View Single Post
Old November 26th, 2011 (5:46 AM).
HarrisonH's Avatar
HarrisonH HarrisonH is offline
I doubt Pokemon will be a hit
    Join Date: Aug 2008
    Age: 24
    Gender: Male
    Posts: 174
    Originally Posted by FrostPheonix View Post

    My opinion is that, A), evolution is not talked about in the Bible. Whatsoever. Of course, in an aetheistic POV or evolution beleiving point of view, that may not be valid. You could argue that God created us through evolution, but then again, I don't beleive that is so.
    There are many things wrong with this statement. There are an infinite number of things that aren't talked about in the Bible. That's not an argument against evolution at all.

    Pretty much, if you say you don't believe in evolution because it isn't in the bible, you shouldn't EVER use electricity or anything made possible by it, eat any processed foods, drive cars, wear sunglasses, wear boots, wear clothing made of synthetic materials, etc etc. Be consistent.

    Originally Posted by FrostPheonix View Post
    B), Darwin once said that if one found an irreducibly complex part in an organism, then his theory would be proved invalid. Irreducibly complexity is basically when a body part, or something of the sort that is present within an organism, cannot have a part taken out and have it still work. One part of the body that is irreducibly complex is the flagella. If just one part was missing, it would break down and be useless. According to evolution, it should have come about in small changes. How can evolution create that, when one body part is useless without the whole thing? It would have eliminated it, and replaced it with something else if it were essential.

    I could think of more, eventually, but thats what comes to mind atm. Hope I answered any claims that I am being ignorant.
    There are many things wrong with this as well. First off is that the eubacterial flagellum, consisting of three parts ("motor", "shaft", "propeller"), has an analog in archaebacteria that consists of only two parts ("motor", "combined shaft-propeller"). So the idea of it being irreducibly complex is already bunk.

    Additionally, a claim is "well if you take one part away, the rest is useless". Again, this is not entirely true of the eubacterial flagellum. The "motor" part of a eubacterial flagellum is incredibly similar to the secretion systems and other motility systems present. Again, irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum is complete bunk.

    If you're interested in reading more, there is a good paper on the topic here. Note that it is rather long, however.