Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity

" So what exactly does evolution require to construct an IC system? It needs the capability to create novel proteins, get rid of proteins when they are no longer needed, and the ability to increase or decrease protein specificity"Perhaps it is my limited ability to understand, but I don't see how these attributes allow for an IC system. I'll revert to Behe's use of a mouse trap. For it to work all parts are needed from the beginning. If you lack the bar nothing catches the mouse. Now if for the mouse trap's survival it must catch mice then this is a serious problem. Now say the trap has the ability to create the novel structure of the "bar." This would require a novel mutation in its genome to now code for the production of this "bar." The chances of this happening are slim in itself, add to it the fact that this mutation must not harm the trap. Even in a large population these chances are still slim. So without a quick way to produce the "bar" how does it survive? Again, maybe its my limited knowledge and ability to understand. Could you give an example?While I understand your argument against Behe for assuming only an intelligent designer, I don't see a method from Darwinian evolution that can suit for IC systems. However, I think Behe argues intelligent design from the stance that its either evolution or design. Since he cannot see evolution accounting for IC systems, he assumes design from the lack of another suitable method. I don't think Behe is completely sold on the idea of design, but doesn't see another suitable explanation. I haven't read his book for some time now so maybe I'm wrong, but that was the impression I remember getting.

"now, i'm not assuming that you actually HAVE behe's book. but if you do, turn to pages 38 and 39 and follow along. behe says that no system with subsystems can be ic. you can just reduce it to it's component parts, no problem. everything else just comes from functional additions to the subsystem, or combination of subsystems. ie: nothing with "parts" can be ic." ArachnophiliaI do have the book and have just gone over the pages you mentioned. However, I'm not sure I've come to the same conclusion. On page 39, paragraph 3, Behe gives his definition of IC "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to efectively cease functioning." A part is not a system! I'll specifically use his example of blood clotting. You need thrombin which initially exists as the inactive form prothrombin. This thrombin can then cleave fibrinogen to fibrin and so on and so on. A cascade reaction is formed and the end product is blood clotting. The entire cascade is the system while everything else are the parts required. Again, I'm only a 3rd year bio student, so perhaps I'm not understanding properly. This is simply how I took it.By the way I've yet to figure out how to incorporate someone else's post into mine so I don't have to retype what they said. Can anyone give some help here. ThanksThis message has been edited by jjburklo, 11-16-2004 06:38 PM

quote:

---

unless you're a dolphin.

---

So not every animal has the same process of clotting blood. Regardless, evolution has to account for blood clotting in humans, which as far as I can see is an IC.

quote:

---

so, as a third year bio student, how do you understand the process of evolution to work? why the objections to it? have you read dawkin's book, "the blind watchmaker"? and what do you think of it if you have?

---

Even though a 3rd year bio student in college, I've still been exposed to enough of evolution to understand it. I'm fed it in every biology class i take. However, I've also done my own research outside of class both pro evolution and pro creation. I have not read Dawkin's book as of yet, but I have read several rebuttals to it from the pro creation side. My main objection comes from my faith as a Christian. The Bible won't allow for evolution. For me the Bible is authoritative, which I'm sure you will disagree and your entitled to it. But I've experienced the truth of the Bible and a relationship with Jesus Christ. Scientifically, I also don't see how evolution can account for life today. Natural selection is a loss of genetic information. It eliminates genes from the pool. It's comparable to a company losing money every year yet still making a profit? That doesn't make sense in my eyes. Also, if we look at the similarity between humans and apes, we find that there is a 4% difference in the genome (yes some say otherwise, but from what I've read 4% seems to be the most trustworthy figure). That's equivalent to 120 million base pairs, 12 million words, or 40 extremely large textbooks of information. I don't see how mutations can account for all of this. When I am taught the major "proofs" for evolution, and then read "Icons of Evolution" that refute every single one of those proofs, I begin to question. When I read bold faced lies and improper reporting of data in my biology text books such as that of the falsified drawings of Haeckel's embyro's (which for over a 100 years now has been known to be false!), or the peppered moth experiment, which has some serious methodology problems as well as not completely showing all the statistics taken from other places. When I read Behe's book I begin to question. When I read Dr. Paul Davies, "The mind of God", who is not a Christian, but shows quite thoroughly the need for a creator I begin to question. Now you might say the origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution, I disagree. Evolution must be able to account for beginnings. When I read Gitts "In the Beginning There was Information" and specifically states that "there is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process nor material phenomenon known that can do this." And I've yet to read from another source a pathway for matter giving rise to information. Now perhaps that's my own ignorance and you might point me elsewhere, but I have looked and not found a suitable explanation. When I see this I begin to question. When I read about the cambrian explosion and how out of the blue many different body forms appear in animals without any kind of transitional form, I begin to question. When I read quotes from evolutionists such as Richard Lewontin's "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow COMPEL US TO ACCEPT A METERIAL EXPLANATION, on the contrary we are forced by our priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce a material explanation no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a DIVINE FOOT in the door." This shows lack of confidence in evolution, and merely states that although he is not compelled to believe in evolution by "methods or institutions of science", but rather refuses to believe in a designer so he'll believe in evolution instead, this makes me question. Now I'll admit the majority of what I have read is pro creation. But while not extensive, I do have a thorough background on evolution and I have read pro evolution sources. I'm sure grad school will make me as knowledgeable as you'd like. In any case, the fact that I may not be as knowledgeable as you'd like, although I do consider myself knowledgeable on the subject, doesn't mean I cannot form an opinion on the matter. For now, my opinion is that evolution isn't true.Sorry if this has brough the thread off topic, but it needed a reply

I would like to talk to you one on one about a few of the comments you made. Obviously, this brings the thread off topic so I was hoping to take this to email?