Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Logical inconsistency of Darwinism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I already wrote about some internal contradictions of evolutionism here here here here and here.

Today I deal with another logical inconsistency of Darwinism that is directly related to its foundations.

Darwinian evolution, which is supposed to have created purposelessly all the biological complexity on Earth, would work according to genetic variations and natural selection. Organisms with traits that give them a reproductive advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on, while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation. Natural selection is the process in populations by which advantageous traits that enhance reproduction are selected for and are passed on to the next generation. These traits would arise because of many small genetic variations. These conditions produce competition between organisms about reproduction.

Unfortunately these processes cause no creation of systems. They have engineering power equal zero.

In fact, such Darwinian processes are incapable in principle to create a new complex biological function. First, I explain why they are unable to create functions different from reproduction. Organisms are giant hierarchies of functions, each function performed by one or more systems. Among these functions only some have to do specifically with reproduction. The functions that are not involved directly with reproduction cannot be created by evolution, indeed given its very definition. Conceptually, if a process selects only for a single function cannot create entire sets of many functions, as organisms are. Therefore evolution, which selects for the reproductive function only, cannot create different functions from nothing.

As a simple analogy, if a car factory builds and selects devices to get the movement of the car only, it will never produce the car systems that are not directly related to movement (e.g. the steering system, the brake system, the air conditioned, the seats, the rear-view mirror, etc.).

Now let’s see why also the function of reproduction is an insurmountable problem for evolution. Here I explained why just reproduction in a single cell is unreachable by chance and necessity. To greater reason, reproduction in organisms, which is far more complex than in unicellulars, is unreachable. Evolution works by many small steps, not few giant leaps. So it takes a long series of genotypic variations before the phenotype eventually makes a difference in terms of reproduction. But, before such reproductive advantage is reached, the small useless variations in the genotypes are discarded in the population, then evolution can not even begin.

In the car analogy, if the factory, when developing by small variations the engine (that is directly related to movement), discards these variations because they don’t yet cause movement, the factory will produce not even the smallest part of the engine.

The car analogy explains because the car factories (and by the way any industry) are based on intelligent design, not Darwinian evolution.

The bottom line is that if evolution neither creates the function of reproduction nor the functions unrelated to reproduction, then it produces no biological complex function at all. After all, how could evolution create functions when function is purpose and evolution is purposeless?

Comments
computerist Survival (no death = no destruction) is not a sufficiently specified and focused goal to create new complex specified functional information in the systems. Please, apply your method to the car analogy and see it doesn't work. In car industry, if engineers adopted uniquely “no destruction” as their goal no car would arise.niwrad
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
If survive -> random change -> if survive -> random change -> if survive -> random change -> ... That is apparently (at its base) all that is needed to account for biological function.computerist
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
timothya It is standard definition of evolutionary theory that natural selection is what allows species to have more offspring, and it is the job of reproductive systems to create offspring, what else. I speak of "unspecified selection" (about Darwinian natural selection) because I mean "specification" in the technical sense of ID theory, where it is always coupled with "complexity" and "information".niwrad
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Ladies and Gentlemen, As is so often the case, the discussion has quickly gotten side tracked. The commenting is focused on whether there are any such things as biological subsystems which do not have any influence whatsoever on an organism's reproductive success. That is entirely beside the point, in my opinion. The principal point that Niwrad has, I think, ably articulated is:
Unfortunately these processes cause no creation of systems. They have engineering power equal zero.
The processes in question being:
....Natural selection is the process in populations by which advantageous traits that enhance reproduction are selected for and are passed on to the next generation. These traits would arise because of many small genetic variations. These conditions produce competition between organisms about reproduction.
Does anyone have any rational refutation of Niwrad's just quoted declaration? Or, lest some onlooker be left with the impression that the declaration is unassailable, do some feel we should proceed to "talk amongst ourselves" to divert the focus away from the true topic at hand. As for my part, I totally agree with Niwrad. Disabuse us, if you can. Stephensterusjon
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
This is a truly bizarre post. Even if you believe natural selection doesnt happen, talking about "Any single unspecified selection" is a contradiction in terms. A "selection" is "specified" by its definition: the action of environmental factors in selecting a specific genetic alleles that cause a specific physical trait. And where did you get the peculiar idea that natural selection only acts on reproductive systems?timothya
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
Box #3 & alan #10 Most apparatuses in higher organisms are not related to reproduction: e.g. cardiovascular, digestive, endocrine, urinary, immune, muscular, skeletal, nervous, respiratory systems. Consider how much stuff is working when an organism simply lives without being in the act of reproducing. Moreover there are a lot of things in living beings that are merely aesthetic. Any single generic unspecified selection is not enough to account for such abundance of specified functionalities.niwrad
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
Alan, but that's assuming you have teeth in the first place to select from, why should teeth (or the 'pathway' thereof) ever be selected for in the first place when reproduction, 'survival of the fittest', would favor getting energy as efficiently as possible,,, notes to that effect: Doug Axe: Lignin & the Coherent Design of the Ecosystem - podcast Excerpt: Lignin provides a paradoxical case for the Darwinian method of evolution, but fits perfectly into a design oriented scientific paradigm. Thirty percent of non-fossil organic carbon on the planet is lignin, so in a Darwinian world, something should have developed the ability to consume lignin--but it hasn't. Lignin binds together and protects plant cellulose, which is vital to all types of large plant life; "The peculiar properties of lignin therefore make perfect sense when seen as part of a coherent design for the entire ecosystem of our planet." http://www.idthefuture.com/2012/08/doug_axe_lignin_the_coherent_d.html The Lignin Enigma By Ann Gauger - July 2012 Excerpt: How can one mechanism [Darwinism] have been at the same time so effective and so ineffective? That tension vanishes completely when the design perspective is adopted. Terrestrial animal life is crucially dependent on terrestrial plant life, which is crucially dependent on soil, which is crucially dependent on the gradual photo- and biodegradation of lignin. Fungi accomplish the biodegradation, and the surprising fact that it costs them energy to do so keeps the process gradual. The peculiar properties of lignin therefore make perfect sense when seen as part of a coherent design for the entire ecosystem. http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/26379997641/the-lignin-enigma Darwinists tried, and failed, to overturn the Lignin egnigma: Lignin: The Enigma Remains - Ann Gauger - July 2012 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/lignin_the_enig_2061821.htmlbornagain77
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
In my opinion, Darwinian evolution is a religion of cretins, created by cretins for cretins. The logical fallacies of the theory of evolution are many and glaring. That such a cretinous and mediocre theory has lasted for so long does not reflect well on humanity. Something is wrong with us collectively, as a species.Mapou
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
For argument sake on seeing the point regarding reproductive selection advantage: Why would selecting for something else (bigger teeth to eat your with for example) NOT be ALSO selecting for reproduction due to a gained survival advantage?alan
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011 Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/a_l_hughess_new053881.html The Cambrian's Many Forms Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago. http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Cambrian_Many_Forms_999.htmlbornagain77
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution. http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-01T17_41_14-08_00 Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution? http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2013-02-04T16_57_07-08_00 Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity. A mouflon population (considered an ancient "parent" lineage of sheep), bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. "What is amazing is that models of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained," Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of sandhill, sarus, Siberian and whooping cranes. "This is contrary to expectations of genetic loss due to a population bottleneck of some 15 individuals in the 1940s. The possibility should be explored that some mechanism exists for rapidly restoring genetic variability after population bottlenecks." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:279-288- Dessauer, H. C., G. F. Gee, and J. S. Rogers. 1992. These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the 'limited and rapid variation from a parent kind' predicted by the Genetic Entropy model: African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research: "The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----(surprising implication of the study?)---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages" http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16846905 "We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinkingbornagain77
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
A few notes: i.e. Since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful reproduction be realistically 'selected' for? Any other function besides reproduction, such as sight, hearing, thinking, etc.., would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successfully reproducing, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded as so much excess baggage since it would slow down successful reproduction. Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - Dr. Georgia Purdom - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036808 "A Dutch zoologist, J.J. Duyvene de Wit, clearly demonstrated that the process of speciation (such as the appearance of many varieties of dogs and cats) is inevitably bound up with genetic depletion as a result of natural selection. When this scientifically established fact is applied to the question of whether man could have evolved from ape-like animals,'.. the transformist concept of progressive evolution is pierced in its very vitals.' The reason for this, J.J. Duyvene de Wit went on to explain, is that the whole process of evolution from animal to man " ' . . would have to run against the gradient of genetic depletion. That is to say, . . man )should possess] a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors! [I] Here, the impressive absurdity becomes clear in which the transformist doctrine [the theory of evolution] entangles itself when, in flat contradiction to the factual scientific evidence, it dogmatically asserts that man has evolved from the animal kingdom!" —Op. cit., pp. 129-130. [Italics his; quotations from *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology (1965), p. 56,57.] http://www.godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/2evlch15.htm The Frailty of the Darwinian Hypothesis “The net effect of genetic drift in such (vertebrate) populations is “to encourage the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discourage the promotion of beneficial mutations,” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/the_frailty_of_the_darwinian_h.html Natural Selection Reduces Genetic Information - No Beneficial Mutations - Spetner - Denton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036816 EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036840 "...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED To point out part of the problem with the natural selection mechanism, one skeptic of evolutionary theory once asked this question to a Darwinist: "How did natural selection ever 'get purchase on a pimple' to turn it into wing?" At Why Evolution Is True, the Chewbacca Defense - David Klinghoffer - December 13, 2012 Excerpt: "There is no compelling empirical or theoretical evidence that complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways are promoted by natural selection....Many aspects of complexity at the genomic, molecular and cellular levels in multicellular species are likely to owe their origins to these non-adaptive forces, representing little more than passive outcomes." (Lynch, "The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes," Nature Rev. Gen., 8:803-13, (October, 2007)) So if the "complexity, modularity, redundancy or other features of genetic pathways" and "many aspects of complexity at the genomic, molecular and cellular levels in multicellular species" aren't easily explained by natural selection, that's a lot. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/at_why_evolutio_5067451.html Darwin proven wrong, again! Experimental Evolution Reveals Resistance to Change Excerpt: Our work provides a new perspective on the genetic basis of adaptation. Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-proven-wrong-again-experimental-evolution-reveals-resistance-to-change/ I got a new copy of ReMine’s The Biotic Message and re-read his chapters on Natural Selection and I get to see it all in action. (UD Blogger - Mung) Summary Inventive natural selection is the distinctive evolutionary mechanism – essential to Darwinian theory. Evolutionists presume it creates new adaptations by somehow traversing the hills and valleys of the fitness terrain. But they do not attempt to defend it as testable science. Rather, for the defense they shift back to the naive version – survival of the fittest. Then they might offer some tautology to help expunge all doubt. When challenged, they shift between various formulations They use naive natural selection to convince the public that evolution is simple, testable, and virtually inevitable. When opponents point out that such continually uphill evolution is refuted by the data, evolutionists effortlessly shift away from naive natural selection. Then they charge that the opponent has a poor understanding of evolutionary theory. In short, evolutionists merely shifted away from criticism, then focused their arguments (and your attention) in a direction that seemed to overcome the criticism. This phenomenon occurs at several levels. Biological adaptation by natural selection is not inevitable, nor is the theory scientific. It had merely lent support to the philosophy of naturalism. Genetic diversity and selection in the maize starch pathway: The tremendous diversity of maize and teosinte has been the raw genetic material for the radical transformation of maize into the world's highest yielding grain crop. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=130568 the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species: ,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves) http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/90/1/71.pdfbornagain77
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
WJM @4:
IMO evolution, on its own, wouldn’t produce humans or elephants or sharks; it would just produce really tough, competing bacteria that lived and reproduced forever, feeding on sunlight, chemicals and perhaps each other.
Indeed. There is no rational reason to think that evolution would or should ever create anything beyond, say, aggressive bacteria. And evolution doesn't really have any goal or direction. Gould said that if we were to replay evolution on the Earth things could turn out completely differently the next time around. In other words, what is the evolutionary explanation for why we have whales and dolphins and tigers and humans? The evolutionary answer is quite simple: Stuff Happens.Eric Anderson
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
BA77 @1:
This following link, to a book, has a nice short overview of the classic self-replicating experiment in 1967 by Spiegelman, which Dr. Meyer just talked about, in which the self-replicating molecule got stripped down to its bare essentials in a test tube,(i.e. Spiegelman’s monster), instead of evolving any new complexity that might lead to self sustaining capability;
Thanks for pointing us to this book. Couple of thoughts: 1- We should be careful to not refer to a "self-replicating" molecule. It didn't self-replicate; an enzyme was used to replicate the viral RNA. I don't mean to be pedantic, but this is something I watch for pretty closely. The alleged "self-replicating molecule" is a critical component of the materialist creation myth. And yet, I have never been able to find an example of such an entity, although I ask at every turn. Every story I have seen so far about self replicating molecules turns out, on further inspection, to include at least some kind of replicating enzyme or agent in addition to the molecule being replicated. 2. It is not clear that what occurred in the Spiegelman experiment even qualifies as an example of Darwinian evolution, as stated in the book. Yes, being able to reproduce more quickly is one of the things that Darwinian evolution touts as an advantage, but here we have a single molecule being replicated by an enzyme in a test tube. We don't have a situation where a self-replicating organism is taking in energy and utilizing that energy for its work, including reproduction. In Spiegelman's case, we have a simple situation with two molecules, one of which interacts with the free monomers in the solution, binds them in sequence as fast as it can, without necessarily trying to reproduce the original strand (although that template was initially used). As the process continued and, it sounds like, sped up, the monomers were eventually exhausted by the enzymes as they quickly grabbed all the monomers in sight and bound them in chains. As a result, I'm not sure this process counts as "evolution" any more than having two molecules interact chemically in a test tube, say, an epoxy resin exposed to a hardener. Yes, the resulting reacted molecules quickly displace the original epoxy resin, and the process indeed speeds up as the remaining epoxy resin reacts with the hardener and gets used up. But we could hardly say that the resultant molecule that eventually took over the entire solution did so because of the "Darwinian struggle for existence," to use the book's term.Eric Anderson
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
It seems to me that life began, pretty much, with the worlds best, most prolific, and hardiest replicator - a bacteria-like cell. Many bacteria are very hardy life-forms, able to survive in all kinds of conditions and able to reproduce faster that just about anything else. In evolutionary terms - the capacity for ongoing reproductive success - nothing beats bacteria. Everything evolution has produced since then is less viable than the original The more systems and complexity you add, the more chance for problems and catastrophic system failure. What has evolution produced that is more progeny-successful than bacteria? The more complex the life form, the less progeny, the more frail in terms of environmental adaption. Why did evolution create so many strains of organisms that are less hardy, and less progeny-successful than the original? Why don't humans live longer, reproduce more often, why aren't they naturally viable in more environments? By evolutionary standards, humans are not the "height" of evolution, but rather just that which fell through the cracks of natural selection. complex life isn't the result of unguided evolution, it's that which exists in spite of it. IMO evolution, on its own, wouldn't produce humans or elephants or sharks; it would just produce really tough, competing bacteria that lived and reproduced forever, feeding on sunlight, chemicals and perhaps each other.William J Murray
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Niwrad: The functions that are not involved directly with reproduction cannot be created by evolution, indeed given its very definition.
Niwrad, I see your point. Is it possible to name functions which are not in anyway connected to reproduction - directly or indirectly? For instance one could argue that being smarter, stronger etc. indirectly enhances reproduction capabilities, hence the filter of natural selection can get a grip on those.Box
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
Queue materialist chorus: "But, given enough time, basic materials, chemical interactions and chance, everything that can happen will happen." Eventually. In some universe, somewhere, somewhen.William J Murray
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Very good point to bring up! On Darwinian evolution all that matters is reproductive success. All other functions are highly superfluous to the 'survival of the fittest' dictum of Darwinism! Notes: Dr. Stephen Meyer makes a very interesting comment here about 'simple' self-replicating molecules which got simpler very quickly by neo-Darwinian processes;
In a classic experiment, Spiegelman in 1967 showed what happens to a molecular replicating system in a test tube, without any cellular organization around it. … these initial templates did not stay the same; they were not accurately copied. They got shorter and shorter until they reached the minimal size compatible with the sequence retaining self-copying properties. And as they got shorter, the copying process went faster. - Stephen Meyer - The Nature of Nature: Examining the Role of Naturalism in Science (Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2011), p. 313–18.
This following link, to a book, has a nice short overview of the classic self-replicating experiment in 1967 by Spiegelman, which Dr. Meyer just talked about, in which the self-replicating molecule got stripped down to its bare essentials in a test tube,(i.e. Spiegelman's monster), instead of evolving any new complexity that might lead to self sustaining capability;
Origins of Life – Freeman Dyson – page 75 http://books.google.com/books?id=aQ75QhwpXoEC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=Spiegelman+in+1967++origin+of+life&source=bl&ots=oJx64fYN4P&sig=xycZD-Xff6D-UkO4ZhzFWxfMFNA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jFZFT4WnKqmfsQKg79nCDw&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Spiegelman%20in%201967%20%20origin%20of%20life&f=false
In the following article, Dr. Michael Behe defends the one 'overlooked' protein/protein binding site generated by the HIV virus, that Darwinists Abbie Smith and Ian Musgrave had found, by pointing out it is well within the 2 binding site limit he set in "The Edge Of Evolution":
Response to Ian Musgrave's "Open Letter to Dr. Michael Behe," Part 4 "Yes, one overlooked protein-protein interaction developed, leading to a leaky cell membrane --- not something to crow about after 10^20 replications and a greatly enhanced mutation rate." http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/11/response-to-ian-musgraves-open-letter-to-dr-michael-behe-part-5/ An information-gaining mutation in HIV? NO! http://creation.com/an-information-gaining-mutation-in-hiv
In fact, I followed this debate very closely and it turns out the trivial gain of just one protein-protein binding site being generated for the non-living HIV virus, that the evolutionists were 'crowing' about, came at a staggering loss of complexity for the living host it invaded (People) with just that one trivial gain of a 'leaky cell membrane' in binding site complexity. Thus the 'evolution' of the virus clearly stayed within the principle of Genetic Entropy since far more functional complexity was lost by the living human cells it invaded than was ever gained by the non-living HIV virus. A non-living virus which depends on those human cells to replicate in the first place. Moreover, while learning HIV is a 'mutational powerhouse' which greatly outclasses the 'mutational firepower' of the entire spectrum of higher life-forms combined for millions of years, and about the devastating effect HIV has on humans with just that one trivial binding site being generated, I quickly realized that if evolution were actually the truth about how life came to be on Earth then the only 'life' that would be around would be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most 'mutational firepower', since only they would be the fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution rules and only the 'fittest' are allowed to survive. The logic of all this is nicely summed up here:
Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html
Music and verse:
MercyMe - Beautiful http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA Isaiah 54:1 "Sing, O barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband," says the LORD.
bornagain77
March 2, 2013
March
03
Mar
2
02
2013
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply