Re: Critique of Robison - Part 2
Chuck Warman (cwarman@wf.net)
Thu, 08 May 1997 07:06:38 -0500At 09:57 PM 5/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
>>A stimulus triggers the conversion of X to X*, and X* autocatalytically
>>drives this conversion also. X* then acts on a target.
>
>Jim: This *seems* like a simple system, but it may actually be a candidate
>for irreducible complexity (IC). And that would mean Keith was
>assuming the existence of IC to show that IC does not exist!
>
>Note that Robison does not deny the existance of an IC, just does not
>share Behe's belief that such a system could not have evolved gradually.
>This is exactly my point, IC systems may exist but Behe has failed to show
>that they could not have evolved.
*Anything* could have evolved; you just gotta have faith.
Chuck
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman
cwarman@wf.net (Wichita Falls, TX)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The abdication of Belief / makes the Behavior small."
----Emily Dickinson