Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>PS: I have been utterly blown away in my Biology classes over last two
>weeks by the *fantastic* molecular machinery of the cell, e.g. ATP
>synthesase's proton pump motor.
The argument from personal incredulity will never mean anything
in science.
>Darwin stated that "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
>existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,
>successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down".
>(On the Origin Of Species (1859), Chapter VI: Difficulties of the
>Theory.
>http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/origin_of_species/
>Chapter6.html).
>
>If Darwinists cannot demonstrate how this absolutely *fundamental*
>molecular machinery which *all* known life needs to have each and every
>component working together as a total, integrated system, then their
>theory *has* absolutely broken down. Darwinists can of course invent
>imaginary `just-so' stories to explain just about anything (and its opposite)
>but I think even their imagination would fail here! Darwinism, as a general
>theory, is therefore either falsified or unfalsifiable.
Darwin's rigorous anti-saltationism is simply wrong, and has been protested
by many, beginning with his friend T.H.Huxley. So pure gradualism is rather
a straw man. If Stephen can convince people that evolution in general stands
or falls with pure gradualism, and if he can convince himself that this is a
valid argument, then I guess he's making progress.
The symbiotic theory of the origin of cells has been around a while now.
Cells are ecosystems that became genomically integrated (except for the
complication of maternal mitochondrial DNA). If this basically simple
mechanistic theory is rejected out of hand as objectionably imaginary,
there must be prejudice involved.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 23:45:21 EST