You are right that if one of the proteins was removed from the bacterial flagellum motor it would cease to function. But it would only cease to function as a flagellum motor. If at every stage of the development the changes are beneficial to the organism they will be retained and will be propagated in future generations. Each stage can come into existence at different times as long as each stage is beneficial. It only needs all components present when it is doing it's current task of propelling the bacterium. Ken Miller used a mousetrap to make the point. A mouse trap can only function as a mouse trap if all components are present, But with only 3 components present it can still be a tieclip. With 1 component present it can still be a paper weight. So while all components need to be present for it to function as a mouse trap it can have other functions, Beneficial functions, With as little as one component present. That is how so called "irreducibly complex" systems come in to existence. They come in to existence in stages where each stage is beneficial, Even though to perform the final (latest) function it requires all components. Bacteria have been found with flagellum that don't function as a motor, But they do function as a rigid needle like organ used to inject cells. David Berlinski should have looked harder. The computer model was made by Nilsson and Pelger. Evolutionists have also completely explained the evolution of the eye. The eye would have started with nothing more than a patch of photo-sensitive cells, Much like heat sensitive cells on our skin. Natural selection then takes over by favouring any organism where the function is improved, No matter how slightly, And rejecting those where it is reduced. if you start off with a photosensitive cell it will eventually become a camera eye if improvements are retained and reduced function is rejected. The theory of evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of life. It's the origin of the species. We do have theories regarding the origin of life and polynucleotides have been created in a lab. But that is digressing, The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. The fossil record will never yield a finely graduated chain of evolution because of how unlikely it is that a fossil will form and how unlikely it is that we will find them. Most animals get eaten or decompose. For a fossil to form there needs to be a very specific set of circumstances. Plus when an intermediate form is found in a fossil creationists don't see the discovery as filling a gap, They see it as creating two more gaps. rest assured though, Evolution and transitional forms are fully supported in the fossil record. You mean to say that we have improved on 150 year old science? You are kidding me! The main point of Darwin's theory was that with a combination of mutations and natural selection organisms can evolve and become better suited to their environment, And with enough changes we get entirely different species with entirely different characteristics and abilities. This is as true today as it was back then even though we know a lot more now about the intricacies of how it may have played out in reality.
Most (if not all) of the 'classic' examples against evolution (like the ones mentioned a few posts above) have been explained over and over under evolutionary biology, but they are being brought up over and over, as if nothing had been said. Most of them are covered by the newscientist article I mentioned. Behe is a fraud. He is a fundamentalist christian before becoming a biochemist, and has remained a fundamentalist so his 'scientific' explanations are of little value. His book has been refuted over and over by lots of actual scientists, but people find the book 'spiritually comfortable' so they don't care whether it's true or not.
You are missing the point. Just for such a simple thing to form it requires several mutations to occur, and then it has to survive apoptosis and other processes. The mathematical chance of this happening is very very low. Yes when a part is missing it can still exist in a lesser form. However for all of those mutations to occur at exactly the right area to form such an organelle is not mathematically possible. There should have been mutations in other areas with protein parts doing nothing according to this concept of mutations. How is random, chance mutations all happen to just align where its needed to form this organelle. See above, mathematically impossible. Think again "Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson has developed models to show how a primitive eye spot could evolve through indeterminate stages to become a complex human-like eye in less than half a million years," the narrator of "Evolution" tells viewers. As the narrator continues to describe Nilsson's research, Nilsson is shown working diligently at his computer. The implication is that he has created a computer "model" to simulate how an unguided process of natural selection could produce the eye. Nilsson is shown saying that his research shows "exactly the way eye evolution must proceed." In reality, neither Nilsson nor anyone else has thus far created a computer model for eye evolution. Furthermore, according to Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Berlinski, the crude calculations that have been published by Nilsson are not such a model. Berlinski holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Princeton University and was a fellow of the faculty in mathematics and a postdoctoral fellow in biology at Columbia University. He is the acclaimed author of such books as "A Tour of the Calculus" (Pantheon, 1996) and "The Advent of the Algorithm" (Harcourt, 2000) and "Newton's Gift" (Free Press 2001). He lives in Paris. "In 1994, Nilsson and Susanne Pelger published an article called, 'A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve,'" says Berlinski. "The article contained a couple of back-of-the-envelope calculations that if we assume this, and we assume that, we'll get an eye in 400,000 generations. There was absolutely nothing by the way of supporting evidence or documentation. Nothing. You could have said '800,000 generations,' or you could have said 2 zillion years. All of that would have been equally supported by the evidence Nilsson and Pelger actually presented." "Even if we were to accept everything they say--counting mere calculations as if they were a computer model, and a half million years' evolution was sufficient--all they would have demonstrated applies only to the formation of an eyeBALL, not to a complete eye. An eye is an organ that accounts for what an organism sees or can see; it is far more than an eyeball. PBS at best is guilty of a wild exaggeration.' Since Nilsson and Pelger's article was published, it has been widely--but erroneously--reported that their conclusions were based on a computer model. Berlinski calls this claim "an urban myth." " The Nilsson-Pelger paper is interesting but very minimal. We wrote to Nilsson and he quite freely acknowledges that his article on eye evolution was not based on any computer model," says Jay Richards, also a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow. "Nilsson says that he is now trying to create such a computer model, but it still needs a lot of work." "PBS is misleading viewers when it presents Nilsson's conjectures as if they were established science," Richards adds. "At a minimum, PBS should make clear to viewers that Nilsson's conclusions are not based on computer models at all, and it should acknowledge that his work is highly speculative." Evolutionists admit that they can not explain the evolution of the eye. You are mentioning aspects of seeing, but ignoring several concepts of eyes... for example pigment. black and white to limited color to color vision All of life is a specie. Therefore yes it does. It should be more complete than the nothing we currently have. With millions of years of each specie existing before changing we should have at least several fossils of each. They all did not just magically get eaten or happened to not fossilize with those millions of oppurtunities. We have fossils of bacteria, that small-soft organism. If we can have some fossils of those we can have a fossil of some bones from all transitional specie with millions of individuals in the millions of years they existed, that all happened to experience random mutations that just happened to happen more than mathematically possible. I quoted a guy who even explained himself...
Impossible, Or low? You just demonstrated how little factual data you have, You are just pulling stuff straight out of your ass. Mutations are very, very common. They happen all the time and every person on the planet was born with over a hundred of them. So it doesn't take long before beneficial mutations occur. and should these mutations increase the organisms ability to survive and reproduce they get passed on to subsequent offspring and begin their journey of propagation. It's simply not good enough to scratch your head and proclaim what are the chances of that happening! as an argument against evolution. The fact is it does happen and it is demonstrable. All you are doing is copy and pasting random things said by people who disagree with evolution. This is not an argument and it is not evidence. it's simply errors made by fools parroted by an intellectual dishonest liar. By the way, if you are going to copy and paste articles can you try not to paste the white spaces too. That is a lie. The evolution of the eye has been explained countless times by countless evolutionists. No, It doesn't. it's called the origin of the SPECIES. The clue is in the title. It explains how SPECIES arise through natural selection. It is NOT a theory on the origin of life. Sorry, Did you not read what i said? The formation of fossils is very rare. very rarely does a death of an animal result in a fossil being formed. We are still finding entirely new species in fossils, So how can we be expected to have a record in the fossils of every intermediate stage of the development of a species? it's impossible. The fact remains though, Many transitional forms have been found in fossils. Not all of them, But many of them.
Wow man...I do not know whether you are retarded or whether you are just trying to act like the typical hard core evolutionist (you know the type, the ones who personally attack critics and call us names). So since you feel you can do this I will not talk to you in an polite manner either. I do find it ironic that your entire argument against what I posted is basically as follows: "You are wrong because I said so." You keep saying that this and that is wrong "because evolutionists have proven it." Well if they have done so, why did you not put in quotes to prove each point of mine as wrong? Why didn't you? Kind of strange isn't it? It is like you just do not have the facts on your side... Then you proceeded to say that all I did was quote people who disagree with evolution. Well Mr. Retarded, Richard Dawkins is one of the most well known anti-creationist evolutionists out there. Anyone you knows anything about evolution has heard about this guy. I also provided info from Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. Did you forget to read the awards they have won for their work in science? Niles Eldredge and Gould both worked together and developed the more modern theory of evolution, but now you are dismissing them as people who "disagree with evolution." You are so retarded it is sad. Francis Crick, the guy who found DNA is just some nut job according to you it seems. Someone who had such a ground breaking discovery should have is opinion nullified in your opinion because he disagrees with evolution/ He is one of the world's most renown scientists. So your whole bullshit argument that all I am doing is posting stuff by people who disagree with evolution is an outright lie and it just shows your low intelligence level. Strange enough though is... you kept saying these people were wrong but you failed to ever provide and facts to prove it. Here is something for you to think about: Just because you say something is so, it does not mean it is. Mathematically it is impossible. I gave the number for life to evolve from the enzymes and that was: 1/(divided by)1 followed by 40,000 zeros. Anyways... Every person on the planet are born with roughly 100 mutations. They are getting about 50 from each parent. Is not it kind of strange that over millions of years of evolution we are just getting 100 though? It takes a dozen mutations just to form a flagella on a cell, but yet the 100 mutations we are born with is suppose to explain how we became a new specie? Also you need to look into your facts a little bit more. The majority of our DNA has long been thought to do very little if anything at all. It was so useless according to scientists that they called it "Junk DNA." Hint for you: Most of our mutations are in this junk DNA. Have you ever taken a college biology course and actually paid any attention? The professors admit this. I put quotes up discussing the eye as well. All you can say to this is, "nu uh." Wow... how about some quotes, facts, stats? Something. Again, just because you say it has happened does not mean it is so. Tell me one example of specie that is not alive or life that isn't a specie. You will not find any. All species are living, life. The name of the book was "The Origin of Species." Species are all life. The origin of these would be where they came from. And also, Darwin's idea of evolution is not all that exists in the theory of evolution retard. It has been expanded upon over the 150 years. The name of his book is kind of irrelevant. Evolutionists today have expanded the theory to try to explain the beginnings of life. I even gave examples of this such as the miller Ulrey Experiment. Well judging from all of the above statements, you have not learned how to read at all. I did not say fossilization is not rare. However you and I both agree evolution would be a slow process. As one specie evolves into another it does not just begin to become another specie instantly. It lives for millions of years. It has millions of offspring over time. With all of these millions of years and all of these millions of individuals, we should get at least a dozen or so fossils to form. The fact is, the fossil record does not prove evolution. Many of the transitional fossils like the ones I mentioned in the previous posts have been proven and admitted by evolutionists as frauds. I am not a proponent of creationism or anything, but I love how many evolutionists attack them as ignoring the facts and only believing in faith. It is ironic that their entire theory is based upon faith. They say so and so evolved, but we have no fossils to prove it. They say, "it just did not fossilize, you have to have faith." What is the difference here? Both does not have evidence, both require a lot of faith.
Evolution today is built on the theory that was denounced by the very person who created it...wow, sharp. Yet they find evidence to prove it...they must be pretty good, if they can find evidence to support a theory that would "absolutely break down." if it wasn't for the "numerous, successive, slight modifications". So in other words, its a bunch of stuff made up to accommodate one idea. SO what part of evolution is true then???
What's the difference? Individuals with genetic traits that meld well with a given environment tend to allow them to live long enough to procreate and pass on the beneficial gene expressions, given that environment. This is one aspect of evolution.
I don't want to get into the aggressive discussion, but you are using arguments typical of creationists, which is, repeating criticisms that have long been refuted by science, I have given a link to an article some posts above. fossils prove evolution in the same way that forensic evidence (fingerprints, dna, fibers, and so on) prove that somebody committed a crime. nobody SAW it, but the evidence shows the fact. Some time ago another DP member said that he "wants a video of a reptile turning into a bird" to believe that it happened. When I said that that is impossible he said 'oh, very convenient'. I won't assume you think the same way but saying what you say about fossils sort of suggests it. either created or evolved, there are no further options. creationists attack, biologists have to defend their science. What facts are being ignored? I'd say that the creationists are the ones who ignore facts. again, you are overlooking the fact that there are fossils for many transitional groups. I suggest you to read the newscientist issue. will you suggest that you need to see a fossil for every organism that has existed in order to accept that they evolved? sorry I don't want to be rude but this is nonsense.
Darwin admitted to fudging his theory, so how can they be facts today? Heres another interesting question, does truth evolve? I thought evolution has suppose to happen very sloooooowly, you know over billions of years, why is this different for lizards?
If truth is truth than that means its always there and always has been. If this is the case than how is it impossible for there to be a God that always has been?
Evolution happens all the time. Regarding speciation, and quantum shifts in gene expression among populations, please investigate punctuationalism and allopatric speciation - very interesting stuff, in terms of your question.
Respectfully, your reasoning is circular, which doesn't say anything: God is; therefore, questioning God's existence cannot be truthful, because, well, God is. On the other hand, we investigate the natural world by a heuristic process, going from the known to the unknown by empirical means. As we shed new light on things, discover "truths" we find useful, we use these discoveries to dig deeper into new unknowns. "Truth" exists regardless of the method used to uncover it.
not being impossible doesn't mean it has to be true of all non-impossible alternatives for a fact, only one is real
What did Darwin specifically say? you are wrong because the evidence says so. if you don't understand the evidence that is your problem. but your inability to understand something is no argument against it, it just means you probably shouldn't attempt to form an opinion on it. Your argument is basically "i don't know shit about it, but here is something once said by someone who agrees with me"
Merely adaptation. They are not evolving into anything else. Its amazing how so many species on this planet are created in the same basic manner and rely on the same basic functions. All by chance? I think not. We can all go back and forth with our gems of knowledge and what "they" say meaning "the smart people" or we can except that there might just be a "creator" out there. Evolutionists reach so far and try so hard, but in the end it gets squashed then some new theory comes out and blah blah it starts over.
they created a new species of fly. it's still a fly, i'll give you that much, but it's a new species of fly. what did you expect to come from the experiment? one group of flies to turn into horses? there might be, but until we find evidence of it we can't have invisible men as a factor in a scientific theory.
I hear what your saying, but I still have yet to see apes become man or anything else become anything else. I feel its a creator God which leads to find out who that creator is. To me thats Jesus Christ. Thats all I can say.
Well your opinion isn't based on the evidence. You don't disbelieve evolution because the evidence doesn't add up, You instead reject the evidence because it contradicts a preconceived notion you have. That's OK, You can do that, But what you can't do is use that logic to tell other people that evolution is incorrect. What you can't do is make the argument that the evidence doesn't support evolution on the grounds that it contradicts your particular religions account of creation. Science has to be based on evidence. The evidence is there to support the claim that apes and humans once shared a common ancestor.