Irreducible Complexity Brings Infighting Into Scientific Endeavor
Posted: Thursday, November 29, 2007
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
One thing Charles Darwin said in his book on Origins which was definitely a true statement, was: "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..." Numerous holders of PhD's in the various sciences acknowledged that, never dreaming that such could be found. But it has been found and should be adequate cause for everyone to rescind the entire postulate of macroevolution. Actually there are many things, other than irreducible complexity, which would have taken odds beyond any imagination to occur. But odds have never meant anything to the die-hard evolutionist. If need be, they will only lengthen the time/age of the universe to beat the odds. My article, also on Searchwarp, " Evolutionists' Credibility Has Bottomed Out " points out the many areas where they have moved from one position to another in order to keep their grantors content.
Cilium are tiny hair like appendages found on many animal and plant cells which serve as "oars" to sweep cells through fluid or to move the fluid over the cells surface.
In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein . ( Irreducible Complexity: CreationEvolution.net)
Another "swimming" type device attached to some bacteria is the flagella which is different in construction and action to that of the cilium. But it is also highly complex with numerous features which could not function without the others.
"In summary, as biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn. New research on the roles of the auxiliary proteins cannot simplify the irreducibly complex system The intransigence of the problem cannot be alleviated; it will only get worse. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation." (Dr. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: pg 73)
Another irreducibly complex factor is that of blood clotting. This is an amazingly complex system which is dependent upon a number of factors.
This process involves over a dozen different proteins like thrombine, fibrinogen, accelerin and many more. Some of these proteins are involved in forming the clot. Others are responsible for regulating clot-formation. Regulating proteins are needed because there should only be clots forming at the site of a wound, not in the middle of flowing arteries. Other proteins take care of removing the clot once it is no longer needed. ( Irreducible Complexity: CreationEvolution.net)
Dr. Behe also says that the formation, limitation, strengthening and removal of a blood clot form an integrated biological system. If one factor fails, the whole system of clot-formation fails. So, how does a simple system advance, one step at a time until all steps are completed before the system works?
Let's take a look at the complexity of blood clotting, for an example. There are 21 independent actions performed (This information also comes from CreationEvolution.net.)
1. A cut occurs and Hageman Factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman Factor reacts with another enzyme called HMK to produce Activated Hageman.
2. Pre Kallikrein reacts with Activated Hageman to produce Kallikrein.
3. Hageman Factor also reacts with HMK and Kallikrein to form Activated Hageman.
4. PTA reacts with Activated Hageman and HMK to produce Activated PTA.
5. Christmas Factor reacts with Activated PTA and Convertin to produce Activated Christmas Factor.
6. Antihemophilic Factor is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Antihemophilic Factor.
7. Stuart Factor reacts with Activated Christmas Factor and Activated Antihemophilic Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.
8. Proconvertin is activated by Activated Hageman Factor to produce Convertin.
9. When a cut occurs, Tissue Factor (which is only found outside of cells) is brought in near the wound where it reacts with Convertin and Stuart Factor to produce Activated Stuart Factor.
10. Proaccelerin is activated by Thrombin to produce Accelerin.
11a. GLU-Prothrombin reacts with Prothrombin Enzyme and Vitamin K to produce GLA-Prothrombin. (Note that Prothrombin cannot be activated in the GLU form so it must be formed into the GLA form. In this process ten amino acids must be changed from glutamate to gama carboxy glutamate.)
11b. GLS-Prothrombin is then able to bind to Calcium. This allows GLA-Prothrombin to stick to surfaces of cells. Only intact modified Calcium-Prothrombin Complex can bind to the cell membrane and be cleaved by Activated Stuart and Accerlerin to produce Thrombin.
12. Prothrombin-Ca (bound to cell surface) is activated by Activated Stuart to produce Thrombin.
13.Prothrombin also reacts with Activated Stuart and Accelerin to produce Thrombin. (Step 13 is much faster than step 12.)
14. Fibrinogen is activated by Thrombin to produce Fibrin. Threads of Fibrin are the final clot. However, it would be more effective if the Fibrin threads could form more cross links with each other.
15. FSF (Fibrin Stabilizing Factor) is activated by Thrombin to form Activated FSF.
16. When Fibrin reacts with Activated FSF many more cross ties are made with other Fibrin filaments to form a more effective clot.
Let us next consider that this irreducibly complex system of blood clotting must have a way to remove the clot once the wound has healed. How is this done?
17a. A blood protein, Plasminogin is activated by + - Pa to produce Plasmin. This acts like tiny chemical scissors which cuts up the Fibrin filaments of the clot.
17b. The rate at which the clot is broken up is controlled by yet another blood protein named Alpha 2 Antiplasm, which in turn inactivates Plasmin. One of the most important parts of this whole blood clotting machine is the ability it has to keep the clotting localized to the area of the wound and to stop the clotting cascade. Most heart attacks and strokes are caused by blood clots lodging. You could say the blood-clot is the biggest killer of human beings.
18. Antithrombin inactivates Activated Christmas, Activated Stuart and Thrombin.
19. Protein C is activated by Thrombin to produce Activated Protein C.
20. Activated Protein C inactivates Accelerin and Activated Antihemophilic.
21. Finally, Thrombomodulin which lines the inside of your blood vessels prevents Thrombin from activating Fibrinogen. A logical question is : How do we know that we have to be able to produce the whole set of enzymes or factors in the clotting cascade in order to successfully accomplish the procedure?
With all of this, you would think that the receivers of grants would admit that the postulate has been proven wrong. But they do not. They now contend that Darwin's statement was incorrect and that there is no such thing as irreducible complexity, given enough time and enough chances.
They have not only denied the truthfulness of his statement, they have also had to renounce the recognized scientific law of Causality, plus the First, Second and Third Laws of Thermodynamics. In each of these instances, they are left staring into the face of an all powerful God. Which would resolve their every dilemma. And in each case, all they can say is there is no proof that it could not happen, given enough time. How do they continue to stand upright when both legs have been cut from beneath them?
Needless to add, Dr. Behe is now added to their black list and every thing he says now is just so much hokum. Their list is growing every day and threatens to do irreparable harm to true scientific examination and reporting. It would enlighten the reader, if not already aware, to check out the actions taken by those who have power in the scientific community on those who cross over the line, even a little bit.
This Article has been viewed 400 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)To quote the court ruling from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 64 : "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Viable evolutionary pathways have been proposed for allegedly irreducibly complex systems such as blood clotting, the immune system and the flagellum, which were the three examples Behe used. Even his example of a mousetrap was shown to be reducible by John H. McDonaldGuess who his peers who reviewed and refuted his claim were? You need to see Expelled: No Intelligence allowed. But thanks for commenting. I can save you some time simply by telling you that I no longer have any respect whatsover for the integrity and truthfulness of the "scientific community at large". And the ones who refuted his contention of the cell, have those proposed viable evolutionary pathways enabled them to produce one in the lab? I'll guarantee you, that any such discovery as Behe's will be countered with their proposals. But until they can prove him wrong, I'm with him. And I don't mean the mouse trap. He should not have used that to start with. Not a good example at all.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.