In the edge of evolution,
I consider the question of well, how far into
life does design extend and the opposite way of looking at it is how much can
random changes plus selection really explain in life certainly can explain some things.
And I argue that
From
molecular
biochemical considerations as I argued that design had to extend down to the level of biological
class and in classes something like fish versus birds vs. mammals and so on. And
I thought there was good evidence that
random changes plus selection could explain
species maybe genus
but in between that in between class there's order and
family and genus and so on.
If science simply hadn't progressed far enough for
a strong conclusion to be made.
But that was ten years ago and
science has made a lot of progress and it's
accelerating and it turns out that I was right that
somewhere in that is the edge of evolution, but I think it's much deeper than level of of class.
I think it actually goes down to the level of family which is dogs versus cats and and so on.
So if that's correct
then the information
Needed to specify a dog a generic dog versus a generic cat
had to have been
intelligently arranged and perhaps dog breeds or
different kinds of cats
could
arise from these
from the
ancestor castes probably by
devolution by breaking genes and
and
As we've seen in many cases breaking genes could help
but I think that information is at least needed down to the level of
Family and I think the more and more science knows and finds out.
The deeper and deeper into life design has seen to extent.
My first book
Darwin's black box I pointed out a problem that
most everybody
Senses, but really didn't have a term to it yet. It was actually suggested
By a man named St. George Mivart who is a biologist.
Writing ten years after Darwin and he says well, you know, yeah Darwin's idea of variation and selection
It'll work but with things like the eye
the eye doesn't
Can't see until it's got a number of parts with it
So he was he called that the problem of incipient
structures and
I kind of extended the concept to a molecular level
Because molecular machinery needs a number of different parts to work to and I coined a term
irreducible complexity to kind of focus light on that particular problem and
the term means that you've got a
a machine or a system or something that has a number of parts and it needs all those parts to work and if you take
One away the system can't work anymore. It can't be reduced and
An example I used was a mousetrap a mechanical mousetrap and in most mechanical mouse collapses
They've got a handful of different parts and if you take away one or more than it simply can't work
You take out the spring. It's broken. You remove the little hammer that hits the mouse and it's broken too.
Well
Darwinists have for the past 20 years or so been trying to
counter that argument and they they've offered a number of our arguments but
in my completely unbiased opinion they all fail.
And one argument
is that well the
Pieces of the mousetrap could be used for something else
So you don't have to have something that's working at them as a mousetrap right away
You could use things for other purposes and then maybe they could come together.
For example one scientists in a debate,
He said well we can use a mousetrap without a
what's called a holding bar to keep the
keep the the metal piece open
he said I could use that as a tie clip and
As a matter of fact, he had it on his shirt as a tie clip just to emphasize his point.
He says why we could take the wooden base and we can use it as a paperweight
And
He's so he said that
This be he fellow said that with without all the parts the mousetrap can't function but look,
You know, these parts are doing different jobs and that just really kind of distorts the argument
It's not that you can't use a piece of some complex machine as a paperweight. Anything can be a paperweight.
The irreducible complexity
concept says that if you take one away, you can't have a mousetrap
anymore, you can't use that as a mousetrap and
in fact that still holds and
even
even with that argument it
doesn't hold up because
In order to have parts that will later be put together into a mousetrap
You've got to have that future goal in mind. If you look at paper weights. None of them look like.
They're going to be used for a mousetrap base if you look at tight
clips on the internet say,
None of them are in the shape of a mousetrap
Say four pictures of that guy who was given a talk with the mousetrap on his tie.
That's a big problem as
people when they're imagining the evolution of things they kind of use their intelligence to guide things along the way but
Darwin's theory is a radical theory says that no guidance. Nothing like that is needed.