Evolution wrong?

[The Truth]

I was reading a book called "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

He makes some argument against evolution called the "irreducibly complex system" argument.

Anybody have any experience with this?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
I was reading a book called "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

He makes some argument against evolution called the "irreducibly complex system" argument.

Anybody have any experience with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the basis for "Intelligent Design Theory".

Intelligent Design Network

It is primarily based on mathimatical modeling and observation skills. Some say its good science others say its superstition.

-Gryph

[MaxPowerPoker]

From Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". More info here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

[TomCollins]

Whatever "created" us must be even more intelligent than the systems he created. So there must be an even more intelligent creator behind the scenes of him! But who created him?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was reading a book called "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.

He makes some argument against evolution called the "irreducibly complex system" argument.

Anybody have any experience with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the basis for "Intelligent Design Theory".

Intelligent Design Network

It is primarily based on mathimatical modeling and observation skills. Some say its good science others say its superstition.

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing the "irreducibly complex system" argument looks at complex life systems which are not survivable if any component is removed. Furthermore, the components may not have survivabilty on their own. The idea is that the system must have been created in whole all at once.

If so, this is not a new idea. I believe it's at least a hundred years old and has been well dealt with by traditional evolutionary explanations. If you just want propaganda to support creation beliefs then don't read anything else. If you want a balanced objective view read some good stuff by reputable evolutionists to balance it out. I think the counter arguments are quite convincing.

It looks like MaxPowerPoker gave a good link for balance.

This even though my opinion is that there is much more going on with evolution than we have yet imagined.

PairTheBoard

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
This even though my opinion is that there is much more going on with evolution than we have yet imagined.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds interesting. Care to elaborate (or link me to the search function, if you feel you must)?

[superleeds]

this link debunks it very well.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This even though my opinion is that there is much more going on with evolution than we have yet imagined.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds interesting. Care to elaborate (or link me to the search function, if you feel you must)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a hunch based on a feeling that the speed of evolution is so amazing that it would not be suprising to me if additional mechanisms were involved beyond mutation and natural selection. The evolutionists make good arguments for why those mechanisms are powerful enough to produce evolution's speed. I'm not even talking about the puncuated equalibrium phenomenon - which genetic diversity speaks to - but just the speed of evolution in general. For example, 10,000 generations to evolve a cerebral cortex just seems awesomely fast to me.

I guess one idea might be that creatures could intelligently direct their own evolution by way of mate selection. I don't think that's part of traditional theory and maybe it's crackpot. But who knows what kind of additional mechanisms there might be that we just haven't thought of yet.

This line of thinking usually gets drowned out by people obsessed with their creationist-non creationist agendas.

PairTheBoard

[wacki]

there is no way I can take this thread seriously

pick up a genetics book and read

[The Truth]

Thanks for the responses everybody. Except the mod who is silly. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]