Back to irreducible complexity (PART TWO) (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 30, 2010, 14:47 (5207 days ago) @ dhw


> "The potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise." (He includes Dawkins.) 
> 
> The 21st century view of evolution "answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties." 
> 
> "Dogmas and taboos may be suitable for religion, but they have no place in science."
> 
> Once again, my thanks to David for bringing all of this to our attention. I am now a Shapiro fan!-One can summarize Shapiro in one simple expression of his: DNA+0=0. This puts to bed the RNA world concept. Just naked RNA or DNA can do nothing. There must be the whole suite of complex protein molecules to do the translations and productions of proteins that create living cells. This is the chicken-and-egg puzzle that faces those folks who love an automatic 'abiogenesis'. Shapiro offers his opinion that evolution is capable of doing this, of being able to create all of this complex mechanism bit by bit, or in one big jump, driven by what? 'Survival of the fitest" does not apply to molecules. It is his own opinion. There are no facts to follow here. He is an evolutionist at heart, and won't make the jump to accepting my proposal. That is fine with me. He is extremely helpful to my point of view. I think he is proving my point of view, bit by bit. By the way, Shapiro is a practicing Jew while I am not. What does he worship? That is where I struggle. I cannot mouth Jewish litergy, and not beiieve in what is described.