what is too complex for evolution?

[RussDill]

Wheels.

Care to speculate on how that would be biologically designed?

 

[Silicon]

A creature without DNA or RNA.


I mean, face it, if God wanted to make a world, and he was omnipotent and hands-on, WHY would he need to create a biology that works even when His hands are off it?

 

[hammegk]

Life.

 

[RussDill]

Life.

And if we find microbial life on other planets?

 

[hammegk]

Wouldn't say much about Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection, would it?

 

[RussDill]

Wouldn't say much about Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection, would it?

You meantioned life, I assumed you meant abiogenesis. Pick one.

 

[hammegk]

Separate them.

 

[RussDill]

Separate them.

one is the possibility for a self replicating organism to exist by chance, and the other is the possibility of that organism to change over time by natural selection. If you are saying that the thing that is too complex to exist, and therefore, must be designed, then you are talking about abiogenesis. And I would say, what if we find microbacterial life on other planets?

 

[pupdog]

Outboard motors.

(Oops, sorry, that was Behe's example, and has been debunked.)



The idea of irreducible complexity leads nowhere because, as discussed by folks like Behe & Dembski, numerous examples can be provided, but when examined, the examples have not provided for factors such as "scaffolding" (other components present during the "evolution" of a feature but lost after a while, like the scaffolding used to build an arch) or change of function of a feature.