Home > FreeHovind > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: Irreducible complexity? Science says, yes
Irreducible complexity? Science says, yes
5 Comments - 17391 Views
Submitted By 9tails on 09/05/29
FreeHovind, 9tails, Creation and Evolution 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE
 
Molecular Biologist, Scott Minnich from the university of Idaho says,
 
"Irreducible complexity was coined by Mike Beehe, in describing these molecular machines. Basically what it says is that you have multi-component parts to any given organelle or system in a cell, all of which are necessary for function. That is if you remove one part you lose function of that system."
 
The functionality of an organism is dependent on the cooperation of every biological mechanism within that organism. If evolution was true, organisms would not be entirely dependent on cooperative mechanical systems. Meaning, organisms would be constantly engineering mechanisms to aid in it's functionality. Say if humans had legs now, which humans are dependent on, they would have to have had traces of a pre-evolutionary means of movement, like fins, appendages  or a tail.

» Reply to Comment
Re: Irreducable complexity? Science says, yes
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/05/29 - 8:57 GMT
"
Molecular Biologist, Scott Minnich from the university of Idaho says,
 
"Irreducible complexity was coined by Mike Beehe, in describing these molecular machines. Basically what it says is that you have multi-component parts to any given organelle or system in a cell, all of which are necessary for function. That is if you remove one part you lose function of that system.""
 
riiight and on that definition IRC fails. why? because you can remove parts from these IRC sytems And still KEEP A FUNCTION. infact, IRC systems are usually a compilation of sub systems which can all evolve, get this, IN STEPS.
 
"If evolution was true, organisms would not be entirely dependent on cooperative mechanical systems."
which they are..in a sense.
removign pars from a IRC system will stil result in function. because these systems are compiled of sub systems, which all have a different function, a beatiful example of this is the flagellum.
 
 
and for the basics
 
"Meaning, organisms would be constantly engineering mechanisms to aid in it's functionality."
which they are....natural selection beign the force killign of the weak or fail designs, while promotign the more useful ones.
we even have observed instances of this...
 
"Say if humans had legs now, which humans are dependent on, they would have to have had traces of a pre-evolutionary means of movement, like fins, appendages  or a tail."
 
while this analogy is slightly incorrect. as it deals with somethign is a MUCH larger scale and gene expression, it is interesting to note that...
-Fetusses HAVE FINS BETWEEN THEIR DIGITS IN THE WOMB! these fins recede and dissapear later in development.
-we STIL HAVE THE GENES for making TAILS, and we occasionally find soem kids with that gene activated.
-all our footbones are found in early primates.....it's called homologeus organs....and on the gentic level, gene homology.
 
 
 
» Reply to Comment
Re: Irreducible complexity? Science says, yes
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/05/29 - 12:43 GMT
It's good what Behe did and question it as a scientist and reviewed it and agve his opinion, but that doesn't change the fact that we have shown all his arguments wrong! The irreducible complex hypothesis has been debunked a loooong time ago. Look at the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins as he explains how an eye evolve and the mechanisms.

Sorry guys, still no win for the creationists...
All threads end the same way with science on top and then those who refuse to believe what we showed just made a new post ranting about another misinterpretation.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Irreducible complexity? Science says, yes
22 minutes - 21v
Posted 2009/06/03 - 20:51 GMT
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg/350px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png
 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726431.900-uncovering-the-evolution-of-the-bacterial-flagellum.html
 
 
K THANKS BAI.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Irreducible complexity? Science says, yes
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/06/05 - 1:25 GMT
Funny how all debates end the same way.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Irreducible complexity? Science says, yes
2 days - 2,415v
Posted 2009/06/05 - 1:53 GMT
you know i thought the same thing! :O

Wonder why...? :D


GenTime: 0.028 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2021 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff