Some 15 or 17 year ago I read a book about debunking the fanciful evolution theory, which in it mentioned the "irreducible complexity" by M. Behe. Than I watched a documentary specifically about the Irreducible complexity. Than with the availability of Youtube I watched a bit more variety about it. Apparently there was a rebuttal of this view by someone that I can't remember the name. It has been few years since, and I just tried to find the follow up but it seem I could not find any.
Anyone heard anything about it and what's new about it if any?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Maybe this video?
I don't know what the flagella debate is about. But irreducible complexity ought to be debunked at the genetic level, not anywhere else. If he wants to argue that the individual components of a whole have functions of their own, great. I have no problem with that.
But like I said in my previous post, mutations are often detrimental because they delete or insert a nucleotide, which causes a shift in all the information downstream. So, he has to go under the hood, and show how he can delete, insert, or replace nucleotides till he goes from flagellum to type iii secretory pump. Sort of, "reverse engineer" evolution. My hypothesis, the second he touches something, the flagellum will stop working, proving irreducible complexity, or the bacterium will die altogether.
Atheists use evidence of irreducible complexity all the time to argue against intelligent design. Or what do you think vestigial organs are? They're non-functioning systems that are irreducibly complex, and thus lost their function.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School seems to have settled the issue conclusively. Irreducible complexity is a failed hypothesis
I have seen that video, I thought there was a follow up after that. So is there any statement from Michael Behe himself since then? Kind like hanged in the air still, until he states something.
Well Behe is right; in a way: if you find a complex biological structure that preforms a function; and its sub components provide no function, then that system would probably be too complex to evolve. Of course he's never found a structure like that; and his attempts to do so have been laughable.
I think what's laughable are evolutionists showing how the mousetrap evolved. To even try as an analogy makes one question their sanity:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
"River Out of Eden" by Dawkins does a sufficient job debunking irreducible complexity.
Google "Evolution of Flagellum" and you can read possibilities that do not require Allah.
Chimp3; ""River Out of Eden" by Dawkins does a sufficient job debunking irreducible complexity."
Can you give a simple quote from that book for summarizing, because I can't imagine I have to read a book every time I throw throw a question to get an answer.
Ubiquitous claims by atheists that ANYTHING alien to the atheist narrative has "been debunked" are pure rhetoric.
Rather than, in Richard Dawkins' words, "multiplying up examples," I will simply show one.
Michael Behe gives the simplest example of a mousetrap, where every single component must be present or else the mousetrap cannot function as a mousetrap. The base board, the spring, the snapping rod, the lever, the bait bar, even the staples holding parts to the board - every single one is essential without which it fails.
So one *clever* atheist says if you remove the lever holding down the snapper, for example, the trap can still function as a tie clip, ha ha ha, and you're stupid if you didn't think of that *clever* rejoinder.
Mere RHETORIC, as usual. The reason is functionality. This is reality, not atheist fantasy. NOBODY, but NOBODY in America has worn a broken mousetrap as a tie clip to work or to a social function UNLESS it was simply as a joke - the same kind of misguided, lyng joke that the wag made when he created this nonsensical "debunk".
Likewise the reprehensible and anti-scientific *claim* that the Anthropic Principle has been "debunked" is also a grand lie.
You cannot pretend that there are an infinite number of attempts to accomplish some statistical impossibility. Not even Dawkins does that, as he defines "impossible" as 1 chance in 10^40th power.
The odds of naturalistically synthesizing just ONE human polypeptide, viz., hemoglobin, are 1 in 10 to the 1,000th power, hundreds of orders of magnitude more impossible than Dawkins' definition of impossible.
And, hemoglobin is not a particularly large polypeptide, of the 2000 or more of them inside every human. So multiply up the impossibilities to your heart's content. You're only playing rhetorical games.
http://TheEvolutionFraud.blogspot.com
You are correct on the extremely small odds, but wrong about the scale of the universe.
1 in 10^40 is small, but quite likely when you got 10^41 chances to make it happen.
Please show your work for that calculation.