Have there been experiments conducted that demonstrate cross species evolution? I thought they mostly just try to say the fossil record backs them up. I guess that pepper moth hoax that is still in our kiddie's science textbooks is their experiment.There is no pepper moth hoax.
That's a creationist lie that you've fallen for hook, line, and sinker.
It was a creationist professor of law, Phillip E. Johnston, not even a scientist at all, who first made this accusation in 1999. Yet when actual scientists revisited the classic experiments in 1998, they took numerous pictures of live peppered moths resting on tree trunks. This included gluing dead pepper moths onto tree trunks for an experiment, in this case to see how the density of peppered moths on tree trunks affected how birds might feed on them. In other words, it was scientists reviewing another's work for errors, not trying to prove that some hoax existed.
This is all easily-available information. I found it in five minutes
via Google. Yet it seems you'd rather continue believing in the "peppered moth hoax" that creationists bleat about than take in information that contradicts what you already believe to be true. And this illustrates the more general problem you have here. You would rather continue to believe in intelligent design and irreducible complexity than take time to learn about things that contradict those two ideas.
So yes, there have been experiments that have shown rapid evolutionary change. 1.
Guppy males that live in water with less predators tend to be more colorful. When scientists introduced predators into those waters, the number of guppy males born with dull colors declined sharply. 2.
This is a scholarly paper that discusses the field of experimental evolution; while it's necessarily somewhat general, it's a good read.
Darwin himself proposed that irreducible complexity of an organ would prove his theory wrong. So obviously it is a scientific observation unless now you don't think Darwin was a scientist.
Nobody is disputing that Darwin was a scientist, but the fact of the matter is that he pioneered the work on evolution, which means that subsequent work would have tested his conclusions over and over again until other people were satisfied that they were accurate. Furthermore, you are being dishonest here. Darwin proposed a mechanism by which his hypothesis could be falsified - it is not the same thing as observing such an "irreducibly complex" organ, as you imply here.
By the way, Behe knows a lot more than Darwin did, who didn't know anything about DNA and molecular biology, and I thought I read somewhere that Darwin didn't do well in college and he actually did better in his religion classes than his science ones.
As I already stated, Darwin pioneered evolutionary theory, and other scientists came along afterward and tested it, over and over again. So trying to claim that Behe was more knowledgeable than Darwin is irrelevant - Behe is standing on the shoulders of all those others who followed Darwin, so of course he has more knowledge available than Darwin did. But that would be true of just about any scientist working in the field of biology today, so this point is totally irrelevant.
I think if Behe and others can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex and the Darwins can't no propose a logical Darwin evolutionary pathway to achieve the IC, then when we weight the two opposing ideas together we must conclude Behe is right on this.
All Behe and his ilk have ever done are point to some complex organ (such as the eye or bacterial flagellum) and then claim that it's so complex that it can't have evolved, so this is a moot point. This is what you keep missing - these 'demonstrations' of so-called "irreducible complexity" are invariably attempts to dismiss evolutionary theory by fiat.
Not only that, but other scientists can and have pointed to flaws in his claims, such as Kenneth Miller's rebuttal of his bacterial flagellum argument. Behe's response has been to move the goalposts - instead of actually trying to defend his claim of irreducible complexity on that particular organ, he moves on to claim that something else is irreducibly complex instead. What do you think this unwillingness to defend his actual claims means, DrTesla?
Again, it is logical and"scientific" to argue that a process of slow gradual change in nature is probably not going to be able to account for a complex structure/system in which all the parts must be present at once for it to work AND all the parts need to be arranged in a certain way so that they can work together.
It is neither logical nor scientific. It is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy (which means it is not logical), and it does not make any effort to actually show (via experiment to test these so-called 'observations') that this process of slow gradual change could not have accounted for complex organic structures and/or systems, which means it is not scientific either. I called you on this in my last post, and you don't seem to have gotten it.
Again, if one of these parts is removed, the system doesn't work so it cannot have evolved in a direct way by just enhancing the initial function. The part by itself has no value , it only has value in the system.
This is nothing but the same illogical (and more importantly, rebutted) argument from incredulity that you keep repeating. Repetition doesn't provide veracity.
So IC is about checking hypothesis, Darwin's, against reality by looking at an end product that is irreducibly complex and asking, can evolution account for this and what is the pathway? If Darwin's people have no answer then doubt must be cast onto the theory.
No, irreducible complexity is about trying to fool people into discarding a valid scientific theory in favor of creationism. What you keep failing to understand is that scientists have long since shown that these supposedly "irreducibly complex" organs are anything but. Yet people who argue in favor of irreducible complexity (including you) blithely ignore those proofs and any other rebuttals of their pet belief and simply keep on repeating the same failed arguments, as if they can make it true by simply repeating themselves often enough.
I don't like it anymore than you do.
I doubt that very much. You don't 'like' something that you want to do? If you actually didn't like it, you would spend some time actually checking irreducible complexity against reality - that is to say, you would check to make sure that something you personally agreed with was actually reflected by reality. Instead, you just keep repeating yourself about how it's 'logical' and 'scientific', no matter how many times you're rebutted.