Re: Commentary: Distressful truths

On 2007-03-17, Jason Spaceman <notreally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can Darwinists dismiss irreducible complexity while providing no
explanation on the possibility of naturalistically assembling protein?

Doesn't it seem like the cumbersome "naturalistically" should be replaced
by the far more aesthetic "naturally"?

But more to the point, irreducible complexity isn't an explanation of protein
assembly either. Irreducible complexity is the argument (ill-formed, but
presented) that proteins can't assemble naturally. "Darwinists" of course
dismiss it because it is an absurd criticism. But note: ID theorists have
no explanation of protein assembly. They merely assert that some intelligence
which they can't name (initials jesus christ, wink wink) must have at some
point done something unamed at some time in some way that made it all work.
It's a sham.

You need protein (ribosomes) to do it! You cannot form protein when
you need it in the process. Not a single scientific article or journal
on molecular evolution exists,

Micheal Behe, is that you?

and DNA is where evolution takes place.
If chaos theory cannot create the first cell, then it cannot create
transitional life.

Chaos theory? If you'd like to discuss the dynamics of the logistic map,
hey, I'm up for it, but "chaos theory" doesn't underly most biology.

If it takes time for new theories to rise up, then why exclude ID on
the basis that it has not been accepted by a majority of the
scientific community?

It's not excluded on that basis of course. It's excluded on the basis
that it isn't a scientific theory at all, but rather a legal subterfuge
to get religion into public schools.

Why not allow scientists to investigate both in
the field of forensics and let the evidence lead them where it may?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://media.www.thetriangle.org/media/storage/paper689/news/2007/03/16/EdOp/PointCounterpoint.Intelligent.Design.Finale.pt.2.Of.2-2778483.shtml
or http://tinyurl.com/yr3hlj

Sigh.
Mark


J. Spaceman


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Howard theory - "cannot be computed"
    ... protein be assembled completely randomly from scratch with no possible ... assembled via sequence direction from genomic DNA sequences. ... 1000's of aa's in one swell foop is not MY explanation for the added ... required than the probability of assembling every sequence involved ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commentary: Distressful truths
    ... explanation on the possibility of naturalistically assembling protein? ... You need protein to do it! ... scientists are not letting the evidence leading them. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... complexity and I was told that I needed to "learn something about protein synthesis". ... The most detailed explanation I got was "from the RNA world". ... Please explain the natural progression from 'whatever the precursor to protein synthesis was' to this remarkably complex system. ... With all the brilliant minds present on this forum, and the "mountains" of empirical evidence for the evolution of such complex systems, surely this is not too great a question. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: News: Humans and sponges may share a slimy ancestor
    ... feature," I was not referring to the irreducible complexity of the ... I was referring to the mere number of units in the protein. ... acetylcholine for an entirely different purpose than the use of nerve ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Challenge for Darwinists - Protein Synthesis
    ... How did this "protein manufacturing plant" come into existence? ... No one to date has provided a satisfactory explanation. ... protein synthesis was' to this remarkably complex system. ... postdates the evolution of this system. ...
    (talk.origins)