Posted: Jun 24, 2010 2:12 pm
by debunk
CharlieM wrote:
he is saying that it cannot occur step by step in successive slight improvements such as we know are within the power of natural evolution to produce.

Unsubstantiated belief.

IF any two of those three parts together has some function, any function whatsoever, they can be selected for and maintained in the cell, up to some time when the third part (whichever third part) is introduced/co-opted into the new structure. No matter how kludgy, if it provides any selective advantage it has a chance to reproduce and be refined from that point by ordinary evolution.

More unsubstantiated belief.

What you're doing here is calling what amounts to a textbook definition of evolution by natural selection "unsubstantiated belief", never mind the fact that it's an observed phenomenon.

But the heart of Behe's argument is the untrue assertion that evolution can't account for how it arose to begin with, and since evolution cannot describe a process leading to the current state, ergo it must have been implemented by an outside designer.

That's a stupid argument.

It may be a stupid argument but its not Behe's argument. Behe is arguing from what we know evolution can do and what we know about designed objects.

From "Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry", Behe, 1996:

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on

To a person who does not feel obliged to restrict his search to unintelligent causes, the straightforward conclusion is that many biochemical systems were designed. They were designed not by the laws of nature, not by chance and necessity. Rather, they were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed; the designer took steps to bring the systems about. Life on earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity.

The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom. Instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws

You were saying?