DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Mister Agenda]

Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.

Please stop saying 'retards'. I don't even think you're trying to be funny or ironic, which just makes it more cringe-worthy.

---

Back to molecular machines.  They are irreducibly complex, meaning if one part fails the entire system is degraded or fails to operate.  We haven't really touched on irreducible complexity much.  We discussed CSI (Complex Specific Information) and molecular machines but not irreducibly complex machines.

In addition, in order to be irreducibly complex in the ID sense, there has to be no series of natural changes that could have led to the 'irreducibly complex' structure. Thus far, not a single proposed 'irreducibly complex' structure has passed that basic requirement. We understand how structures like that can form. Are you mystified when you see a stone arch?

There's a good reason not to touch irreducible complexity. Behe is a laughing stock because all of his examples of 'irreducible complexity' have been debunked, which was to be expected since the whole idea is just another argument from incredulity: I can't imagine how this natural thing could have been formed by natural processes, so it must not have been.

---

Two posts above your own..in direct response.

Bacterial flagellum motor is irreducibly complex as well as other molecular machines.

Oh my. That was rebutted decades ago. We now have an excellent idea of how the 'flagellum motor' evolved, now. I appreciate Behe for drawing attention to that area for research, though, even if it was only by pointing at it and going 'I don't see how evolution could do THAT!'

You've got to understand something, CDF. To us you sound like someone trying to convince us that Santa Clause MUST be real because there's not other possible way kids could be getting al those presents. Sure, MOST of them come from parents and other relatives, but ALL of them? You must be determined to be blind not to see that only a miraculous being can account for ALL of them.

---

No, you use ridicule as a debate tactic like your leader Richard Dawkins has instructed you.

It's not a debate tactic. It's an expression of frustration at your repetitive assertions and genuine amusement at some of the silly stuff you try to peddle. You've failed to earn much respect here, and staying the course isn't going to help with that. Note that we have theists that we DO respect in our community. You don't have to agree with us to earn our respect. But your basic go-to tactic of 'does TOO prove a designer' just doesn't cut it.

---

It is irreducibly complex but a reduced version of it can serve as a pump.  It's brilliant.

Another way to phrase that would be 'it's irreducibly complex, except it's reducible'.

---

I understand irreducible complexity.  If a component is removed the system fails or is degraded.  It is a simple concept.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. To work against evolution, it has to refute one of the central claims of evolution: that a plausible variation in an organism could have led to a highly functional current system by a series of tiny improvements being conserved. A degraded system is still more useful than one that has no useful function, so it will be conserved until it is no longer useful or a variation occurs that makes it useful. It was Behe's claim that 'irreducible complexity' meant that there was no possible natural evolutionary path to the irreducibly complex system. For every example of irreducible complexity proposed, a plausible evolutionary path has been found. That's all it takes to refute the 'irreducible complexity' argument, which, as I said, was just an argument from incredulity in the first place.

---

I understand irreducible complexity.  If a component is removed the system fails or is degraded.  It is a simple concept.

Not as simple as you make it out to be. To work against evolution, it has to refute one of the central claims of evolution: that a plausible variation in an organism could have led to a highly functional current system by a series of tiny improvements being conserved. A degraded system is still more useful than one that has no useful function, so it will be conserved until it is no longer useful or a variation occurs that makes it useful. It was Behe's claim that 'irreducible complexity' meant that there was no possible natural evolutionary path to the irreducibly complex system. For every example of irreducible complexity proposed, a plausible evolutionary path has been found. That's all it takes to refute the 'irreducible complexity' argument, which, as I said, was just an argument from incredulity in the first place.

---

The machine under the pump is irreducibly complex so it is no longer just an assertion.

It's just an assertion if you don't explain what makes it irreducibly complex. You're saying that there's no possible way that piece of molecular machinery could have evolved naturally. Support that, and it will no longer be just an assertion.

---

The only way for something to be irreducibly complex is for the removal of a single item in the system to cause that system to fail.

To pick a nit, you could remove a single piece and disable the whole system without it being irreducibly complex. It's possible for certain structures that enabled the evolution of the system to no longer be necessary and therefor have been lost due to natural selection. Like scaffolding for a stone arch. As long as an evolutionary path where each variation was useful to the organism's reproductive success can be plausibly constructed, the claim of irreducible complexity is refuted; because it must be irreducible in principle.

---

Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[a] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."  Information in DNA, molecular machines, the fine-tuned universe, the Big Bang theory, living system body plans, consciousness,....  His attributes are perceived in the things He made.

All of that is 'just assertions'.

---

The entire case was BS from what I read.  I read in one case the judge just copy and pasted the scientists notes and made minor tweaks.

You JUST said it should be the scientists making the determination not the judges.

And Behe admitted under oath that by the same logic he was using, they'd be obliged to teach astrology in astronomy classes.