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

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by rdean, Jan 9, 2012.

  1. rdean
    Online

    rdean Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  2. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Feels Good! Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    24,191
    Thanks Received:
    5,260
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +8,145
    "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? :D
     
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Feels Good! Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    24,191
    Thanks Received:
    5,260
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +8,145
    Ooo, Scientists are "saying it"! That's the same as "incontrovertible proof"! :cuckoo:
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    51,499
    Thanks Received:
    6,122
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +13,433
    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.
     
  5. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    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.
     
  6. FurthurBB
    Offline

    FurthurBB Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    Messages:
    569
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +14
    You don't really know much about science, do you?
     
  7. bripat9643
    Offline

    bripat9643 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    75,705
    Thanks Received:
    9,247
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +34,407
    I'm a right winger, and I don't believe in intelligent design, so your theory is bullshit from the get go.


     
  8. hortysir
    Offline

    hortysir In Memorial of 47

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Messages:
    20,480
    Thanks Received:
    4,047
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Port Charlotte, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,341
    The words in my sig-line were written 2,000 years before the Big-bang was theorized.
    :eusa_shhh:
     
  9. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,301
    Thanks Received:
    5,694
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,763
    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."
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    71,506
    Thanks Received:
    13,254
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +23,894
    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.
     

Share This Page