You realise that these particular examples cited by Behe have been discredited years ago by scientists, right? That Behe stood there in court red faced as piles of evidence showing that blood clotting and immune systems and the bacterial flagellum were not only reducible, but there were living creatures today with simpler versions of both?The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system.(A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.
The fact is, his argument fails even in principle. You cannot know every possible pathway to a currently complex system unless you are God so you cannot even in principle rule them all out.
In all these cases, the information is an abstract symbolic code. DNA is not that - its "merely" a template providings a base by base match to a particular protein. When you change a letter in a computer program, it crashes. When you change a base in a protein, it may crash or it may simply differ slightly. There are many variations of known proteins in humans and other creatures that work perfectly well.The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender.
False. Insertion and gene duplication events are common and increase information.No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Multiple copies of existing information IS new information. Is this the same recipe for scones:There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.
add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins.
add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins., add 1 teaspoon raisins
And when one of the copies mutates again, there is no denying that its new information:
add 1 cup flour, add 1 cup milk, add 1 teaspoon raisins., add 1 teaspoon black currants.
As for antibiotic resistance, its another common falsehood among ID proponents that this always results in reduced total fitness but this has also been demonstrated to be untrue. Some antibiotic resistant strains are still stronger than the original even in the absence of the antibiotic.