Behe’s example of an irreducibly complex object is a mousetrap. If you take away any of the minimal elements that make the trap work it will loose its function; on the other hand, there is no way to assemble a mousetrap gradually for a natural phenomenon, because it won’t work until the last piece is assembled. Forethought, and therefore intelligent design, is necessary. Of course it is. After all, mousetraps are indeed human products; we know that they are intelligently designed. But what of biological structures? Behe claims that, while evolution can explain a lot of the visible diversity among living organisms, it is not enough when we come to the molecular level. The cell and several of its fundamental components and biochemical pathways are, according to Behe, irreducibly complex. The problem with this statement is that it is at least partially contradicted by the available literature on comparative studies in microbiology and molecular biology, which Behe conveniently ignores . For example, geneticists are continuously showing that biochemical pathways are partly redundant. Redundancy is a common feature of living organisms where different genes are involved in the same or in partially overlapping functions. While this may seem a waste, mathematical models show that evolution by natural selection has to imply molecular redundancy, because when a new function is necessary it cannot be carried out by a gene that is already doing something else, without compromising the original function. On the other hand, if the gene gets duplicated (by mutation), one copy is freed from immediate constraints and can slowly diverge in structure from the original, eventually taking over new functions. This process leads to the formation of gene "families", groups of genes clearly originated from a single ancestral DNA sequence, and that now are diversified and perform a variety of functions (e.g., the globins, which vary from proteins allowing muscle contraction to those involved in the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood). As a result of redundancy, mutations can knock down individual components of biochemical pathways without compromising the overall function – contrary to the expectations of irreducible complexity. To be sure, there are several cases in which biologists do not know enough about the fundamental constituents of the cell to be able to hypothesize or demonstrate their gradual evolution. But this is rather an argument from ignorance, not positive evidence of irreducible complexity. William Paley advanced exactly the same argument to claim that it is impossible to explain the appearance of the eye by natural means. Yet, today biologists know of several examples of intermediate forms of the eye, and there is evidence that this structure evolved several times independently during the history of life on earth . The answer to the classical creationist question, "what good is half an eye?" is "much better than no eye at all"! However, Behe does have a point concerning irreducible complexity. It is true that some structures simply cannot be explained by slow and cumulative processes of natural selection. From his mousetrap to Paley’s watch to the Brooklyn Bridge, irreducible complexity is indeed the hallmark of intelligent design. The problem for ID theory is that there is no evidence so far of irreducible complexity in living organisms. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
TimGolden
JoinedPosts by TimGolden
-
3
From William Paley.........
by Shining One ina theologian and scientist from darwin's age: .
"in crossing a heath, suppose i pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; i might possibly answer, that, for anything i knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer.
but suppose i had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; i should hardly think of the answer which i had before given, that, for anything i knew, the watch might have always been there.
-
-
-
8
Anyone read "The Jesus Mysteries"?
by poppers insubtitled, "was the 'original jesus' a pagan god?
" by timothy freke and peter gandy.
from amazon's editorial review: .
-
-
TimGolden
Greetings, I've read the Jesus Mysteries and am currently reading the author's follow up book, "The Laughing Jesus". I found both books certainly worth the effort. The similarities between the Jesus story and the earlier pagan godmen are striking, thus the books can be faith wrecking so be warned. (Smile) Regards, Tim