Tim
Many would dissagree. Certainly complex things are refective of similar
things. There is now step by step explanation of how each step is
adaptive and functional of many complex items in biology. What you are
suggesting seems to be to be to ask a great deal of faith that for
example
"Interestingly, components of the bacterial flagellum exhibit
similarities to some protein transport components found on cell
surfaces. This connection is faint and apparently obscured by
intense selection over the millenia, but suggests the possibility..."
some day this will be explained as not a suggestion (your word and seen
in your eyes--I and many others see it differently). In other words it
seems that you have the suggestion of the hope of a possible way to work
towards an explaination. This is actually in part the point of my post.
I do agree that the origin of life is an even bigger mountain to climb.
Bert M
Tim Ikeda wrote:
> Massie writes: [...]
>
> [George Andrews' description ofchaotic attractors removed...]
> >Not familier with this specific expample. But, I have seem examples
> >from various sources which were claimed to be "specified complexity"
> >arrising from physical mechanisms.
> >
> >What is the overwhelming evidence? The overwhelming evidence is
> >for many complex features in biological organisms without the
> >faintest suggestion by anyone as to how they might form gradually
> >and saltationism begs for a creator.
> >
> >I think we can reasonably expect some certain "complex" thinks to
> >fall out of physics. Salt crystals have certain lattice structures
> >and so forth but not much sc here. Approaching this issue from the
> >margins is not very convincing.
> >
> >Obviously I would appeal to the flagellium of Bethe and perhaps
> >you could outline for us how this came into being.
> [...]
>
> Interestingly, components of the bacterial flagellum exhibit
> similarities to some protein transport components found on cell
> surfaces. This connection is faint and apparently obscured by
> intense selection over the millenia, but suggests the possibility
> that the rotational motion of the flagellum arose from a defective
> or "stuttering" protein transport complex.
>
> Another irreducibly complex system discussed by Michael Behe
> was the vertebrate blood clotting cascade. Here there seems to
> be an even stronger case for adaptation of previously existing
> components for new uses. This is outlined in Kenneth Miller's
> book _Finding Darwin's God_ (Cliff Street Books, NY 1999 ISBN:
> 0-06-017593-1), specifically in Chapter 5: "God the Mechanic".
>
> Bert, you've mentioned "irreducible complexity" as if it's some
> bellweather of Intelligent Design™. Yet, this relationship has
> long been questioned and has generally been found to be less
> straightforward than suggested by ID proponents. Basically,
> irreducible complexity cannot, by itself, provide much insight
> into the evolvability of biological systems. That's because we've
> observed the evolution of IC systems and found that most components
> of IC systems exhibit strong resemblances to other components in
> the cell. (discussed previously on the evolution reflector eg.:
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0069.html
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0114.html
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0191.html
> and elsewhere on the web. See also Ken Miller's book and
> Robert Pennock's _Tower of Babel_ MIT Press, MA 1999,
> ISBN: 0-262-16180-X).
>
> Granted, the first emergence of life remains quite unknown,
> but positing its subsequent evolution doesn't seem like
> terribly much of a stretch to make.
>
> Regards,
> Tim Ikeda
> tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 05 2000 - 08:03:19 EST