a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists

The fact is, biology *does* work on normal chemical principles. There has never been an observed reaction in any biological system that doesn't. The particular reactions may be complex, but the basic principles are very simple. Complexity built out of simplicity is the hallmark of this very universe. The universe as a whole has a very small subset of rules encompasses all phenomina in existence.The quote you cited is confused. Are they talking about thermodynamics or aren't they? I think the author deliberately blurs the issue, because humans *do* follow the laws of thermodynamics - both entropy and enthalpy. There is no issue with thermodynamics, so if you're defining complexity based on thermodynamics, you have a very odd definition Yes, water forms into snowflakes because it's the reaction in the direction of entropy. So is the synthesis of RNA, the creation of proteins, etc - they follow entropy also. That is not the question.The question is whether complex phenomina can come from incredibly simple rules. The answer is a resounding *YES*. Learn about strange attractors, flocking algorithms, Conway's Game of Life, etc. Graph the number of iterations of "Z=Z^2 + C where Z>2" on the complex plane, and look at what you get (Mandelbrot Set). The issue is complexity (completely and utterly unrelated to thermodynamic order - a cold block of coal is more thermodynamically ordered than you are) occurring from simple rules. A snowflake is one of a near infinite number of cases in the world. The rules governing how water changes states are quite simple. But the iterative interaction in the freezing process leads to the beautiful designs that we see.I hate how creationists continually (deliberately?) misunderstand the concept of entropy.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

It happens with GAs. I use them in work The very first time Tierra was done, it shortened their starter algorithm to less than a third of its original size.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Pick one of Mike Gene's claims, so that we can pick it apart ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

If a hypothesis is picked apart and cannot be defended, then it is likely a false hypothesis.So, please, pick one, so that we can attempt to prove that it is a false hypothesis. If you choose not to defend it, then why did you bring up the quote in the first place?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I get to pick? I was being nice, and letting you pick which one you felt was the strongest defended. You kind of Gished me there by giving several at once Let's go with degradosome function for starters. ID states that the degradosome was designed. Evolution states that it evolved. First off, some detail. The degradosome is a complex of a number of enzymes designed to brake down a variety of chemicals, the most notable of which is RNA. To falsify absolutely the notion of ID being involved, one would have to actually witness something else becoming a degradosome - the odds of which are virtually nil. However, one can find evidence that the degradosome evolved, which is evidence stacked against ID as a consequence. Here's a couple:1) Mitochondria act as "captured" independent organisms, and have a complete set of organelles and chemical complexes - including degradosomes - that are completely different from their host's. Why would a creator put in this unecessary duplication of function in? The mitochrondia need to hold an equivalent section of code in their RNA to code for their degradosomes as a consequence. This just introduces a new place in which a cell can "break" and be, in effect, dead because of a mutation.2) The degradosome of many organisms that have been studied contains its, own very simple piece of RNA, which is used to carry out a portion of life which life could exist without (reclamation of chemicals used for other purposes), but would be notably less efficient. The formation of things like the degradosome are expected in a hypercycle (an early stage of abiogenesis) which increase efficiency and thus lead to the preference of replication in a cycle which has them over those which don't. The degradosome, however, is not so complex as to make its assembly unlikely.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Warren, I have a question:Do you feel that cooption of things that developed for a completely different purpose is unrealistic?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I believe that Mammothus is asking what part of this you think couldn't have evolved. The fact that these chemicals are in the degradosome? The structure of enolase or helicase without the reaction breaking down? What do you see as impossible to function in any other way?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-15-2003]

And once again, how does what you stated as being evidence for ID have anything at all to do with ID? The laws of chemistry aren't in dispute here, only whether there is a reasonable probability of such a structure developing in evolution.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 10-16-2003]