That concept is so dead. But if you know someone who still trots out the ol’ argument from personal incredulity, show them this simple video about the evolution of the eye.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Speaking of eyes, ‘Googly-eyed’ stubby squid spotted off California coast — video:
It must be so embarrassing to work in a biology department with Michael Behe. He’s like a fart in the hot tub of science.
The cretinist arguments are only outdated to those who aren’t reality challenged. The other religious arguments have been trotted out regularly for over 2000 years. They are just trying to make sure Paley gets his due.
Very good, except for the error with the algae.
Marcus- that’s why his department has a statement on their website about Behe.
I think we need to coin a new term – Irreducible Credulity?
Not only is it educational, its entertaining. That’s two reasons for creationists to not watch it.
Who are you gonna believe? A pastor who has nothing to gain from this (please donate!), or Big Eyewear? :-P
Very nice explanation of the evolution of the eye!
The concept of irreducible complexity is dead, but that information hasn’t reached the Evolution News and Views site yet. This month they had a post on irreducibly complex ears.
How about phenomenal complexity, “amazement over what can be built with only four letters”?
Of course, add a few metals into a protein, my mind is successfully blown, such as zinc fingers. ;)
OK, that isn’t the only thing that blows my mind. :)
It’s just the complexity possible via such a “simple” encoding system that is mind blowing. RNA merely complements it. ;)
But then, this entire complex blog is written, at the end of the day, with two characters, 0 and 1. :D
One argument against irreducible complexity is that no one ever found an example of it. Every example, from the mouse trap tot the flagellum, and the eye, has been refuted.
The weakest part of irreducible complexity however is that it cannot be observed. Irreducible complexity does not only claim that some parts did not evolve, it claims that they could not have evolved. How on earth is anyone going to prove a claim like that? It only proves creationists have a lack of imagination.
One way to get widespread acceptance of the basics of genetics is when the rich people can get germline treatment for their offspring to make them more long-lived.
I just read that the despised (by Republicans) latinos are more long-lived than (other) caucasians.
And the sunburned Sardinians have isolated families where centenarians are twenty times more common than among the blonde, blue-eyed aryans. Once the relevant genes are identified, there will be a stampede of millionaries travelling to countries that allow germ-line gene modification for humans.
This is good, because the same technologies will eventually become available to us “commoners”.
And when every goddamn Republican in congress is using germline GM it will be hard for the owners of conservative media (coughFoxcough) to demonize genetics and claim understanding it is only the domain of El/Yahwe/Ctulhu.
What colour is the sky on yer planet?
They lie. And distort. And use their own “facts”. Something like “Aryan researchers funded by Kochroache Bros., UnLimited, found the secret behind the new LongerThugLife™ when saving the lives of millions of innocent children whose abortions were botched and so were still alive, in great pain. Whilst tirelessly operating on what the Democrats want to discard into the sewers as ‘white trash’, they found a gene which blah blah blah.”
“funded by Kochroache Bros”
I am *so* stealing that word! :)
Has Cuttlefish done a pastiche of Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match with “Watchmaker” yet?