Atheism Just Blown Out of the Water

[james03]

Very nicely done.  The PhD's do a nice job explaining.  The interviewer does a good job in keeping it at the layman's level.  This is why when an atheist says, "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in the Easter Bunny", I pat him on the head, give him a cookie, and say, "That's nice.".  Science is clearly on the side of Catholics.



Again, after watching this, imagine the annoying atheist saying, "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.".

(Note: I do like the rational atheists who are open minded.)

[james03]

Cell signaling.  When you are dealing with an information machine you will need comms to transmit the information.  Graphics aren't as good as some of the more modern videos, but it's still good.

Note you need a transmitter and a receiver at a minimum.  A pair.  If you watch the video, it is a whole lot more than a pair involved, making evolutionary theory ridiculous. 

Also remember the first video.  When they did mutation experiments with bacteria, the bacteria LOST functionality.  This was an advantage in the lab environment.  The advantage is that the facilities to move about require energy and resources to build and maintain.  In a lab environment where this was not needed, a mutation that destroyed this function was kept.

So imagine one of the proteins being kept around for millions of years until the other protein forms.  Their own experiment shows that this is the opposite of evolution as it wastes resources.  And the question arises of how the cell functioned during this time without signaling.

Note also that the first life were bacteria living near volcanic vents.  Those bacteria have this kind of functionality.

[Stanley]

Very nicely done.  The PhD's do a nice job explaining.  The interviewer does a good job in keeping it at the layman's level.

Thanks for this video.

This was recorded in October 2022. Behe is still saying the same things about "irreducible complexity" - even using the mousetrap explanation - without any attempt to address well-known critiques. It's difficult to think he doesn't know about them; he should be aware of the literature. In any event, several were brought up in cross-examinaing him in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.

"Irreducible complexity" is basically an argument from ignorance, and arguments from ignorance are weak at best. "We don't know how it came about" does not imply "it didn't come about by natural processes."

Furthermore, even if it were granted that a system were "irreducibly complex" for its current use, it may have been used for other things in ancestral forms. For example, the mammal ear bones are adaptations of bones found in the jaws of earlier tetrapods. These people gloss over that.

That's just an example of the half-truths early in this video. These people should know better.

Science is clearly on the side of Catholics.

Catholicism is true, and science is on the side of truth.

That doesn't mean every argument that appears to support your preferred conclusion is correct.

It also doesn't mean your understanding of Catholicism is correct.

I would caution against hanging your faith on "intelligent design".

[Maximilian]

Early in the video, at minute 9:00, he jumps into the problem of "Math." This is a very fruitful area for discussion.

I notice that Roger Penrose, the smartest man in the world, who used to be Stephen Hawkings' smarter partner, has recently come to toss out his skepticism, because the math simply doesn't work.

Penrose did some "back of the envelope" calculations and decided that the probability of our current universe arising by chance is somewhere along the order of 1 in 10 to the 200th (which is a number virtually infinitely larger than all the molecules in the universe).

Based on that, he's decided that there has to be some other explanation, since random chance is ruled out mathematically. Unfortunately, he's turned to a Hindu-type explanation, but at least he's admitted that the Darwinian paradigm is a non-starter.

[Maximilian]

I notice that Roger Penrose, the smartest man in the world, who used to be Stephen Hawkings' smarter partner, has recently come to toss out his skepticism, because the math simply doesn't work.

A few minutes later in the video, the Oxford mathematician describes an event he attended where the very famous astronomer Fred Hoyle stood up and announced that he reached the same conclusion: "The math simply doesn't work." Some other famous scientists are also mentioned who are in the same boat. He also says that other biologists he knows at Oxford who are good with mathematics all recognize the same reality.

To believe in Darwinism you have to be very bad at math.

[Stanley]

A few minutes later in the video, the Oxford mathematician describes an event he attended where the very famous astronomer Fred Hoyle stood up and announced that he reached the same conclusion: "The math simply doesn't work."

Do you know what Hoyle was referring to, or what his argument was? Did he misrepresent evolutionary theory?

[Maximilian]

Cell signaling.  When you are dealing with an information machine you will need comms to transmit the information.  Graphics aren't as good as some of the more modern videos, but it's still good.

And just think -- your body is made up of trillions of these cells. All of the miraculous complexity described in this video is happening right now as you read this in each of your trillions of cells. Trillions of small universes are functioning simultaneously to make you who you are. This is the true glory of God's creation which we are able to understand better than people in former times thanks to the discoveries of science.

We only have 2 options -- either we give even more glory to God now that we understand more about just how amazing His creative power really is, or else we deny the Glory to God, and we pretend that we somehow deserve the glory for ourselves simply for having begun to understand just awesome is His work.

[james03]

This was recorded in October 2022. Behe is still saying the same things about "irreducible complexity" - even using the mousetrap explanation - without any attempt to address well-known critiques.

The mousetrap example is for the layman to understand the concept, not to prove the point.  Behe uses arguments from molecular biology for the meat of his argument, and he is correct.  The most famous of his examples is ATP synthase, which has a helical gear which matches the "knocker" used to actuate the assembly tool.  Without the helical flights the knocker won't mesh and the machine will not function.  And this is just one of many such problems with this machine, which is ancient.

"Irreducible complexity" is basically an argument from ignorance

No, it is a dead lock argument.

[james03]

Behe's response pointing out that the anti-mousetrap argument is midwit logic:

The usefulness of the mousetrap example was that it captured the essence of the problem I saw for gradualistic evolution at a level that could be understood by people who were unfamiliar with the fine points of protein structure and function--that is, nearly everyone.

But I'd like to see this anti-mousetrap argument.  I doubt it even succeeds in what it purports to accomplish.

[Stanley]

The most famous of his examples is ATP synthase, which has a helical gear which matches the "knocker" used to actuate the assembly tool.  Without the helical flights the knocker won't mesh and the machine will not function.  And this is just one of many such problems with this machine, which is ancient.

And this illustrates a basic problem with the Behe argument. Was it always as highly efficient as you imply, or did that efficiency evolve by natural processes from other things? You seem to just assume the former.

"Irreducible complexity" is basically an argument from ignorance

No, it is a dead lock argument.

Could you argue the mammal inner ear bones are "irreducibly complex"? Only if we didn't know how they developed from previous forms. It would basically be an argument from ignorance.

That assumes, of course, that we are actually ignorant of how the structures came about that Behe talks about. We know a bit more about some of these than Behe lets on.

[james03]

And this illustrates a basic problem with the Behe argument. Was it always as highly efficient as you imply, or did that efficiency evolve by natural processes from other things? You seem to just assume the former.

No, the argument was that there was no previous form.  The problem with evolution is what I term bio-chemistry vs. molecular biology.  Life is just chemicals.  Substitute a sodium here for some calcium, and you get slightly different functions, and natural selection picks the better one.  Simple chemistry.

An prime example was when evolutionists tried to link hemoglobin with chlorophyll.  Change out the iron for magnesium and you have something very similar to chlorophyll.  Simple bio chemistry.

And then we could actually see the machinery involved with photosynthesis and realized that the "simple" chemical reaction is such a minor part as to be inconsequential.  The advanced nano-tech involved is insane.

And thus we get to ATP synthase.  You have an ion-turbine, helical timing gear, shaft, motor mounts with bearings for an estimated rotational speed of 30,000 rpm, an ATP stamping assembly, and an actuator bar attached to a knocker that meshes with the helical gear.  And on top of all this you have to control the flow of ions driving the turbine, which involves another system of control and signaling.  And then you have to generate the ions which involves another system of machinery to break down fuel to provide the ions.  And you need a feeder system to get the ADP and phosphate to the stamping machine.  This is not "chemistry", it is nanotech.

Take away the turbine and you don't get an inefficient ATP synthase, you get zero ATP production. 

And if you have a link for the anti-mousetrap argument, I'd appreciate it if you posted it.  I'd like to read it.

[Stanley]

And thus we get to ATP synthase.  You have an ion-turbine, helical timing gear, shaft, motor mounts with bearings for an estimated rotational speed of 30,000 rpm, an ATP stamping assembly, and an actuator bar attached to a knocker that meshes with the helical gear. [...] This is not "chemistry", it is nanotech.

The more complex a thing is, the more likely it will work with parts removed. Take a car engine. You can remove all sorts of parts and it still works, though perhaps not as well. Yes, there are some parts that are critical to it working as a car engine, but it's possible the item could work for some other function even with those removed.

And that's why the mousetrap is a poor analogy. It doesn't illustrate, exemplify or explain irreducible complexity. A mousetrap is "simple" rather than complex. Nevertheless, if you take away some parts of a mousetrap and it can still work for some other purpose. With only the base, spring and arm, it would still work as a clip. Such was worn as a tie clip at the Kizmiller trial.

Not my primary argument but the mousetrap analogy has another weakness. John McDonald came up with reduced mousetraps that function as mousetraps, though not as well.
https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html

[james03]

Thanks for the link.  I'll study it when I get time.

Yes, there are some parts that are critical to it working as a car engine

First off the mouse trap was an illustration for the laymen as Behe said in the quote I provided.  But more complex parts become irreducibly complex because of the fit.  This is not biochemisty, but molecular biology, or my preference, bio nano-mechanics.  These are machines with tight tolerances by which they connect.  It would be like an engine with a specialized, single purpose bolt with non-standard threads.  Take a bolt with different threads that is a candidate for the evolution.  But you have the nut or threaded hole that also has to match.  But if you modify the bolt through a mutation to give it new threads, it no longer functions in it's old job, and it has to sit there eating energy and resources for millions of years until the new part with specialty threads evolves.  It is absurd.

And that is just scratching the surface.  The "primitive" bacteria had to have extremely complex nano machines for energy conversion, and cell signaling to control the process.  Again, the mind set has shifted from "bio-chemistry" to bio nano-mechanics.

[Stanley]

It would be like an engine with a specialized, single purpose bolt with non-standard threads.  Take a bolt with different threads that is a candidate for the evolution.  But you have the nut or threaded hole that also has to match.

Rome wasn't built in a day. The first people to settle in the area had some way to bring water and take away waste, but they weren't what they are now. The water delivery and waste disposal systems developed along with the city.  They evolved together.

The mammal ear bones I mentioned earlier also didn't evolve one at a time. They evolved together.

Analogously, your bolt probably wouldn't suddenly mutate to have completely different threads. It and the nut would have variations. They would both be subject to selection forces and evolve together.

[james03]

 They would both be subject to selection forces and evolve together.

You've just conceded Behe's point.  Except it is not two sub assemblies that would have to evolve together, but maybe 30.