Mechanism argues against the intelligent design concept of "irreducible complexity"

[Old Rocks]

There is absolutely nothing in the entire universe, no event in all of history, no natural law you can point to and say, "This is proof there is no God."

The counter-statement to intelligent design is not "God does not exist." It's, "Divine creation or guidance is not required to explain the development of life as we observe it." It is possible to prove that second statement, and unnecessary to prove (or make) the first one.

We as creationists fail if we agreed with the false premise that you can have life without the creator or the system of designs that contained it. We would deny our world view which would make us nonbelievers. Thats silly.

And who cares?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Evolution

"It's counterintuitive but simple: complexity increased because protein functions were lost, not gained," Thornton said. "Just as in society, complexity increases when individuals and institutions forget how to be generalists and come to depend on specialists with increasingly narrow capacities."

Thornton proposes that the accumulation of simple, degenerative changes over long periods of times could have created many of the complex molecular machines present in organisms today. Such a mechanism argues against the intelligent design concept of "irreducible complexity," the claim that molecular machines are too complicated to have formed stepwise through evolution.

----------------------------------------------------

They are saying that as a creature "specialize", they lose function. That's specialization is actually "focused" and not newly developed. Exactly the opposite of what right wingers believe is evolution and proves how "magical creation" or "intelligent design" doesn't happen.

Deany must be extremely specialized because he's lost all his thought functions

 

[daveman]

My statement is counter to the claim that there is no God.

Then why make it on a thread that has nothing to do with that?