Proposing the concept of irreducible complexity and citing the incompleteness of the fossil record in an attempt to refute the theory of evolution simply does nothing of the sort.
Anyone who adheres to these two items and supports them as evidence of flaws within Darwin's theory have not committed themselves to an objective review of current scientific literature, nor have they immersed themselves in an adequate investigation of what is known about the natural world. Below is a response to the column, "Clarifications of misconceptions about creationism and evolution. (CT, Feb. 25).
To refresh our memory, "irreducible complexity" is a concept often supported by creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design to describe anything that possesses such a degree of intricacy that it seemingly could not have come about by natural means. Blood-clotting cascades in the human body are often cited as an example of this concept, along with a bacterium's flagellum, which incorporates many different kinds of proteins that operate cooperatively to allow for bacterial movement. On first glance, it would seem to require the painstaking labor of the brightest engineer to construct such biological complexities, and at first it is overwhelming. However, understanding the way DNA functions helps to put these incredulous feats of natural engineering in perspective.
Every cell in our body contains DNA, and, through processes called transcription and translation, DNA acts as a blueprint for synthesizing proteins, including those that power flagella. Occasionally, and randomly, a small change in a functional unit of DNA called a mutation can cause a discrepancy in its original message. Mutations are frequently regarded as harmful, as they can be, but other times the resulting changes may benefit an organism and increase its chances of survival and reproduction. In this way, mutations can be passed on to offspring and eventually become more popular throughout a population over very long periods of time.
Let us take a giant step back into the past, when life, regardless of how or why it appeared on Earth, originated. The first living thing was likely very small and primitive and must have arisen a long time ago, sometime in the neighborhood of 3.5 billion years ago.
This is an approximate age derived from some of the oldest fossils yet discovered and has been substantiated through numerous methods of analyzing the radioactive decay of certain elements. Through the accumulation of successive mutations in DNA, passed on to offspring because of the survival and reproductive advantages they confer, new proteins begin to arrive on the scene.
Leave a comment 8 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
The article states: "The first living thing was likely very small and primitive and must have arisen a long time ago, sometime in the neighborhood of 3.5 billion years ago. ... it would take a very, very long time (3.5 billion years), but eventually, evolution would favor the inevitable interactions of these proteins, and the ones that get along together and work well for the organism are passed on to subsequent generations." On the other hand, Cutting-Edge Science teaches us that: - Chemicals do not react together randomly to form amino acids through natural processes. - Amino acids do not randomly interact to form living cells through undirected natural processes. - Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life. - The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously. Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees into human beings. - All organisms are irreducibly complex. Therefore, in order for any kind of organism to exist, all of the essential parts of that organism must be fully functioning from the beginning of its existence. . . . - There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types. partial quote from: What Does The Catholic Church Teach about Origins? What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins? http://www.kolbecenter.org/church_teaches.htm
Reply to this Top
Creationists just don't seem to learn. I don't know if people like JosephU are willingly ignorant or they think this is funny. I'm not sure what "Cutting-Edge Science" (capitals?) he is referring to, but real scientists will soon be able to demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred naturally. This would show the Law of Biogenesis to be false. The problem is how simple a life form can be before it is no longer called 'life'. Would we consider one self replicating protein to be life? Genetic mutations that increase the amount of genetic information happen all the time. For example, this is what causes Down Syndrome. Nothing in the biological world has been shown to be "irreducibly complex", so please stop using this phrase until you provide evidence. And for this claim that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, all I can say is Google it and discover that there are many : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Reply to this Top
Joseph is both willfully ignorant and lazy. He just cuts and pastes this same drivel on all the forums. An original idea seems beyond his grasp.
Reply to this Top
At the end of the day, no matter what our spiritual beliefs may be, the one constant should be amazement at all that we have learned, and have yet to learn, about the world around us
Reply to this Top
Having taught biology for years at the secondary level,in my judgement, there is room for honest dialogue when it comes to the topic of origin of first life. A quiet but sustained revolution of thought and honesty is emerging among scientists. i.e. Eminent scientists like Richard Sternberg, David Berlinski,Jerry Bergman, Michael Behe, Gerald Schroeder and others are calling out that the Emperor really is not wearing any clothes nor has he done so for years. Paradigm policing will no longer protect the apparent fragile fable. Recently Sir Anthony Flew, formerly the world's most ardent and faithful atheist has flown the coup favouring a deistic position. There is a real credibility problem for "macroevolution" theory in the area of abiogenesis. Failure to acknowledge the problem does not make it go away, gentlemen.
Reply to this Top
You mean the 'eminent' Michael Behe that crashed and burned at Dover? As for Flew (ignoring for the moment reports of his dementia) takes the position of an impersonal god and he does not believe in an afterlife or that God is 'good' god. He also vehemently denies he's a Christian. He wouldn't be my first pick to support my argument. You apparent distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is pointless. The only difference between the two is time. Failure to provide citations or other references to support your position doesn't bolster your contention of a 'problem' Jason T: Agreed.
Reply to this Top
I will agree with you; however, that there is always room for an honest dialogue.
Reply to this Top
There certainly is a need for dialogue and work to be done in the field of abiogenesis. However, keep in mind that evolution is a separate topic from abiogenesis, so there really isn't a 'problem' between the two. When it comes to abiogenesis, to say 'god did it' is a cop out and an intellectual dead end without explaining how god did it. I think the most interesting approach is that of Craig Venter, the Human Genome Project guy. He is mapping the genome of the earliest known prokaryotic fossils and working backwards from there. He expects to develop a natural model for abiogenesis within a few years.
Reply to this Top