Agreed, and I don't really imagine Yaweh as a biochemical nerd! I think the intelligence would be more like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields, which as far as I can see, have to be intelligent!
That just isn't true. The crucial point is that irreducibly complex systems, are systems that can't really do anything useful with parts missing. This is the crucial point - evolution by natural selection needs to work one step at a time, and for each step to provide an advantage.
I think the point is that the other side in this debate simply claimed that a small part of the flagellum was used for something else. However,
1) Every part would need to be useful in some way in order to get created by NS.
2) Apparently the simpler device that could be made from some parts of the flagellum, came on the scene after the flagellum, not before.
There are a slew of books coming out from almost mainstream biologists questioning Darwinian evolution. On the face of it, they want to put some other materialist mechanism in its place, but I have a suspicion that all materialist evolutionary mechanisms probably degenerate into NS if you look hard enough! The one possible exception might be epi-genetics, because it enables offspring to inherit some adaptions made by the parent - e.g. to shortage of food. However, in the standard scheme the epi-genetic annotations of the DNA ultimately drop off.
David
That just isn't true. The crucial point is that irreducibly complex systems, are systems that can't really do anything useful with parts missing. This is the crucial point - evolution by natural selection needs to work one step at a time, and for each step to provide an advantage.
I think the point is that the other side in this debate simply claimed that a small part of the flagellum was used for something else. However,
1) Every part would need to be useful in some way in order to get created by NS.
2) Apparently the simpler device that could be made from some parts of the flagellum, came on the scene after the flagellum, not before.
There are a slew of books coming out from almost mainstream biologists questioning Darwinian evolution. On the face of it, they want to put some other materialist mechanism in its place, but I have a suspicion that all materialist evolutionary mechanisms probably degenerate into NS if you look hard enough! The one possible exception might be epi-genetics, because it enables offspring to inherit some adaptions made by the parent - e.g. to shortage of food. However, in the standard scheme the epi-genetic annotations of the DNA ultimately drop off.
David