>What are your thoughts on the supposed debunking of Irreducible Complexity?
I wasn't super impressed by this video. To start out with the scenario presented with the eye, this is the classic evolutionist ploy. It's a widely held myth in the biological community that Darwin's theory has explained the evolution of the vertebrate eye. This hasn't been done in the slightest. Darwinists have identified many different types of eyes exhibiting various degrees of complexity, with something like the human eye on the highly complex end of the scale, and a mere light sensitive spot on the other end. Merely identifying eyes of varying complexity and then basically drawing arrows from less complex to more complex eyes does nothing to explain how they evolved
. They always give just-so stories like this. What we're dealing with here is like going from a simple slide projector to a HD color television by successive modifications in structure and without losing function at any stage of the process. To accept the evolutionists' claims about the eye as true science, we would require detailed models of exactly how
each transitional stage worked. These simply don't exist. Once one asks about things such as changes in genes, embryological development, neural wiring that had to take place to evolve full-fledged vertebrate eyes from simpler precursors, we start to see that we are dealing with a far
more complex structure than this video or similar simple diagrams are trying to show. How does a spot become photoreceptive in the first place and is able to be perceived by an organism? Basically they start with an already functioning eye and then produce just-so stories for each stage. Even these spots are linked up to nerve fibers in their speculative diagrams. Well, where or how did these come about to? Instead of conceding that these gaps pose massive difficulties to their theory, they in effect say "Prove us wrong! Show us how it DIDN'T happen this way. They shift the burden proof
And notice how this video does not focus on cellular structures at all. That is because he knows that he would be less able to disconfirm what is being said. Michael Behe doesn't talk about bombadier beetles and shit, he talks (from what I know) about the structures of the most fundamental units of life, i.e. the cell. The cell is full of irreducibly complex structures. One example he gives is the vesicular transport system. In the cell, the lysosome is a compartment in the cell that disposes of damaged proteins. The enzymes are manufactured in the ribosomes, compartments found inside another cellular compartment called the endoplasmic reticulum. As the enzymes are manufactured in the ribosomes, they are tagged with special amino acid sequences that allow them to pass through the walls of the ribosomes into the endoplasmic reticulum. From there, they are tagged with other amino acid sequences that allow them to pass out of the endoplasmic reticulum. The enzymes make their way to the lysosome, where they bind to the surface of the lysosome. They yet another set of signal tags allow them to under the lysosome where they can then do their work. This whole network is called the vesicular transport system. In I-cell disease, a flaw in signal tagging disrupts this transport system. Instead of carrying the protein-degrading enzymes from the ribosomes to the lysosomes, the system carries them to the cell wall and they are dumped outside of the cell. Meanwhile there are damaged proteins flowing into the lysosome, where they are not degraded. The cell tries to manufacture new lysosomes, which also fill up with damaged proteins. With nothing to dissolve the proteins, the lysosomes fill up like overflowing garbage cans, and the cell breaks down from the inside. This is a good example of a complex system breaking down with a single part gone wrong. All parts have to work for the system to work effectively. Now how did this evolve? The maker of this video would not be able to produce such a just-so story as easily with this. And if it did evolve, what are the intermediate forms that led to this? Darwinists have literally no answer. Many more examples of things such as this exist, such as the blood-clotting mechanism, which is an intricately woven system consisting of scores of interdependent protein parts, the absence of any one of which would lead to the system to fail. Again, the maker of the video focuses on beetles and mousetraps instead of Behe's actual work.