Mechanism argues against the intelligent design concept of "irreducible complexity"

[rdean]

Evolution

"It's counterintuitive but simple: complexity increased because protein functions were lost, not gained," Thornton said. "Just as in society, complexity increases when individuals and institutions forget how to be generalists and come to depend on specialists with increasingly narrow capacities."

Thornton proposes that the accumulation of simple, degenerative changes over long periods of times could have created many of the complex molecular machines present in organisms today. Such a mechanism argues against the intelligent design concept of "irreducible complexity," the claim that molecular machines are too complicated to have formed stepwise through evolution.

----------------------------------------------------

They are saying that as a creature "specialize", they lose function. That's specialization is actually "focused" and not newly developed. Exactly the opposite of what right wingers believe is evolution and proves how "magical creation" or "intelligent design" doesn't happen.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Thornton proposes that the accumulation of simple, degenerative changes over long periods of times could have created many of the complex molecular machines present in organisms today.

"Proposes" and "Could Have" can be replaced with "Conjecture" and "Belief". Sounds like a Religion.

As a kid instead of Science Fairs, you went to Science Fails right?

 

[Mad Scientist]

They are saying that as a creature "specialize", they lose function. That's specialization is actually "focused" and not newly developed. Exactly the opposite of what right wingers believe is evolution and proves how "magical creation" or "intelligent design" doesn't happen.

Ooo, Scientists are "saying it"! That's the same as "incontrovertible proof"!

 

[Old Rocks]

Better proof than the shit one gets from the holy roller pulpits.

The 'intelligent design' proposal is dead in the water for anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. Most of its 'proofs' were shown to be false before the first publication of the idea. Just another attempt to put religion in the science classroom.

 

[Dragon]

Thornton proposes that the accumulation of simple, degenerative changes over long periods of times could have created many of the complex molecular machines present in organisms today.

"Proposes" and "Could Have" can be replaced with "Conjecture" and "Belief". Sounds like a Religion.

Actually, no, it sounds like science. Science recognizes that nothing can be known with 100% certainty, and so never claims anything with 100% certainty. Cautious language like that is de rigeur.

Religion, instead, would take that (or a much larger) gap in our certain knowledge, fill it in with something allegedly written by God on a stone tablet, or dictated by an angel, or some such, and say, "This is the TRUTH because GOD SAYS SO!"

So this definitely does NOT sound like religion.

 

[FurthurBB]

Thornton proposes that the accumulation of simple, degenerative changes over long periods of times could have created many of the complex molecular machines present in organisms today.

"Proposes" and "Could Have" can be replaced with "Conjecture" and "Belief". Sounds like a Religion.

As a kid instead of Science Fairs, you went to Science Fails right?

You don't really know much about science, do you?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm a right winger, and I don't believe in intelligent design, so your theory is bullshit from the get go.

Evolution

"It's counterintuitive but simple: complexity increased because protein functions were lost, not gained," Thornton said. "Just as in society, complexity increases when individuals and institutions forget how to be generalists and come to depend on specialists with increasingly narrow capacities."

Thornton proposes that the accumulation of simple, degenerative changes over long periods of times could have created many of the complex molecular machines present in organisms today. Such a mechanism argues against the intelligent design concept of "irreducible complexity," the claim that molecular machines are too complicated to have formed stepwise through evolution.

----------------------------------------------------

They are saying that as a creature "specialize", they lose function. That's specialization is actually "focused" and not newly developed. Exactly the opposite of what right wingers believe is evolution and proves how "magical creation" or "intelligent design" doesn't happen.

 

[hortysir]

The words in my sig-line were written 2,000 years before the Big-bang was theorized.

 

[daveman]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

 

[jillian]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

no one is required to prove a negative.

there is no proof of G-d either. It is faith-based. That's fine to have faith. But pretending it isn't "faith" and is, instead, fact, is dishonest.

 

[daveman]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

no one is required to prove a negative.

there is no proof of G-d either. It is faith-based. That's fine to have faith. But pretending it isn't "faith" and is, instead, fact, is dishonest.

Never made that claim, did I?

But I notice you don't tell that to those who claim there is no God. Such a claim is also not fact, but faith.

 

[Dragon]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

The counter-statement to intelligent design is not "God does not exist." It's, "Divine creation or guidance is not required to explain the development of life as we observe it." It is possible to prove that second statement, and unnecessary to prove (or make) the first one.

 

[daveman]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

The counter-statement to intelligent design is not "God does not exist." It's, "Divine creation or guidance is not required to explain the development of life as we observe it." It is possible to prove that second statement, and unnecessary to prove (or make) the first one.

My statement is counter to the claim that there is no God. Thanks for playing.

 

[California Girl]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

no one is required to prove a negative.

there is no proof of G-d either. It is faith-based. That's fine to have faith. But pretending it isn't "faith" and is, instead, fact, is dishonest.

If there was proof, there would be no need for faith. Therefore, since G-d requires that individuals accept or deny His existence based solely on faith, I am quietly confident that there will never be proof of His existence. He has deemed it to be so.

 

[derk]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

The counter-statement to intelligent design is not "God does not exist." It's, "Divine creation or guidance is not required to explain the development of life as we observe it." It is possible to prove that second statement, and unnecessary to prove (or make) the first one.

We as creationists fail if we agreed with the false premise that you can have life without the creator or the system of designs that contained it. We would deny our world view which would make us nonbelievers. Thats silly.

 

[Dragon]

My statement is counter to the claim that there is no God.

Then why make it on a thread that has nothing to do with that?

 

[Dragon]

We as creationists fail if we agreed with the false premise that you can have life without the creator or the system of designs that contained it. We would deny our world view which would make us nonbelievers. Thats silly.

Again, a statement that implies a misunderstanding of science. "We do not need the hypothesis of a divine creator to understand the observable facts about life" does not mean the same thing as "a divine creator does not exist."

It's possible that some sort of creator is involved in guiding the observed process of evolution to produce life as we know it. However, that speculation has nothing to do with science, since any such creator is not only unproven but, on the face of it, unprovable. That claim, that form of creation, is not an assertion of fact within the competence of science. However, the assertions of intelligent design, to the effect that life exhibits an "irreducible complexity" that PROVES the existence of a creator, is a different kettle of fish. That's a claim of fact, and a false one.

 

[rdean]

I like to start these threads because right wingers crack me up. They make fun of science and scientists yet insist that more than a measly 6% of scientists must be Republicans. Hilarious.

And look at what scientists have discovered and created. Yet all they have is that crappy Christian "muZak" that can barely be endured.

Even more hilarious are the number of right wingers who say "science" has nothing to do with "technology". They are completely separate. I love it.

 

[whitehall]

Funny, a specialist with a narrow capacity complains about society's increasing dependence on specialists with narrow capacities, and the left thinks it's profound.. What goes around comes around I guess.

 

[hortysir]

My statement is counter to the claim that there is no God.

Then why make it on a thread that has nothing to do with that?

'Intelligent Design' doesn't equal God??