Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument: dhw Pt1 (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 20, 2009, 17:46 (5542 days ago) @ xeno6696

I would say that the design view is looking "inside" the organism whereas the traditional theory is looking "outside." The major obstacle for the design argument is that if it is true, than the event of macroevolution (drastic shift from one body form to another) should be viewable, or at the least, we should be able to induce it at will without needing a corresponding environmental shift.-I like the 'inside, outside' approach. But you've got the 'design' obstacle exactly backwards. The fossil record is staccato. Pause and lurch forward. Punctuated equilibrium. We can follow intermediary forms like the whale progression George provided, but no one has ever found the tiny steps, slow progression thru mutation should provide. Instead we find quick adaptation possibly through epigenetics and microRNA control. We have not seen macro-evolution in the short span of the last 200 years, but it is so short a time period. If, in the future we fully understand the entire genetic coding system, and then can manufacture our own designed animals, it throws Darwin out the window. We have done ID ourselves, and the system is shown to be so complex, it could not have contrived itself naturally, and the designer wins. This has been my view for the last decade. I know you will argue that such a system could arise naturally. Knowing mutation rates, the time involved, the steps that had to be accomplished to create the code, will create odds beyond a probability bound. We should be able to do the math without suppositions at that time.