Welcome to cheap wow gold our wow Gold and wow power leveling store. We wow gold are specilized, wow power leveling professional and reliable wow power leveling website for wow power leveling selling and wow gold service. By the World of Warcraft gold same token,we offer buy wow power leveling the best WoW service wow power leveling for our long-term and wow powerleveling loyal customers. wow powerleveling You will find wow powerleveling the benefits and value powerleveling we created powerleveling different from other sites. As to most people, power leveling they are unwilling to power leveling spend most of wow power leveling the time buy wow gold grinding money Rolex for mounts or rolex replica repair when replica rolex they can purchase Watches Rolex what they Rolex Watches are badly need. The Watch Rolex only way is to look Rolex Watch for the best place rs gold to buy cheap WOW gold. Yes! You find it here! Our WoW Gold supplying service has already accumulated a high reputation and credibility. We have plenty of Gold suppliers, which will guarantee our delivery instant. Actually, we have been getting Runescape Gold tons of postive feedbacks from our loyal RuneScape Money customers who really appreciate our service. -128864738698462

Sir,

When mentioning 'the topic of our next discussion', with whom are these discussions with? Personally, I would gladly engage in intellignent sharing of concepts, ideas, theories, etc. with you. With no disrespect intended, I propose a question? Do you base human intelligence on the concept of digesting complex sentence structure? I can state with undeniable, simple logic that your intelligence is masked by the inability to communicate to the average thought processes of the normal man. Personally, I understand your rantings, but for this man, I prefer simple talk and basic language. Do you also have a theory concerning 'simple' communication?

John

Uhmm... you're the type of people that give biologists bad names. For the love of anything that might be holy, LISTEN to your teachers. Geez, you sound ignorant and really, how far do you expect to make it in your field carrying on your absurd notions. Seriously, don't be a religious crusader.

This sums up your post right here:

"I think it's very cool to read something written by someone who hasn't been mindlessly brainwashed by popular opinion, and know it all college professors. Few people are aware that much of the information you learn about in school is actually wrong."

*smacks head against the computer screen*

I lost hope for humanity again..

And I swear, if I EVER hear any person ever say "It was not ment to be understood"...I'll..I'll.. I don't know yet but I'll think of something. So please, what do you propose we should do inturn? Except it? "Ooh, I don't know how diseases work, we've mananaged thousands of years with them and we don't know what causes them. I suppose it is beyond our knowledge and not ment to be known". Dipshit, with that kind of thinking we'll be in the stone age within weeks...

I'm about to verbosely demonstrate my ignorance on the subject, but I was wondering how the pros handled this pondering:

In evolutionary theory, we always remember the trait that has an immediate trigger in our natural selection algorythm: the new trait either faces a (or sparks a new) competitive dynamic and emerges supreme or is (far more often) vanquished.
What we often forget is the trait that for some period of time, even multiple geologic eras, that are simply 'benign' but have no real competitive 'advantage' or 'disadvantage.' They never dominate, but never were a hinderance--and this lack of dramatic evolutionary provocation expresses itself with the appropriate mediocrity in the 'gene pool.' They simply ride on the success or failure of those traits on the frontlines of competition, or await the catastrophic, unpredictable changes of the environment to come to them to decide their fate...

...Or, perhaps yet, they await another 'trait' that in-and-of-itself would have been either forgetable or even detrmental--but in concert they are either still forgetable or even provocatively successful!

What I'm envisioning is the potential acquistion of 'irreducable complexities' not by eyebrow-raising simultaneous eruption, but whose componants arise ultimately by finding shelter in lack of competitive exposure--and thus they remain for however long it takes to be utilized by some final yet equally random componant--making the functional mousetrap that jumps into the fray of evolutionary warfare.

As far as progression of the thing goes, all that seems necessarry to me is that each componant be individually and collectively benign until 'the circuit is closed' and you have a mousetrap on your hands. That being the case, the vastness of the geological laboratory and geologic time at our disposal [to offset the 'microscopic' odds of these delicate and time consuming sequences] suggests the solution to the 'irreducable complexity' issue.

It's disappointing to see creationist claptrap recycled and regurgitated on what is peddled as a "science" blog. MSN should be ashamed at such misrepresentation.

This discussion area should be accurately labeled as "theology" and categorized with the rest of the Christian prayer sites, instead of masquerading as something it is not. For shame.

"(for example, the many breeds of dogs).
MACROevolution - chages between species. This is the kind of evolution that is debated."

The genetic variation between breeds of dogs is far far greater than between many distinct species. The only thing that defines species is whether or not they naturally interbreed in the wild (not even actual genetic compatibility). But that's even assuming that this goofy objection is really any more scientific than "they look different so they must be fundamentally different in some way!" Of course, the same argument use to be made about human races, with just as little reality in actual biology.

"Many people have heard of this concept of Irreducible Complexity, however, few really understand what it means. The concept has a long history in the debate, but was most eloquently depicted by Dr. Behe."

Except that he has completely basically backed away from his original formulation! No longer does he claim that complex interlocking parts simply prove that there can be no functional simpler intermediaries. And without that claim, the idea is basically just a weak retread of the argument from personal incredulity.

"The basic idea is that if a system can be observed which cannot come into existence through numerous gradual steps than it cannot be “evolved”. Dr. Behe, whom I have personally met, uses the example of a mouse trap. If you take away any piece of a simple mouse trap the entire system fails and is useless."

Except not: even with the laughably ill-fitted example of a mousetrap, it has been shown many times that you can take away a piece of a mousetrap and still have it be functional either as a mousetrap or for another purpose. And indeed, this is exactly what we find with things like the flagellum.

Of course, mouse traps don't reproduce or exist in populations with minor differences anyway.

"Behe’s real life example was championed by the bacterial flagellum motor."

Which has been shown not to be IC, both in the sense that there is not a single threshold example (there are many different types of flagellum of varying complexity, some far simpler than the one Behe uses as his example) as well as component parts that not only could play other roles, but have been found in bacteria actually playing those other roles.

"How could the first living cells come into existence? They need so many complex systems to be in operation simultaneously."

Only if you assume that modern cells had to spring into being all at once. Which no theory of abiogenesis actually posits.

"However, in his time the inner workings of the cell were entirely unknown. We now have many examples of systems which cannot be formed by numerous slight modifications."

Prove it. All you have is incredulity that they could be, but only because you refuse to consider the various pathways by which simpler forms could have added structures and later modified them to become irreplacible.

"In addition, many of these systems require very precise machinery. Evolution is very good at tinkering with things that already exist (commonly known as adaptation) but it has never been demonstrated that evolutionary process can lead the derivation of entirely unique systems."

Are you kidding? The Krebs cycle? Blood clotting? These are, at the very least, the commonly presented examples of the development of powerful new systems key to the later development of life. At the very least you could mention them, even if you have the standard ID smokescreen about dismissing the work that's been done on figuring out how they evolved.

"This leads us to wonder exactly how such systems might come into existence through an evolutionary mechanism. Is it even possible? Through my study and research I have not found anything to lead me to believe that it is."

Personal. Incredulity. Is. A. Lousy. Argument.

"Furthermore, things through evolution happen through chance mutation. What is the nature of mutations? Is there such a thing as a beneficial mutation?"

Yes. Anything a mutation can undo it can do. And there are countless examples of mutations even in recent human history that prove beneficial in this way or that. And that's just on the absurdly small scale of recent human lifetimes and just what we have happened to have noticed in the very tiny amount of searching we've done in a single species.

I think it's very cool to read something written by someone who hasn't been mindlessly brainwashed by popular opinion, and know it all college professors. Few people are aware that much of the information you learn about in school is actually wrong.

I think it would be beneficial that the evolution being investigated here is macroevolution. There is a significant difference between this an microevolution.

MICROevolution - changes within species over time, or adaptation. people generally don't have a problem with this; it explains the great variation we have within a given species (for example, the many breeds of dogs).

MACROevolution - chages between species. This is the kind of evolution that is debated. Or, as I've heard: "from the goo, to the zoo, to you."

For someone who is apparently a biology student, you appear to have a very disingenuous approach to evolutionary theory. One might almost believe that you've never followed the discussions over at The Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/ ) or Talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/ ).

There is a US$25,000 Reward offered to anyone with any solid proof for evolution. With 51% of the scientific community speculating evolution as an occurrence only, yet any high school teacher speculates it to be fact, and no-one yet after decades now clamed this reward by Dr. Kent Hovind (www.drdino.com).

I believe intellectually any great mind can tell a fancy enough tale and fit certain facts in to conclude any seemingly scientifically sound theory. End of the day neither creation nor evolution are science but merely beliefs, the faith in Christ which I hold to says God created. Atheists and the ignorant can believe evolution, but hence it is sheer beliefs and not indeed scientific.

Irreducibly Complex: Yes I've been aquainted with this idea. As I sat here thinking about it again, what came to mind was the Adam and Eve Syndrome. That's where man hides from his creator and gives up his leadership role and ability to be responsible but the woman picks it up, like Adam and Eve in the Holy Scripture. This syndrome affects many heterosexual relationships even today.

So how is this related to Irreducible Complexity? Think. It 's like the mouse trap. One missing part and the whole thing collapses. This is the Fall of Man. Or is it? I may not have explained what I'm thinking as clearly as I would like to but I bet you know what I'm talking about.

Roughly heard about it before. Even not being as a scientist and not being able to understand the complex whole pack it's difficult to believe evolution, never ever, not even as a 3 years old kid.

WOW! Your space is SO KEWL and useful. Makes me think I should use my Spaces resources better - inspire my aspirations as it were. 8)
All I have are pictures of bruises (mine) and football practice. 8o Definately Low brow. 8)
Thanks for a great link to such a fascinating subject. Spaces like yours raise the collective IQ of the spaces.msn.com community - thankfully more than Spaces like mine which are probably lowering the bar. 9)

Cheers,

.f.

In other words, as "The Bible" says (and/or indicates) in Genisis: Let there be light,stars,sun,moon -- already in place at the time of their beginning. This is sometimes referred to as "apparent age." Fruit trees began bearing fruit at the beginning...with their seed in them. With the means of reproducing and already mature, they were fully developed. The same can be truly extrapolated to all the animals and mankind. There is no legitimate observable (nor intellectualy feasible) "transition" fossils of these critters that were evolving from a fish to a bird (or vice versa?) because A) They would not have survived as half this and half that. Their deformity (mutation) would have been an impediment to survival -- and their deformity would have made them undesirable (and usually incapable) for reproduction to enhance or push their evolution forward. All of this is not even touching on Entropy (disorder), and the LAWS of Thermodynamics.

WOW! What a thought provoking space... I added it to my "Spaces of Interest" List... Keep up the great blogging... I will be back to visit often... Take care... CIAO!!!

Irreducible complexity is clearly philosophy, you should re-title your blog.

Your thoughts remind me of something I read awhile back: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp

However, there are lot's of arguements against "irreducible complexity."

One, is the arch. If you remove any section of the arch, it topples, hence it is irreducibly complex.
Yet, take a drive through Utah. You'll see plently of arches that have evolved.

Or take a look at the EV paper: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ev.html

Nice blog though.