Home » Evolution, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity » Debating in an Echo Chamber

Debating in an Echo Chamber

Monash University issued a press release yesterday about its contributors to a recent PNAS paper that claimed to refute irreducible complexity (IC). The release declared victory for Darwin, stating that “Our work … shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be.”  PhysOrg dutifully echoed this announcement without contest.

Casual readers may not know about the comeback arguments posted by Michael Behe on Evolution News and Uncommon Descent, by Casey Luskin on Evolution News and by Cornelius Hunter on Darwin’s God, because the evolutionists refused to hear them or allow them inside their sphere of influence.  For example, PNAS refused to publish Behe’s response.   The Darwin Party basically barred the doors and windows and announced their triumph to themselves.

A victory cheer in an echo chamber sounds hollow no matter how many decibels and reverberations.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

19 Responses to Debating in an Echo Chamber

  1. 1

    From the press release: “How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial”

    But wait a minute. Now I’m confused. I thought it wasn’t all that controversial.

  2. CannuckianYankee, If I may be so bold as to undiscombobulate you:

    “How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial”

    Answer:
    These machines are now no longer mysterious because they have found out that evolution is actually a “tinkerer” and a “cobbler” making more complex machines out of simpler machines.

    I hope thit is of help.

  3. pardon:

    A couple of questions:

    1] have the devisers of such theories ever actually designed and constructed then got complex multi-part systems to work in the real world (esp those that use software and hardware components)?

    2] Do hurricanes passing over hardware stores with lumber yards etc attached spontaneously build 3-bed, 2-bath houses our of forces of chance and necessity acting on matter and energy in space and time? [And note, the house components are KNOWN to fit together to make houses if correctly assembled.]

    GEM of TKI

  4. Sorry. I was joking.

  5. A forteress mentality is a sign of fear, paranoia and weakness. Holy Darwin! The barbarians are at the gates and that sort of thing.

  6. I’ve read every publicized so-called refutation of Behe’s IC challenge, and Behe’s responses to them. In every case the “refutations” have been transparently lame and desperate, and universally amount to pure speculation presented as established fact. In no area of hard science would this kind of speculation be accepted for publication without a demonstration that the proposed mechanism can actually achieve what is claimed for it.

    Darwinism is parasitic on real science, and has attained unwarranted legitimacy without scientific rigor.

  7. 7

    Upon discovering that none of the known genetic mechanisms can account for how evolution supposedly occurs, evolutionists are now devising even more absurd fables. This new mechanism is called “preadaptation” and it is what evolutionists now cite as the mechanism that supposedly ‘refutes’ ID.

    “The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23 …
    “You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.””
    Brandon Keim, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science,” August 27, 2009, Wired Science based on “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine,” Yale University, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 33, August 25, 2009.
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie.....omplexity/

    So, complex parts with absolutely NO purpose miraculously assemble themselves, and then “snap” together to form a complex cellular machine? They’re kidding, right?

    I believe that the first challenge should be directed at how do the individual components get assembled, NOT how the components assemble into a molecular machine.

    Go to:
    http://www.whoisyourcreator.co.....occur.html

  8. whoisyourcreator, #7

    So, complex parts with absolutely NO purpose miraculously assemble themselves, and then “snap” together to form a complex cellular machine? They’re kidding, right?

    Where did you get the idea that these parts had no purpose before they came together?
    Here’s a quote from the article you seemed to have skipped over:

    These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.”

  9. 9

    In regard to #8

    Let’s look at the entire process that they are proposing:

    “But new research comparing mitochondria, which provide energy to animal cells, with their bacterial relatives, shows that the necessary pieces for one particular cellular machine — exactly the sort of structure that’s supposed to prove intelligent design — were lying around long ago. It was simply a matter of time before they came together into a more complex entity.
    The pieces “were involved in some other, different function. They were recruited and acquired a new function,” said Sebastian Poggio, a postdoctoral cell biologist at Yale University and co-author of the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. … “These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.”

    What does this mean?

    These components “were lying around long ago” but “were involved in some other, different function” so they “were recruited and acquired a new function” by “a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.”

    (If they’re implying gene duplication occurred, go to:
    (See http://www.whoisyourcreator.co.....ation.html )

    There is NO empirical evidence that this occurred, or has ever occurred in the past, and reflects the sad state of what is considered ‘scientific.’

  10. 10

    “These three proteins don’t perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation COULD be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that COULD start the whole thing off.”

    Ah, the science of COULD.

  11. whoisyourcreator, #9

    (If they’re implying gene duplication occurred, go to:
    (See http://www.whoisyourcreator.co…..ation.html )

    Are you saying that any new function requires a corresponding G-protein to turn it on? Since the human genome codes for 20,000 to 25,000 different proteins and only about 350 g-protein receptors, isn’t it possible that each g-protein can control multiple functions?

    There is NO empirical evidence that this occurred, or has ever occurred in the past, and reflects the sad state of what is considered ‘scientific.’

    Biologists seem to think otherwise.

    The probability of duplicate gene preservation by subfunctionalization

  12. Does anyone else have problems with links not working?

    The Probability of Duplicate Gene Preservation by Subfunctionalization

  13. 13

    In regard to #11,

    First, your ‘350’ statistic is outdated as they are finding more and more each day.

    Second, because many genetic defects are a result of faulty molecular switches, each gene requires a specific level of expression necessary for it to work properly.

    So, let’s evaluate your hypothesis:
    Somehow a gene was duplicated, it randomly rearranged its sequence to something that is functional, and then it somehow integrated into a network of G-proteins and honed in on one that causes the new gene to turn on and off at the precise times needed for this unknown and random change.

    Interesting hypothesis. Maybe you should write sci-fi …

  14. Evolution is like magick, there are no limits to what evolution can do if you know the right incantations.

    The sorcerers know as well that to perform the ritual properly in order to insure success, a properly prepared ritual arena is needed. For the slightest contamination will despoil and therefore render the magickal words less potent.

    The heart and soul of the evolutionist movement is black magick. They seek to put people under their spell using alchemy and witchcraft, with the desired result of sending everyone to hell.

  15. whoisyourcreator, #13

    In regard to #11,

    First, your ‘350’ statistic is outdated as they are finding more and more each day.

    You are correct. The IUPHAR database of G protein-coupled receptors and ion channels now lists 379 receptors. Still doesn’t quite support your hypothesis though.

  16. mentok, #14

    Evolution is like magick, there are no limits to what evolution can do if you know the right incantations.

    “Witchcraft to the ignorant, … Simple science to the learned.” – Leigh Brackett

  17. 18

    In regard to #15

    1. Only 379? After reading the following, it’s probably safe to say no one knows how high the count will go:

    “Biologist Michael Cosgrove was the leader of the research team. During their experiments on the Mixed Lineage Leukemia (MLL) protein complex, they discovered that the MLL was not the single molecular mechanism in the protein. In fact, there were two molecular switches present in the complex, one of which no one ever knew before. They named it W-Rad.”
    http://www.topcancernews.com/n.....cells.html

    2. My hypothesis? It’s extrapolated from the paper and reflects their claims, not mine.

    3. This is the usual go around with evolutionists. I prefer debating empirical evidence … it’s much more satisfying.

  18. 19

    FYI: Molecular switch count goes up as we read:

    “Using a specifically developed technology the scientists were able, for the first time, to search for acetylation sites in the whole protein inventory of the cell. All in all, they identified more than 3600 of these switching points in almost 1800 proteins – this proves that acetylation is much more important than previously supposed and that it has broad regulatory functions. “Our results have expanded the number of known acetylation switches by a factor of six, and give us for the first time a comprehensive insight into this type of modification”, says professor Matthias Mann, director of the research department.” “Proteomics and Signal Transduction” at the MPI of Biochemistry.
    http://www.internetchemie.info.....tches.html

Leave a Reply