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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXexaVsvhCM
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.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89W6uACEb7M
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.
Quote from: james03 on February 03, 2023, 11:00:04 PMVery 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.
QuoteScience 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".
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.
Quote from: Maximilian on February 04, 2023, 07:34:29 PMI 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.
Quote from: Maximilian on February 04, 2023, 08:07:32 PMA 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?
Quote from: james03 on February 04, 2023, 09:09:15 AMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89W6uACEb7M
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.
QuoteThis 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.
Quote"Irreducible complexity" is basically an argument from ignorance
No, it is a dead lock argument.
Behe's response pointing out that the anti-mousetrap argument is midwit logic:
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2023, 08:41:56 AMThe 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.
QuoteQuote"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.
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: james03 on February 07, 2023, 11:33:13 AMAnd 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
Thanks for the link. I'll study it when I get time.
QuoteYes, 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.
Quote from: james03 on February 18, 2023, 11:50:49 AMIt 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.
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.
Quote"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."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
And it broke down.
I reviewed the trap article. There's a problem with what he calls the 4-part trap (and it only gets worse as he reduces parts). He has to angle the hold down bar, which is a modification to a protein, and the spring "tail" also has to be modified as he admits in the article (it would have to be filed), but you'd also have to adjust the length and bend of the spring "tail", which is a modification to the protein. Proteins fold in a specific shape to make the machine part. And now the cheese is hanging off the side of the base, so the hammer will miss the mouse.
Essentially he has moved the catch to the spring to make a combo protein. So to get to a 5 part trap, he has to modify the spring, the hold down bar, and add the catch. Three concurrent mutations.
An actual electric nano-tech motor in bacteria. It has a rotor, stator, and what appears to be bearings.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arn.org%2Fdocs%2Fmm%2Fmotor.jpg&hash=400e84af7464e27af6d88d8d0b312b224c9ee1fe)
Quote from: james03 on February 20, 2023, 08:45:15 AMThey would both be subject to selection forces and evolve together.
You've just conceded Behe's point.
If so, then his point is trivial and says nothing against evolution.
Do you think the mammal ear bones are "irreducibly complex"?
Quote from: james03 on February 20, 2023, 02:53:49 PMQuote"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."
--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
Here's the rest of that Darwin quote:
QuoteIf 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. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.
We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.
Quote from: james03 on February 20, 2023, 03:00:34 PMAn actual electric nano-tech motor in bacteria. It has a rotor, stator, and what appears to be bearings.
So?
Do you have any evidence the flagellum didn't come about by natural processes, or just an assertion without evidence? If you can't grasp how it could have come about, it does not follow that it didn't.
Hint: the flagellum has a lot in common with a type-3 secretory system. They most likely have a common ancestor. That includes the possibility that one developed from the other.
QuoteIf so, then his point is trivial and says nothing against evolution.
There is one person who found it fatal to evolution. That's Dr. John McDonald, who spent time attempting to refute a throw-away example Behe created for the layman. He failed in his rebuttal, but he understands the seriousness of the argument, so much so he wrote his article and made his drawings.
QuoteHere's the rest of that Darwin quote:
Thanks for providing it. It does absolutely nothing to change this:
QuoteIf 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.
but it does prove my point:
QuoteBut I can find out no such case.
I completely agree with him. Back then:
1. The cell was considered a very simple structure with perhaps 4-5 parts. This was due to the crude microscopes they had. Certainly they didn't have x-ray diffraction or biological markers.
2. They operated under the "bio-chemistry" mindset and could not even fathom that bio-nanotech even existed.
QuoteSo?
I could have written "I don't believe in evolution because I don't believe in the tooth fairy." but I think a pictorial presentation does a better job. You can ignore it.
QuoteDo you have any evidence the flagellum didn't come about by natural processes, or just an assertion without evidence?
Look up "proving a negative". When you have to demand that, you're losing the debate. Where's your evidence God didn't provide the information and use successive creationism?
What we have is Darwinian theory, which is a failure. You yourself conceded that you would need at least two contemporaneous "mutations", which wouldn't work anyway, but you are already abandoning Darwin. Behe showed that Darwinian evolution is a failure, and you conceded the point.
But science has shown it is far, far worse. We'll stick with the simple mousetrap, which itself has problems (what about the staples holding down that parts? These would be secondary functions on the protein used for binding.)
Arguendo, we'll ignore that and we'll ignore the modifications McDonald had to make, and we'll assume that the 4-part trap actually would kill a mouse, all assumed. So now we want to go to the 5-part trap by adding a catch.
So we need to mutate the DNA. Big problem. I can't add information to the existing DNA as I would decrease entropy. So first I have to grow the length of the DNA. And a reasonable estimate for the catch protein will be 300 amino acids. So I have to now add 300 codeons to this enlarged DNA. So you see simple ideas about "mutations" can already be discarded (good bye Darwin). So with massive assumptions and at the beginning of the process, I've left Darwin in the dust. But it gets worse.
So now I have this DNA with 300 base pairs giving us the information to build the catch. Does me no good. I need more information. I need a protein with the information required to unzip the DNA at the point of the catch instructions. Where this protein came from, and how it got its information? Don't know. And we'll need to modify the golgi complex area that was used to assemble the 4 part trap to now include the catch. And likely we'll need to update the cell signaling chain because the signaling proteins have been modified, and we have added a new one for the catch (and one is an oversimplification, there are many involved as the video showed).
THIS is what Darwin didn't know about. And reading my description it should be obvious that Darwian evolution fails.
I propose successive creationism where God makes the changes (the idea of simple mutations is ludicrous) over time, supplying the information needed.
Quote from: james03 on February 26, 2023, 06:23:53 PMThat's Dr. John McDonald, who spent time attempting to refute a throw-away example Behe created for the layman.
I'm glad you agree Behe's example is throw-away garbage, per McDonald. That's some progress.
QuoteQuoteDo you have any evidence the flagellum didn't come about by natural processes, or just an assertion without evidence?
Look up "proving a negative". When you have to demand that, you're losing the debate. Where's your evidence God didn't provide the information and use successive creationism?
I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked if you had any evidence.
So I guess you have no evidence.
QuoteYou yourself conceded that you would need at least two contemporaneous "mutations", which wouldn't work anyway, but you are already abandoning Darwin. Behe showed that Darwinian evolution is a failure, and you conceded the point.
Nope. First, multiple "contemporaneous" mutations have been directly observed. So it most certainly could "work".
Second, if by "Darwin" you mean specifically theories from 150 years ago, so what? Evolutionary theory has advanced a bit in 150 years, including things (like epigenetics) that were not part of "Darwin's" theory. That's not a problem.
QuoteSo we need to mutate the DNA. Big problem. I can't add information to the existing DNA as I would decrease entropy. So first I have to grow the length of the DNA. And a reasonable estimate for the catch protein will be 300 amino acids. So I have to now add 300 codeons to this enlarged DNA. So you see simple ideas about "mutations" can already be discarded (good bye Darwin). So with massive assumptions and at the beginning of the process, I've left Darwin in the dust. But it gets worse.
DNA is often duplicated. A part that codes for something ends up with multiple, redundant copies. They acquire mutations and code for something else. That's not a rare event.
Is that "add[ing] information"?
QuoteI'm glad you agree Behe's example is throw-away garbage, per McDonald. That's some progress.
You're projecting. And McDonald took it seriously.
Quote from: StanleyBehe is still saying the same things about "irreducible complexity" - even using the mousetrap explanation - without any attempt to address well-known critiques.
Quote from: james03The mousetrap example is for the layman to understand the concept, not to prove the point. ...
Behe's response pointing out that the anti-mousetrap argument is midwit logic: ....
First off the mouse trap was an illustration for the laymen as Behe said in the quote I provided. ...
That's Dr. John McDonald, who spent time attempting to refute a throw-away example Behe created for the layman.
I've been consistent. It is you who now understands bringing up the mousetrap example was in error.
QuoteNope. First, multiple "contemporaneous" mutations have been directly observed. So it most certainly could "work".
I put "mutations" in quotes for a reason. The idea of "mutations" causing evolution is outdated by 40 years. In short, you have to provide new information for a whole lot of amino acids in the protein, set up your transcription mechanism, alter the golgi complex for assembling the new protein, set up the signaling chain to control the new sub assembly, and yes get your epigenetics set up so you can have cell differentiation at a minimum. This idea of gradual "mutations" causing this is absurd. Which is Behe's point.
QuoteSecond, if by "Darwin" you mean specifically theories from 150 years ago, so what?
Behe's book was entitled "Darwin's Black Box" in which he shows Darwin's theory is a failure.
QuoteEvolutionary theory has advanced a bit in 150 years, including things (like epigenetics) that were not part of "Darwin's" theory. That's not a problem.Evolutionary theory has advanced a bit in 150 years, including things (like epigenetics) that were not part of "Darwin's" theory. That's not a problem.
Epigenetics is another thing they have to scramble to explain. As Meyers points out in the video, Creationists predicted epigenetics. It is another piece that "mutations" can't explain, because we aren't dealing with "bio chemistry" anymore, which is outdated, we are dealing with bio nano mechanics. And it all has to be present to function.
QuoteDNA is often duplicated. A part that codes for something ends up with multiple, redundant copies. They acquire mutations and code for something else. That's not a rare event.
Is that "add[ing] information"?
No. See above. And post a link discussing an example.
Quote from: james03 on March 04, 2023, 08:13:11 PMQuoteDNA is often duplicated. A part that codes for something ends up with multiple, redundant copies. They acquire mutations and code for something else. That's not a rare event.
Is that "add[ing] information"?
No. See above. And post a link discussing an example.
If that's not adding information, then the claim that evolution needs to add information is false.
QuoteI've been consistent. It is you who now understands bringing up the mousetrap example was in error.
Is Behe still using the moustrap as an analogy? Yes. Is it an abysmal failure as an analogy? Yes. Has Behe changed how he presents it to make it any less of a failure? No.
QuoteBehe's book was entitled "Darwin's Black Box" in which he shows Darwin's theory is a failure.
What he actually does is deceptive. His arguments against "Darwinism" are frequently specific to the 150-year old theory rather than modern evolutionary theory. But he doesn't make that distinction very clear to lay readers.
Post your link. I want to see what the claim is.
If you "mutate" then you are destroying the previous information and replacing it. The information content stays the same. If I have a temperature, and change the temperature by adding micro states, the information content stays the same even though the temperature changed.
QuoteIs Behe still using the moustrap as an analogy? Yes. Is it an abysmal failure as an analogy? Yes. Has Behe changed how he presents it to make it any less of a failure? No.
When you lose a point in a debate, acknowlege it and move on. You're hurting your credibility.
The analogy was excellent and suited its purpose. And evidently it wasn't simple enough because you and McDonald don't get it.
If I remove the catch, will the mousetrap work? No it won't. That's it. You have to start from that point.
QuoteHis arguments against "Darwinism" are frequently specific to the 150-year old theory rather than modern evolutionary theory. But he doesn't make that distinction very clear to lay readers.
"Modern" evolutionary theory is just epicycles patched on to a failed theory. The original theory was based on biochemistry and an extremely simplistic understanding of proteins. The modern epicycle theory proposes "mutations" to DNA.
And modern evolutionary theory still requires gradual change over time as there is no mechanism for drastic changes.
A quick point, the problem with evolution is not natural selection. It is a simplistic mindset on "mutations". This was the breakthrough that Behe made. What Behe shows is we have to think about the systems, because the cell is a mechanistic system of nano-tech.
So an example of epicycle theory. A cosmic ray hits a DNA and causes a mutation to a base pair. 100,000 times this results in degeneration. But one time it causes the protein to be altered slightly that is advantageous. We got a billion years to work with, so over time natural selection gives us improvements. That's the modern epicycle theory of evolution.
It doesn't work. I've written about all (well probably not all) the changes that would have to happen cocurrently to achieve new functionality. The epicycle theory can't explain it because it is impossible to do by mutating some base pairs on a DNA.
Quote from: Stanley on March 04, 2023, 08:53:59 PMWhat he actually does is deceptive. His arguments against "Darwinism" are frequently specific to the 150-year old theory rather than modern evolutionary theory. But he doesn't make that distinction very clear to lay readers.
Behe has written two books since Black Box, which is somewhat outdated, though a classic. William Dembski has also contributed to the irreducible complexity argument. As has Stephen Meyer.
Quote from: james03 on March 05, 2023, 05:45:41 PMIf I remove the catch, will the mousetrap work? No it won't. That's it. You have to start from that point.
NO, you DON'T need to "start" from that point.
1. If a system genuinely were "irreducibly complex" to removal of a part, you seem to think that means there's no way to "get there" by gradual evolution. But that's simply not the case.
a) The system could "get there" by removal from a bigger system, not addition to a smaller system. For example, parts that were redundant can get removed through natural selection, leaving a more optimized system
b) Parts can be adapted to new functions and lose old functions
c) Parts can co-evolve through gradual changes to each part. This is compatible with extremely gradual changes.
2. If you bend part of a mousetrap you don't need a catch, so it seems it's not even "irreducibly complex" to removal. Likewise, how can you be certain any other system is truly irreducibly complex?
Quote"Modern" evolutionary theory is just epicycles patched on to a failed theory.
Evolutionary theory has made numerous correct predictions in biology and paleontology, and it has been successfully applied in medicine and genetic engineering. It seems to work an awful lot.
As Inigo Montoya might say: you keep using that word, "failed". I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Quote1. If a system genuinely were "irreducibly complex" to removal of a part, you seem to think that means there's no way to "get there" by gradual evolution. But that's simply not the case.
You can't even do it with Behe's simplistic mousetrap example. MacDonald failed. To illustrate this point, MacDonald did three modifications, bending the bar, extending the spring, and reshaping the spring end, effectively recreating the catch. So he was forced to give up on gradual evolution because it fails.
But I have a better four part trap. Don't do any of MacDonald's changes. Instead, put a spring loaded dart gun on the tip of the hold down bar triggered by moving the cheese. And to really increase the lethality, make the dart poisoned. The advantage is that adding the catch now requires me to LOSE functionality, which satisfies thermodynamic principles with regards to information entropy. My solution is equivalent to MacDonald's, because mine also can not work using the failed evolution epicycle theory.
If you remove the catch, the trap doesn't work. That's the starting point. The hold down bar is not bent, the spring is not lengthened, and the spring end is not modified, or you don't have a spring loaded dart gun or poisoned dart. What you have is a trap that doesn't work.
But Darwin's theory is a bigger failure than what Behe knew at the time of his brilliant insight. Far worse. Here's one problem: kinsases. Cell regulation and control are REQUIRED. Serious people don't believe in magic. Here's some of the kinases involved in a cell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinase#/media/File:Signal_transduction_pathways.png
Note "Gene Regulation". You want your mousetrap to have a catch on it? Then you need the kinases required to produce that trap. And you need epigenetics, because you want the mousetrap to only be in your stomach, in case you swallow a live mouse. You don't want it in your brain, or growing out of the side of your leg.
As I discussed evolution is a failed theory because of the crude instruments at the time of Darwin. The cell was a simple thing with a few organelles in them. The mindset was on biochemistry where by natural processes there were some substituted atoms over time. Most were failures, but you got a few that improved things and by natural selection change progressed over a billion years. Laughable today, but that's what they had to work with.
Then microscopes got better and they saw cell division, even chromosomes dividing. This would be due to chemical reactions, perhaps based on charge differentials. Biochemistry. Supercomputers to solve protein folding, x-ray diffraction, and electron microscopes weren't around.
Things started to change in 1984, and really started getting solved by the mid aughts. They discovered motor proteins. Robots with walking legs. Here's a short video. This is not science fiction or some artistic conceptual presentation, this is what is actually happening. I call this video: God has a sense of humor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-uuk4Pr2i8
Motor proteins are used in cell division. The evolutionists saw the division of the chromosones, but didn't understand how insanely complex this mechanical nano-tech process was. Here's a longer video showing the process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvJrDsRuWxQ
Cool sound effects. Anyhow, in order to have evolution, you need SYSTEMS like these in order to replicate. Obviously if you can't replicate there's no natural selection. This is one of many dead lock problems with the epicycle theory. Cell division HAD to be part of the most ancient first cell. And it doesn't happen by fairy dust, it must have complicated robotics and control.
In high school you may have been told about an immortal monkey that will type out a flawless Shakespeare play if given a typewritter (word processor for today's crowd), since he'll have an infinite time to randomly do it. My reply: monkies don't have type writers or word processors.
In this video, the scientist who made the original breakthrough with motor proteins in 1984 discusses what he found. Look closely at the images from the electron microscope and you can actually see the robots moving. Not much detail, but you can make out what they are doing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBo_o0iO68U
And you see another dead lock problem. The kinesin NEEDS the microtubule in order to exert force to pull the cargo. No microtubule, no movement.
Pity the poor evolutionists that prattle on about their gradual mutations and biochemistry.
What does it mean for your heart to pump or your bicep to contract? Simple right? Biochemistry. It's an electrical impulse that causes a biochemical response, and thus you get the contraction. Simple biochemistry, and we can construct the gradual evolutionary changes to produce this functinality.
And that's completely wrong. You guessed it. It's done with robots:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O_ZHyPeIIA
Includes a rotary bolt type sub assembly actuated by rotory motors. Everyone loves a rotary bolt semi automatic rifle, so there's a coolness factor. So that is why your muscle doesn't continuously move, first the rotory bolt moves the thick filament into active position so that the robot can start moving it. But it's far worse. What exactly is involved to function this nano-tech? How do you move your arm slowly, or quickly? Pulse width modulation, something people involved in electronics and control recognize.
Now that you've seen the mechanics involved, here is a discussion on the pulse width modulation control system that is used to control this machine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfEJUPnqxk0
He reviews what was covered in the other video, so you can skip to about 5:20 to see the control system involved.
Here's another video going over the pulse width modulation control system. Remarkable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTYe1CtjJRE
As you watch these videos you see the importance of ATP. Here's a decent video showing how it is made. It's a brief overview, leaving out where the NADH and FADH2 come from, and it still uses magical biochemistry phrases like "pump protons" and "harness energy", when in reality these will be mechanical processes utilizing proteins changing shapes. But it's still a good video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmTKxI4Wn4
A reminder:
QuoteThis 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."
That's basically all that can be done when they are firmly in the evolution cult. Pat him on the head and tell him what a smart boy he is. Because if you continue believing evolutionary slop after seeing what actually is involved in life, there's no reaching you.
Up til now I've been using the deadlock argument, because the probability is precisely zero. There's also the probability argument, but you'll get a Dumb and Dumber midwit atheist showing up that says, "So there is a chance!!". But for the rest, I think it is instructive to take a look at the probabilities.
First we have to attempt to gage the numbers, which will fail because of how infinitesimal these numbers are, but I'll give it a whirl.
How many seconds has the universe existed? We'll use a clean 10 billion years old, and calculate that there have been 3.2 x 10^17 seconds since God made the physical world. So that will be our gage. It's the biggest thing I can think of that is easy to calculate, and it is too small by MANY orders of magnitude.
Suppose we have a simple 2-amino acid protein that is 128 bases long. On the smaller side for proteins, but not tiny. How many combinations can I have?
The calculation is 2^128. Take the log10 to get orders of magnitude, and you should get 128 * log(2). This is 38.5, so the number of combinations possible is 10^38.5. Drop the five because I'm too lazy to type it, so 10^38. So you have a random process that produces the protein, with a different sequence (how does it keep track of which sequences it tried? Don't know.) tried every second. We'll say it has to run through 50% of the sequences until it finds the right one. Is the number of seconds the universe existed enough time to pick the right one? Not even close. 50% is 5 * 10^-1. To pick the right one we have to try 5 x 10^37 tries. We only have 3.2 * 10^17 tries available. Not even close.
Ok, ok, let's look at picking it in the first 1% of sequences. That would be really, really lucky, but you really can't say that is impossible. OK, 1% is 1 * 10^-2. So we will have to try 10^36 sequences to pick the right sequence. Again, not even close if we pick one sequence every second for the entire time the universe has existed.
What about a protein made using a selection of 20 amino acids, which is what we see? That's 20^128. Doing the same math using log10 to get the order of magnitude gives us 1 * 10^166.5 possible sequences. Over a google.
Suppose I have an assembly of 5 proteins making a complex? We have 1 * 10^833 possible sequences.
Suppose we have 5 proteins and the chain length of each is 300 units? 1 * 10^1,951 possible sequences.
Evolutionists are midwit clowns who wear a big red nose and goofy shoes, driving around in their clown car honking their clown horn.
How many proteins do we have in an ancient, "simple" bacteria living off a volcanic vent?
For me personally, the most amazing part is that such complex organism grow from a single cell.