Re: A somewhat belated review of Darwin's Black Box


NashtOn wrote:
> ~snip
>
>
> >
> > Although Behe taunted scientists for letting the cell remain a "black
> > box", Behe's solution to the matter is to propose that a particular
> > kind of pre-human intelligence exists -- certainly not a trivial claim
> > in any way. This intelligence is older than the oldest multi-celled
> > life on earth, and is capable of performing genetic engineering on a
> > scale far beyond any human ingenuity so far. How does this designer
> > work? Where did it come from? How do we explain the inherent complexity
> > involved in the designer's existence? We don't know, and it's not our
> > business to ask questions about it. So to get rid of these tiny black
> > boxes, Behe just creates the biggest black box of all out of nothing.
>
> One thing that strikes me in all of this is the following:
>
> Evolutionists rant and rave about how it "isn't within the sphere of
> evolutionary science" to search and find probable mechanisms for the
> beginnings of life in the form of a cell, virus or any other mechanism
> you can think of, yet attack anybody who proposes that the enormous
> complexity of the cell cannot be the result of some primordial soup
> being bombarded with energy.

Think about the basic requirements for "biological evolution". In
order for there to be any of the mechanisms of biological evolution,
there must be a biological system, specifically an imperfectly
replicating genetic system. Thus, biological *evolution* presumes the
existence of some sort of system that has the properties of 'life'.

The processes that lead to the initial formation of 'life' (and I am
tentatively defining life as a 'system' that has an imperfectly
replicating genetic mechanism and the ability to extract energy and
material from its surroundings to replicate that genetic mechanism --
note that life is described by its processes and not its structure;
life is not a 'cell', it is a system that has certain properties)
cannot be called "biological evolution" because there is no biology
prior to the existence of 'life'. There are, however, chemical and
geochemical processes that can phase into 'life', since no single
feature of life is unique to life. The process of producing 'life'
from 'nonlife' is called abiogenesis and it is as amenable to
scientific analysis and discovery as any other field. But it is not
'biological evolution'.

> Yet, call into question anybody that dares opine that the cell is too
> complex for it to have arisen out of pure chance, when in fact, the
> evolutionists aren't even supposed to have an opinion on the matter not
> only because it "doesn't concern them", but because any probable
> mechanism is highly speculative.

The chemical and geochemical mechanisms of abiogenesis are more
speculative than the *different* mechanisms of descent with
modification that occurs *after* biology exists, the mechanisms that
involve modification and selection of genetic systems.

> This is hypocrisy at best, ignorance at worst. I don't expect the lay
> people in here, who adhere to evolution like one would have a favorite
> hockey team, for example, but the fact that non of the real scientists
> that post here haven't pointed this fact out, is distressing and border
> the disingenuous.

Pointed what out? That there is, in fact, a difference between
evolution, which presumes the existence of imperfectly replicating
genetic systems, and abiogenesis, which involves the chemical and
geochemical steps by which such an imperfectly replicating genetic
system could arise?

> As for the complicated terms in biochemistry, ATP, GDP and clotting are
> basic notions of biochem. Open any biochem 101 textbook and there should
> be no problem, especially since you're scientifically inclined.
>
> As for the bigger black box, such is the nature of science. Answer one
> question and another 100 pop up. Then you die after a few decades.
> Sucks, huh.

Except that Behe's methodology is intended to say that it is impossible
to answer some questions. You simply assert that it was designed and
that is it.
>
> Nicolas
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Russell Glasser
> > If you did not like the writing style in this message, then you will
> > almost certainly not enjoy my blog, which is at:
> > http://kazimskorner.blogspot.com
> >

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Leftover questions for Tony P.
    ... Secondly, that there is "grandeur" in understanding evolution, and it can be as ... He was speaking of life coming from one or some single cells. ... The issue was not his claim about the cell, but your interpretation of the implications of "life first breathed". ... Darwin said, and the textbook probably agreed with it, that all complex life as we now see it comes from a single cell. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Predictability
    ... mechanism to transmit characteristics from one cell to daughter cells. ... If genes and DNA hadn't existed, the theory of evolution would have had ... If we knew everything in a field of science, ... happened after the simplest life was on Earth. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Leftover questions for Tony P.
    ... Secondly, that there is "grandeur" in understanding evolution, and it can be as ... He was speaking of life coming from one or some single cells. ... The issue was not his claim about the cell, ... life as we now see it comes from a single cell. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Things Ive Noticed About Intelligent Design/Creationist Proponents
    ... What empirical evidence do you have that all present life evolved from ... the case of all life descending from a common ancestral cell. ... I can observe, test, and repeat the process of biological evolution, ... religion is not necessarily true of all religion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Reproductive Selection
    ... several other sufficient mechanisms? ... For that to be a meaningful rejoinder, rather than a red-herring, it would be necessary that mechanisms which enable reproductive isolation to evolve has not be presented to you - but several such mechanisms have been presented to you, repetitively. ... In this sequence of posts I was not making any claims about evolution of life in general, but was addressing your narrower claims that reproductive isolation cannot evolve. ...
    (talk.origins)