Is Darwinism mathematically impossible?

The biggest mistake one can make is to only read sources one agrees with beforehand and then think that covers everything. If one hasn't seen both sides of the coin, one truly knows nothing.

OK - what do you think I should read to counter the ideas that Behe has come up with?

David

[Laird]

I can't find a complete list of all my posts - if anyone knows how to do that please say!

Go to your profile (e.g., click on your name where in the header it says "Welcome back, David001") and then click on "Find all posts" beside "Total Posts:".

OK - what do you think I should read to counter the ideas that Behe has come up with?

David

While I appreciate Michael Behe's ideas, they largely represent an appeal to the apparent improbability of events over vast timescales. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Irreducible complexity serves as a negative argument against evolution rather than proof of design.

Michael Behe has cited the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity since his early books, but recent research on this structure has demonstrated that some of its proteins are similar to those found in simpler, non-motile systems like the Type III secretion system. This suggests that parts of the flagellum could have evolved from these simpler precursors. Furthermore, various components of the flagellum have been shown to perform multiple functions, supporting the concept of its gradual evolutionary assembly. Contrary to the notion of irreducible complexity, certain parts of the flagellum remain functional when removed, suggesting that these components can be useful in different biological contexts. This evidence supports the possibility of complex structures evolving through the repurposing of existing parts for new functions.

There are Christian biologists who disagree with Michael Behe but still reject Darwinism. One such biologist is Dr. Joshua Swamidass, who has also published books on the subject. He writes:

Through my journey, even now, Behe always struck me as sincere, well-meaning, and brave. On Irreducible Complexity, he had a good idea. Like many good ideas, it did not pan out (at least in my assessment). Every scientist has ideas that do not past muster. At least Behe has been courageous enough bring his ideas forward. I respect him for this courage immensely. There is no shame in this.

https://peacefulscience.org/articles/agree-behe/

Go to your profile (e.g., click on your name where in the header it says "Welcome back, David001") and then click on "Find all posts" beside "Total Posts:".

Thanks Laird, I think I must have stored this information in a little grey cell that gave up the ghost!

David

While I appreciate Michael Behe's ideas, they largely represent an appeal to the apparent improbability of events over vast timescales. However, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Irreducible complexity serves as a negative argument against evolution rather than proof of design.
Michael Behe has cited the bacterial flagellum as an example of irreducible complexity since his early books, but recent research on this structure has demonstrated that some of its proteins are similar to those found in simpler, non-motile systems like the Type III secretion system. This suggests that parts of the flagellum could have evolved from these simpler precursors. Response: the Type III secretion system has been found to greatly postdate the development of the flagellum, and therefore couldn't have been its progenitor. Furthermore, various components of the flagellum have been shown to perform multiple functions, supporting the concept of its gradual evolutionary assembly. Contrary to the notion of irreducible complexity, certain parts of the flagellum remain functional when removed, suggesting that these components can be useful in different biological contexts. This evidence supports the possibility of complex structures evolving through the repurposing of existing parts for new functions. Response: actual lab genetic experiments have shown that the flagellum simply just won't be successfully formed if any of its parts are "knocked out", directly confirming its irreducible complexity. 

There are Christian biologists who disagree with Michael Behe but still reject Darwinism. One such biologist is Dr. Joshua Swamidass, who has also published books on the subject. He writes:

https://peacefulscience.org/articles/agree-behe/

To save time I responded to your points above by directly interjecting my responses into the text. 

Rather than get into a debate over this issue, I can just refer you to Michael Behe's book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1936599910/). He rebuts all the common Darwinist arguments against both irreducible complexity (especially of the flagellum), and against the inexorable genetic deterioration with multiple broken genes that Behe found inevitably occurs with undirected neo-Darwinian RM+NS evolution.   

Other good rebuttal sources:

https://www.discovery.org/a/24481/  (Detailed rebuttal of attacks on irreducible complexity, in particular of the bacterial flagellum)
   
https://www.discovery.org/a/3408/      "        "          "            "          "            "                  "        "                    "           "

[Laird]

Thanks Laird, I think I must have stored this information in a little grey cell that gave up the ghost!

David

You manage to store that information in a single little grey cell? That's a feat on a par with hydrocephalus guy. (Slight exaggeration for rhetorical effect).

To save time I responded to your points above by directly interjecting my responses into the text. 

Rather than get into a debate over this issue, I can just refer you to Michael Behe's book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1936599910/). He rebuts all the common Darwinist arguments against both irreducible complexity (especially of the flagellum), and against the inexorable genetic deterioration with multiple broken genes that Behe found inevitably occurs with undirected neo-Darwinian RM+NS evolution.   

Other good rebuttal sources:

https://www.discovery.org/a/24481/  (Detailed rebuttal of attacks on irreducible complexity, in particular of the bacterial flagellum)
   
https://www.discovery.org/a/3408/      "        "          "            "          "            "                  "        "                    "           "

Wouldn't you save even more time by simply stating, 'I refute everything I disagree with by referring to the Discovery Institute'?

Wouldn't you save even more time by simply stating, 'I refute everything I disagree with by referring to the Discovery Institute'?

I directly responded technically to your two main debunking points given in your post, showing the most basic reasons why they are invalid. You can respond to this if you want with rebuttals, and with additional supposed major problems with ID which I will then also directly respond to. For more and lengthy detail I referred to essays on the subject written by experts at the DI. The foundations of ID theory have unequivocally been researched and developed by scientists and thinkers at the DI, who are the authorities in this area.

Wouldn't you save even more time by simply stating, 'I refute everything I disagree with by referring to the Discovery Institute'?

That doesn't seem like a good faith response sbu.

My struggle with ardent RM/NS proponents (not that we have any here) is the finality of their views on the subject.  Stated another way, it would read something like this: 'I refute everything that refers to the Discovery Institute'.