Boanerges

Irreducible Complexity

Human Eye

__________________
Anything that dims my vision for Christ, or takes away my taste for Bible study, or cramps me in my prayer life, or makes Christian work difficult, is wrong for me; and I must, as a Christian turn away from it. – J. Wilbur Chapman

u ne la nv i u we tsi

The article on the eye greatly oversimplifies what Darwin said about the evolution of the eye. Models for the evolution of eyes have been made too. Its not irreducibly complex.

As for the first article, the bacterial flagellum being irreducibly complex has been pretty throughly debunked. A model for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum was proposed in 2003. Each form is functional and an improvement on the previous form. This model was shown in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trail with absolutely no rebuttal by the intelligent design supporters there.

The Flagellum Unspun

__________________

Boanerges

We continue to disagree- no surprise but much love- brother Larry.

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Charles Darwin

__________________
Anything that dims my vision for Christ, or takes away my taste for Bible study, or cramps me in my prayer life, or makes Christian work difficult, is wrong for me; and I must, as a Christian turn away from it. – J. Wilbur Chapman

u ne la nv i u we tsi

Regardless if we disagree on the subject. It has still been shown that the eye and the flagellum could evolve through these small successful modifications. Whether they did evolve like this if they evolved at all doesn't matter really. The point is neither of these disprove the theory because it has been shown that they could have evolve. If you are going to say that evolution has been refuted at least show examples that haven't been proven to be able to come into being by evolution. When you find that it will be much more valid and clear to all.

__________________

Boanerges

Agreed. Although the "proof " you offered is nothing more than a far fetched theory itself. Back to square one.

__________________
Anything that dims my vision for Christ, or takes away my taste for Bible study, or cramps me in my prayer life, or makes Christian work difficult, is wrong for me; and I must, as a Christian turn away from it. – J. Wilbur Chapman

Boanerges

I quite simply am not a practitioner of the particular religion of Darwinism.



In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.

...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1

__________________
Anything that dims my vision for Christ, or takes away my taste for Bible study, or cramps me in my prayer life, or makes Christian work difficult, is wrong for me; and I must, as a Christian turn away from it. – J. Wilbur Chapman

u ne la nv i u we tsi

Oh the old probability being too high. The whole problem with the analogy and the calculable odds is that it completely disregards chemistry.

It is like looking at the spiral shape of a hurricane. The odds that by chance clouds would go in that formation are astronomical. You can come up with hundreds of reasons why this could never happen. And yet, every year, there it is. But the odds of it going in that formation by chance are done right impossible. So how is this possible? The probably here is that the astronomical probability is based on chance, it completely disregards meteorology and cyclogenesis.

Likewise, your example disregards what we know of both chemistry and abiogenesis. It isn't some freak chance of particles randomly forming a simple cell. There are many processes to this that have been tested. It is proven that amino acids can be produced in certain environments. It was first shown in the Miller–Urey experiments, which proved it could happen but did not prove that it could happen in situations that may have appeared in the early earth. In the 70s and the 80s several experiments were done with elements more abundant on the early earth. Beyond that, now we also know several ways that it is possible for these amino acids to bond into replicating RNA. The question is really which one of these methods created the effective life forms that are the base of life today. And thats if it only comes from one source! If you consider the possibility of horizontal gene transfer.

Basically we cannot put these probabilities like the ones you mention because it doesn't seem to take all the chemistry that is involved with abiogenesis and seem to just think about it as just chance assembly which it isn't.

I still don't see how evolution is a religion. Many forms of Christianity have openly accepted evolution. In fact, there are more Christians who believe in evolution than there are Young Earth creationist and Genesis literalists.

__________________

Boanerges

NP - numbers do not make one right- the Word of God is truth. All that being said I am sorry I started this thread as I wasn't think of the consequences when I did. Namely senseless argument and disagreement. So as the OP I am closing it now.
Apologies to anyone I offended.

__________________
Anything that dims my vision for Christ, or takes away my taste for Bible study, or cramps me in my prayer life, or makes Christian work difficult, is wrong for me; and I must, as a Christian turn away from it. – J. Wilbur Chapman