1. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Nov '08 22:4715 edits
    so 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 ).
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    23 Nov '08 22:517 edits
    continued from above

    Robert Naeye, a writer for astronomy magazine and an evolutionist (spit ding!), wrote that life on earth is the result of 'a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row '. that line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it.

    Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated. To compound the odds, we also have to believe that the male and the female not only evolved at the same time but also in the same place! No meeting, no procreation!

    sufferin succotash it stretches credulity to the limit to believe that life exists in its millions of perfected (ooops again a slip of the keyboard, the jury will disregard the word perfected) forms as a result of millions of gambles that paid off and personally I'm not buying it and i urge every true Christian to oppose this and every rational thinking individual to examine this scenario to see if it is not the case!

    apologies for spelling, grammar and punctuation and length of text
  3. Standard memberrandolph
    the walrus
    an English garden
    Joined
    15 Jan '08
    Moves
    32836
    24 Nov '08 03:26
    22 total edits? Jeez, robbie, I just came in because the thread title was so enticing.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Nov '08 06:30
    Irreducible complexity provides fine examples of what I was talking about in the anti-evolutionists thread.
    Michael Behe has proposed many different scenarios in which he believe irreducible complexity exists. In each and every case someone has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the example given is not irreducibly complex and could have arisen via evolutionary processes. Michael Behe, instead of treating his other examples (and his hypothesis in general) with increases skepticism, simply either invents another example, or ignores the refutation and moves on.
    Other anti-evolutionists then come and quote Behes original claims as proven factual when the truth is that they have long ago been proven false.

    So Robbie, my challenge to you is: Are you claiming that you are unaware that every example you have given has been shown to be possible via evolution?
  5. Joined
    17 Jul '08
    Moves
    155
    24 Nov '08 06:52
    Behe is a laughing stock in the scientific community:

    In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Nov '08 08:121 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    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 s an inadequate framework for understanding the origin of complex biochemical systems!
    Either you have misquoted him or one of two things is true:
    1. The Prof does not deserve to be a prof as he is displaying remarkable ignorance of developments in the field of Biology.
    2. The Prof does not deserve to be a prof as he is lying.
  7. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    24 Nov '08 08:22
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The odds are stacked against it.

    Yet, we are expected to believe that by chance evolution also produced a male and a female at the same time in order for the new species to be perpetuated.
    Did you ever figure out what the odds are of a god just existing in the first place?

    [Speaking of crazy beliefs people are expected to have...]
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Nov '08 09:161 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Robert Naeye, a writer for astronomy magazine and an evolutionist (spit ding!), wrote that life on earth is the result of '[b]a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row '. that line of reasoning can probably be applied to every single creature that exists today. The odds are stacked against it. [/b]
    Another example of you posting something you either know to be a falsehood or simply lack the education to understand and therefore should not try to pass on as 'fact'. That claim has been addressed multiple times in these threads and I am fairly sure you have read one of them before. In case you missed one of them, what are the odds of a die falling on the number 6? Are the odds 'stacked against it'?
  9. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Nov '08 10:09
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Either you have misquoted him or one of two things is true:
    1. The Prof does not deserve to be a prof as he is displaying remarkable ignorance of developments in the field of Biology.
    2. The Prof does not deserve to be a prof as he is lying.
    is this really the best you guys have got, vague insinuations, attempts at slandering the professor and his work, it hardly merits a responce, really in the immortal words of Palynka

    pathetic

    baseless assertion!
  10. Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    9895
    24 Nov '08 10:101 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Irreducible complexity provides fine examples of what I was talking about in the anti-evolutionists thread.
    Michael Behe has proposed many different scenarios in which he believe irreducible complexity exists. In each and every case someone has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the example given is not irreducibly complex and could have arisen via evol ...[text shortened]... t you are unaware that every example you have given has been shown to be possible via evolution?
    that the example given is not irreducibly complex and could have arisen via evolutionary processes. Michael Behe, instead of treating his other examples

    I'm not so interested in Biology so I will not be able to argue with you in any biological fact whether it is true or not. All what I'm asking about is that could in your statement imply that it could be wrong. Which means that for many who don't have as much knowledge of biology as you (assuming you know what you are talking about) it is a matter of faith that evolution is the solution of the problem of believing in GOD existence. With no knowledge of biology it will be simply a blind faith.

    EDIT: The reason why I'm saying so, is of course the assumption that the existence of GOD can not be proven , and as there is what can be called a proof for evolution theory then it some people automatically assume it can replace GOD, which is not correct in both sides of the assumption.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Nov '08 10:12
    Originally posted by Deep Thoughtless
    Behe is a laughing stock in the scientific community:

    In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intel ...[text shortened]... f the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible
    haha, just another attempt to move the goal posts, were are not talking about the inadequacies of intelligent design, we are talking about the insurmountable obstacles to evolutionarily theory as it stands in relation to irreducible complexity, tell you what, take the timing belt from your car and tell me if it works!
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Nov '08 10:13
    Originally posted by SwissGambit
    Did you ever figure out what the odds are of a god just existing in the first place?

    [Speaking of crazy beliefs people are expected to have...]
    i would definitely put all your money on it!
  13. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    24 Nov '08 10:15
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    is this really the best you guys have got, vague insinuations, attempts at slandering the professor and his work, it hardly merits a responce, really in the immortal words of Palynka

    pathetic

    baseless assertion!
    Did you miss this one?

    'Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".'

    When you skip past posts like the one from which this was extracted, it creates the impression that you are unwilling or unable to respond to them. When you skip past them and jeer at your opponents for not responding adequately to your claims, it creates the impression that you either have a mental problem or are being completely disingenuous.
  14. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    24 Nov '08 10:17
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    haha, just another attempt to move the goal posts, were are not talking about the inadequacies of intelligent design, we are talking about the insurmountable obstacles to evolutionarily theory as it stands in relation to irreducible complexity, tell you what, take the timing belt from your car and tell me if it works!
    Moving the goal posts? It's enough to show that Behe is a joke.

    Have you got any sources apart from Behe for this malarkey?
  15. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    24 Nov '08 10:211 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    so 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 evolutionar ces many and the logic had to be made tight and unassailable ).
    …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? ..…(my emphasises)

    Here we go again, the same old endless crap about the evolution process consisting of nothing more than “pure chance”.
    This is a common falsehood propagated by anti-evolutionists and totally misrepresents what the theory of evolution actually says:

    I must have pointed this out hundreds of times before in other posts in other threads but evolution does NOT say all living things were designed by “pure chance”. Sure, there are random mutations which are an essential part of the process, but what causes evolution is natural selection acting on those random mutations to select the best ones for survival and natural selection is NOT random!

    Therefore, evolution is NOT a totally random process -and certainly is nothing like winning a “million-dollar lottery a million times in a row” as your post suggested -that analogy is simply totally wrong because the process that determines whether or not you win a lottery is TOTALLY random but the process of evolution isn’t but, instead, consists of a long series of perfectly credible steps with each step starting with a random mutation BUT then being selected by NON-random natural selection.
Back to Top