This whole subject has probably already been discussed here before but I really want some up to date information. Asking this on TA might seem strange to outsiders but I know there are some real intelligent champions on this forum. Here it goes.
Intelligent design theory argues that its not possible for complex organisms such as ourselves to simply evolve all of our functioning parts from evolution. Let me quote something I read from the Discovery Institute written by Stephen C. Meyer.
"Over the last 25 years, scientists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells. Inside these tiny labyrinthine enclosures, scientists have found functioning turbines, miniature pumps, sliding clamps, complex circuits, rotary engines, and machines for copying, reading and editing digital information-hardly the simple "globules of plasm" envisioned by Darwin's contemporaries.
Moreover, most of these circuits and machines depend on the coordinated function of many separate parts. For example, scientists have discovered that bacterial cells are propelled by miniature rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at speeds up to 100,000 rpm. These engines look for all-the world as if they were designed by the Mazda corporation, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins) including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints, and drive shafts.
Is this appearance of design merely illusory? Could natural selection have produced this appearance in a neo-Darwinian fashion one tiny incremental mutation at a time? Biochemist Michael Behe argues 'no.' He points out that the flagellar motor depends upon the coordinated function of 30 protein parts. Yet the absence of any one of these parts results in the complete loss of motor function. Remove one of the necessary proteins (as scientists can do experimentally) and the rotary motor simply doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's terminology, "irreducibly complex."
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place. "
There is a pretty strong arguement that I would like to debunk but don't have the knowledge to do. Does anyone here have any knowledge on this subject? The arguement he uses agaisnt evolution is driving me a bit crazy tonight so I thought maybe someone could clear things up a bit. If anyone cares to take this discussion even further, please go right ahead :D
Lira
There's a good video that shows step by step why it is reducibly complex (which shows just how mistaken this guy is right from the start). Let me see if I can find it...
Edit: Turns out I couldn't, but there's plentyofmaterial against this irreducible complexity nonsense.
If yuo find that a bit objectionable or if its illegal in your area, check out Thunderf00t's channel on YT.. In his "why do people laugh at creationists" series he tackles this very problem i think.
The17sss
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
ID is nonsense. don't waste your time.
+1
Basically a new twist by creationists as science makes it harder and harder for them to spin their stupid god theories.
Dj Nacht
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
There's a good video that shows step by step why it is reducibly complex (which shows just how mistaken this guy is right from the start). Let me see if I can find it...
Edit: Turns out I couldn't, but there's plentyofmaterial against this irreducible complexity nonsense.
Perfect! Exactly what I was looking for, thank you.
I didn't know intelligent design advocates called it irreducible complexity. After reading that I feel relieved and a bit embarrassed that I couldn't find the answer myself.
I have been doing a lot of reading on the subject of evolution lately and I can't help but notice how pathetic the supporters of intelligent design are. They never try to prove intelligent design but instead they try to poke holes in evolutionary theory. :whip:
Desiderata
I saw God once and he was shaking hands with the Devil.
My thought was this is a total non mind .
If I may quote: "A cheesecake nun advertising 60 brands of sea cow lemon in 60 different languages while laughing bags aping the Hallelujah Chorus, the forgotten version, out of key (slightly)
Just enough to annoy you."
:clown:
Lira
It's one of the oldest fallacies in the book: If I prove you wrong then I'm right.
Znack
Desiderata
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
It's one of the oldest fallacies in the book: If I prove you wrong then I'm right.
Hey Lira, I take it that you are still well educated in Buddhism but what made you change, or is Buddhism more a philosophy of a life style. I have no knowledge on Buddhism but I been studying Krsna for a bit, it's so old and out dated IMO but I figured that I would become an eclectic on Religion just for conversation purpose and personal knowledge on my spare time.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Desiderata
Hey Lira, I take it that you are still well educated in Buddhism but what made you change, or is Buddhism more a philosophy of a life style. I have no knowledge on Buddhism but I been studying Krsna for a bit, it's so old and out dated IMO but I figured that I would become an eclectic on Religion just for conversation purpose and personal knowledge on my spare time.
I read a lot about Buddhism in my late teens, and it shaped my world view ever since, but there are two reasons why I wouldn't ever consider myself a Buddhist:
The Three Refuges: The Buddha, the Dharma (Buddha's teachings) and the Sangha (the Buddhist community) are of the utmost importance for Buddhists. Buddha's teaching are all very interesting, but I really don't feel like making part of a community of like-minded people;
The Four Noble Truths: I can accept the first two just fine but, once the Buddhist stoicism kicks in, I just don't think that's a life worth living. Although the Eightfold Path doesn't look very bad at first, you need to keep in mind that the Buddhist goal is to reach Nirvana (which is Pali for "Eternal Ungivable ness") and stop the cycle of life and death. There's no reason we should believe there's a cycle to begin with, let alone believe there's a need to break free;
The Icing on the Cake: Unfortunately, religious views just tend to become more and more superstitious as the years go by. Just because I reckon the Buddhist concept of impermanence is a better description of reality than anything devised by the Graeco-Christian fetish with the unchanging, that doesn't mean I'm going to accept all the nuttery regarding reincarnation and the like.
