Now at last, courtesy a science preprint, we have a name that makes sense to us. The “irreducible complexity community” — the ICs.
Researchers: Tohoku University scientists have, for the first time, provided experimental evidence that cell stickiness helps them stay sorted within correct compartments during development. How tightly cells clump together, known as cell adhesion, appears to be enabled by a protein better known for its role in the immune system.
xcerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful.
The book is currently #2 in Biochemistry Science, #6 in Biochemistry (Books), and
#13 in Evolution (Kindle Store) at Amazon
Pultz: In my view, Swamidass excels as an expert in smokescreens; he can talk endlessly without nailing down tangible and memorable points. Although pressured more than once by Behe to deliver at least a single counter argument to IC, he did not come up with anything containing even a whiff of substance.
Gilder on a researcher friend: “the more he learned about the brain of a nematode, the less he felt he knew… And the oceans of reality lay still far beyond his reach and beyond his ken.”
Researchers: “To build the machinery that enables bacteria to swim, over 50 proteins have to be assembled according to a logic and well-defined order to form the flagellum, the cellular equivalent of an offshore engine of a boat.” They ADMIT this? It sounds like a Recovery Meeting.
Guaranteed to be fun unless you are an imploding New Atheist. If so, please implode in an eco-friendly way and pick up after yourself.
It should also be considered that in his book Der Teil und das Ganze, Werner Heisenberg expresses his own and also Niels Bohrs’ doubt that random mutations could have produced any of the complex biological systems… Bohr adds that while natural selection obviously occurs it is the idea that new species come about by random changes, which is very hard to imagine, even if this is the only way science can explain it.
At the University of Copenhagen, Jørn Dyerberg is considered a Living Legend. One wonder if, after this, he’ll be Best Not Mentioned.
Whether proteins can evolve or not will not in the least influence the argument for irreducible complexity. Function cannot evolve gradually.
A friend points out that the paper just describes the intricate machinery of the hook, adding to what we know, without any resort to Darwinspeak. It seems to be getting safer all the time to just not talk that way any more.
Mark Tapscott at HillFaith (for Congressional staff): “Life Is Simply Impossible Without This ‘Irreducibly Complex’ ATP Generator, So How Did It Get Here?”
We see devolution all the time with unintelligent causes. Animals gnaw a hole in the bottom of a jug of water and they get some water but the rest is wasted. They destroy the feedhouse door trying to get into the feed because they don’t know how to use the doorhandle. They do get fed but the feed is scattered and much is wasted. *That’s what an unintelligent cause is typically like.* Put another way, the animals won’t learn to use the doorhandle or the jug cap. But just to survive and reproduce, they might not need to.
Marcos Eberlin: Maybe one could grant the evolutionary miracle a single time, but six times?