For those of you not familiar with this term, please check out:

I would enjoy hearing some opinions about whether some of you think this is proof of intelligent design.  Looking forward to a discussion about this tomorrow in Cape Town, hosted by a professor from University of Cape Town.  Let's hope he is not a creationist rotweiller :-)

Take it easy

Views: 78


Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

There are so many systems that were once thought to be irreducible & this leads people to the lazy conclusion that it MUST be intelligent design.

Even the process of photosynthesis remains a bit nebulous. At least there are imaginative minds that suggest some possibilities.
Gosh! The Krebs cycle is challenging enough to understand in my current studies. I have the utmost respect for the scientist who put in so much work to prove this system that plays such huge role in oxygen & food production.

I do believe that 4 billion years of evolution delivers fascinating results. Apparently before the flagellum evolved all it's complex little parts, it was used by some parasitic bacteria to make a hole in the host's cell walls & then inject chemicals into it. I can see why evolution favored this adaptation for parasites!

There is a funny little bit of satire by Dawkins about lazy conclusions:

'I say, Huxley, this is a terribly difficult problem. I can't see how the nerve impulse works, can you?' 'No, Hodgkin, I can't, & these differential equations are fiendishly hard to solve. Why don't we just give up & say that the nerve impulse propagates by nervous energy?' 'Excellent idea, Huxley, let's write the letter to Nature now: it'll only take one line, then we can turn to something easier.'

Chuckle! The definition of a cop-out!

Thanx for the informative reply doone :-)
I hate people second-guessing the intentions of imaginary omnipotent beings. I thought he wanted to hide his existence from us? Creating something that's irreducible wouldn't aid that goal!

I wonder why theology doesn't get involved in other areas of intellectual pursuit, I should ask what god's take on the Riemann hypothesis is.
You should have the entire canon of ID queued up to demolish:

Blood Clotting - too complex in mammals; must be an artifact of design. ID Fail, less complex organisms have the component parts for clotting. Humans benefit from many small moves in design space.

The eye: wow, lots of parts all working together. Like a pocketwatch; an artifact of design! ID fail, the eye evolved many times and mammals ended up with an evolved design from one of the many. The eye is not perfectly conceived, its a best effort to date of a hack. You can poke with a stick, burn it in direct sunlight and vision is blurred underwater. If you trusted god, you fucked up.

Vast improbability of beneficial mutations - Demski bloviates about his statistical wizardry that shows how no species can change because it is too improbable. ID Fail, a genome does not "strive" to arrive at a predictable outcome that has been targeted before the cards are dealt. I cannot predict a certain order of cards dealt after a shuffle but it is 100% guaranteed that the 52 cards will show up in some order. The "natural selection" of the rules of Solitare then determine whether the order was a beneficial hand.
Ken Miller has done a much better job of demolishing ID's claims of irreducible complexity for the flagellum than I ever could. Here are a couple useful links:

The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"

YouTube video of Ken Miller on the Bacteria Flagellum
Thanx for the link Dave :-)


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service