Why do schools insist on teach about Darwin and calling his work "science"? Has every scientist over-looked the principle of irreducible complexity? Irreducible Complexity states that some organisms are made up of basic component parts, and the organism could not exist (because it couldn't function) without all of the component parts existing at the same time. Even Darwin said that his theory would not hold up if irreducible complexity was proven.
If it could be demonstrated that
any complex organ existed which
could not possible have been formed
by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely
break down. (from On The Origin of Species)
Back in Darwin's time, people didn't have the technology to see what contemporary science has since proven. Living Organisms are irreducibly complex. Humans, for example, are too complex for Darwin's theory to even be considered. We consist of many parts that have to be present for us to live. I would like someone to explain to me why the textbooks and curriculum for highschool biology over-looks this principle among others, which I will be posting soon.[/i]
Darwin
Moderator: Moderators
-
hyperlitegirl819
- Student
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:35 pm
- Location: Texas
Post #2
I don't really see a question here for debate. Could you please clarify what it is you would like to discuss, or perchance move the post to RR?
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air...we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
Post #3
hyperlitegirl819 wrote:Why do schools insist on teach about Darwin and calling his work "science"?
Because it is science. My school never really taught much about darwin, just evolution.
hyperlitegirl819 wrote:Has every scientist over-looked the principle of irreducible complexity?
No, they understand evolution and realize that the irreducible complexity argument is nonsense.
That argument assumes that to get from organism A to B, you would just add the new genes that B has and remove the genes that B doesn't have over time. It doesn't even consider that genes that are not in A or B appeared in some of the transitional organisms.
[quotehyperlitegirl819]I would like someone to explain to me why the textbooks and curriculum for highschool biology over-looks this principle among others, which I will be posting soon[/quote]
It is not even considered a principle to the scientific community, it has been shown how something thought to be irreducibly complex could be formed. You should check out one of the counter examples to Behe's mousetrap. Such as this one: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
Post #4
How? Explain what you mean by too complex. Do you mean too complex for some people to understand? Life (and viruses!) have one thing in common- DNA, the source of the myriad of life seen on Earth.Living Organisms are irreducibly complex. Humans, for example, are too complex for Darwin's theory to even be considered.
Nature finds some unusual uses for appendages etc already used by other animals for example your ear bones were originally reptilian leg bones (another nail in the coffin of "special" creation!
).An analogy I've seen used to "prove" irreducable complexity is that of a mouse trap. How could such a "complex" unit "evolve"? The answer is that individualy, the parts of the mouse trap have their own uses and this basically is how evolution works. If something works even though it may not be the "best" option (another misunderstanding that people have when it comes to evolution- sometimes it's the lucky that survive catastrophic events), it will be used and hence propagated.
There are people in this forum that can give you a far better insight to the workings of evolution, but hopefully this post wil give you something to ponder.
-
hyperlitegirl819
- Student
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:35 pm
- Location: Texas
Post #5
OK. This is for the people that wanted an example of irreducible complexity... A mature male giraffe stands somewhere around 18 feet. In order to pump blood up his long skinny neck to the brain, it needs a pretty powerful pump. The heart of a giraffe can be about 2-2 1/2 feet long. The heart is so powerful that, as the giraffe bends down to get a drink of water, the blood pressure is more than enough to burst the blood vessels of its brain.
When might a giraffe know it needed to protect its brain from the damage of excessive blood pressure? It seems to me that it would not know until it had died of a brain hemorrhage while quenching its thirst. And how can an animal evolve when its dead? The giraffe's protective mechanism helps control the blood flow to his brain when he takes drinks or when he has to quickly raise his head (in the event that a predator is approaching). As the giraffe bends down for, say, a drink, the valves in the arteries in his neck start closing. Blood beyond the last valve continues moving toward the brain, but instead of it passing at a very high speed and pressing into the brain, causing the brain to be damaged or destroyed, the last pump is shunted under the brain into a group of vessels that resemble a sponge called, "rete mirabile". The brain is preserved as the powerful surge of oxygenated blood gently expands the sponge-like vessels beneath it. When a giraffe raises its head, the valves open. The rete mirabile squeezes its oxygenated blood into the brain; the veins going down the neck contain some valves, which close to help level out the blood pressure, and the giraffe can quickly be fully erect and running without passing out and becoming lion lunch.
There is no way the giraffe could have evolved its special features slowly and over long periods of time as evolution demands. Can anyone prove that the giraffe evolved slowly over time? This is a perfect example of irreducible complexity, this animal is too complex to fit the evolution theory.
When might a giraffe know it needed to protect its brain from the damage of excessive blood pressure? It seems to me that it would not know until it had died of a brain hemorrhage while quenching its thirst. And how can an animal evolve when its dead? The giraffe's protective mechanism helps control the blood flow to his brain when he takes drinks or when he has to quickly raise his head (in the event that a predator is approaching). As the giraffe bends down for, say, a drink, the valves in the arteries in his neck start closing. Blood beyond the last valve continues moving toward the brain, but instead of it passing at a very high speed and pressing into the brain, causing the brain to be damaged or destroyed, the last pump is shunted under the brain into a group of vessels that resemble a sponge called, "rete mirabile". The brain is preserved as the powerful surge of oxygenated blood gently expands the sponge-like vessels beneath it. When a giraffe raises its head, the valves open. The rete mirabile squeezes its oxygenated blood into the brain; the veins going down the neck contain some valves, which close to help level out the blood pressure, and the giraffe can quickly be fully erect and running without passing out and becoming lion lunch.
There is no way the giraffe could have evolved its special features slowly and over long periods of time as evolution demands. Can anyone prove that the giraffe evolved slowly over time? This is a perfect example of irreducible complexity, this animal is too complex to fit the evolution theory.
I'm not a nice Christian.
Post #6
Gee, what ever happened to wings and eyes in this type of bogus analysis? Oh, that's right, they turned out to be a boon for the theory of natural selection.
First off, very telling that you ask "how can an animal evolve when it's dead?" This question betrays a complete lack of understanding of natural selection, as if by some Lamarckian mechanism, every individual organism has to "evolve" over its lifespan for us to consider evolution. The answer is that nothing can evolve unless organisms die, and die wihtout reproducing, specifically.
To my mind, irreducible complexity analysis is best confined to the biochemistry of the origin of life, where at least a veil of mystery (lack of fossil record, etc.) conceals the obvious shortcomings of the argument.
OK, so the giraffe. The argument is that as the giraffe's ancestors began to be selected for longer necks, they could not simultaneously be selected for collateral features that enhance survival given a longer neck? That just makes no sense. Sorry, Darwinians, features can evolve, but ONE AT A TIME, OKAY GUYS. You start proposing multiple adaptations evolving in concert and it confuses the IDers, so just SLOW DOWN.
First off, very telling that you ask "how can an animal evolve when it's dead?" This question betrays a complete lack of understanding of natural selection, as if by some Lamarckian mechanism, every individual organism has to "evolve" over its lifespan for us to consider evolution. The answer is that nothing can evolve unless organisms die, and die wihtout reproducing, specifically.
To my mind, irreducible complexity analysis is best confined to the biochemistry of the origin of life, where at least a veil of mystery (lack of fossil record, etc.) conceals the obvious shortcomings of the argument.
OK, so the giraffe. The argument is that as the giraffe's ancestors began to be selected for longer necks, they could not simultaneously be selected for collateral features that enhance survival given a longer neck? That just makes no sense. Sorry, Darwinians, features can evolve, but ONE AT A TIME, OKAY GUYS. You start proposing multiple adaptations evolving in concert and it confuses the IDers, so just SLOW DOWN.
Post #7
The short answer is that the principle of irreducible complexity and other ID ideas have not been established as reliable science.Why do schools insist on teach about Darwin and calling his work "science"? Has every scientist over-looked the principle of irreducible complexity?
If something is to be included in the school curriculum as science, it should have at least some track record of success in the scientific community. ID has none, mostly because they have not even tried to publish in standard scientific journals, and this (IMO), is mostly because they do not really have a scientific theory and so are bypassing the usual scientific process and selling their ideas to the general public.
Post #8
As a general rule from my personal experience, if I can find an argument on TO's master list of them, the person presenting it did not think of it themselves. As such, I should not be required to research the issue and come up with a response that I did indeed think of myself.OK. This is for the people that wanted an example of irreducible complexity... A mature male giraffe stands somewhere around 18 feet. In order to pump blood up his long skinny neck to the brain, it needs a pretty powerful pump. The heart of a giraffe can be about 2-2 1/2 feet long. The heart is so powerful that, as the giraffe bends down to get a drink of water, the blood pressure is more than enough to burst the blood vessels of its brain.
From here.
Darwin answered this claim in 1868 (206). The claim assumes that "gradually" must mean "one at a time." Not so. The different features could have (and almost certainly would have) evolved both simultaneously and gradually. Partial valves would have been useful for reducing blood pressure to a degree. An intermediate heart would have produced enough pressure for a shorter neck. A smaller net of blood vessels in the head could have handled the lesser pressure. As longer necks were selected for, all of the other components would have been modified bit by bit as well. In other words, for each inch that the neck grew, the giraffe's physiology would have evolved to support such growth before the next inch of neck growth.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air...we need believing people."
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
[Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933]
-
juliod
- Guru
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
- Location: Washington DC
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #9
No, they are not.Living Organisms are irreducibly complex.
I see that you are only 16. This is an important message for you, so pay close attention: People are lying to you about biology.[/b] I do't know if it is your parents, friends, or preacher, but they are trying to make you stupid.
Don't let them. Keep posting here, and keep reading. There's still hope.
DanZ
Post #10
Welcome to the forums!
If the giraffe would know that it needs to have its brain protected doesn't really matter, as evolution doesn't give you what you "think you need". That'd be lamarckism, which hasn't really much to do with the theory of evolution.
You basically wrote that an animal can't evolve when it's dead. Well...that's obviously true, but it seems that you assume that the theory ov evolution then states that animals evolve when they are alive. But that's not how evolution works either. An animal doesn't suddenly change its genes while it's alive - it dies with the genes that it was born with.
Otherwise e.g. this one couldn't have been formed by gradual processes either:
It's not that hard to imagine how this natural arch was formed, is it?
Your words indicate two major misconceptions about the theory of evolution.When might a giraffe know it needed to protect its brain from the damage of excessive blood pressure? It seems to me that it would not know until it had died of a brain hemorrhage while quenching its thirst. And how can an animal evolve when its dead?
If the giraffe would know that it needs to have its brain protected doesn't really matter, as evolution doesn't give you what you "think you need". That'd be lamarckism, which hasn't really much to do with the theory of evolution.
You basically wrote that an animal can't evolve when it's dead. Well...that's obviously true, but it seems that you assume that the theory ov evolution then states that animals evolve when they are alive. But that's not how evolution works either. An animal doesn't suddenly change its genes while it's alive - it dies with the genes that it was born with.
Possibly - but irreducibly complex =/= unevolvable.Living Organisms are irreducibly complex.
Otherwise e.g. this one couldn't have been formed by gradual processes either:
It's not that hard to imagine how this natural arch was formed, is it?
