checked it out. it first quotes Darwin, thus:
"If it could be demonstrated that any
complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
and never demonstrates that a complex organ could not be formed, etc.
then, the article that supposedly proves evolution is biologically impossible, says this:
Quote: Some estimates of mutation's pace put the rate at about once per ten million cells. This is not difficult to achieve in a cell population of, say, one billion. In fact the possibility of having a group of mutant genes is somewhat high. Unfortunately, these mutations rarely affect the reproductive cells, preventing the altered DNA from being passed on to its offspring. If this were not the case a father with cancer would pass his DNA along with his cancer on to his children. Even when genes are passed on the offspring are often sterile. These obstacles prevent most mutations from even reaching the gene pool!
unfortunately, this modern scientist either forgot, or omits, that prokaryotes, ie. bacteria, blue-green algae, and the like, which constitute the bulk of Earth's biomass, and were the only lifeforms on earth for most of the history of life, do not reproduce sexually and therefore do not have reproductive cells. And in the case of more complex organisms, mutations
rarely occuring only makes them less likely, not impossible.
returning to the statement by Darwin, even Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box testified in Dover, PA, as follows (Q is the plaintiffs attorney, and A is Dr. Behe):
Quote:Q. Right. And you're not testing the natural -- the difficult task facing evolution, which starts from the pre-cursors and moves forward to the system you're studying. You're going backwards. Isn't that what irreducible complexity proposes?
A. It does not propose that anything goes backwards. It asks, how do we identify this problem for Darwinian evolution? And if you can remove a part, and a system no longer works, then the system needs those parts to work.
And so the problem, how you put that together by numerous successive slight modifications, as Charles Darwin thought one had to do, is, I think, illustrated by that.
Q. In any event, you have not repaired this asymmetry?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that article was written four years ago, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now you've used the expression, produced directly. I think that's in the definition. Matt, if you could pull that back up. And if I understand what you mean by directly, it means, for example, in the case of the flagellum, that it has to be steps in which there's a rotary motor that continues to become the rotary motor, that is the flagellum?
A. Yes. By direct, I mean that it essentially worked, as the definition says, it works by the same mechanism, has the same number of parts; essentially, it's the same thing.
Q. Same thing. And then if you could turn to page 40 of Darwin's Black Box. Matt, if you could highlight the first paragraph. You acknowledge another possibility?
A. That's correct.
Q. You say, Even if a system is irreducibly complex and thus could not have been produced directly, however, one cannot definitively rule out the possibility of an indirect, circuitous route, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And by indirect, you mean evolution from a pre-cursor with a different function than the system being studied?
A. Yes, different function, perhaps different number of parts, and so on.
as I understand the English language, if evolution cannot be definitely ruled out, then Darwin's theory has not been refuted by Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. i note that Dr. Behe also invokes "purposeful arrangement of parts" in his critique of natural selection, but concedes that it's the same argument employed by Paley, which clearly does not refute natural selection, for if it did, why did Behe have to devise another refutation?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace