

This was confirmed in October 1980 when some 160 of the world's top anatomists, paleontologists, evolutionary geneticists, etc. met in Chicago at what is commonly known as The Chicago Conference. They were forced to admit that the fossil evidence did not support Darwinian evolution and could only fall back on the previously ridiculed 'hopeful monster' theory. This theory is also ridiculed by mathematics and has all the problems of supernatural intervention while denying that explanation.

On the other hand it can be shown that de-evolution is a theory fully compatible with physical law. It is completely logical in relation to the factual evidence and scientifically unchallenged.

The future of humanity depends on exposing the thoroughly discredited dogma called Chance Evolution Theory.

Our Most Deadly Myth.

Let me remind you again of the incredible suffering and misery that has been inflicted on mankind in the name of socialist ideology. An ideology based on humanist religious dogma which in turn is dependent on the evolution myth.

Let us also not forget that this religion of libertinage now leads all other religions in bigotry and despotism. The great pity of it all, is that in this age the scientific knowledge is available to show it as misconceived.

The whole structure of socialism relies on chance evolution for an appearance of rationality and a lot of blame for its persistence as an acceptable theory must rest with those scientists who knew it a fake but were afraid to speak out.

The facts are known and are available, but have not been revealed to the public. The majority of educators neither know nor want to know, that Darwinism is scientifically dead. To admit the truth to themselves would mean having to face up to the failure of their entire (socialist) philosophy.

They will fight to the last to preserve this crutch for their licentious philosophy. and so our schools still teach evolution as though it were a fact even though it is known to be disproven by the evidence.

They continue, with government backing, to mislead children and promote a deadly philosophy because they need the prop of this religious myth to support their selfish dogma.

While they betray us, they also betray themselves.

The Conflict With Logic.

The heart of evolution theory—its fundamental principle of operation—is 'survival of the fittest'; this applies to all forms of the theory. Evolutionists (because of the inhuman connotations) now prefer to call survival of the fittest by the name of 'natural selection'. Its twin operational mechanism (claimed to allow the creation of some that are more fit than others) is 'random mutation'.

The first mechanism says that the fittest have the best chance to survive and implies (as a matter of necessity) that the survivors will, by nature, be more genetically complex, more advanced, and better future survivors than their ancestors; the second mechanism provides the alternatives from which selection can take place.

The word 'evolution' simply means a natural or logical progression of events. The silly assumption of evolutionists is that a progression of events is creative.

It is quite legitimate and acceptable to talk of change as evolution if the discussion is about change. BUT, when evolutionists talk and write about evolution they are not talking about change, they are talking about CREATION.

BE WARNED, if you read evolution propaganda you will constantly be presented with examples of change or re- arrangement as examples of creation.

Evolution theorists have for years misled people by the simple device of claiming that, as any genetic change provides an opportunity for natural selection, it also explains creative development. What they ignore is that the random damage to genes that provides opportunity for genetic change is actual damage, and while this certainly allows opportunity for selection it is NOT creative.

Chance selection is not a mechanism that can create new genes, a process far too complicated for chance events. What selection of the fittest does is defend the gene pool and life-form against the rapid degeneration that would take place were damaged genes maintained in the system.

It also serves another important use: all life forms have a genetic surplus. As you are aware no two persons are exactly alike. Since the gene pool of a genus is always much larger than is required for any one individual, there is always potential for selection and specialization.

What this means is that if some life form has the opportunity to live in two different environments, then those that go one way will be able to use those surplus genes which are beneficial in the environment while the other group will be able to draw from the gene pool those genes which are more useful in their living area.

This obviously does not mean that either group has evolved new genes. On the contrary, so long as they continue to live in a specialized environment they will tend to lose the genes not being used. The reason for this loss is simple: if an unused gene is damaged by random mutation then it has no effect on the efficiency of the life form and so is not selected out. Evolutionists point to all visible signs of past change as evidence of evolution, but what they say is not only untrue it is intellectual nonsense.

We may note that Nobel Prize winner, H.J.Muller, dismissed 'survival of the fittest' as a mechanism for creation in 1949; while C.H.Waddington (a geneticist) in 1959 claimed natural selection a tautology (a pointless repetition of words).

Random mutation is by nature destructive. The mechanisms, 'survival of the fittest' and 'random mutation' are perfectly suited to a theory of genetic degeneration and not at all to a theory of creation. If we consider the fact that genetic damage is constantly occurring and that the only defense life-forms have from this damage is natural selection, then degeneration is inevitable.

The second law of thermodynamics suggests that all systems, left to nature, degenerate.

Any attempt to argue that life forms, being different from inanimate objects, are not subject to the same laws, is a clear nonsense. Life forms, in their physical aspects, are mechanisms designed to absorb energy, and so long as they absorb the energy they need then they may fulfill a mechanical program. The genetic system is like a computer program that controls the organism and this genetic system, over generations, will degenerate just as the evidence shows.

NOTE: The preservation of the plant gene pool is now a major problem. In the process of breeding new plants (similarly with animals) we are not creating anything new. What we do is isolate the features we want and then breed out the unwanted competitive genes. Over the years we have lost a large part of the gene pool of many essential plants and animals. This also, more slowly, is nature's way.

Francis Crick

It is interesting to see that Francis Crick (Nobel Laureate co-discoverer of the DNA structure) (Science, Vol. 204, April 1979) observes:

'Should a chromosomal gene arise whose transcript was processed to make more than one protein, I would expect that in the course of evolution the gene would be duplicated, one copy subsequently specializing on one of the proteins and the other copy on the other. If this point of view is correct, then one would expect multiple- choice genes to occur only rarely in the chromosomes of eukaryotes.'

What he is saying is that if we had a gene which contained information to express two alternatives, then in time one alternative would be expected to express itself in one branch of the family and the other in another branch. We would not expect it to remain as a multiple choice gene.

This gives another expert (if uninterested) support for de-evolution. The life-form first appears on earth having great genetic complexity. This gives potential to diversify and specialize into related families. Because of the constant pressure of random mutation and survival of the fittest, this must give rise to the fossil record as is now known and which is in direct opposition to the needs of evolution theory.

A piece of evidence of genetic simplification, over the kind of time span during which evolution theory would require an increase in complexity, is found in Bacillus Circulans. Scientific literature says that this tiny form of life has survived 300 million years of suspended animation in rock salts. After that period of time it is found to have been genetically more complex than its present day descendants.

The theory of chance evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a religious theory. It was designedto provide a logical base for a pagan religious revival. Evolution has no support in natural law, physical fact, or logic; what is more, leading secular scientists admit it is a creation myth.

Why Have The Faults Been Hidden?

Why have more scientists not spoken out?

Why are those who do speak out so often retired or of independent means?

Why is it that those who do speak out are given so little publicity?

Why are there no headlines and no experts discussing the social consequences of the failure of this socially deadly theory?

Why is it that we now have a constant stream of propaganda to reinforce public belief in evolution?
Why does this propaganda increase as the evidence against evolution has become more difficult to cover up?

Why were the bones of assorted animals arranged to represent the evolution of the horse, and why is this model still used long after proved wrong?

How do you think it would be possible for such a childish theory to be maintained in scientific literature and education if there were not a very powerful and wealthy establishment promoting and protecting it?

Why Is Chance Evolution Theory so Important?

Would you send your children to a school that taught the flat earth theory as the only valid understanding of the earth? Probably not, but if you did then the miseducation would not be very harmful since 'flat earth' does not have the important social implications that are attached to a theory of creation.

The importance of the theory of evolution is that it is a theory about creation. The most important belief motivating human behaviour is belief in how we came to exist. How could it be otherwise? creation belief represents man's link with his origins. It is the base of his conviction of what he really is. It is the base of his belief as to his true nature and how he came to be. It is the foundation of his reasoning about the nature of life and of man's purpose (or lack of purpose) in it.

Evolution theory provides the elitists with a base for socialist theory and paganism. Chance evolution theory is what makes all the kaleidoscope of deviant self-destructive anti-social behaviour appear beautifully logical. The failure of the theory of chance evolution has been carefully kept from the public because it is a deliberate confidence trick. This myth supplies the foundation for the humanist/pagan religion which in turn is the cheese in the liberal/socialist trap.

Just so long as we maintain false creation beliefs we will live in conflict and slavery.

I have challenged our leaders and authorities to prove their sincerity by making the true scientific status of the evolution myth known to the public and by explaining the consequences of this theory in terms of social philosophy. Our leaders have not been prepared to do this without pressure. That challenge, and the meaning and reason for that challenge, is an important purpose of this book.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:

Gandalf

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
For example, check out Florian's take on this general topic that we just published on Sott.

It's a good example of how a different approach may appeal to different people.
Added to the list which is here.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I just realised that I've misquoted the authors name of the document I attached above - it's not 'Arthur Gourlay' it's 'Alan Gourlay'. My apologies.
I changed it in the original post so nobody will be confused.

I read the piece and it's pretty accurate except that he's got his hatchet out for paganism and I think that's the wrong way to go.

Added: A lot of people equate Paganism with Satanism. Darwinism is, I think, Satanism, but definitely not paganism.
 
Last edited:
I have started writing something about irreducible complexity, and I've ran into a small problem, so I wonder if anyone can help.

I've been reading a lot of stuff written by supporters of evolution, specifically looking for things that can challenge my view, to fight confirmation bias, etc. You know... being scientific and stuff.

There's a proposed mechanism for the evolution of the human eye, for example. (Wikipedia has an article on that.) I'm not sure if the eye is IC, though David Swift shows many other reasons why it's very unlikely to have evolved as described. Is the eye IC or not? I'm not interested in any other problems right now, just whether we can safely say that it's irreducibly complex or not.

The bigger problem, though, is what I've found about blood clotting. Aside from a few arguments that were flawed, I discovered one thing that seems legit, and if so, then it looks to me like Behe was wrong saying the clotting process is IC. The thing is that apparently whales are missing exactly one of the steps in the process.
Hematologic and coagulation studies were conducted on Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and killer whales. Hematologic values were similar to those in man. These animals differed from other mammals in that the Hageman factor (factor XII) was absent and this absence caused marked prolongation of coagulation.
[link]

I've checked several sources, and it looks to me like that one thing, factor XII, is really missing in these, even though the quote mentions a drawback - slower coagulation. It still works, though. Of course this proves nothing about evolution, but in a strict sense, unless I'm missing something, it proves that the blood clotting in humans is not IC. If that's the case, then there's no point mentioning blood clotting anymore, because it just won't be convincing. It doesn't change the overall situation, but I don't want to be like Dawkins and present half-baked arguments.

So my question is whether any of you can shed some light of this that would change the situation. Many of you have read books I haven't, and maybe this was mentioned somewhere with some additional information I'm not aware of.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The thing is that apparently whales are missing exactly one of the steps in the process.
Mandatory Intellectomy,

I wonder if the difference in whales shows IC by family rather than in general. For the whale the design was chosen for maybe a good reason. Sorry, I don't know if you can say Behe was wrong since he was describing blood clotting in humans. If he had chosen the whale then maybe he would have taken that into account?
 
For the whale the design was chosen for maybe a good reason. Sorry, I don't know if you can say Behe was wrong since he was describing blood clotting in humans. If he had chosen the whale then maybe he would have taken that into account?
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. The funny thing is that the gene for factor XII apparently exists in whales but is inactivated (pseudogene).

The point is, goyacobol, that with this one step removed/nonfunctional, blood clotting still performs its function, even if slightly worse. This is actually exactly what the evolutionists would expect. One part removed, works slightly worse. If it was irreducibly complex, this shouldn't be possible. It shouldn't work at all. It doesn't really matter in what animal this version exists.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. The funny thing is that the gene for factor XII apparently exists in whales but is inactivated (pseudogene).

The point is, goyacobol, that with this one step removed/nonfunctional, blood clotting still performs its function, even if slightly worse. This is actually exactly what the evolutionists would expect. One part removed, works slightly worse. If it was irreducibly complex, this shouldn't be possible. It shouldn't work at all. It doesn't really matter in what animal this version exists.
If design is to be based at the family/genus level I would think that determines what is IC in Behe's meaning of the term but if you are trying to convince the Darwinian contaminated crew then I you do have to be as accurate as possible I suppose.

I guess we can just hope they don't notice your example or you can just not use an example that is not 100% IC as far as you know.

I am not trying to tell you how to write your next article and I think your noticing this example is very astute.

You may find other examples with the same problem and that may require a very refined definition of IC for the really skeptical Darwinian believers. Even then, there are going to be those who are not going to agree so the challenge is immense due to confirmation bias.

The degree of complexity may not always be necessary to prove "design". Many well designed creations are still not explainable by RM or NS. The fact that "the gene for factor XII exists in whales but is inactivated" means we may have inactivated genes that can be switched on which would mean we were/are not IC either.
 
if you are trying to convince the Darwinian contaminated crew
Yes, that's the point/reason.

I guess we can just hope they don't notice your example
No, we need to have higher standards than that. If it works, I can use it. If it doesn't, I can't. Which is why I'm trying to determine whether this case works 100% or not. If not, then I just won't talk about it.

the challenge is immense due to confirmation bias
It definitely is, so we need as much accuracy and verification of facts as possible. Making dumb mistakes would only backfire.

The degree of complexity may not always be necessary to prove "design". Many well designed creations are still not explainable by RM or NS.
Absolutely true. Like I said, even if Behe made a mistake about this specifically, it changes nothing about the big picture. I'm just trying to get the facts straight about this particular issue to know whether it's usable in arguments or not. I'm kind of hoping I have missed something somewhere and someone can spot what it is.

The fact that "the gene for factor XII exists in whales but is inactivated" means we may have inactivated genes that can be switched on which would mean we were/are not IC either.
Probably every organism has genes that are switched off. That's nothing new. But that has little if any relation to IC. If the gene is switched off, it's about the same as it not being there at all, regarding IC. What matters is the present function.

You're right that IC isn't necessary. When I read DBB, I felt like it was a crucial point (because I knew about little else then). But the more I read, the less important IC really seems in the scope of things, because the problems are so many. And a good point was made in that post by Jones, quoting Alan Gourley. It shows that when we talk about things like irreducible complexity, we're just arguing about minor details while being deep in the realm of the impossible. We shouldn't even be there. We shouldn't have to get down to this level of stupidity and argue about such details. The whole Darwinian paradigm is utter nonsense. It's possibly even worse than all the random New Age nonsense combined.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The point is, goyacobol, that with this one step removed/nonfunctional, blood clotting still performs its function, even if slightly worse. This is actually exactly what the evolutionists would expect. One part removed, works slightly worse. If it was irreducibly complex, this shouldn't be possible. It shouldn't work at all. It doesn't really matter in what animal this version exists.
One could argue that a lack of Factor XII makes whales less susceptible to thrombosis. It's a coagulation factor involved in later stages of clot formation rather than the initial stages were fine-tuned regulation is crucial. Could it be a Darwinian de-evolution for adaptation? Maybe, maybe not. I would choose a less nitpicking argument because this field is so incredibly complex that lifetime experts on the subject are still able to make mistakes in their arguments in open publications. For me, that alone is an argument for Intelligent Design.

There's a proposed mechanism for the evolution of the human eye, for example. (Wikipedia has an article on that.) I'm not sure if the eye is IC, though David Swift shows many other reasons why it's very unlikely to have evolved as described. Is the eye IC or not? I'm not interested in any other problems right now, just whether we can safely say that it's irreducibly complex or not.
Although it might look that way, I don't know if we can safely say it's IC. From glimpsing the book "The Form Within" by Dr. Karl Pibram, I've got the feeling that we don't know the whole story about how the eye works. He has done research involving optics and quantum physics and non-linear dynamics. It's a field that seems to involve the whole brain as a processor of information and thus, it might be a field that goes beyond molecular biology.
 
Top Bottom