From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Fri Sep 26 2003 - 09:17:02 EDT
David wrote:
> As an illustration of the problems of concluding irreducible complexity,
take the citric acid cycle. It is a multistep process requiring all its
parts to function as it does. However, some bacteria have one half of the
cycle functioning on its own and the other half functioning on its own.
Thus, while not being the citric acid cycle, each part is a useful and
functional whole. Thus, the citric acid cycle passes the criterion of
requiring all its parts to work, yet it is easily assembled from simpler,
useful components.
>
True the citric process could have evolved from the two other units.
However, that in and of itself does not rule out a designer. It would be
unreasonable to say a designer couldn't use any and all raw materials
available to create something new.
Seems to me, in much of the debate too much weight has been put on the
technical meanings of terms "irreducible complexity" and "specified
complexity". Both these terms are really symbols for the question of
probability. They both point to the real question, can unintelligent forces
account for the complexity we see. Seems to me the jury is still out.
Granted the Darwinians have the edge because of past validation in simple
organisms, until it can do the hard science and describe a plausible
evolutionary path to some complex systems, it can't make a firm assertion at
completeness.
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: RFEP & ID
> >You probably know this but I'll give my take on the issue. Irreducible
complexity says that if you take out one piece of a functional apparatus, it
doesn't work at all.<
> >Now genetics can describe several plausible mechanisms for this to
happen: gene duplication, co-opting, and others.<
>
> Problems with this definition of irreducible complexity include
determining whether the apparatus minus a piece is functional (not merely
whether it achieves the same function) and determining whether the current
apparatus accurately reflects its original form (as opposed to a simplified
version, like the building with scaffolding removed).
>
> As an illustration of the problems of concluding irreducible complexity,
take the citric acid cycle. It is a multistep process requiring all its
parts to function as it does. However, some bacteria have one half of the
cycle functioning on its own and the other half functioning on its own.
Thus, while not being the citric acid cycle, each part is a useful and
functional whole. Thus, the citric acid cycle passes the criterion of
requiring all its parts to work, yet it is easily assembled from simpler,
useful components.
>
> All known living organisms appear to share a common ancestor with a fairly
complex system already in place, so for many features we may be forced to
rely entirely on recreation of possible ancestors, without hope of finding
the equivalent of the two pieces of the citric acid cycle.
>
> >However, the question is not even really one of mechanism, because it
could even be stipulated that these "natural" genetic process could be
guided somehow. The real question is one of probability and information
theory. Do non-telic forces have enough informational power to create the
complexity we see?<
>
> To answer this question, we need several pieces of information that we do
not have. These include knowing the structure and function of all the parts
of the system under consideration, the similarities of these parts to others
(so as to give ideas about possible functions of the component parts that
would have to be assembled), and what alternative methods might exist (e.g.,
we might be less impressed with the complexity of the citric acid cycle if
we found out that there were billions of easily assembled ways to achieve
the same molecular result, several of which were simpler and more efficient
than the one we observe).
>
> I would agree that we do not have the scientific information to conclude
that non-telic forces could create all the complexity that we see. Nor do
we have the scientific information to conclude that they could not. I
suspect that non-telic (in the proximal sense but ultimately under God's
control) forces are adequate, and I see clearly bad arguments being used as
examples of irreducible complexity. At the same time, I see clearly
philosophically motivated rejections of intelligent design.
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 26 2003 - 09:20:09 EDT