Basically, by nature, an arrogant ad ignorantiam argument.
I saw no consideration given to the individual organism in the developmental (embryological) state. I can't tell you how many evolutionary "facts" I have seen in my life that are now in the dust bin of science history.
A. S., you are acting like a sophomore philosophy major, which is to say, an insufferable azz. Just saying.
Basically, by nature, an arrogant ad ignorantiam argument.
I saw no consideration given to the individual organism in the developmental (embryological) state. I can't tell you how many evolutionary "facts" I have seen in my life that are now in the dust bin of science history.
A. S., you are acting like a sophomore philosophy major, which is to say, an insufferable azz. Just saying.
Yea, that logic can be a real pain in the arse.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Antelope, how does that work partially evolved? Irreducible complexity, look it up. Evolution is one of the greatest jokes ever played of on the human race.
Ah yes, the old Michael Behe argument from ignorance/god of the gaps nonsense. As ridiculous as that argument is, it still only attempts to justify an intelligent design. Why would a YEC retreat to a deist position like William Lane Craig does when cornered?
Well show me one proven fact of vertical change from one species to another. Not horizontal within a species, but verictal from one to another. Just one.
Yea, the argument was originally put forth by William Paley somewhere around 1802 to 1804 as the "watch maker" argument. It's interesting how apologist keep going back to the same centuries old flawed arguments. Here's a dissection of your misnamed "irreducible complexity" argument. The proper name is "Interlocking Complexity", but since that term didn't come around until 1918, I'm sure it was much too late in history for you, complete with references:
Introduction
Michael Behe's term "irreducible complexity" is, to be frank, plainly silly � and here's why.
"Irreducible complexity" is a simple concept. According to Behe, a system is irreducibly complex if its function is lost when a part is removed1. Behe believes that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve by direct, gradual evolutionary mechanisms. However, standard genetic processes easily produce these structures. Nearly a century ago, these exact systems were predicted, described, and explained by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller using evolutionary theory2. Thus, as explained below, so-called "irreducibly complex" structures are in fact evolvable and reducible. Behe gave irreducible complexity the wrong name.
Behe's flawed argument
Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution3. But why not? Behe's reckoning goes like this: � (P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts. � (P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional. � (C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.
Of course, Behe's argument is invalid since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can do much more than just add parts. For instance, evolution can also change or remove parts (pretty simple, eh?). In contrast, Behe's irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve.
The Mullerian two-step
With Behe's error now in hand, we immediately have the following embarrassingly facile solution to Behe's "irreducible" conundrum. Only two basic steps are needed to gradually evolve an irreducibly complex system from a functioning precursor: 1. Add a part. 2. Make it necessary.
It's that simple. After these two steps, removing the part will kill the function, yet the system was produced directly and gradually from a simpler, functional precursor. And this is exactly what Behe alleges is impossible.
As a scientific explanation, the Mullerian two-step is extremely general and powerful, since it is independent of the biological specifics of the system in question. In fact, both steps can happen simultaneously, in a single event, even a single mutation. The function of the system can remain constant during the process or it can change. The steps can be functionally beneficial (adaptive) or not (neutral). We don't even need to invoke natural selection in the process � genetic drift or neutral evolution will do4. The number of ways to add a part to a biological structure is virtually unlimited, as is the number of different ways to change a system so that a part becomes functionally essential. Plain, ordinary genetic processes can easily do both.
A historically and technically appropriate name for IC: "Interlocking Complexity"
For the preceding reasons, compelled by both scholarly ethics and scientific accuracy, I suggest that we avoid reference to "irreducibly complex" structures using Behe's misnomer. Rather, I propose the term "Mullerian interlocking complexity" (MIC), terminology similar to that used in H. J. Muller's much earlier evolutionary analyses of the same molecular phenomenon (Muller 1918; Muller 1939).
Example 1: The stone bridge
A clear example of the Mullerian two-step is given by a stone bridge. Consider a crude "precursor bridge" made of three stones. This bridge spans the area needed to be crossed and is thus functional. For step one of the Mullerian two-step, a part is added: a flat stone on top, covering all precursor stones. Whether this improves the functionality of the bridge is irrelevant � it may or may not, the bridge still functions. For step two of the Mullerian two-step, the middle stone is removed. Voil�, we have an irreducibly complex bridge, since the last step made the top-stone necessary for the function.
The precursor bridge: three stones. [Figure 1: Three square stones] Step #1, add a part: the top-stone. [Figure 2: A cap-stone added to the three-stone bridge] Step #2, make it necessary: remove the middle stone. As promised, we now have an irreducibly complex stone bridge. None of the three stones can be removed without destroying the bridge's function. [Figure 3: The middle stone removed] Example 2: How to eat pentachlorophenol
An irreducibly complex system has evolved in bacteria within the past 70 years.
Footnotes
1: Behe has defined his usage of "irreducible complexity":
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. " Behe 1996 p. 39.
"... 'irreducibly complex' means roughly that if one removes a component from a system, function is lost; ..." Behe 2001 p. 686. Back 2: H. J. Muller predicted and discussed M. J. Behe's "irreducibly complex" structures in two different papers, one in 1918 and one in 1939. This prediction was made long before the genetic material was known or anyone had seen the structure of a "molecular machine".
"... thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors ..." Muller 1918 pp. 463-464. (emphasis in the original)
"V. The role of interlocking and diffusion of gene functions in hindering true reversal of evolution
"... an embryological or physiological process or structure newly arisen by gene mutation, after becoming once established (with or without the aid of selection), later takes more and more part in the whole complex interplay of vital processes. For still further mutations that arise are now allowed to stay if only they work in harmony with all genes that are already present, and, of these further mutations, some will naturally depend, for their proper working, on the new process or structure under consideration. Being thus finally woven, as it were, into the most intimate fabric of the organism, the once novel character can no longer be withdrawn with impunity, and may have become vitally necessary." Muller 1939 pp. 271-272. Back 3: Behe explains why he imagines "irreducible complexity" is a barrier to gradual evolution:
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution." Behe 1996 p. 39.
"Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory." Behe 2002. Back 4: H. Allen Orr has explained Muller's explanation for "irreducible complexity" in several articles in the Boston Review criticizing Behe's and William Dembski's writings. Orr has emphasized the adaptive possibilities in the Mullerian two-step (i.e. improvement of function at each step). However, the mechanism is more general and does not even require selection, a point that Muller himself made originally, 50 years before neutral evolution was found to be important in molecular evolution.
"An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required." Orr 1996
"... gradual Darwinian evolution can easily produce irreducible complexity: all that's required is that parts that were once just favorable become, because of later changes, essential. " Orr 1997 Back
References
Behe, M. J. (1996) Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York, Touchstone.
Behe, M. J. (2001) "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." Biology and Philosophy 16:685-709.
Behe, M. J. (2002) "The challenge of irreducible complexity." Natural History, 111(3):74.
Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species. Sixth Edition. The Modern Library, New York.
Dembski, W. A. (2004) "Irreducible Complexity Revisited." Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID) 3.1.4, November. [PDF]
Muller, H. J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:422-499. [Free Text, Genetics Online]
Muller, H. J. (1939) "Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics." Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14:261-280.
Orr, H. A. (1996) "Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again)." Boston Review, December 1996/January 1997. [Free Text, Boston Review]
Orr, H. A. (1997) "Is Darwin in the Details?: H. Allen Orr Responds" Boston Review, February/March 1997. [Free Text, Boston Review]
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Well show me one proven fact of vertical change from one species to another. Not horizontal within a species, but verictal from one to another. Just one.
Rhagoletis flies just to pick a particularly interesting and historically important pair of species. Guy Bush's inspiration for teasing out the details of sympatric speciation.
still no proof. I want to see vertical change between species. Horizontal change within a species happens, no doubt about that. Show vertical change.
Antelope, personal attack? Really? I ask a question, how does evolution work partially evolved? Explain it. I am very familiar with the way evolutionist work. Anything that supports their assumptions (not facts) then they will promote it but if something is found or shown to disagree with evolution, it is buried, disreagarded, etc. even if it is a solid fact. Hard to believe in anything that the supporters cannot look at all the facts.
Again, asking a question, how does evolution work partiall evolved? where is proof of vertical change from one species to another?
Sorry, natural selection is NOT evolution. Show me a horse becoming an elephant, a rock turn into a fish, whatever else that is crazy that evolutionist claim. Mutation is not evolution either. Before you can argue evolution a definition needs to be established. That is one of the main problems, you cannot even get "scientist" to agree on a definition.
What do you mean evolution does not say a rock turns into a horse? Well maybe not exactly that, but doesn't evolution say that living things came from an exploding star, etc. (I have watched shows and read about all the theories of how life started and they all are a crock of crap) until someone shows how life comes from nothing. Evolutionist twist and distort and assume and guess and since we see this then this happened until what they thought they saw turns out to be a mistake so now is happened another way and today the earth is 1 million years old, tomorrow it is a billion years old, then it is 500 million years old and this life form came about here from this inanimate object, etc. I could go on and on. Nice exact science evolution is.
Headhunter, now you are changing topics. We were discussing evolution, and when you were unable to respond to Brents discussion regarding a specific species, or my examples of extreme change, you changed the subject from Evolution to Abiogenesis. You then switched from Abiogenesis to Cosmology.
If you wish to admit defeat on the subject of evolution, we can then move on to other subjects such as abiogenesis and cosmology.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
This is what I think is meant by evolution. This is copied from my friend's writings and defines it better than I can.
The word evolution comes to us from the Latin �evolution� and simply means an unrolling or change. Under this definition there are a great many things which can be labeled evolution: a child growing into an adult, a seed developing into a tree, weather changing from summer to autumn, or day turning into night. These simple illustrations of change are in harmony with the fundamental meaning of the term. This work, however, does not deal with the fundamental definition of evolution. Rather, it deals with a special use of the term sometimes known organic evolution or Darwinism.
Evolution in this sense can be defined as: The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals, including man.
This special use of evolution, then, involves more than mere change, for it attempts to explain the origin and development of all life, and that, by purely natural means. It begins with the supposition that life began spontaneously or by accident!
1 It then endeavors to bridge the enormous gaps separating the various species, genera, families, orders, classes, phyla and even kingdoms. Evolution is not a science, and to so classify it is a major mistake. Technically evolution is not even a theory, although this expression is commonly used. According to the scientific method a theory is an inference supported, at least to some degree, by observed facts.
2 Evolution, as shall be pointed out in the following chapters, is not so supported. What, then, is its proper classification? The most accurate description of evolution is hypothesis. A hypothesis is a broad assumption based on nothing more than subjective observation. It is an �educated guess.�
3 And this is precisely what is involved in the evolutionary concept of life.
The hypothesis that millions of years ago, lifeless matter acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to minute living organisms, which have since produced all extinct and living plants and animals, including man.
Craziest and most unproven statement ever as far as I am concerned and until concrete evidence comes around I am amazed that anyone could believe it.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/nhqZTmxJ/Screen-Shot-2020-11-08-at-5-01-55-PM.png)
