Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

The trouble with saying that the watchmaker analogy doesn't work because it is a living system, is based on the premise that because life is so abundant and diverse, we take it for granted.
The fact that the watch is not alive actually makes it more likely that it could turn up by chance than biological organisms. The simple cell is not only irreducably complex but it is also 'alive'.The fact that it can self replicate and make adjustments for genetic irregularites make the watch look pathetic in comparison

oops lots of grammatical errors

The following is a quote by a research scientist attempting to explain the evolutionary path to the irreducable complexity of web making. interesting that the nearest ancestor to a spider he can identify is a king crab.Notice that the silk glands have come through the ranks of getting rid of body waste, finding his way home with pheromones and then silk production. What a shame that a reputable scientist gives himself over to such hogwash because he can't believe that the spider could have come from divine origin.Spiders evolved from ancestors that had limbs on the abdomen, as did arthropods like crustaceans such as crayfish. In fact, one of their few living marine relatives, Limulus, the so-called "king crabs", has retained abdominal limbs, which have been lost or greatly modified in terrestrial spiders and other arachnids. The spiders' spinnerets are almost certainly derived from these ancestral abdominal limbs. In the basal (lowest) segments of spiders' limbs are small excretory glands - the coxal glands - that secrete and excrete waste body fluids. It seems that the silk glands may represent highly modified excretory glands that now manufacture silk instead of waste products, just as the spinnerets represent highly modified limbs. It is possible that an intermediate stage in this process could have been the production of a secretion that included pheromone (scent) chemicals put out by the spider as a primitive "signal line" by which a spider could find its way back to its retreat burrow. This role was then taken over by the production of silk. The silk then became useful not only as a safety line, but also for prey capture, manufacturing egg sacs and a host of other activities.
[Modified from text by Dr Mike Gray - Principal Research Scientist (Spiders)]

What I am basically saying is that there can be no compelling explanation for the fact that for a spider to make a web there needs to be all the aparatus and substances in place as well as the program in the spiders brain to be able to make it. the web making ability must be a program because otherwise when a spider had no other contact with spiders from birth he would not know how to make it.
consequently the genetic information in the spider has to be added to in many varied spheres for web making to be possible and if all these spheres were not so altered at the same time then you would have a tragic little creature with more functions than it could use.
this indivisible behavior could just as easily be demonstated in a cobra. the glands for poison, the holes through the fangs the instinct to bite all have to be in place, and the poison has to be a perfect composition of proteins to disable its prey or everything else is irrelevant. even the capacity to swallow an animal whole would be irrrelevant if it could not immobilize its victim.
Maybee this is an argument from incredulity but to me it's the most common sense way to show the faulty logic of darwinian evolution.

I don't think one needs to read another biology book to formulate a good argument against evolution. the gap between a spider using a dragnet silk and one making a geometric web is like the gap between reptiles and primates. if a spider were to experiment on making a web then it would have intelligence like us humans. the things that we learn by experimentation we pass on through education to our offspring (unless you count learning to walk)
so the spiders web making must be an instinctive program. A highly complex program integrated with spinnerets and various different types of silk which it uses for different functions in its web. If it learnt to make a web by trial and error then when it finally made an adequate one, a mutation would have to occur in the spiders genes to ensure that its offspring could do the same. This mutation would have to involve many thousands of alterations to the genetic code.
It cannot be explained by evolution and I think that some of you can sense this and so, the 'appeal to ridicule' . If you want to hide behind your text books, that is your prerogative but please don't think that your untenable position is made more defendable by attacking my use of simple logic.

My very point is that I havn't been given a pathway.
I have offered you more than my own personal incredulity, I have offered an argument. Perhaps you will next tell me I must prove that the web making faculty couldn't have evolved. Do you want me also to prove that the graphiti on a brick wall didn't come by way of a paint truck overturning.

Are these diagrams supposed to demonstate how
simple a spiders web is to make. I'm not sure of the significance
of them. Very interesting though I must say.
I am incredulous about the nice guesswork involved in
the silk gland having a couple of intermediary uses
but you won't be because of the circular reasoning
in incremental evolution. This kind of chain of events
is about as unscientific as you can get. making hypothetical
guesses to provide the missing information in the evolution
of the web maker.

It's ironic how you criticise me for lack of evidence when you
have none your self. You speculate on how a spider may have come upon the ability to make webs using only natural Darwinian mechanisms
You can't prove any of them, yet you say that I am the one lacking
real evidence. The remark that evolutionist use logic and the creationists don't is moronic. Logic says that if the law of entropy always operates and the only thing to slow its working is information
ie photosynthesis etc, then the law of entropy would have destroyed all precursors essential to the formulation of a cell long before it arrived at it's irreducable complexity even if the components could come together by chance. That is logic. What you guys deal with isn't
logic. Its illogical flights of fancy based on the religious paradigm
of evolution

maybee this little piece will show you how information is related to
the second law of thermodynamics........any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.

(Gemster is also wrong. The sunshining on the earth, decreases entropy here.)This statement is only true because of complex biological systems on earth.Charles J. Smith recognized the challenge posed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics to the most significant unanswered how and why of evolutionary theory: The thermodynamicist immediately clarifies the latter question by pointing out that the Second Law classically refers to isolated systems which exchange neither energy nor matter with the environment; biological systems are open, and exchange both energy and matter. The explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology. [C. J. Smith (evolutionist), Biosystems 1:259 (1975)]

The second law of thermodynamics, in short, says that W will only increase in a closed system.what is your point?

I'm sorry your knowledge of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is flawed
Nice chemistry lesson though.
Read this excerpt from an article by Mark Isaac, it might bring you up to speed.No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the applicability of 2nd law to both closed (isolated) and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself. [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

I'm the first to admit that I am nowhere near being a scientist but your attempt to infer from that, that I am not worth debating is a bit arrogant don't you think. Why was thermodynamics even raised. For the simple reason of showing that the only reason that life can exist as an open system and not be destroyed by entropy is because of the two factor I have already mentioned. open system can exist in spite of this law is, as I have already statedany increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved. [Last Modified: 2 September 2002]Now again'I am not a scientist' and I anticipate your scoffing at my this statement and using it against me. I am not unaware of your tactics and it seems that you have never heard of the principle of charity in philosophical argument.
This quote is very easy for a layman like myself to understand, I need no formal training in the sciences to understand it, now why don't you try to defend your theory of evolution(increasing complexity) in the light of this undisputed fact in chemical biology.
How did the components of the first cell come together in violation of this basic principle of life. I would appreciate if you could address the question without being an intellectual smart-arse.

Your science lessons are getting really pathetic.
Have you ever heard of the generalized 2nd law of thermodynamics: informational entropy. If you had then you would know that my quote had everything to do with thermodynamics.
The same entropy principle that defines thermal entropy can be applied to information systems. the 2nd law is inviolate in an isolated system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system. The entire universe is in an isolated system. However, there is an uninformed evolutionists' notion that we have an exception because we live in an open system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,
As I have already said but it fell on deaf ears was that simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If you can't understand a simple scientific principle like this then perhaps you should consider giving up the science lessons.
Once again I will repeat the statement that is a scientific fact...........any increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) invariably requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:
1. a program (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy.The earth’s living systems have both of these essential elements. Each living organism’s DNA contains all the code (the program or information) needed to direct the process of building (or organizing) the organism up from seed or cell to a fully functional, mature specimen, complete with all the necessary instructions for maintaining and repairing each of its complex, organized, and integrated component systems.
Living systems also have the second essential componenttheir own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Yet evolutionary theory demands precisely such violations every step of the way, as the expansion of the big bang acquires information, organization, and complexity, forming itself into galaxies, stars, planets, then highly complex amino acids, proteins, DNAessentially generating greater and greater organization, complexity, and information all by itself, and all in complete contradiction of the best established natural law known to science.You people astound me, all puffed up with knowledge, but with no wisdom. Where I come from they call these people educated fool.
The M.O of this website for evolutionists is similar to that employed by packs of lions in africa. Look for an animal seperated from its' herd, too old or weak to keep up, and destroy it. Well I was hoping for a healthy debate and it was not to be found, so you can save your arrogant patronising insults for I respect myself too much too return.