> Re: intell. des. and Berra's folly
>
> Glenn Morton (Glenn.Morton@oryx-usa.com)
> E G M (e_g_m@yahoo.com) wrote:
> >I should know better not to mess with Glenn. Here, once again he went
> >off the tangent.
>
> I was merely attempting to answer your suggestion that objects in
the biological world don't change.
>
> Yesterday you wrote:
> >The world economy is not
> >i.c. because maby of its parts can (and have) removed or changed and
> >yet it continues working (thus it does not fulfill behe's i.c.
> >definition.
>
> It seems to me that Behe's definition requires instantaneous removal
of one of the parts with no possibility of a replacement part that
might be less efficient at performing the same option. That is one
weakness of his view. Secondly, your definition of what is and isn't
IC is not correct. One can remove things from biological systems also
and still have them function. I can remove eyes from a person and they
still function, I can remove ears lets add legs and hands. So now we
have a legless, blind, deaf and armless individual who still lives.
If, following your reasoning, the removal of parts with the continued
functioning of the whole disqualifies a system as being IC then
clearly huans are not irreducibly complex.
EGM> Who said that humans were I.C.? They aren't according to Behe's
definition.
What about biochemicals in cells that can be eliminated and the
system still function? Does it function as well? no, but it is still
the removal of a part, which, once again, by your definition rules the
cell out of IC status. [see below about growth hormones]. Can
> I remove some things from the world economy and still have it
function? Sure I can ban tiddly-winks and the economy runs find. But
try to eliminate in an instantaneous fashion all computers in the
world and then see what happens.
EGM> Hey Glenn, remove your white and gray matter and see what
happens. I tell you what, you'll would be no more than a vegetable
and remain so until death, but the world economy will continue to
exists as long as humans remain on earth with an Intelligent capacity,
computers or not.
> >
> >What is the difinition of Irreducible complexity according to Behe?
> >
> >If I remember correctly is a biological system composed of various
> >indispensable andstratigically assembled parts. If any of these parts
> >is missing the system will not function.
>
> My son was deficient in growth hormone. It was a missing chemical in
his body. He functioned, but he didn't grow. There are other children
that are missing an enzyme or homone that growth hormone triggers (it
is called somata..something] and while they have growth homone, they
don't grow because the next step is missing. These is an example of a
chemical which can be removed from the supposedly IC biological system
and the system still functions. In the old days children like my son
or the others lacking somatatropin[?]..
EGM> Glenn, I'm sorry to hear about your son's problem. I'm almost
now sure that you have not read Behe's book. He gives a few well
defined and delimited I.C. systems, and some that are not I.C. but too
complex to have been come about darwinistically (i.e., blood clotting
was not IC according to Behe's [if my memory doesn't fail me]). Not
everything in biology is I.C. like you seem to understand Behe is
affirming. He's not.
>something] grew up and became adult, but very short adults. Are you
going to say that my son didn't function without this chemical? He was
a straight A student whom everyone teased with the name 'peanut'. This
summer he is getting a master's degree. It seems to me that your
definition of IC means no biological system is IC while Behe's is much
better it is still weak. Let me ask this. Why is the economy to be
considered non-IC because parts can be removed yet it
EGM> Sorry Glenn, I can not exchange with you if we do not hold to the
same definitions. In the words of John Calvin:
"Now, for my part, when there is a dispute concerning anything, I am
stupid enough to refer everything back to the definition itself, which
is the hinge and foundation of the whole debate" IOTCR, Book III,
Chapter IV, Section 1.
Please read Behe's book (again if you have already read it once) and
double check the definitions.
> functions and the biological system is considered IC in spite of the
fact that chemical parts can be removed and it still function?
> >
> >Now. Can anybody think of a few things we can remove from the world
> >economy and yet it will contuinue to function? If you can the answer
> >is that the world economy is not I.C.
>
> Behe's definition is that any 3 or more component working object
which if removed. Behe is NOT saying that every component of a system
is IC. This clearly goes beyond the data and beyond Behe.
>
> >Now regarding the "evolution" of the various "designs". Let me just
> >remit this curious quote.
> >
> >"The true parallel of the evolutionary development of organisms
could be
> >illustrated, for example, by a historical exhibition of bicycles,
> >showing how this machine gradually changed from year to year, from
> >decade to decade, or, in the same way, of railway-engines,
motor-cars,
> >aeroplanes, typewriters, etc. Here, just as in the natural process,
it
> >is obviously essential that the machine in question should be
> >continually used and thus improved; not literally improved by use,
but
> >by the experience gained and the alterations suggested. The
bicycle, by
> >the way, illustrate the case, mentioned before, of an old organism,
> >which has reached the attainable perfection and has therefore pretty
> >well ceased to undergo further changes. Still is not about to become
> >extinct!" From MIND AND MATTER, the Tarner Lectures, delivered at
> >TrinityCollege, Cambridge, in October of 1956 by the famous
Physicist Erwin
> >Schrodinger, published in the book "What is Life?" (this essay was
> >written in 1944 by E.S.) by Cambridge University Press 1992, p.114.
>
> >E.S. does some very good calculations as a physicist in this work and
> >predicted the size of the "genetic units" and identified them as the
> >loci of mutations more than a decade before the structure of DNA was
> >discovered. However, if you'd like to see an example of how the
> >philosophical/theological standing of an scientist influences his
work,
> >this is a short (a bit difficult to follow at several places
though) but
> >rather good example. E.S. was highly influenced (as he freely
admitted)
> >by "The Unified Theory of the Upanishads" (Hinduism).
>
> Is this a tangent in a discussion of the economy and IC? I just want
to be able to recognize them so I don't make that mistake again and
have you say I have gone off on a tangent.
>
> >I believe Glenn is making the same mistake of E.S. and of Berra who
> >used the "evolution" of a sport car. Variation in designs is what I
> >see.
>
> Since I have said nothing about a sports car and have spoken of the
economy, which is a whole lot more complex than cars, I don't see the
analogy fits. With sports cars, there is a single designer or a design
team that integrates the whole system. With the economy, there was no
committee or design team who decided how to put the parts together. I
think the sports car analogy is very unanalogous.
Check your writing about trucks and wagons etc. This is the same
"proof" of evolution used in a contemporary book in defense of
Darwisnism, the author used the evolution of the (I think) Corvette.
I will not continue this senseless chatter because your IC in not my
IC, relativism is killing our efforts. Good day and my sincere
congratulations to your son for his accomplishments.
Ed,
PS: If God guided evolution, isn't then evolution a type of design?
==
EGM
"in ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus sicut"
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com