Irreducible Complexity And Darwin's Dilemma

[boris]

Irreducible Complexity Explained

Full Documentary here (and some others)

Darwin's Dilemma, great documentary


Is the irreducible complexity argument plausible enough?

I think when you add Peats ideas,Vernadsky, Sydney Fox's experiment where he created bacteria like cells that multiplied themselves and the new research by Jeremy England, it starts to form a cohesive picture. Up to a certain point for me.... So is the energy driven formation of these complex structures an intelligent design or random?
I am not familiar with Jeremy Englands research apart from his lectures and articles about him. Sometimes they describe these formations as pure chance in those articles, but when you look at the complex mechanical componontes inside the cell (like these little energy producing turbines in the mitochondira) involved in energy prodcution alone it is hard to explain that it is the result of a random process.

Or is it "just" some inherent logic behind everything involved in the fromation of life and that logic itself is the result of chance, but in another plane of reality like the quantum realm or a different dimension.

Peat on Sydney Fox, Vernadsky etc. from about 31:30


What do you think?

 

[Literally]

Behe "used to believe in Darwin's theory" but doesn't mention he's been writing books to "debunk" evolution since 1985 -- so he took a side before the most compelling evidence for evolution was available.

I read Darwin's Black Box at a time when I was extremely steeped in then-most current science and arguments on both sides. The dogmatic nature of the work was quite apparent then, even before I finished developing my own views. He relies mainly on what is known as "God in the gaps" arguments. To wit, anything evolutionary theory hasn't explained yet, is DEFINITELY POSITIVELY, KNOCK DOWN EVIDENCE AGAINST IT - lol.

The problem with the "God in the gaps" argument, frankly, is that it makes you look stupider and stupider over time. Now if you go back to his first book, you will find multiple examples of things Dawkins says there couldn't possibly have an evolutionary explanations, that now have very satisfying ones. Now if the man had been reasoning correctly, he wouldn't have "reasoned" like this.

Detailed criticism is widely available elsewhere.

I assume the reason the fringe of young earth creationists like to post this kind of stuff here is that it holds up very poorly in forums that are actually about evolution. This kind of stuff is literally indefensible. I get that contrarian theories are attractive to those of us here with open minds, but Behe's work doesn't stand the slightest bit of scrutinty. As someone who has provided very detailed criticism associated with similar posts, I'm not going to do that here. Just don't waste your time, folks (FYI his arguments about complexity are even worse. Fake math doesn't fool real experts.)

 

[boris]

What is your opinion on the stuff Peat talks about in the video?

 

[Literally]

1. If you look deeply into photosynthesis, you'll find that a large part of this "process" is just the plant relaying on what nature does anyway. A large portion of the process happens "automatically" because of physical laws. Does this invalidate the theory of photosynthesis? Of course not.

2. Taking this point further, do you interpret evidence suggesting that some building blocks of life are easy to form given certain natural environments, is somehow evidence against evolution? Why? It might be better evidence against evolution if they were difficult to form.

3. There are many natural tendencies, laws, and physical constants that suggest the universe is "designed for life." This isn't evidence against evolution. It is known as the Anthropic principle - Wikipedia A related concept is the Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia Many scientists have felt the apparent fine-tunedness of the universe and even the hard core athiests feel it needs some sort of explanation. Unlike Behe's work, which is sophistry. IMO "God designed the universe to support life" is easier to believe than many of the proposed explanations. It's what I believe.

 

[boris]

Thanks I'm going to read through those articles, very interesting.

I am not anti-evolution, I am fascinated by how the unimaginably complex mechanisms in the cell (from mechanical molecules to genetic code) could have come to be.

 

[Literally]

Sorry, I have been annoyed by some of the YEC here, I just don't see it. The Earth is old.

Don't be that guy who is open minded enough to look at stuff like this (good) but doesn't seek out the criticism with equal effort!

No one really knows what happened in history. It's arrogant to think evolution explains a movie-like understanding of the past. But even if we find out there are or have been other forces at work, it doesn't mean there aren't evolutionary processes going on. The evidence that species originate through genetic adaptive processes is pretty strong IMO.

 

[adnan.dabaan]

Annunaki FTW

 

[Literally]

Who made the Annunaki @adnan.dabaan?

 

[adnan.dabaan]

Who made the Annunaki @adnan.dabaan?

I don't care about that, they made us that good enough for me. Maybe the whole story is off but at least it is better than this (the evolution lie)

 

[Gone Peating]

Think about the process of DNA replication.

A ribosome (complex protein) is required to "read" the DNA and transcribe it into RNA in the first place. This creates a chick or the egg dilemma.

In order for RNA/DNA to have come into existence, ribosomes would have already needed to have existed. According the the theory of evolution by random mutation and natural selection this is impossible. Complex structures like ribosomes don't just pop into existence, they evolved. However, how could they evolve if there existence is completely necessary in the first place for DNA replication to even take place? Replication cannot take place without them, but they would not have just existed in the primordial soup or whatever.

There are many other problems like this that never get brought up in universities.

A good book that challenges evolution by random mutation and natural selection from the ground logical level (and then later with scientific evidence) is Genetic Entropy.

 

[S-VV]

The functional part of the ribosomes is made of RNA (aka rRNA) hence the ribo. This is support for the RNA-world hypothesis, where originally RNA was both genetic and functional material. Later, DNA arose as a more stable form of information storage and proteins as more efficient effector elements.

 

[Gone Peating]

The functional part of the ribosomes is made of RNA (aka rRNA) hence the ribo. This is support for the RNA-world hypothesis, where originally RNA was both genetic and functional material. Later, DNA arose as a more stable form of information storage and proteins as more efficient effector elements.

right but that still doesn't solve the issue.

though nothing is impossible, that still means that both the ribosome and the rna would have had to have evolved separately at the same time

 

[Literally]

@Gone Peating, you lost all credibility on this when you said "that never get brought up in universities."

 

[Gone Peating]

@Gone Peating, you lost all credibility on this when you said "that never get brought up in universities."

No I did not.

Take any intro level biology or evolution courses in college and they will never bring up any counterarguments, except those by uneducated fundamentalists who only attack it from a religious/moralist viewpoint so obviously they aren’t sufficient counterarguments.

I told the professor of my evolution class (who went to Harvard for PhD) that I understood how bird’s beak sizes on the Galapagos could change due to one’s with a certain size being selected for, but I didn’t see a lot of evidence of how something as complex as an eyeball could evolve from the very primitive light detectors simple organisms have.

Her best answer was that I just had to trust her that with enough time it’s possible, that’s what I call wishful thinking not a scientific explanation.

 

[Literally]

Whoa, your PROFESSOR went to HARVARD? You must not be blatantly wrong.

 

[Gone Peating]

Whoa, your PROFESSOR went to HARVARD? You must not be blatantly wrong.

Nice