Essential Links ▼
Message Coding Help ►
Posts of the Month ►
Document Library ►
Here's the original quote:
I'm not clear what distinction you are drawing between "organism" and "machine".
If a cell is considered a "biological machine", then an organism, which is composed of cells, is a "biological machine" as well.
The mechanisms by which cellular "biological machines" (e.g. ribosomes or bacterial flagella) developed thru evolution are well understood (contrary to Behe's assertions).
An "unnecessary" part (e.g. eyesight in a cave dwelling animal) is a deleterious part.
A great deal of biological "energy" is used in constructing "useless" parts. That "energy" expenditure could be used in others ways and thus is deleterious to an animal with an "unnecessary" part.
I'd also like to point out that the author of the 30 year old paper you cited, Philip J. Regal, is a zoologist.
If you look at his CV you will see that evolution is not his forte.
What assumptions do you think RAZD is making?
He is simply saying that if you have a self replicating molecule it will evolve.
Let's use a virus as an example. A virus is nothing more than a tiny piece of DNA encased in an envelope. It is a very simple self replicating molecule. And a virus, when it replicates, mutates.
A good example of this is HIV's response to the AIDS cocktail. Over the years, resistant strains of HIV have developed thru the viral mutations.
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 BetaInnovative software from Qwixotic © 2020