EVOLUTION PART 12

                                                  EVOLUTION 
Part 12




(Copied from Mark Cahill's                 Book One Heartbeat Away)


Irreducible Complexity

Biochemist Dr Michael Behe, who argues that evolution could never have given rise to the intricate structures of life , has identified something he calls "irreducible complexity."

This refers to an organism that is so complex that it could not have come together piece by piece, and still function; all the parts must have come about at once in order to have any function at all. Behe explains:

"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system composed  of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the  basic function, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

An irreducible complex system cannot be produced  directly (that is, by  continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism )  by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing  a part is by definition nonfunctional....

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."

 He cites the simple mouse trap as an example. All the pieces must be present at one time in order for it to function. A piece of wood won't catch a mouse and a spring won't catch a mouse. A piece of wood, a spring and a hinge won't catch a mouse.  All the parts must be present and arranged correctly, in order for the mouse trap to function. The same would be true for any irreducible complex system.

For instance the knee joint consists of at least 16 essential characteristics, each requiring thousands of pieces of information to exist simultaneously in the genetic code. Therefore the knee could not have evolved gradually but must have been created all at once as a whole, functioning joint. 

Amazingly, Charles Darwin himself  admitted that an idea such as "irreducible complexity"  if proven true, would demolish his theory. In the Origin of  the Species, he wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly  have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin, as quoted in the beginning of this chapter, said he had a most difficult time with the human eye. He admitted that it would be "absurd in the highest degree" to claim that the eye , with it's amazing complexity, could have evolved.

Dr Scott Huse points out what the human eye can do:

Furnished with automatic aiming automatic focusing and automatic aperture adjustment, the human eye can function from almost complex darkness to bright sunlight, see an object the diameter of a fine hair and make about 100,000 separate motions in a single day, faithfully affording us a continuous series of color stereoscopic pictures. 

All of this is performed usually without complaint and then while we sleep, it carries on its own maintenance work." 

Then look at the flagellum
 of some bacteria - a marvel of engineering. Harvard biologist Howard Berg refers
to in his public lectures as  "the most efficient machine in the universe."

The flagellum is a little motor-driven propeller that sits on the back of certain bacteria and drives them through their watery environment. It spins at 100,000 rpm and can change direction in a quarter turn.  The intricate machinery in this molecular motor -  including a rotor, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive-shaft - requires the coordinated interaction  of approximately forty complex protein parts. 

If any part is missing or unavailable in the right proportions , no functional flagellum will form. 

So, How could it have evolved? 

According to Michael Behe, we know of only one sufficient cause that can produce functionally integrated, irreducibly complex systems: an intelligent Designer.

Molecular biology has shown that even a single cell is incredibly complex.  Bruce Alberts, a leading cell biologist and president of the National Academy of Science, writes:

"We have always underestimated cells ... The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large  protein machines. Why do they call them machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal  efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."

  And all the parts must be in place                       simultaneously or
 the cell can't function.

Since life is built of these "machines,"  the idea that natural processes could have made a living system is absurd.

Behe acknowledges that:
"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." 

Although the highly intricate machines in cells often resemble those designed by humans, in many cases they are much more advanced than what man has been able to create!  

Evolutionist Richard Dawkins said of the DNA in cells: "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like."

Microsoft's cofounder, Bill Gates stated, "DNA  is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we have ever created."

Since Gates hires programmers to design his software, doesn't it make sense that the software in a "cell"  - which is far more advanced than any man-made software - had a designer also?

In fact researchers believe DNA could be the basis of a staggeringly powerful new generation of computers. After computer scientist Leonard Adleman realized that human cells  and computers process and store information in much the same way, researchers around the world began creating tiny biology-based computers using test tubes of DNA-laden water to crunch algorithms and spit out data.

Question: If the basic building block of life is smarter than man, don't you think it required something smarter than man to design it? 

According to molecular biologist James 
Shapiro;

"There are no detailed  Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of  wishful speculations . It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject - evolution - with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity."

Even Shapiro, a staunch evolutionist, suggests examining the evidence - which he has already admitted is not there.



next post 15th July