anti evolutionists verse the forum, move 2
23 Nov '08 22:4715 editsso my friends, (well actually friend black beetle as in singular), we meet again, therefore in the best platonic tradition i think it best to define in simple terms what it is we are talking about, therefore a definition is called for,for to be sure not all protagonists of this myth are in agreement, therefore in essence what is Darwinian evolutionary theory? if i may be so bold as to quote, Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, the united states of America no less.'' In its full-throated, biological sense....evolution means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. Darwinian evolution postulates that ' virtually all of life, or at least all of its most interesting features, resulted from natural selection working on random variation.', taken from his book - Darwin's black box, the biochemical challenge to evolution. it must be noted that professor behe is a roman catholic, who believes in evolution as a way to explain the later development of animals, however when Darwin developed his theory scientists naturally because of constraints had little or no knowledge of the amazing 'design', ooops sorry just a slip of the keyboard there, i shall rephrase that, the amazing complexity of living cells, therefore what has transpired is that in the process of research many questions have been raised as to the validity of Darwin's theory!
in his book Behe argues that a cell, because of its complexity can only function as a complete entity! thus it cannot be formed by slow gradual changes as postulated by Darwinian theory as defined by Behe, and he uses a rather excellent illustration of a mouse trap, i am sure all you bad ol putty cats can appreciate that, anyhow, the idea is that this simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms 'irreducible complexity.', a rather important sounding word for a real simple idea. now then , now then, this presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics and even the daddy ol bad putty cat of them all, Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said, and i quote, ' 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', source origin of the species - dig that y'all, even the baddest pussy cat of them all, ol Darwin himself had his doubts! what are we to conclude, other than, that the irreducibly complex cell is a huge stumbling block to belief in Darwins theory for in the first instance as it not only fails to explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter (as does Darwin's book, the unfortunately titled origin of species, for it describes nothing of the sort, but we wont let that phase us!) but then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit, assembled and functioning according to professor Behe associate professor of biochemistry! in fact try this experiment at home, go to your car or pickup, whatever you drive, take out even the simplest of components from the engine, say the water pump, or the timing belt, anything, and see how far your car runs before imploding! yet, tut tut, evolutionary theorists want us to accept this premise with regard to the irreducibly complex living cell!
Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves, blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts. These activate what is called a clotting cascade. this delicate healing process depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death, therefore we can determine that timing and speed are the vital keys.
biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting involves many factors, none of which can be missing for the process to succeed. Behe asks, ' once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood.....has solidified' , he explains that ' the formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot make up an integrated biological system, if any part fails, then the system fails . another source russell doolittle, evolutionist and professor of biochemistry at the University of California, asks 'How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? the paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble. Using evolutionary arguments, Doolittle tries to explain the origin of the process. However, Professor Behe points out that there would be an 'enormous amount of luck needed to get the right gene pieces in the right places.' he shows that Doolittles explanation and casual language conceal tremendous difficulties. ( check it out http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp)
so we may ask, ahhh whats up dock, and find the conclusively that one of the major objections to the evolutionary model is the insurmountable hurdle of irreducible complexity. Behe states, ' I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select something that is useful right now! , not in the future'.
even further to this professor Behe states that some scientists have studied 'mathematical models for evolution or new mathematical methods for comparing and interpreting sequence data', however he concludes, ' the mathematics assumes (i can hear Socrates turn in his grave beetle) that real world evolution is a gradual, random process, IT DOES NOT AND CANNOT DEMONSTRATE IT! and rather interestingly he also notes and i quote, ' If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines, the basis of life, developed, you find an eerie and complete silence'. eerie indeed professor if you believe in fairies tales , ' the complexity of lifes foundation has paralyzed sciences attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as yet impenetrable barrier to Darwinisms universal reach.'
This raises a series of questions for conscientious scientists to consider: 'how did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? how did intra-molecular transport start? how did cholesterol bio-synthesis begin? how did retinal become involved in vision? how did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop?, the Prof adds adds and please note! 'the very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems!'
so then, we have a right to ask if Darwins theory cannot explain the complex molecular foundation of cells, then how can it be a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the millions of species that inhabit this earth? After all, evolution cannot even produce new family kinds by bridging the gaps from one family kind to another, can it?
No no no no no matter how plausible Darwins theory of evolution may appear to be in the eyes of some scientists and forum contributers, you must ultimately face the question beetle dude for even if we assume that forms of living things evolved by natural selection, how did life get its start? in other words, the problem lies, not in survival of the fittest but in the arrival of the fittest, something that is of great concern, even to the great man himself, for as French science writer philippe chambon wrote, 'Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And todays biologists have to humbly admit, with prof. jean genermont of the university of south paris in orsay, that the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs
therefore in the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, is it any wonder we find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction just by chance? is it any wonder that we question how any creatures could have survived in the battle of the survival of the fittest while they were still evolving eyes? or while they were supposedly forming primitive fingers on a subhuman body? or ultimately how cells survived and functioned if they existed in an incomplete and inadequate state?
one final quote may suffice, and i really must apologise for the length of this assertion, (it may as well be a dissertation given its length but the subject is deep, the references many and the logic had to be made tight and unassailable ).
in his book Behe argues that a cell, because of its complexity can only function as a complete entity! thus it cannot be formed by slow gradual changes as postulated by Darwinian theory as defined by Behe, and he uses a rather excellent illustration of a mouse trap, i am sure all you bad ol putty cats can appreciate that, anyhow, the idea is that this simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms 'irreducible complexity.', a rather important sounding word for a real simple idea. now then , now then, this presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics and even the daddy ol bad putty cat of them all, Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said, and i quote, ' 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', source origin of the species - dig that y'all, even the baddest pussy cat of them all, ol Darwin himself had his doubts! what are we to conclude, other than, that the irreducibly complex cell is a huge stumbling block to belief in Darwins theory for in the first instance as it not only fails to explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter (as does Darwin's book, the unfortunately titled origin of species, for it describes nothing of the sort, but we wont let that phase us!) but then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit, assembled and functioning according to professor Behe associate professor of biochemistry! in fact try this experiment at home, go to your car or pickup, whatever you drive, take out even the simplest of components from the engine, say the water pump, or the timing belt, anything, and see how far your car runs before imploding! yet, tut tut, evolutionary theorists want us to accept this premise with regard to the irreducibly complex living cell!
Another example of irreducible complexity is a process most of us take for granted when we cut ourselves, blood clotting. Normally, any liquid will immediately leak out of a punctured container and will do so until the container is empty. Yet, when we puncture or cut our skin, the leak is quickly sealed by the formation of a clot. However, as doctors know blood clotting is a very complex, intricately woven system consisting of a score of interdependent protein parts. These activate what is called a clotting cascade. this delicate healing process depends critically on the timing and speed at which the different reactions occur otherwise, a person could have all of his blood clotting and solidifying, or on the other hand, he could bleed to death, therefore we can determine that timing and speed are the vital keys.
biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting involves many factors, none of which can be missing for the process to succeed. Behe asks, ' once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood.....has solidified' , he explains that ' the formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot make up an integrated biological system, if any part fails, then the system fails . another source russell doolittle, evolutionist and professor of biochemistry at the University of California, asks 'How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? the paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble. Using evolutionary arguments, Doolittle tries to explain the origin of the process. However, Professor Behe points out that there would be an 'enormous amount of luck needed to get the right gene pieces in the right places.' he shows that Doolittles explanation and casual language conceal tremendous difficulties. ( check it out http://www.trueorigin.org/behe03.asp)
so we may ask, ahhh whats up dock, and find the conclusively that one of the major objections to the evolutionary model is the insurmountable hurdle of irreducible complexity. Behe states, ' I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select something that is useful right now! , not in the future'.
even further to this professor Behe states that some scientists have studied 'mathematical models for evolution or new mathematical methods for comparing and interpreting sequence data', however he concludes, ' the mathematics assumes (i can hear Socrates turn in his grave beetle) that real world evolution is a gradual, random process, IT DOES NOT AND CANNOT DEMONSTRATE IT! and rather interestingly he also notes and i quote, ' If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines, the basis of life, developed, you find an eerie and complete silence'. eerie indeed professor if you believe in fairies tales , ' the complexity of lifes foundation has paralyzed sciences attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as yet impenetrable barrier to Darwinisms universal reach.'
This raises a series of questions for conscientious scientists to consider: 'how did the photosynthetic reaction center develop? how did intra-molecular transport start? how did cholesterol bio-synthesis begin? how did retinal become involved in vision? how did phosphoprotein signaling pathways develop?, the Prof adds adds and please note! 'the very fact that none of these problems is even addressed, let alone solved, is a very strong indication that Darwinism is an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems!'
so then, we have a right to ask if Darwins theory cannot explain the complex molecular foundation of cells, then how can it be a satisfactory explanation for the existence of the millions of species that inhabit this earth? After all, evolution cannot even produce new family kinds by bridging the gaps from one family kind to another, can it?
No no no no no matter how plausible Darwins theory of evolution may appear to be in the eyes of some scientists and forum contributers, you must ultimately face the question beetle dude for even if we assume that forms of living things evolved by natural selection, how did life get its start? in other words, the problem lies, not in survival of the fittest but in the arrival of the fittest, something that is of great concern, even to the great man himself, for as French science writer philippe chambon wrote, 'Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And todays biologists have to humbly admit, with prof. jean genermont of the university of south paris in orsay, that the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs
therefore in the light of the tremendous odds against such endless variety and complexity of life forms, is it any wonder we find it difficult to believe that it all evolved in the right direction just by chance? is it any wonder that we question how any creatures could have survived in the battle of the survival of the fittest while they were still evolving eyes? or while they were supposedly forming primitive fingers on a subhuman body? or ultimately how cells survived and functioned if they existed in an incomplete and inadequate state?
one final quote may suffice, and i really must apologise for the length of this assertion, (it may as well be a dissertation given its length but the subject is deep, the references many and the logic had to be made tight and unassailable ).
Back to Top