Yet another argument on Irreducible Complexity

[CharonY]

 

Absolutely - apologies for the omission. I was trying to keep it simple for the OP. One project I've been sucked into as the informatics geek is looking at expression differences in lab stocks of certain cell lines following numerous serial passages. Turns out that the expression norms aren't so standard after long term adaptation to "identical" lab conditions in different labs, and you may have guessed which cell lines.

 

 

 

That is funny, I just started a similar project looking at the "elasticity" and shifts of regulation in various cell lines. Results so far seem consistent with what you have seen for long-term adaptation.

[Phi for All]

At one time earth wind water and fire were irreducibly complex.

 

Just a nitpick, but earth and water are the only "things" on that list. Wind and fire are events (I can't ask to borrow a cup of wind or fire like I can water or earth). They can only happen when certain other things are present and conditions are just right for them. They are emergent phenomena.

 

I agree with the rest. Better to assume the whole argument is a no-starter since it can be refuted at every point that's mentioned so far, than to assume there's a point where it becomes meaningful. There's no more God in the Irreducible Complexity gap, it's all science. From here, the only argument is a religious one, that the Christian God purposefully put geological and biological evidence in place to mislead the intellectually unfaithful.

 

And that's when science can step back, shrug, and say, "When you have a claim that can be tested naturally, let us know."

 

 

 

 

Imo, the whole complexity argument is really about science being presented in a complex way. I remember getting the whole IC argument about the human eye in a face-to-face discussion once, until I stopped the guy and asked him if he knew that eyes started out as light-sensitive patches that did little other than to tell a creature when the sun was out, and if a predator passed closely between them and the sun. It stopped the whole argument. He simply didn't know that. Since they don't study evolution, creationists often think these incredible systems were just magicked into place fully developed, created that single day when God made men (or animals, depending on whether you use Genesystem I or Genesystem II).

[John Cuthber]

 

Just a nitpick, but earth and water are the only "things" on that list. Wind and fire are events (I can't ask to borrow a cup of wind or fire like I can water or earth).

 

 

Just a quick nitpick on your nitpick.

not all things are material things

[TheGeckomancer]

 

Just a nitpick, but earth and water are the only "things" on that list. Wind and fire are events (I can't ask to borrow a cup of wind or fire like I can water or earth). They can only happen when certain other things are present and conditions are just right for them. They are emergent phenomena.

 

I agree with the rest. Better to assume the whole argument is a no-starter since it can be refuted at every point that's mentioned so far, than to assume there's a point where it becomes meaningful. There's no more God in the Irreducible Complexity gap, it's all science. From here, the only argument is a religious one, that the Christian God purposefully put geological and biological evidence in place to mislead the intellectually unfaithful.

 

And that's when science can step back, shrug, and say, "When you have a claim that can be tested naturally, let us know."

 

 

 

 

Imo, the whole complexity argument is really about science being presented in a complex way. I remember getting the whole IC argument about the human eye in a face-to-face discussion once, until I stopped the guy and asked him if he knew that eyes started out as light-sensitive patches that did little other than to tell a creature when the sun was out, and if a predator passed closely between them and the sun. It stopped the whole argument. He simply didn't know that. Since they don't study evolution, creationists often think these incredible systems were just magicked into place fully developed, created that single day when God made men (or animals, depending on whether you use Genesystem I or Genesystem II).

 

 

I can't resist nitpicking the nitpick..... I was never arguing that I thought those things were irreducibly complex. It really doesn't matter if fire and wind are events or things if the people of ancient times thought they were the bedrock elements that made all things.

[John316]

While irreducible complexity does not explicitly prove an intelligent Designer, and does not conclusively disprove evolution, it most definitely points to something outside of random processes in the origin and development of biological life.

The origin of life might seem like the ultimate cold case: no one was there to observe it and much of the relevant evidence has been lost in the intervening 3.5 billion years or so. Nonetheless, many separate lines of evidence do shed light on this event, and as biologists continue to investigate these data, they are slowly piecing together a picture of how life originated. Major lines of evidence include DNA, biochemistry, and experiments.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_05

DNA can be replicated but its origin is unknown. DNA will replicate its own arrangement of amino acids so evolution has decreased probability. Mutations do not explain evolution.

Bacteria reproduce by binary fission. In this process the bacterium, which is a single cell, divides into two identical daughter cells. Binary fission begins when the DNA of the bacterium divides into two (replicates). The bacterial cell then elongates and splits into two daughter cells each with identical DNA to the parent cell. Each daughter cell is a clone of the parent cell.

http://microbiologyonline.org.uk/about-microbiology/introducing-microbes/bacteria

Bacterial transcription is the process in which messenger RNA transcripts of genetic material in bacteria are produced, to be translated for the production of proteins. Bacterial transcription occurs in the cytoplasm alongside translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_transcription

RNA and Amino acids where they necessary to complete replication? did they spontaneously appear along with the the other organelle within the first cells on earth?

Outer Membrane Protein Biosynthesis: Transport and Incorporation of OM Proteins (in)to the OM bilayer

Kelly H. Kim, Suraaj Aulakh and Mark Paetzel

The outer membrane is a unique structural feature of Gram-negative bacteria. Within the outer membrane reside β-barrel outer membrane proteins that serve many important functions, such as nutrient uptake, virulence and cell signaling. Proper folding and assembly of these proteins are therefore essential for cell viability. Gram-negative bacteria possess a specialized proteinaceous machine known as the BAM (β-barrel assembly machinery) complex that is responsible for the proper assembly of β-barrel proteins into the outer membrane. This chapter summarizes the current status of knowledge about outer membrane protein biosynthesis, and the significant progress that has been made towards understanding the structure and function of the bacterial BAM complex.

http://www.horizonpress.com/membranes

If enough amino acid were created by conditions of early Earth, to create a strand of DNA how did the organelles and the membrane form? Respiration was CO2 from what I’ve read

Bacteria obtain energy by either ingesting other organisms and organic compounds or by producing their own food. The bacteria that produce their own food are called autotrophs. Bacteria that must consume other organic molecules for energy are called heterotrophs.

There are chemotrophic autotrophs, which absorb inorganic molecules, such as sulfides, and convert them to energy, as well as phototrophic autotrophs that produce their own energy by absorbing sunlight.

If the first living cells were bacteria it would be necessary to have developed a means of obtaining energy and reproduce, it would need organelles to achieve that ability, all seems a little to spontaneous.

A cell must have captured a photosynthetic cyanobacterium and failed to digest it. The cyanobacterium thrived in the cell and eventually evolved into the first chloroplast. Other eukaryotic organelles may have also evolved through endosymbiosis; it has been proposed that cilia, flagella, centrioles, and microtubules may have originated from a symbiosis between a Spirochaete bacterium and an early eukaryotic cell, but this is not widely accepted among biologists.

cilia, flagella, centrioles, and microtubules are organelles that have specific functions these are not explained by symbiosis these are eukaryotic organelles, and support Intelligent design.

[TheGeckomancer]

Half of this is flat out BS I am not going to dignify with a response such as the mutations don't explain evolution. Please refer to my previous post about irreducible complexity and perspective. it doesn't exist. The history of all irreducibly complexity arguments have been that at the time we simply couldn't answer that question. Not only are you claiming that being ignorant proves god which I think even god would be offended by. But you are insulting generations of hard work and brilliant research while going it. If you want to claim there is a creator, then he created you with higher thought functions. Use them. I personally would be disgusted if I made a species with gifts as absolutely powerful as logic, math, and tool manipulation and they decided to give up on learning because they concluded that god disapproved.

 

Another way of putting this is. I don't care if you think you have 10 billion examples of irreducible complexity. Your argument is inherently flawed, the irreducible complexity argument itself is inherently flawed, it wouldn't matter if you actually did find a legitimate example, which you haven't. Now that I think about it, this topic does not deserve it's own thread. Irreducible Complexity is not even it's own argument. It's a god of the gaps argument. That's covered under "Can science explain a universe without god?" which I addressed.

Edited November 28, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Strange]

While irreducible complexity does not explicitly prove an intelligent Designer, and does not conclusively disprove evolution, it most definitely points to something outside of random processes in the origin and development of biological life.

 

There is no evidence for "irreducible complexity" so it can't really point to anything.

 

If you think there is a strong case for "irreducible complexity", why not present it here? Instead, you have chosen to ignore the counter-evidence provided here and simply repeated the untrue statement. This begins to look very close to a deliberate lie. Do you think that is a good way to conduct an argument? Do you think your God would approve?

 

The rest of your post appears to be quotations from one or more sources (some unreferenced). You don't even say why you think these quotations are relevant, or how they might support your argument. This is confusing, dishonest and probably against the forum rules.

 

As such I will ignore them. Except to point out that the fact we do not have a full explanation for abiogenesis or the origin of DNA says nothing at all about evolutionary theory; why would you think it does? This seems to show some very confused thinking.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Strange

[Phi for All]

 

While irreducible complexity does not explicitly prove an intelligent Designer,

 

[irrelevant Gish Gallop snipped]

 

Wow, John316, that's a really massively mis-aimed attempt to look scientific. The problem here is, most reading your citations know what they mean, and you don't, so you think they apply to this situation. That's the problem, isn't it, when you're just given a bunch of quotes to copy/paste that you don't understand, you have no idea when they're appropriate or not. Yours aren't.

 

Please don't use this tactic anymore. It's been done to death.

 

Can't you just talk to us honestly? Maybe with your own voice instead of copypasta from creationist websites? Have you ever typed anything of your own? So far, we've shown where your science was wrong, but you haven't acknowledged any of it. Now it's almost like you're just leaving trash around because you don't like the party anymore.

[John316]

The questions are not difficult to understand, how did the first living organism which they claim was a bacteria, form a membrane and organelle’s? These had to arise simultaneously to protect the DNA from being destroyed by the elements, also RNA had to exist for replication. Please read the facts below and respond as to why you believe that the first living bacteria did not have to follow these laws? how about we go light on the drama

There are two different ways of grouping bacteria. They can be divided into three types based on their response to gaseous oxygen. Aerobic bacteria require oxygen for their health and existence and will die without it. Anerobic bacteria can't tolerate gaseous oxygen at all and die when exposed to it. Facultative aneraobes prefer oxygen, but can live without it.

The second way of grouping them is by how they obtain their energy. Bacteria that have to consume and break down complex organic compounds are heterotrophs. This includes species that are found in decaying material as well as those that utilize fermentation or respiration. Bacteria that create their own energy, fueled by light or through chemical reactions, are autotrophs.

• Capsule - Some species of bacteria have a third protective covering, a capsule made up of polysaccharides (complex carbohydrates). Capsules play a number of roles, but the most important are to keep the bacterium from drying out and to protect it from phagocytosis (engulfing) by larger microorganisms. The capsule is a major virulence factor in the major disease-causing bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Nonencapsulated mutants of these organisms are avirulent, i.e. they don't cause disease.

• Cell Envelope - The cell envelope is made up of two to three layers: the interior cytoplasmic membrane, the cell wall, and -- in some species of bacteria -- an outer capsule.

• Cell Wall - Each bacterium is enclosed by a rigid cell wall composed of peptidoglycan, a protein-sugar (polysaccharide) molecule. The wall gives the cell its shape and surrounds the cytoplasmic membrane, protecting it from the environment. It also helps to anchor appendages like the pili and flagella, which originate in the cytoplasm membrane and protrude through the wall to the outside. The strength of the wall is responsible for keeping the cell from bursting when there are large differences in osmotic pressure between the cytoplasm and the environment.
Cell wall composition varies widely amongst bacteria and is one of the most important factors in bacterial species analysis and differentiation. For example, a relatively thick, meshlike structure that makes it possible to distinguish two basic types of bacteria. A technique devised by Danish physician Hans Christian Gram in 1884, uses a staining and washing technique to differentiate between the two forms. When exposed to a gram stain, gram-positive bacteria retain the purple color of the stain because the structure of their cell walls traps the dye. In gram-negative bacteria, the cell wall is thin and releases the dye readily when washed with an alcohol or acetone solution.

• Cytoplasm - The cytoplasm, or protoplasm, of bacterial cells is where the functions for cell growth, metabolism, and replication are carried out. It is a gel-like matrix composed of water, enzymes, nutrients, wastes, and gases and contains cell structures such as ribosomes, a chromosome, and plasmids. The cell envelope encases the cytoplasm and all its components. Unlike the eukaryotic (true) cells, bacteria do not have a membrane enclosed nucleus. The chromosome, a single, continuous strand of DNA, is localized, but not contained, in a region of the cell called the nucleoid. All the other cellular components are scattered throughout the cytoplasm.

• One of those components, plasmids, are small, extrachromosomal genetic structures carried by many strains of bacteria. Like the chromosome, plasmids are made of a circular piece of DNA. Unlike the chromosome, they are not involved in reproduction. Only the chromosome has the genetic instructions for initiating and carrying out cell division, or binary fission, the primary means of reproduction in bacteria. Plasmids replicate independently of the chromosome and, while not essential for survival, appear to give bacteria a selective advantage.
Plasmids are passed on to other bacteria through two means. For most plasmid types, copies in the cytoplasm are passed on to daughter cells during binary fission. Other types of plasmids, however, form a tubelike structure at the surface called a pilus that passes copies of the plasmid to other bacteria during conjugation, a process by which bacteria exchange genetic information. Plasmids have been shown to be instrumental in the transmission of special properties, such as antibiotic drug resistance, resistance to heavy metals, and virulence factors necessary for infection of animal or plant hosts. The ability to insert specific genes into plasmids have made them extremely useful tools in the fields of molecular biology and genetics, specifically in the area of genetic engineering.

• Cytoplasmic Membrane - A layer of phospholipids and proteins, called the cytoplasmic membrane, encloses the interior of the bacterium, regulating the flow of materials in and out of the cell. This is a structural trait bacteria share with all other living cells; a barrier that allows them to selectively interact with their environment. Membranes are highly organized and asymmetric having two sides, each side with a different surface and different functions. Membranes are also dynamic, constantly adapting to different conditions.

• Flagella - Flagella (singular, flagellum) are hairlike structures that provide a means of locomotion for those bacteria that have them. They can be found at either or both ends of a bacterium or all over its surface. The flagella beat in a propeller-like motion to help the bacterium move toward nutrients; away from toxic chemicals; or, in the case of the photosynthetic cyanobacteria; toward the light.

• Nucleoid - The nucleoid is a region of cytoplasm where the chromosomal DNA is located. It is not a membrane bound nucleus, but simply an area of the cytoplasm where the strands of DNA are found. Most bacteria have a single, circular chromosome that is responsible for replication, although a few species do have two or more. Smaller circular auxiliary DNA strands, called plasmids, are also found in the cytoplasm.

• Pili - Many species of bacteria have pili (singular, pilus), small hairlike projections emerging from the outside cell surface. These outgrowths assist the bacteria in attaching to other cells and surfaces, such as teeth, intestines, and rocks. Without pili, many disease-causing bacteria lose their ability to infect because they're unable to attach to host tissue. Specialized pili are used for conjugation, during which two bacteria exchange fragments of plasmid DNA.

• Ribosomes - Ribosomes are microscopic "factories" found in all cells, including bacteria. They translate the genetic code from the molecular language of nucleic acid to that of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are the molecules that perform all the functions of cells and living organisms. Bacterial ribosomes are similar to those of eukaryotes, but are smaller and have a slightly different composition and molecular structure. Bacterial ribosomes are never bound to other organelles as they sometimes are (bound to the endoplasmic reticulum) in eukaryotes, but are free-standing structures distributed throughout the cytoplasm. There are sufficient differences between bacterial ribosomes and eukaryotic ribosomes that some antibiotics will inhibit the functioning of bacterial ribosomes, but not a eukaryote's, thus killing bacteria but not the eukaryotic organisms they are infecting.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/bacteriacell.html

[Strange]

The questions are not difficult to understand, how did the first living organism which they claim was a bacteria, form a membrane and organelle’s?

 

So, just to confirm, you have moved away from the bogus "irreducible complexity" argument to abiogenesis?

 

You say "which they claim was a bacteria". Who are "they"? And where do they say this?

 

Why do you think this is relevant to the theory of evolution?

 

 

These had to arise simultaneously to protect the DNA from being destroyed by the elements, also RNA had to exist for replication.

 

There are several different hypotheses for how these things arose. For example, the idea that RNA preceded DNA. And that cell membranes may have developed independently of the reproductive molecules.

 

One common idea in all models is that there is no need for a complete cell to appear "de novo" (but, of course, we can't currently rule out that possibility).

 

 

Please read the facts below and respond as to why you believe that the first living bacteria did not have to follow these laws?

 

Please explain why you think the quoted text is relevant to abiogenesis. And what "laws" are you referring to?

 

Also, it would be helpful if you could make it clear what you have copied from elsewhere and what are your own words (if any).

Edited November 28, 2015 by Strange

[Moontanman]

The questions are not difficult to understand, how did the first living organism which they claim was a bacteria, form a membrane and organelle’s? These had to arise simultaneously to protect the DNA from being destroyed by the elements, also RNA had to exist for replication. Please read the facts below and respond as to why you believe that the first living bacteria did not have to follow these laws? how about we go light on the drama

There are two different ways of grouping bacteria. They can be divided into three types based on their response to gaseous oxygen. Aerobic bacteria require oxygen for their health and existence and will die without it. Anerobic bacteria can't tolerate gaseous oxygen at all and die when exposed to it. Facultative aneraobes prefer oxygen, but can live without it.

The second way of grouping them is by how they obtain their energy. Bacteria that have to consume and break down complex organic compounds are heterotrophs. This includes species that are found in decaying material as well as those that utilize fermentation or respiration. Bacteria that create their own energy, fueled by light or through chemical reactions, are autotrophs.

• Capsule - Some species of bacteria have a third protective covering, a capsule made up of polysaccharides (complex carbohydrates). Capsules play a number of roles, but the most important are to keep the bacterium from drying out and to protect it from phagocytosis (engulfing) by larger microorganisms. The capsule is a major virulence factor in the major disease-causing bacteria, such as Escherichia coli and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Nonencapsulated mutants of these organisms are avirulent, i.e. they don't cause disease.

• Cell Envelope - The cell envelope is made up of two to three layers: the interior cytoplasmic membrane, the cell wall, and -- in some species of bacteria -- an outer capsule.

• Cell Wall - Each bacterium is enclosed by a rigid cell wall composed of peptidoglycan, a protein-sugar (polysaccharide) molecule. The wall gives the cell its shape and surrounds the cytoplasmic membrane, protecting it from the environment. It also helps to anchor appendages like the pili and flagella, which originate in the cytoplasm membrane and protrude through the wall to the outside. The strength of the wall is responsible for keeping the cell from bursting when there are large differences in osmotic pressure between the cytoplasm and the environment.

Cell wall composition varies widely amongst bacteria and is one of the most important factors in bacterial species analysis and differentiation. For example, a relatively thick, meshlike structure that makes it possible to distinguish two basic types of bacteria. A technique devised by Danish physician Hans Christian Gram in 1884, uses a staining and washing technique to differentiate between the two forms. When exposed to a gram stain, gram-positive bacteria retain the purple color of the stain because the structure of their cell walls traps the dye. In gram-negative bacteria, the cell wall is thin and releases the dye readily when washed with an alcohol or acetone solution.

• Cytoplasm - The cytoplasm, or protoplasm, of bacterial cells is where the functions for cell growth, metabolism, and replication are carried out. It is a gel-like matrix composed of water, enzymes, nutrients, wastes, and gases and contains cell structures such as ribosomes, a chromosome, and plasmids. The cell envelope encases the cytoplasm and all its components. Unlike the eukaryotic (true) cells, bacteria do not have a membrane enclosed nucleus. The chromosome, a single, continuous strand of DNA, is localized, but not contained, in a region of the cell called the nucleoid. All the other cellular components are scattered throughout the cytoplasm.

• One of those components, plasmids, are small, extrachromosomal genetic structures carried by many strains of bacteria. Like the chromosome, plasmids are made of a circular piece of DNA. Unlike the chromosome, they are not involved in reproduction. Only the chromosome has the genetic instructions for initiating and carrying out cell division, or binary fission, the primary means of reproduction in bacteria. Plasmids replicate independently of the chromosome and, while not essential for survival, appear to give bacteria a selective advantage.

Plasmids are passed on to other bacteria through two means. For most plasmid types, copies in the cytoplasm are passed on to daughter cells during binary fission. Other types of plasmids, however, form a tubelike structure at the surface called a pilus that passes copies of the plasmid to other bacteria during conjugation, a process by which bacteria exchange genetic information. Plasmids have been shown to be instrumental in the transmission of special properties, such as antibiotic drug resistance, resistance to heavy metals, and virulence factors necessary for infection of animal or plant hosts. The ability to insert specific genes into plasmids have made them extremely useful tools in the fields of molecular biology and genetics, specifically in the area of genetic engineering.

• Cytoplasmic Membrane - A layer of phospholipids and proteins, called the cytoplasmic membrane, encloses the interior of the bacterium, regulating the flow of materials in and out of the cell. This is a structural trait bacteria share with all other living cells; a barrier that allows them to selectively interact with their environment. Membranes are highly organized and asymmetric having two sides, each side with a different surface and different functions. Membranes are also dynamic, constantly adapting to different conditions.

• Flagella - Flagella (singular, flagellum) are hairlike structures that provide a means of locomotion for those bacteria that have them. They can be found at either or both ends of a bacterium or all over its surface. The flagella beat in a propeller-like motion to help the bacterium move toward nutrients; away from toxic chemicals; or, in the case of the photosynthetic cyanobacteria; toward the light.

• Nucleoid - The nucleoid is a region of cytoplasm where the chromosomal DNA is located. It is not a membrane bound nucleus, but simply an area of the cytoplasm where the strands of DNA are found. Most bacteria have a single, circular chromosome that is responsible for replication, although a few species do have two or more. Smaller circular auxiliary DNA strands, called plasmids, are also found in the cytoplasm.

• Pili - Many species of bacteria have pili (singular, pilus), small hairlike projections emerging from the outside cell surface. These outgrowths assist the bacteria in attaching to other cells and surfaces, such as teeth, intestines, and rocks. Without pili, many disease-causing bacteria lose their ability to infect because they're unable to attach to host tissue. Specialized pili are used for conjugation, during which two bacteria exchange fragments of plasmid DNA.

• Ribosomes - Ribosomes are microscopic "factories" found in all cells, including bacteria. They translate the genetic code from the molecular language of nucleic acid to that of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins. Proteins are the molecules that perform all the functions of cells and living organisms. Bacterial ribosomes are similar to those of eukaryotes, but are smaller and have a slightly different composition and molecular structure. Bacterial ribosomes are never bound to other organelles as they sometimes are (bound to the endoplasmic reticulum) in eukaryotes, but are free-standing structures distributed throughout the cytoplasm. There are sufficient differences between bacterial ribosomes and eukaryotic ribosomes that some antibiotics will inhibit the functioning of bacterial ribosomes, but not a eukaryote's, thus killing bacteria but not the eukaryotic organisms they are infecting.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/bacteriacell.html

 

 

Gish Gallop much?

[Phi for All]

Hey, this thread is about the creationist claim of irreducible complexity. Abiogenesis is a whole other topic, and I don't want this all muddled together. Please stick with this topic, John316, until we've talked it out.

 

I have to say, you don't bother to acknowledge when someone clearly refutes one of your claims, or pokes holes in the evidence you provide as support for those claims. I can guarantee that when YOU make a good point, it will be acknowledged by every rational person here.

 

How about you give the same courtesy? Or could you send someone else from your church, maybe the guy who is writing your "stuff"?

[TheGeckomancer]

Also the Irreducible Complexity argument is just not compatible with the modern creator mythos. Either God is perfect and omniscient, in which case he can create a perfectly functional logically consistent universe, or you believe those are intentional clues, which the argument against solid evidence for god is that he wants faith. So either you are claiming there is objective evidence for god, which indicates a lack of omniscience, or you can only have faith. The argument doesn't work both ways. Irreducible Complexity works against creation arguments, not for. Generating more and more logical inconsistencies in your argument doesn't eventually make it more sound at some point. It just makes it harder to argue against the further you move away from rationality. I won't humor you like other people on here, I am not going to teach you science so you can argue it half assedly against me.

Edited November 28, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[John316]

The Southern California Chapter of the >b>Discovery Institute's Discovery Society invite evolutionists to engage in a logical scientific debate based on findings of fact not philosophy. We ask evolutionists to explain the sudden appearance of thousands of various life forms in the Cambrian layer of geologic strata without evidence of precursor organisms. Until evolutionists can explain the "Cambrian Explosion" without speculation, and answer the 10 questions that follow, Intelligent Design must be considered the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Ten Questions For Evolutionists

1 Nucleotides and proteins are entirely different molecules. How can evolution explain the concomitant production of one by the other i.e. the chicken-and-egg-relationship of DNA, RNA and protein in the "primordial soup." It is impossible to produce one without having produced the others first.

2

3 99.9% of mutations are deleterious. How can evolution work upstream, i.e. fortuitously producing an improved mutation and protecting it from further deleterious mutation, while producing yet more new fortuitous mutations?

4

5 If there is such a thing as "natural selection", then why are 30 percent of the genes in a genome polymorphic?

6

7 If Darwinism is right, then why do so many evolutionists say it's wrong; and why is Motoo Kimura's theory of neutral mutation with random drift the current favored hypothesis among evolutionists?

8

9 If evolution is right, then how can there be so many differing explanations for the hypothesis, i.e. Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenesis, and neutral mutation with random drift?

10

11 Isn't it true that the basic axiom of science is one phenomenon, one explanation? Therefore, isn't it true that if the hypothesis of evolution has multiple explanations, it must be wrong; otherwise there would be only one explanation?

12

13 How can evolutionary hypothesis explain the irreducible complexity of complex biological systems which require the simultaneous integration of multiple structural and enzymatic components, i.e. the concomitant production of alveolar lungs (structural genes), and, surfactant type phospholipids (enzymatic genes), and proteins necessary to neutralize the effect of lung surface tension? Premature infants die unless both are present. Wouldn't the first primordial mammals have died, also?

14

15 How can evolutionists circumvent the demands of the Hardy-Weinberg law (the incidence of a gene in a genome remains constant generation after generation, no matter whether it is dominant or recessive, or rare). Trying to use "gene flow," bottle-neck or founder effect hypotheses is untenable because Muller's ratchet demands that isolation and founder effect destroy a genome if a population's genome becomes smaller and smaller?

16

17 How can a contralateral-functioning cortex and the basal gangliar systems of a telencephalon be successfully superimposed on an ipsilateral-functioning cerebellum and rhombencephalon?

18

19 How can lateral vision, with complete decusation of optic pathways, at the optic chiasm undergo transition to forward facing binocular vision, using a partially decusating optic chiasm, a step at a time, and still remain functional while undergoing the transition? Wouldn't the information directed to the optic cortex from each eye become contradictory, and produce a nonfunctioning organism? And, what about the need to produce a new eye socket, a new wiring system, and a new method of integrating the concomitant focusing of both eyes on the same object, and properly directing the information from each retina to the proper locations in the paired optic radiations? (See figures 2 A and 2 B by clicking the Irreducible Complexity button)

20

<center> <table cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" border="0" bgcolor="#202159" width="250"> <tr> <td style="font-family:arial; font-size:11pt; text-align:center; color:#FDE435"> <b>Yet Another Question:</b></td> </tr> </table> </center> <img src="images/spacer.gif" width="1" height="10" border="0" alt=""><br> How can evolution explain the sudden appearance of thousands of various life forms in the Cambrian layer of geologic strata; without evidence of precursors? (Resorting to the speculative answer that all precursors were soft-bodied and disappeared is contrary to fact.) <p>

Purpose of This Web Site

The purpose of this web site is to present reliable information in support of intelligent design, and irreducible complexity as the proximate causes of life and its diversity. Information provided here is based entirely on empirically derived fact.

Irreducible Complexity is an indisputable fact of biologic function. Irreducible Complexity is indicative of intelligent design. Therefore, the world in which we live is better understood in terms of design, as opposed to spontaneous origin and evolution.

Our efforts are dedicated to disseminating factual information, and answering the question: are we the result of chance or design? It is our objective to confirm and propagate scientific truth: that which is correct now; has always been correct; and will always be correct.

We encourage all who love science to condemn the actions of those who pervert the truth and use the prestige of their positions in urging students to disregard evidence of design in biologic systems, and instead see evolution. Teachers have an obligation to present facts and let intelligent minds decide their significance. To do otherwise is too insult all the science that has gone before and turn science upside down.

 

[Phi for All]

OK, so that's a big NO on sticking to one topic, per the rules. I'm going to close this but recommend another staff member agree that this type of intellectual dishonesty is NOT the way to talk about any subject.