If you accept microevolution

[jamesmorlock]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

[TheJackelantern]

I read this on Wikipedia:

You shouldn't rely on wikipedia as your main source.. This is why I usually provide primary source material. What wickipedia describes is a placebo tail in reference to the ones that are not a case of spina spidifia. THe vessels, tissue, nerves ect in placebo tails are again an example of Atavism.. The example I gave you is the same thing with the exception that there is the vertebra included..

Your comment indicates that both chimpanzees and humans have tail genes. Would you attribute the cause of the appendage (human tail) as being the result of a gene that was expressed (turned on) when it is normally turned off in humans or is the appendage of human tails caused by something else?

Of course they have the genes. It's exactly what you would expect in regards to evolution when genes are not entirely lost.. The human tail gets reabsorbed, and that is where the hox code comes in.. When that fails to fully absorb, you get human tails, and in rare cases with the vertebra as shown. And no, the tails are genetic.. Just like how we can likely make a dinosaur out of a chicken by preventing absorption of traits like tails ect. Talk Ted video I provided discusses this issue as well

In fact that x-ray shows a normal healthy spine, as admitted in the original research paper by Bar-Maor et al. from which that x-ray image (Figure 3 in the paper) was taken, [Bar-Maor, et al., Human tails, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, British Volume 62-B(4):508–510, November 1980, http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.] [The] webpage [talkOrigins] will have gained the same incorrect impression that got, namely that there exist people whose coccyxes (or ‘tailbones’) are longer than normal and form the core of a protruding and movable appendage, i.e. a functioning tail.

The X-ray in question is irrelevant to whether or not the tail is fully functional. It's a matter that it's there.. And the tail bone is a single bone, and this is not a "larger tailbone".. Who-ever wrote that argument doesn't know what they are talking about.

‘Rarely a caudal appendage is found at birth.

This is expected.. I don't see the point of that argument.

(some are teratomata)

teratoma [ˌtɛrəˈtəʊmə]
n pl -mata [-mətə], -mas
(Medicine / Pathology) a tumour or group of tumours composed of tissue foreign to the site of growth

The example I gave you is not a tumor.. and neither are the examples of actual placebo tails given in the Wikipedia.. Chreationsists just like this argument because they can claim anything like legs, tails ect as "foreign tissue or growth" so they can call something a tumor rather than dealing with what it actually is.

dorsal bending of the coccyx

The example provided is also not an example of dorsal bending. That wouldn't consist of vertabra.

o not contain more vertebrae than normal, and have nothing to do with “atavism� (Hornitzki)

except of the fact the example provided does. And the rest of what you posted needs not addressing.. And you also failed to provide me primary literature. You in fact posted the same discredited source as before. And it might be why I get this in regards to your link:

If this page did not display correctly, please send an email to info@karger.ch, specifying the URL and the error:
Either BOF or EOF is True, or the current record has been deleted. Requested operation requires a current record.

If you can find me a peer reviewed source on this, that would be great. And do remember the Atavism case of the reptile heart I posted prior to this as well.

I will indeed check the web site you suggested. I am very interested in Hox Genes. I believe they play a big part in the discussion of changes in traits. I appreciate it. Thanks again for all the information. Oh, by the way, I am not "back peddling," as you claim. I am trying to determine which arguments are more believable.

You're welcome. And to be honest, there is more information than I can possibly ever post here on the subject of evolution. It would be a wise choice to search out websites that deal with evolutionary science, biochemistry, biomechanics ect.. I could sit here for years posting material on the subject. So it's up to you to really search out information and take the time to fully fact check things you come across on Creation websites... That's the best advice I can give you

[arian]

You're welcome. And to be honest, there is more information than I can possibly ever post here on the subject of evolution. It would be a wise choice to search out websites that deal with evolutionary science, biochemistry, biomechanics ect.. I could sit here for years posting material on the subject. So it's up to you to really search out information and take the time to fully fact check things you come across on Creation websites... That's the best advice I can give you

The information out there is NOT all on evolution, actually, evolution is a very, very small part of it. The tons of information out there is about the scientific observations made of Gods Creation, and even all that is nothing but a scratch on the surface of what all there really is.

Look at the single-celled bacteria, and now we know it is far more complex than what we ever dreamed of.
Now we can write a book on those observations alone, but then there is the millions upon millions of bugs, lizards, birds, monkeys and then man. How much do we know of the psyche, the human brain? Very little and yet so many books are filled with info on it. All that has NOTHING to do with evolution, but is used as a delusion tactic the same way as our TV ads are used. "Buy, .. buy and you can own the world" and you forget Satan has just robbed you of your family and enslaved you with two jobs to pay off your debts.

"Have sex, watch the porn we offer. You're too young to have a baby, .. don't want the kid because you cannot afford him/her, .. that's OK, we'll kill them for you. It's all legal, and we really don't mind. You have any elderly around the house, .. hey, bring them down to the clinic too, we love to oblige! It's all 'Service with a Smile!'"

Yes, Gods Creation is very complex indeed, and we could eventually fill the universe with the details on how God created it. That is NOT EVOLUTION. Evolution is the sci-fi part of it, how it might-have created itself, where it might have come from and where it MIGHT be going. We 'believe' this might of happened, or where it all came from, .. BUT YOU are NOT allowed to believe Christian!

We have muscles and eyes and legs and arms, ... they are made of cells, the cells of atoms and so on, ... this is FACT, NOT EVOLUTION my friend.

Like I said before, .. it's like a primitive tribe leader who finds a Ford Mustang and takes it apart and re-names all the parts, that is still reality. But when he tells the villagers that it dropped like a fruit from a tree he found it under, ... now that is bull, .. he is adding and making up stories he has no idea about. Cars don't grow on trees, just as the universe did not pop out of 'nothing'.

The EVOLUTION part is the lies, the rest of the documented observations are facts, the ones that can be proven by other scientists. But to show children an ape and then tell them they were these apes a long, long time ago is a bunch of lies and you know it.

Then to tell them that 'there are no absolute morals, that there is no such thing as good nor evil but we are to live by animal instinct is truly an attack on the laws of physics, the laws of nature themselves. It is hate of all that is good and just.

LEAVE science alone, let science remain science so we may bask in the awesomeness of our Creator God. You want to believe in fairy tale hypotheses, ... fine, but please keep it to yourself. You know the Big bang/Evolution theory is a lie, you can't even tell me where the 'pin-sized universe resided in at the made-up Planck Epoch, ... that 'point in space' in 'nothing'?

Your "Nothing isn't nothing anymore" phrases are added lies to this dying theory. Yea, ... Chaos is not chaos anymore either, like it is explained in the Chaos Theory. Please.

So now what?

I'll tell you what, the Internet Information System must be taken over, and the "we'll tell you what, and how much you need to know!" will make its final appearance. Satan has risen in the hearts and minds of the deceived, and finally that last battle is HERE, Armageddon. It is a war against the Power of Darkness, against demonic powers you see on TV, on music videos, News and at you gas pumps. The vampires, the witches and warlocks, the dragons and human 'idols' with their Satanic messages depicting Satanic rituals of human sacrifices.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself lies till the whole world believes them. Serve the father of all lies if that is your choice, but know that God has called you and waited for you with open arms, even to this last moments. Like the Prodigals Son He is looking down the street to see if you have turned, ... but no. The choice is made, and pride will not allow you to turn, even if you have to eat the pig-slop. How much suffering will it take, ... how much bloodshed is enough?

There is no Evolution, only Creation. What can be observed is not evolution but change, man changes, bugs, lizards, they all change. Now if you want to watch a fertilized human egg from day one for the next nine mothst and call it evolution, ... fine. But I'll call it a miracle.

God bless you all.

[TheJackelantern]

I love arguing with myself .. Being a solipsist being, I can't help but create arian for amusement I'm my own arch enemy trying to convince myself I am nothing and that nothing exists lol

[Clownboat]

You're welcome. And to be honest, there is more information than I can possibly ever post here on the subject of evolution. It would be a wise choice to search out websites that deal with evolutionary science, biochemistry, biomechanics ect.. I could sit here for years posting material on the subject. So it's up to you to really search out information and take the time to fully fact check things you come across on Creation websites... That's the best advice I can give you

The information out there is NOT all on evolution, actually, evolution is a very, very small part of it. The tons of information out there is about the scientific observations made of Gods Creation, and even all that is nothing but a scratch on the surface of what all there really is.

Look at the single-celled bacteria, and now we know it is far more complex than what we ever dreamed of.
Now we can write a book on those observations alone, but then there is the millions upon millions of bugs, lizards, birds, monkeys and then man. How much do we know of the psyche, the human brain? Very little and yet so many books are filled with info on it. All that has NOTHING to do with evolution, but is used as a delusion tactic the same way as our TV ads are used. "Buy, .. buy and you can own the world" and you forget Satan has just robbed you of your family and enslaved you with two jobs to pay off your debts.

"Have sex, watch the porn we offer. You're too young to have a baby, .. don't want the kid because you cannot afford him/her, .. that's OK, we'll kill them for you. It's all legal, and we really don't mind. You have any elderly around the house, .. hey, bring them down to the clinic too, we love to oblige! It's all 'Service with a Smile!'"

Yes, Gods Creation is very complex indeed, and we could eventually fill the universe with the details on how God created it. That is NOT EVOLUTION. Evolution is the sci-fi part of it, how it might-have created itself, where it might have come from and where it MIGHT be going. We 'believe' this might of happened, or where it all came from, .. BUT YOU are NOT allowed to believe Christian!

We have muscles and eyes and legs and arms, ... they are made of cells, the cells of atoms and so on, ... this is FACT, NOT EVOLUTION my friend.

Like I said before, .. it's like a primitive tribe leader who finds a Ford Mustang and takes it apart and re-names all the parts, that is still reality. But when he tells the villagers that it dropped like a fruit from a tree he found it under, ... now that is bull, .. he is adding and making up stories he has no idea about. Cars don't grow on trees, just as the universe did not pop out of 'nothing'.

The EVOLUTION part is the lies, the rest of the documented observations are facts, the ones that can be proven by other scientists. But to show children an ape and then tell them they were these apes a long, long time ago is a bunch of lies and you know it.

Then to tell them that 'there are no absolute morals, that there is no such thing as good nor evil but we are to live by animal instinct is truly an attack on the laws of physics, the laws of nature themselves. It is hate of all that is good and just.

LEAVE science alone, let science remain science so we may bask in the awesomeness of our Creator God. You want to believe in fairy tale hypotheses, ... fine, but please keep it to yourself. You know the Big bang/Evolution theory is a lie, you can't even tell me where the 'pin-sized universe resided in at the made-up Planck Epoch, ... that 'point in space' in 'nothing'?

Your "Nothing isn't nothing anymore" phrases are added lies to this dying theory. Yea, ... Chaos is not chaos anymore either, like it is explained in the Chaos Theory. Please.

So now what?

I'll tell you what, the Internet Information System must be taken over, and the "we'll tell you what, and how much you need to know!" will make its final appearance. Satan has risen in the hearts and minds of the deceived, and finally that last battle is HERE, Armageddon. It is a war against the Power of Darkness, against demonic powers you see on TV, on music videos, News and at you gas pumps. The vampires, the witches and warlocks, the dragons and human 'idols' with their Satanic messages depicting Satanic rituals of human sacrifices.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself lies till the whole world believes them. Serve the father of all lies if that is your choice, but know that God has called you and waited for you with open arms, even to this last moments. Like the Prodigals Son He is looking down the street to see if you have turned, ... but no. The choice is made, and pride will not allow you to turn, even if you have to eat the pig-slop. How much suffering will it take, ... how much bloodshed is enough?

There is no Evolution, only Creation. What can be observed is not evolution but change, man changes, bugs, lizards, they all change. Now if you want to watch a fertilized human egg from day one for the next nine mothst and call it evolution, ... fine. But I'll call it a miracle.

God bless you all.

If anyone here besides arian finds any of this credible, please speak up and we can discuss. Otherwise I think we should leave it as it stands. As un-evidenced random ramblings that don't belong on a debate forum.

Arian, your religious views to me seem like a toy. You have every right to play with this toy. You can even go to churches and meet people that like the same toy as you. What you have no right to do is to try to make everyone else play with your toy (even though it is very amusing).

[Critical_Thinker]

LMAO... No, it's because he's a complete moron, and a proven dishonest liar. He pretends to be an expert in cosmology, astrology, physics, geo-physics, and many fields in bio-chemistry to which he holds no PHD's in.

The fact you even used him [Michael Behe] as a reference is an utter joke. And it's even worse when Following a trial, Behe wrote another book called "The Edge of Evolution," where he says that Darwinian evolution DOES exist, even though he says its role is limited. This is a clear shift from his position in "Darwin's Black Box," where he denied Darwinian evolution outright. His own university discredited him.

Irreducible complexity has been shot down on a number of occasions, most notably in the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Behe was the primary witness/expert for the defense, arguing against evolution using irreducible complexity and also trying to support ID as a legitimate science. Behe failed miserably on both counts in this case.

During the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial Michael Behe served as an expert witness for the defense in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Under cross examination, he was obliged to admit:

· That no peer-reviewed scientific journal has published research supportive of intelligent design's claims.
· That Behe's own book was not, as he had claimed, peer reviewed.
· That Behe himself criticizes the science presented as supporting intelligent design in instructional material created for that purpose.
· That intelligent design seems plausible and reasonable to inquirers in direct proportion to their belief or nonbelief in God.
· That the basic arguments for evidence of purposeful design in nature are essentially the same as those adduced by the Christian apologist Rev. William Paley (1743–1805) in his 1802 Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected From the Appearances of Nature, where he sums up his observations of the complexity of life in the ringing words, "The marks of design are too strong to be got over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD."[4]
· That the definition of "theory" supplied by the US National Academy of Sciences: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.�, was insufficiently broad to encompass ID. Use of his broader definition of the word would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

If the above information is an accurate summation of Michael Behe’s testimony during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, then his theory that some organisms such as the cell, the flagellum, the cilium, could not have self originated (and hence “irreducible complex�) was not disproved during this trial. It may be argued, however, that his views regarding irreducible complex organism does imply an “Intelligent Designer,� which to would imply God. Thus, teaching that there are irreducible complex organisms would imply there was a Master Designer, thus, teaching religion. That is why the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District board members lost the case. Michael Behe’s theory of Irreducible Complexity was not on trial, the Dover Area School District board members were. It was established, however, that Irreducible Complexity had religious implications. I do not believe religion or creation or Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools. I do believe, however, that students should be given the right to think rather than just accept everything that is being taught as though it were fact.

Since science has not yet disproven (to my satisfaction) Michael Behe’s views regarding irreducible complex organism to be false (in my opinion), then his theory still stands. I agree, however, that research should be conducted to determine if and how seemingly irreducible complex organisms such as the flagellum and the cilium could have self originated. At this point, the bacteria flagellum appears to be irreducible complex to have originated on its own, just as the cell appears to be irreducible complex.

Case in point, the flagellum, one of the key aspects of Behe's case. Here's a neat video that sums it up with pictures and a description of research done in 2003 on the subject of how it could have evolved.

I watched the youTube video “The Evolution of the Flagellum� you suggested ( I was very interesting how the Flagellum could have originated. The video mentioned in part that:

“Irreducible Complexity is the cornerstone of Intelligent Design. Logic tells us tha Irreducible Complexity is an argument based on ignorance. Because I cannot image how something evolved, it must not have. In order for one to even remotely consider a system as irreducible complex one must show that an exhaustive search of that system through diverse organisms and homologies of the proteins making up that system give no information as to how that system evolved. ID proponents never do the research. When other scientists do, they have always found evidence of evolution through multiple functional intermediates… [The model being proposed here] was formulated by Nicholas J. Matzke… Of the 42 proteins required to make a flagellum, 40 have been found so far to have homologues in other systems. After hundreds of millions of years many homologous proteins retain structure but not sequence identity. Therefore, finding homologues for the last two may require solving protein structures as some already have. All of the steps shown here each involve the modification of only one protein… the flagellum most likely evolved through gene duplication and modification followed by extensive refinement of each step. Each step produces a function product that imparts a selective advantage to the bacteria. This model was published in 2003 and many of its predictions have been confirmed through experiments. “Science is advanced by proposing and testing hypothesis, not by declaring questions unsolvable.� – N.J. Matzke.

I hope I am not guilty here of “quote mining.� I tried to include all the pertinent information included in the video. I was grateful that, in addition to the step-by-step process of how the flagellum could have originated, the additional information was displayed in the video in written form rather than someone simply speaking it.

The video did not mention what could have drawn the parts of the flagellum to become part of the side of a cell. Throughout the video only music played. There was no narrative. I thought that while the various drawings were shown, it would have been helpful, rather than having music play, if someone narrated what was going on. The mechanics were illustrated, however, much needed biological information was needed for this hypothesis to be credible.

I am not sure how all the pieces of the flagellum could have self-assembled by natural means. I always thought that changes occur randomly, without any direction and for such a complex system to have developed on its own must have been quite a feat. If changes are non-directional, then this would mean that as one positive step towards developing the flagellum occurred, it would be equally possible that in another step (change) some detrimental change would occur.

I realize the video mentioned that the majority of the various parts of the flagellum could have been previously used elseware, it remains questionable how all these could have come together to form a flagellum. From the video illustration it appears as though all the parts of the flagellum were a bunch of puzzle pieces that were the exact sizes and shapes necessary and that they somehow managed to self-assemble.

“All of the steps shown here each involve the modification of only one protein… the flagellum most likely evolved through gene duplication and modification followed by extensive refinement of each step. Each step produces a function product that imparts a selective advantage to the bacteria. This model was published in 2003 and many of its predictions have been confirmed through experiments. �

Organisms do not just come together and develop into a new system. The chance of all 42 of the pieces (proteins) of the flagellum coming together and being the exact sizes needed must be astronomical. Also, for this sytem to begin to function would be another feat in itself. During the process of the flagellum developing, what functions could these partly completed sub-systems have been used for?

Could they have contineud to perform their current functions until all the pieces of the flagellum were all together and then began to take on their new rules as part of the flagellum?

Could they possibly have been neutral, that is, having no effect on the overall cell?

Are there any other organisms in existance that have been discovered that currently are in the process of developing into something else?

I realize that it may be possible for an organism to have some other function prior to its becoming part of a different system, but do you know of any organism that appears to be in the process of developing into something else?

How did the cell exist without the flagellum? How did it get around?

We would agree that necessity is not what causes a positive change so the flagellum had to have originated somehow by chance.

I would also like to mention that the article you suggested, “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum� (discussed below) mentions several models that illustrate how the flagellum could have originated. If this is true, then the model illustrated in the youTube video is only one of several possibilities.

The document, “Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum� that you suggested (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html) was very interesting and very complex, has a great deal of information about the make-up of a flagellum. The discussion mentioned several scenarios (models) about how the flagellum could have originated, however, nothing definitive was proposed. More research needs to be made in this area. Since I believe that this article did not conclusively refute Michael Behe’s claim that the bacterial flagellum being irreducible complex, his claim stands.

Yep, there is a reason why he's discredited and doesn't have any peer reviewed material on any of the subjects he talks about. He doesn't even hold PHD's in 99 percent of the fields he talks about.

So why do creationists still refer to his evolution-denying work when Behe himself backed down from it after being discredited? Well, because it's good material for phishing ignorance of young minds, and those whom are less inclined to do fact checking

What exactly did Michael Behe back down from? I am not aware that Michael Behe backed down from his belief that the flagellum or the cilium could not have originated by natural means. I did read, however, that he changed his views regarding HIV-1 when questioned.
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.co ... ke-to.html

----

Regarding my previous discussion of how much about the extent of Charles Darwin’s knowledge of cells, I recently read: “Robert Brown, a British biologist, discovered the cell nucleus in 1831. By the time Darwin and Wallace proposed the mechanism of natural selection, people already knew that cells had some kind of internal structure.� http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=218

This obviously indicates Charles Darwin most likely knew that a cell (protoplasm) was more than just a blob of jelly, although it remains doubtful that he knew anything about DNA, genes, chromosomes, RNA, ribosomes, etc. Such knowledge is critical today when discussing the theory of evolution. If the argument that Darwin knew that a cell consisted of more than a blob of jelly, then I stand corrected. I never meant to belittle Darwin. I thought that if no one knew much about a cell in the 1800s, then no one should have expected Darwin to have known everything about genetics.

I knew that Darwin knew what chemicals a cell consisted of. Darwin mentioned ammonia and phosphoric salts when he discussed the possibilities of how a living organism could have originated. Again, I never meant to belittle Darwin. Through all your comments it was difficult to determine what you were trying to say. I believe you were just trying to say that Darwin knew that a cell was more than a blob of jelly, but I did not know to what extent you were referring. I thought you were stating that Darwin knew a great deal about what a cell does.

Since I do not have any further journals to share, I do not anticipate any further communication, as you mentioned in your last post that you do not wish to read any more creationist information, as you view it as pseudo-science, but I perceive it as thought provoking. Thanks for the information and for the time you spend responding to my comments and questions.

[SomePunk]

Simply because they are identical.

Consider an analogy:

Imagine that you can travel across the universe by walking. You have an infinite amount of time to do this, but you must make your journey by taking small steps. You have no destination, but you can go anywhere and you must never stop walking.

A thousand years pass. Where are you now? Further.
A million years pass. Where are you now? Even Further.
A billion years pass. Where are you now? Far, far away.

For every iteration of time, you will have traveled further and further. It is inevitable, for every small step takes you further. It is not possible to not travel far.

Microevolution is the small step. Macroevolution is the collective of small steps over a large period of time.

When walking for billions of years, how can you not be far away from your starting point?

If you know anything about physics you could have walked a billion miles and have traveled absolutely no where, due to displacement.

[arian]

If anyone here besides arian finds any of this credible, please speak up and we can discuss. Otherwise I think we should leave it as it stands. As un-evidenced random ramblings that don't belong on a debate forum.

Arian, your religious views to me seem like a toy. You have every right to play with this toy. You can even go to churches and meet people that like the same toy as you. What you have no right to do is to try to make everyone else play with your toy (even though it is very amusing).

Your Creator and the souls of all humanity is a toy for you?

I am debating and do use every possible source to prove my points. Sorry if Wikipedia, or YouTube doesn't have information on some things I have come to understand. You may choose Darwins book and I have the right to pick the Bible and use it as a source.

Oh, and I don't make anyone 'play with my toy', I do offer the insight given to me to anyone who might be able to use it, and I'm glad even you find it "very amusing".

Because of you view and obvious feelings, remarks towards Christianity, I am somewhat offended by your quote at the bottom of your posts:

"You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life."

A lot of Believers, followers of Jesus were burnt at the stake over many centuries, and when they set these men on fire, they weren't exactly 'warm' for the next hour or so of their lives.

[TheJackelantern]

Critical thinker,

I don't think you understand when I ask you for peer reviewed journals and primary literature. And I have asked you to do some investigating on your own as well. But I see you haven't bothered since a simple web search on the subject would have brought you up to speed as to why irreducible complexity had been discredited in the scientific community, and by his own university..

If the above information is an accurate summation of Michael Behe’s testimony during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, then his theory that some organisms such as the cell, the flagellum, the cilium, could not have self originated (and hence “irreducible complex�) was not disproved during this trial.

This is an assertion and it was clearly a part of his argument to which failed entirely in the trial. This is science and not religion son, and I don't think you are grasping what science entails. Please provide peer reviewed material or concede. Michael Behe's is by fact, a discredited scientist. And it's pretty bad you keep trying to use him as source material..

was insufficiently broad to encompass ID. Use of his broader definition of the word would allow astrology to be included as a scientific theory.

This is a very poor attempt to get creationism labeled as "science".. They don't want to deal with peer reviewed material, empirical evidence, or actually establishing their claims in accordance to the scientific method. His goal is to indoctrinate science into a blind faith institution.

If the above information is an accurate summation of Michael Behe’s testimony during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, then his theory that some organisms such as the cell, the flagellum, the cilium, could not have self originated

Please prove it.. Snowflakes are then impossible to form on their own and are all magically hand crafted by your GOD.. That's the kind of logic we are dealing with here. Crap like Gravity is GOD pushing you down is the kind of nonsense we are talking about here.

(and hence “irreducible complex�) was not disproved during this trial.

Peer reviewed journal please. Oh, and yes we can disprove it. :






Prime literature:

http://www.physorg.com/news64046019.html

Biological Sciences - Evolution

Abigail Clements,
Dejan Bursac,
Xenia Gatsos,
Andrew J. Perry,
Srgjan Civciristov,
Nermin Celik,
Vladimir A. Likic,
Sebastian Poggio,
Christine Jacobs-Wagner,
Richard A. Strugnell,
and Trevor Lithgow

The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine PNAS 2009 106 (37) 15791-15795; published ahead of print August 26, 2009, doi:10.1073/pnas.0908264106
The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine...The challenge of irreducible complexity . Nat Hist 111 : 74 . 8 Miller...Supporting Information (PDF) The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine...
Full Text (PDF)

Biological Sciences: Biochemistry

David R. Eyre and
Melvin J. Glimcher

Reducible Crosslinks in Hydroxylysine-Deficient Collagens of a Heritable Disorder of Connective Tissue PNAS 1972 69 (9) 2594-2598
Reducible Crosslinks in Hydroxylysine-Deficient Collagens of a...ildren's Hospital Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02115 Reducible compounds that participate in crosslinking were analyzed...would explain the findings of an abnormal profile of reducible compounds despite an almost normal total hydroxylysine...

Full Text (PDF)

Research Article

M O Longas and
K Meyer

Evidence that a reducible xylosyl-lysine is the protein linkage of dermatan sulfate PNAS 1982 79 (20) 6225-6228
Evidence that a reducible xylosyl-lysine is the protein linkage...sulfate-protein bond. The data indicate that a reducible xylosyl-lysine is the protein linkage...ligamentum nuchae. Evidence that a reducible xylosyl-lysine is the protein linkage...

Full Text (PDF)

erspective - Supramolecular Chemistry and Self-Assembly Special Feature

Jean-Marie Lehn

Supramolecular Chemistry And Self-assembly Special Feature: Toward complex matter: Supramolecular chemistry and self-organization PNAS 2002 99 (8) 4763-4768; published ahead of print April 2, 2002, doi:10.1073/pnas.072065599
...defining a given level of complexity result from and may be explained

Full Text (PDF)

Biological Sciences - Biochemistry

Jiqiang Ling and
Dieter Söll

Severe oxidative stress induces protein mistranslation through impairment of an aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase editing site PNAS 2010 107 (9) 4028-4033; published ahead of print February 16, 2010, doi:10.1073/pnas.1000315107
...acid further forms a disulfide, which is reducible by DTT but not by sodium arsenite. The...sulfenic acids and disulfide bonds are reducible by cellular reductants such as thioredoxin and glutaredoxin (6). Oxidation...another thiol. Cys sulfenic acids are reducible by NaAsO2 or DTT, while disulfides can...

Full Text (PDF)

Other scholar sources:

The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine
[HTML] from pnas.org

A Clements, D Bursac, X Gatsos… - Proceedings of the …, 2009 - National Acad Sciences Abstract Molecular machines drive essential biological processes, with the component parts of these machines each contributing a partial function or structural element. Mitochondria are organelles of eukaryotic cells, and depend for their biogenesis on a set of molecular ...

--

Modules with reducible complexity
[PDF] from arxiv.org
PA Bergh - Journal of Algebra, 2007 - Elsevier For a commutative Noetherian local ring we define and study the class of modules having reducible complexity, a class containing all modules of finite complete intersection dimension. Various properties of this class of modules are given, together with results on ...

--

Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation
[PDF] from winthrop.edu JT Bridgham, SM Carroll… - Science, 2006 - sciencemag.org... 0504627, and a Sloan Research Fellowship to JWT. The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites. In Science Magazine. EVOLUTION Reducible Complexity: Christoph Adami. Science 7 April 2006: 61-63

Evolution Of Irreducible Complexity Explained
April 12, 2006

Using new techniques for resurrecting ancient genes, scientists have for the first time reconstructed the Darwinian evolution of an apparently "irreducibly complex" molecular system.

Other source material:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005 ... e_com.html
http://noblesseoblige.org/2009/05/27/ir ... ked-again/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/b ... erall.html

And what really kills the irreducible complexity argument is consciousness itself! Consciousness can't exist without cause.. And thus is subject to reducibility itself. That alone destroys the entire argument. So let's explore this:

So here is a good article to read:

Information: The material physical Cause of causation

Abstract:

* Conscious Mechanical Self-Organization

Abstract:

The evolution of consciousness is seen in the context of energy driven evolution in general, where energy and information are understood as two sides of the same coin. From this perspective consciousness is viewed as an ecological system in which streams of cognitive, perceptual, and emotional information form a rich complex of interactions, analogous to the interactive metabolism of a living cell. The result is an organic, self-generating, or autopoietic, system, continuously in the act of creating itself. Evidence suggests that this process is chaotic, or at least chaotic-like, and capable of assuming a number of distinct states best understood as chaotic attractors

Or you can watch these videos:

Scientists Extract Images from the Mind

Computer Chips Fused with Brain Cells

Robot controlled by braincells

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg


And:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Physical_information
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Algori ... ion_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_I ... astructure
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medium
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_processing
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Observation
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Entropy
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Systems_theory
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cybernetics
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Librar ... on_Science

And if you really need an in depth understanding of information science in relation to cognitive systems ect you can reference all of this to get a better understanding of the field:

Information theory is closely associated with a collection of pure and applied disciplines that have been investigated and reduced to engineering practice under a variety of rubrics throughout the world over the past half century or more: adaptive systems, anticipatory systems, artificial intelligence, complex systems, complexity science, cybernetics, informatics, machine learning, along with systems sciences of many descriptions. Information theory is a broad and deep mathematical theory, with equally broad and deep applications, amongst which is the vital field of coding theory.

This article largely discusses complex systems as a subject of information and the attempts to emulate physical complex systems with emergent properties. For other scientific and professional disciplines addressing complexity in their fields see the complex systems article and references.

A complex system is a system composed of interconnected parts that as a whole exhibit one or more properties (behavior among the possible properties) not obvious from the properties of the individual parts.[1]

A system’s complexity may be of one of two forms: disorganized complexity and organized complexity.[2] In essence, disorganized complexity is a matter of a very large number of parts, and organized complexity is a matter of the subject system (quite possibly with only a limited number of parts) exhibiting emergent properties.

Examples of complex systems for which complexity models have been developed include ant colonies, human economies and social structures, climate, nervous systems, cells and living things, including human beings, as well as modern energy or telecommunication infrastructures. Indeed, many systems of interest to humans are complex systems.

Complex systems are studied by many areas of natural science, mathematics, and social science. Fields that specialize in the interdisciplinary study of complex systems include systems theory, complexity theory, systems ecology, and cybernetics.

The term adaptation arises mainly in the biological scope as a trial to study the relationship between the characteristics (anatomic structure, physiological processes or behavior) of living beings and their environments. Currently, in biology, the term adaptation has a clear and concise meaning: a biological adaptation is an anatomic structure, a physiological process or a behavior's trait of an organism that has been selected by the natural evolution in such a way that this characteristic increase the probability of reproduction of an organism.

An adaptive system is a set of interacting or interdependent entities, real or abstract, forming an integrated whole that together are able to respond to environmental changes or changes in the interacting parts. Feedback loops represent a key feature of adaptive systems, allowing the response to changes; examples of adaptive systems include: natural ecosystems, individual organisms, human communities, human organizations, and human families.

Some artificial systems can be adaptive as well; for instance, robots employ control systems that utilize feedback loops to sense new conditions in their environment and adapt accordingly.

Complex adaptive information systems are applicable to all of the following as well:

Agent-based model
Biological organisation
Complex (disambiguation)
Complexity (disambiguation)
Complex network
Dissipative system
Fractals
Innovation butterfly
Mixed Reality
System equivalence
Systems theory
2 Modern Neuroscience
2.1 Molecular and cellular neuroscience
2.2 Neural circuits and systems
2.3 Cognitive and behavioral neuroscience


If you want to get even deeper into the subject we can do that here:

We can also explore:

* http://mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2001/Shannon2.pdf
* http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... L7ARym9-9A

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%2 ... _theory%29

* http://www.musiccog.ohio-state.edu/Musi ... heory.html

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

* http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... Won7-AEKGg[/url]
* http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9710259
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science

See Also:

Digital physics
Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory
History of information theory
Information entropy
Information theory
Logarithmic scale
Logarithmic units
Reversible computing (for relations between information and energy)
Philosophy of information
Thermodynamic entropy

Abstract 1:

Information science (or information studies) is an interdisciplinary science primarily concerned with the analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information.[1] Practitioners within the field study the application and usage of knowledge in organizations, along with the interaction between people, organizations and any existing information systems, with the aim of creating, replacing, improving or understanding information systems. Information science is often (mistakenly) considered a branch of computer science. However, it is actually a broad, interdisciplinary field, incorporating not only aspects of computer science, but often diverse fields such as archival science, cognitive science, commerce, communications, law, library science, museology, management, mathematics, philosophy, public policy, and the social sciences.

Information science focuses on understanding problems from the perspective of the stakeholders involved and then applying information and other technologies as needed. In other words, it tackles systemic problems first rather than individual pieces of technology within that system. In this respect, information science can be seen as a response to technological determinism, the belief that technology "develops by its own laws, that it realizes its own potential, limited only by the material resources available, and must therefore be regarded as an autonomous system controlling and ultimately permeating all other subsystems of society."[2] Within information science, attention has been given in recent years to human–computer interaction, groupware, the semantic web, value sensitive design, iterative design processes and to the ways people generate, use and find information. Today this field is called the Field of Information, and there are a growing number of Schools and Colleges of Information.

Information science should not be confused with information theory, the study of a particular mathematical concept of information, or with library science, a field related to libraries which uses some of the principles of information science. But the principles of information underpin all fields of our very conscious existence.

And if the above isn't enough to understand, these videos might help demonstrate the reducibility of consciousness.:

Just google G-lock and Centrifuge videos on Youtube and you will have your answer.. The mind is a electromagnetic phenomenon and is physically effected.. And demonstrates reducibility of consciousness. If it weren't, thing like G-lock ect would be literally impossible.:

And there is a reason why he has no published peer reviewed work on irreducible complexity... It's already been discredited. So I hope this helps with some of your questions, and I do hope you need not post anymore stuff from Behe.. I won't respond to anything you post from him anymore, and I will expect you to post primary literature, and do some research on the subjects and tell me what you have come up with.

[Clownboat]

If anyone here besides arian finds any of this credible, please speak up and we can discuss. Otherwise I think we should leave it as it stands. As un-evidenced random ramblings that don't belong on a debate forum.

Arian, your religious views to me seem like a toy. You have every right to play with this toy. You can even go to churches and meet people that like the same toy as you. What you have no right to do is to try to make everyone else play with your toy (even though it is very amusing).

Your Creator and the souls of all humanity is a toy for you?

Is this another un-evidenced claim? Or can you show a Creator and can you show that souls exist?
I am not interested in your proclamations. I am interested in evidence.

I am debating and do use every possible source to prove my points. Sorry if Wikipedia, or YouTube doesn't have information on some things I have come to understand. You may choose Darwins book and I have the right to pick the Bible and use it as a source.

Oh, and I don't make anyone 'play with my toy', I do offer the insight given to me to anyone who might be able to use it, and I'm glad even you find it "very amusing".

Because of you view and obvious feelings, remarks towards Christianity, I am somewhat offended by your quote at the bottom of your posts:

"You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life."

A lot of Believers, followers of Jesus were burnt at the stake over many centuries, and when they set these men on fire, they weren't exactly 'warm' for the next hour or so of their lives.

I think you may be confused. That was Christians burning people that they claimed were witches.

[micatala]

Look at the single-celled bacteria, and now we know it is far more complex than what we ever dreamed of.

I agree, bacteria are complex.

"Have sex, watch the porn we offer. You're too young to have a baby, .. don't want the kid because you cannot afford him/her, .. that's OK, we'll kill them for you. It's all legal, and we really don't mind. You have any elderly around the house, .. hey, bring them down to the clinic too, we love to oblige! It's all 'Service with a Smile!'"

This has nothing at all to do with biological evolution.

Yes, Gods Creation is very complex indeed, and we could eventually fill the universe with the details on how God created it. That is NOT EVOLUTION. Evolution is the sci-fi part of it, how it might-have created itself, where it might have come from and where it MIGHT be going. We 'believe' this might of happened, or where it all came from, .. BUT YOU are NOT allowed to believe Christian!

False dichotomy. Accepting evolution does not preclude believing in God or believing God had no role in creation.

The EVOLUTION part is the lies, the rest of the documented observations are facts, the ones that can be proven by other scientists. But to show children an ape and then tell them they were these apes a long, long time ago is a bunch of lies and you know it.

Evolution is documented by evidence. I am sorry you feel this way, but I think you are going way over the top in calling a whole branch of science with literally millions of pieces of evidence which support it a lie.

Then to tell them that 'there are no absolute morals, that there is no such thing as good nor evil but we are to live by animal instinct is truly an attack on the laws of physics, the laws of nature themselves. It is hate of all that is good and just.

Evolution does not imply there are not absolute morals, at least in my view. Those who argue that it does are applying biology to a field where it does not apply. There is nothing at all hateful about the science of evolution.

LEAVE science alone, let science remain science so we may bask in the awesomeness of our Creator God.

Evolution IS science. And that science does NOT preclude a creator. This is a false dichotomy. Evolution could be one of the mechanisms God uses to create. I would suggest you read Francis Collins "The Language of God" and also read the Psalms. See especially around Psalm 96 through 105 or so. There, it speaks of God providing food to the animals, and water on the land. Do the scientific explanations of how grass and other plants grow somehow deny that God exists or has a role in creation?

There is no Evolution, only Creation. What can be observed is not evolution but change, man changes, bugs, lizards, they all change. Now if you want to watch a fertilized human egg from day one for the next nine mothst and call it evolution, ... fine. But I'll call it a miracle.

God bless you all.

I call it both a miracle and evolution.