Then it doesn't exist.  Thanks for admitting it.

You didn't answer my question. Why did God make us squishy bags of meat that if not for technology would be near the bottom of the food chain, instead of hardy amphibious super-carnivores? And thank you for proving yet again that in your mind, if God didn't do it, it should be laughed at and ridiculed. I suppose that God must have taken a shit one day and POOF! there was all life on the planet.

@Rick: I had posed that question to Kharma. Thus far all of your responses have seemed well thought out and argued to me.

its funny how karma resents being called a creationist, then brings up the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, THE (thoroughly debunked) flagship of ID proponents.

Didn't I say someone else could look for it?    The link to the wiki article was to point out that there's no mention of geneticists finding the abundant Neanderthal specific DNA, conclusively proving that Neanderthals weren't exterminated, but interbred.  A feat supposedly impossible, with no basis for the conclusion, and taught in federally funded state universities...

My position, if you want to call it that, is that I haven't bought anything yet.  Evolution is a likely possibility, looks to be plausible aside from the start, and unfortunately gets us no closer to explaining why the universe exists to begin with.  That subject I'm much more interested in hearing an aswere to that isn't assinine.  If not for the utterly ridiculous massive step and the theoretical jump involved, I'd be less inclined to consider it a tossup whether the planet was seeded by interdimensional aliens or something.  Going from amino acids to self replicating life is way too big a step for me to buy it without proof.

I'm serious about someone else finding it.  I can't remember any researcher names, can't remember the year it was published, the name of the paper, nothing...  Trying a google search gives me a shitstorm of completely unrelated info, it will take hours on this connection.

And thus Life is resolved in a stable time loop! Now the debate can begin on the viability of Fighters in space combat.

Dykstra, don't play into what he's saying.  The point is, he didn't answer the question.  With all this baloney about "twitch function" and "nubs," he specifically ignored (and worse, may not have even understood) the fact that he needs to illustrate each small step in the chain, and then show how each small step provides some sort of benefit for natural selection to "select for."  What he provided was laughable, or pathetic, not sure which.

Tell him to start with "twitch function," outline the parts in the machine that cause this twitch function, then as each part is added step by step, explain how that part is adding a benefit to be selected for.  He won't do it, because he either can't do it, or he doesn't even understand the question or why its relevant.

I'm not sure if evolutionists just avoid attempting an answer because they know they will fail, or if they are so dumb that they actually believe their grotesquely simplified responses are an answer.  Probably the latter.

1.  I think it's a stupid, pointless, meaningless question.  I mean, why not ask me about the price of cotton in China?

2. I don't know anything about your "God."

"Thoroughly debunked" (cough) and yet you can't debunk it or answer the question.

For a Ph.D. scientist making his evolutionary claims?  Yes.  Science requires no less.

But for you?  As I said, a much simpler "major parts diagram" would suffice.  The granularity I would accept would be small major parts that are not themselves machines, i.e. rotor, stator, bearing, u-joint, propeller, etc.

Agent of Kharma - 1
DoomBringer90 - 0.

Anyone else?

Pot calling the kettle.

First, what you are basically arguing is the "irreducible complexity" idea, generally championed by Michael Behe. It's based on the expectation that evolution can only add things, and that evolution has a direction. Fortunately, neither of those statements is true. Evolutionary changes can remove structures, or alter the shape or function of an existing one rather than just adding new ones. And evolution itself does not have a direction - most people seem to think that evolution must always select for the more complex solution. Humans are not any more "highly evolved" than any of the micro organisms our intestines play host to - quite the opposite, in fact.

And while it is granular and simplistic, and indeed isn't the outboard motor you wanted explained, this does explain how you could get a simple "irreducibly complex" stone bridge with direct evolutionary steps. The link provided in it gives a good explanation of how soil bacteria can evolve an "irreducibly complex" mean of digesting a particular toxin.

[edit] I need to type faster, or check myself less. But yes, it does seem that the concept of a neutral mutation (one that neither helps nor hinders organisms) is beyond Kharma's grasp.

This thread has become quite pathetic, y'know... people trying to deny evolution by strawman attacks against abiogenesis, cosmogeny and, of all things, electrical motors, ignoring information and redefining words to suit their own world-views, and a complete and utter failure to understand science in general, mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics or even philosophy and logic.

Some of you seem honestly ignorant and curious, but the behavior of others really, really cannot be explained by means other than "he's a freaking troll".

Want me to be convinced otherwise? formally define the word "evolution" to me. No cop-outs, no "I'm using it the same as everybody else is using", no "you should know already", just a formal declaration of your own, personal definition. No other questions, explanations, links to peer-reviewed papers, that is all, a simple definition. Hell, cut-n-paste it if you want, as long as you're willing to state "this is what I believe the word to mean".

Go ahead, I'll be waiting.

I find this really funny. That you should start out invoking God's name (as if you believe in God), only to later say the invoked deity is an invented concept. How hypocritical!

I find this even funnier. The concept that 'we' will eventually know everything there is to know, when all of us alive today will be dead and forgotten in a very few short years. Do you really think that any single person could ever have such knowledge and understanding?

Even in a composite whole, there are things that were known thousands of years ago that are lost to those of more recent times.

And your use of "god" (vs. "'a' god") would suggest that you really do believe in a single all-powerful God, but are in denial of said Being because of what it would mean to the belief system that you wish to believe in.

I pity you, Mumblefratz - because you are so conflicted between what you actually believe (in your heart), and what you so desperately want to believe in (in your mind).

Lets add a codicil - ID and creationism are faith based theories of human origins.  As this discussion is science based no appeals to either philosophy are particularly relevant.  Also no claims of "anyone against evolution is a raving lunatic, just look at ID/creationism" are relevant. 

Response of the scientific community

Like intelligent design, the concept it seeks to support, irreducible complexity has failed to gain any notable acceptance within the scientific community. One science writer called it a "full-blown intellectual surrender strategy."^[58]

[edit] Reducibility of "irreducible" systems

Potentially viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system^[59] and the flagellum,^[60][61] which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonald.^[36] If irreducible complexity is an insurmountable obstacle to evolution, it should not be possible to conceive of such pathways.^{[citation needed]}

Niall Shanks and Karl H. Joplin, both of East Tennessee State University, have shown that systems satisfying Behe's characterization of irreducible biochemical complexity can arise naturally and spontaneously as the result of self-organizing chemical processes.^[62][63] They also assert that what evolved biochemical and molecular systems actually exhibit is "redundant complexity"—a kind of complexity that is the product of an evolved biochemical process. They claim that Behe overestimated the significance of irreducible complexity because of his simple, linear view of biochemical reactions, resulting in his taking snapshots of selective features of biological systems, structures and processes, while ignoring the redundant complexity of the context in which those features are naturally embedded. They also criticized his over-reliance of overly simplistic metaphors, such as his mousetrap. In addition, research published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature has shown that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally.^[64]

It is illustrative to compare a mousetrap with a cat, in this context. Both normally function so as to control the mouse population. The cat has many parts that can be removed leaving it still functional; for example, its tail can be bobbed, or it can lose an ear in a fight. Comparing the cat and the mousetrap, then, one sees that the mousetrap (which is not alive) offers better evidence, in terms of irreducible complexity, for intelligent design than the cat. Even looking at the mousetrap analogy, several critics have described ways in which the parts of the mousetrap could have independent uses or could develop in stages, demonstrating that it is not irreducibly complex.^[37][36]

Moreover, even cases where removing a certain component in an organic system will cause the system to fail do not demonstrate that the system couldn't have been formed in a step-by-step, evolutionary process. By analogy, stone arches are irreducibly complex—if you remove any stone the arch will collapse—yet we build them easily enough, one stone at a time, by building over centering that is removed afterward. Similarly, naturally occurring arches of stone are formed by weathering away bits of stone from a large concretion that has formed previously. Evolution can act to simplify as well as to complicate. This raises the possibility that seemingly irreducibly complex biological features may have been achieved with a period of increasing complexity, followed by a period of simplification.

In April 2006 a team led by Joe Thornton, assistant professor of biology at the University of Oregon's Center for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, using techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists for the first time reconstructed the evolution of an apparently irreducibly complex molecular system. The research was published in the April 7 issue of Science.^[5][65]

It may be that irreducible complexity does not actually exist in nature, and that the examples given by Behe and others are not in fact irreducibly complex, but can be explained in terms of simpler precursors. There has also been a theory that challenges irreducible complexity called facilitated variation. The theory has been presented in 2005 by Marc W. Kirschner, a professor and chair of Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart, a professor in Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. In their theory, they describe how certain mutation and changes can cause apparent irreducible complexity. Thus, seemingly irreducibly complex structures are merely "very complex", or they are simply misunderstood or misrepresented.

[edit] Gradual adaptation to new functions

The precursors of complex systems, when they are not useful in themselves, may be useful to perform other, unrelated functions. Evolutionary biologists argue that evolution often works in this kind of blind, haphazard manner in which the function of an early form is not necessarily the same as the function of the later form. The term used for this process is "exaptation". The mammalian middle ear (derived from a jawbone) and the panda's thumb (derived from a wrist bone spur) are considered classic examples. A 2006 article in Nature demonstrates intermediate states leading toward the development of the ear in a Devonian fish (about 360 million years ago).^[66] Furthermore, recent research shows that viruses play a heretofore unexpectedly great role in evolution by mixing and matching genes from various hosts.^{[citation needed]}

Arguments for irreducibility often assume that things started out the same way they ended up—as we see them now. However, that may not necessarily be the case. In the Dover trial an expert witness for the plaintiffs, Ken Miller, demonstrated this possibility using Behe's mousetrap analogy. By removing several parts, Miller made the object unusable as a mousetrap, but he pointed out that it was now a perfectly functional, if unstylish, tie clip.^[37][67]

[edit] Falsifiability and experimental evidence

Some critics, such as Jerry Coyne (professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago) and Eugenie Scott (a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education) have argued that the concept of irreducible complexity, and more generally, the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore, not scientific.

Behe argues that the theory that irreducibly complex systems could not have been evolved can be falsified by an experiment where such systems are evolved. For example, he posits taking bacteria with no flagellum and imposing a selective pressure for mobility. If, after a few thousand generations, the bacteria evolved the bacterial flagellum, then Behe believes that this would refute his theory.^{[citation needed]}

Other critics take a different approach, pointing to experimental evidence that they believe falsifies the argument for Intelligent Design from irreducible complexity. For example, Kenneth Miller cites the lab work of Barry G. Hall on E. coli, which he asserts is evidence that "Behe is wrong."^[68]

Other evidence that irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution comes from the field of computer science, where computer analogues of the processes of evolution are routinely used to automatically design complex solutions to problems. The results of such Genetic Algorithms are frequently irreducibly complex since the process, like evolution, both removes non-essential components over time as well as adding new components. The removal of unused components with no essential function, like the natural process where rock underneath a natural arch is removed, can produce irreducibly complex structures without requiring the intervention of a designer. Researchers applying these algorithms are automatically producing human competitive designs—but no human designer is required.^[69]

[edit] Argument from ignorance

Intelligent design proponents attribute to an intelligent designer those biological structures they believe are irreducibly complex and where a natural explanation is absent or insufficient to account for them.^[70] However, critics view irreducible complexity as a special case of the "complexity indicates design" claim, and thus see it as an argument from ignorance and God of the gaps argument.^[6]

Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance.^[71] Behe has been accused of using an "argument by lack of imagination", and Behe himself acknowledges that a failure of current science to explain how an "irreducibly complex" organism did or could evolve does not automatically prove the impossibility of such an evolution.

Irreducible complexity is at its core an argument against evolution. If truly irreducible systems are found, the argument goes, then intelligent design must be the correct explanation for their existence. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life, a false dilemma.^[72][73]

[edit] Irreducible complexity in the Dover trial

While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."^[74]

In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:^[74]

• "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73)
• "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74)
• "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75)
• "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID [Intelligent Design], by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76)
• "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)
• "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79–80)

The Mousetrap Analogy
or
Trapped by Design

In their continuing efforts to make a case for the "intelligent design" of biochemical systems, Michael Behe and others have compared such systems to mousetraps. By invoking an ordinary object like the mousetrap, they hope to explain their concept of "irreducible complexity" in terms that people can easily grasp. Here's an example of how this comparison is made:

"A good example of such a system is a mechanical mousetrap. ... The mousetrap depends critically on the presence of all five it its components; if there were no spring, the mouse would not be pinned to the base; if there were no platform, the other pieces would fall apart; and so on. The function of the mousetrap requires all the pieces: you cannot catch a few mice with just a platform, add a spring and catch a few more mice, add a holding bar and catch a few more, All of the components have to be in place before any mice are caught. Thus the mousetrap is irreducibly complex." [MJ Behe, 1998, "Intelligent Design Theory as a Tool for Analyzing Biochemical Systems," in Mere Creation, p. 178]

In spending so much energy showing that this sequence of mousetraps could not have "evolved," Behe misses the whole point of MacDonald's demonstration. In fact, he also overlooks the most important error in his mousetrap argument, which is his contention that function is abolished by removing any part of an "irreducibly complex" system. At the very same conference, I removed two parts from a mousetrap (leaving just the base, spring, and hammer), and used that 3-part device as a functional tie-clip. I then detached the spring from the hammer, and used the device as a keychain. If I had cared to, I might have used the base and spring (2 parts) as a paper clip, my tie clip (glued to a door) as a door knocker, the catch as a toothpick, or the base as a paperweight.

As these examples show, portions of a supposedly irreducibly-complex system may be fully-functional in other contexts, and this is the biologically relevant part of the argument. Behe argues that natural selection cannot favor the evolution of a non-functional system (which is true), and then argues that no portion of an "irreducibly complex" system (such as a mousetrap) could have any function. As my 3-part tie clip shows, that's false, and it's false in a biologically-relevant way. If portions of a multipart biochemical are useful within the cell in performing other useful functions, then evolution has a perfectly reasonable way to put the parts of such machines together. This is, incidentally, exactly the case for the very systems that Behe cites. The microtubules, cross-bridges, and linking proteins of the eukaryotic cilium (to use one of his favorite examples) each have other functions within the cell that would favor their production by natural selection.

In showing that it is possible to use part of a mousetrap for a different purpose, one shows by analogy that it is also possible to use part of a biochemical system for a different purpose. That's the fatal danger of the mousetrap analogy for Behe's argument, and it has become a trap from which he cannot escape.

Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, RI 02912

Um.. actually I am a Christian and my religion dictates nothing of the sort, in fact we do not believe in a god that would unfairly damn or condemn anyone, whether because of how they were raised, where, or into what religion they were born, or for any other reason. Also just being a Christian isn't enough to be saved, I have to live it and mean it, not just go through the motions to ease a guilty conscience or for whatever other reason. As far as paying the Church money, all of it goes to helping others, or to maintain the buildings, or disaster relief or whatever else, none of it is taken or used to pay church leaders.