Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

Where is the evidence that shows this alleged "evolution" of the mammalian ear (please remember that the ear is only part of the hearing system) came about via random mutations culled by natural selection? That is what is needed. You just can't post fossils and assert IC is refuted. Further to use hearing to refute IC you would have to show how the hearing system got started. IOW what was the origins of hearing? With the vision system evolutionists point to a light sensitive spot, so what is it they point to for hearing?

Excuse me but the title of this thread, started by Loudmouth, is "Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted". Yet he didn't produce any evidence to substantiate that claim. As for "rational observer", I would really hesitate to put any evolutionist in that category.Phylogeny works on some molecules but not others. In order to assume any ancestral relationships with phylogeny the ToE must be assumed.I don't want an eyewitness account. However without something that is observable, or objectively testable and repeatable all there is would be speculation that can lead to an inference. An inference greatly biased by one's worldview. I can't believe you are that out of touch to realize that plain and simple fact.Mutation-selection has NEVER been observed to do anything near what evolutionists claim it did. BTW it isn't years as much as generations. IOW you want us to believe that what bacteria hasn't been able to do in billions of observed generations (evolve into something other than bacteria), you have sexually reproducing organisms doing in far fewer generations. Yet with sexual reproduction any given beneficial mutation has lesser chance of being passed on.One more thing- it is clear your hypothesis hasn't found any support in biology or genetics. If it had that support we wouldn't be having this little chat.

Tell you what- point me to ONE peer-reviewed article that shows RM & NS can lead to the scope of biological changes evolutionists insist occured. Please point to ONE biology textbook that shows the same. Yes anyone can print/ type anything. This is how the ToE first gained prominence and how it has maintained its dogma.How much evidence from genetics? You mean the field that was fathered by a Creationist? The field that was bastardized by evolutionists to fit their world-view? Just the evidence that mutations culled by NS can do what you say they did. I am sure if it existed there wouldn't be any geneticists that are Creationists. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Professor of Genetics Says 'No!' to Evolution | Answers in Genesis

IF you would have read Darwin's Black Box you would know what Behe actually says about IC. One more time- neither you nor any other person has shown that any evolutionary processes were responsible for the alleged evolution of the mammalian ear. All you have done was to re-produce some alleged sequence. A re-production that says nada of the mechanism.Sickle-celled anemia? A human evolving into a human does not help your case at all. NO ONE says mutations don't occur.Actually it is not a case of ignoring evidence. It is a case of evolutionists saying evidence exists when in fact it doesn't.
Please point me to ONE peer-reviewed article that shows mutations culled by NS can do what you say it can do to biological organisms.

JF:
IC is a claim that something cannot evolve; all that is necessary to refute that is to show that it could evolve, not that it did evolve.John Paul:
Incorrect. IC is the claim that something couldn't evolve via purely natural processes. However if something IC were designed to evolve that is another story altogether.Argument from ignorance? That is what the ToE is! At first it gained prominence due to our ignorance of the cell. Darwin ands his contemps thought it easy to get the changes the theory required. However now we should know better.BTW you need to do more than an explanation to refute IC. If explanations were all that is required I would have 5 PhDs by now...

Loudmouth my point is, and it should be obvious, that you can't refute IC without the biological / genetic evidence that demonstrates random mutations culled by NS led to those alleged changes. Also, as anyone should be aware, it takes much more than hearing to be considered a mammal. Or are you saying that these organisms that were lucky enough to get a random mutation in the right locus as to add to some other random mutation's phenotypical change, also got the right random mutations that brought about reproductive changes, hair/ fur, warm bloodednessairy, etc.? Talk about believing in fairy tales.

If you have the book (Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study) you don't need me.

If you have the book (Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study) you don't need me.

schraf:
So, JohnPaul, how can I tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system and a natural one that we do not currently understand, and may not have the intelligence to ever understand?John Paul:
We would use the design explanatory filter as a starting point. If what comes out is a design inference then that is our starting assumption- that the object of our observation was the preoduct of ID. Then research would either support or falsify that inference. To falsify ID all that needs to be done is to show that purely natural processes is all that is required to produce that object. So far no one has shown that purely natural processes can account for CSI/ SC or IC.

Despite NrHambre's claim to the opposite no goalposts have been moved. Or if they have it was by evolutionists and now they are back where they belong.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IC is the claim that something couldn't evolve via purely natural processes. However if something IC were designed to evolve that is another story altogether.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH:
No kidding. It's actually a just-so story, since we have no way of knowing whether not-natural processes exist or how they would operate.John Paul:
What are you talking about? Of course we know and observe non-natural processes taking place every day. My house, car, computer etc. did NOT arise via purely natural processes.As for questions not answered I have asked evolutionists for over 30 years to provide evidence that RM & NS can do what they say it did. Yet no valid response has ever been made.It has also been pointed out that limits exist in all facets of life. Yet evolutionists want us to believe, without evidence and with evidence to the contrary, that life itself is immune to limits. You are fond of shouting that the evidence exists but when asked to present something from a peer-reviewed journal or a biology textbook that demonstrates RM & NS can lead to the scope of changes required, I get no answer or an answer pointing to irrelevant computer programs.

Well MrH if Creationists have personal incredulity because they want real evidence that would make the ToE a theory based upon credulity. And we all know that credulity isn't scientific.Verifiable agent- Well there you go again MrH. Ya see we INFER an IDer by the observable data. IOW there isn't any reason to believe that life originated via purely natural processes. Design is based on the following:Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Dr. Behe.The designer identity is NOT necessary to discern design. I don't know who designed my car and I have never seen a car being designed. Yet I know how to operate and maintain my car.Your appeal to the "billions of years " fallacy is duly noted. How convenient it must be to have a theory that is unverifiable and of no use to any scientific venue.I have told you and told you what type of evidence I would require. You just keep spinning and spinning and present nada.

Loudmouth why don't you just stick to the IC systems that Behe discusses? Just because YOU say something is IC doesn't make it so. Also with the bateria that could digest nylon- how do we know those mutations were random and not the result of an adaptive mutation- a mutation brought on by the organisms' sensing the environmental change and reacting to it....

LM:
You must show me positive evidence that this is due to non-random mechanisms before I will accept intelligent design.John Paul:
You haven't shown this to be random mutation. Where is YOUR positive evidence?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ya see we INFER an IDer by the observable data. IOW there isn't any reason to believe that life originated via purely natural processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Aside from the fact that purely natural processes are the only ones that have ever created a living organism or a structure thereof.John Paul:
Ahh the only life begets life strategy does NOT help your case. Ya see MrH life does not arise from non-life via purely natural processes. Except in the minds of the true believers of Mother Nature.MrH:
You infer a designer because that's what you want to infer.John Paul:
WRONG! I infer design because that is what the evidence points to.MrH:
Are we talking about the origin of life now, or are we still arguing that every species that exists or has ever existed is a product of a design event?John Paul:
ID is about life and its origins. However this thread is about IC and its alleged refutation based upon non-evidentiary support.MrH:
John Paul, for someone who thinks his car is proof of the supernatural origin of life, you should be careful about whom you accuse of presenting nada, okay?John Paul:
So now you revert to lies? I NEVER said or implied anything like what you just posted. The FACT is life exists. Why is only one alternative for life's origins considered scientific even though it isn't supported by any evidence?
Why is it that all of knowledge shows us that CSI and IC can only arise via design?BTW MrH, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Galileo et al. also saw the universe and life as the product of a Creator. I guess their science was incorrect....

Dating arguments were put forth by someone (Cook) who found out that Pb from U decay is un-discernable from Pb that has always been Pb.Behe is a biologist. What he has to say on the age of the earth does not mean much to me. I notice when asked how the earth formed in that scenario I keep getting the nebula hypothesis. There is a reason why after all these years it is still a hypothesis...