Reply to: RE: Flagellum Re: Definitions of ID
>Nelson:
>Atoms may or may not be IC, however, you missed the entire point of my
post.
>Atoms are not selected for, do not replicate themselves, do not undergo
>mutations,etc. IC is a biological concept, and it describes molecular
>machines. Apply the concept of IC to atoms is likeing applying Darwinian
>natural selection to rocks.
Cliff:
Your original definition made no mention of exclusively for biological
concepts.
Nelson:
That is what Behe's thesis was all about. Darwin stated:
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my
theory would absolutely break down."
Thus Behe offered an Irreducibly Complex system as his exhibit A and offered
an explanation for it.
Cliff:
You say that bacterial flagellum are IC, but how do they replicate
themselves or undergo mutations? They don't. That happens to the DNA. As
I said, it appears that IC can be arbitraily assigned to whatever you want
at whatever level of organization you want.
Nelson:
How does that follow? The flagellum is a biological system which Darwinian
theory holds was selected for, that is one of the things I said. Note also I
said that your atoms may or may not be irreducibly complex, but it is
irrelevant to Behe's thesis. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of
Behe's point about irreducibly complex systems.
>Nelson:
>I think in terms of what is well-matched and what is interactive, has not
>much to do with Irreducible Complexity.
Cliff:
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that well-matched and
interactive parts don't have much to do with IC? I thought that was the
heart of IC.
Nelson:
I meant DNA mapping relative to these concepts.
>Nelson:
>I have several problems with this "criticism". It does not address the
>definition at all, it is more of a question of "what is more". It also does
>not establish if either of those systems are actually IC.When one uses the
>definition, there is really no confusion.
>
>recall the defintion:
>>"a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting
>>parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any
>>one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
>
>Crystal:
>What parts does it have? What is it's function? If you can assign it to a
>function, can you conduct the "remove one part and it ceases functioning"
>test? Careful analysis of crystals show that they are really just
repetitive
>patterns. "Order" instead of "Complexity". Why would you call this IC?
Cliff:
A crystal is composed of repeating molecules and atoms which give a crystal
its characteristic shape, color, texture, and hardness.
Nelson:
This doesn't answer my question. What are the parts that make the single
system and what is it's function? What part can I remove from the crystal
that will render the system functionless?
Cliff:
Take away one of those molecules and atoms and its characteristics change.
Sounds like IC to me.
Nelson:
It's characteristics change? Doesn't sound IC at all. Recall the definition,
does it say anything about chacteristics or shapes or anything like that?
What is it's function? To be a crystal? If so taking away molecules does not
render the system functionless.
Cliff:
What is a crystal's function? What is a dog's function? What is my
function? Isn't that just another philosophical way of saying "Why am I
here?" Can science determine anything's function?
Nelson:
Nope. The flagellum's function is motility. The mousetrap's function is to
catch mice. Function is extremely important in biology because it is what
natural selection uses. This is what Dawkin's meant when he talked about the
eye. He said 80% of an eye is better functionally then 30% of an eye and
will be selected for. There is nothing philosophical about it.
Cliff:
If I turned on a radio and heard a continuous stream of
SOS...SOS...SOS...SOS..., then according to IC I should just assume that it
is a continuous repetitious pattern that conveys no information and has no
function.
Nelson:
No you would see that it is sequence specific and irreducible to it's
letters. Just as UUU in DNA means something irreducible to it's individual
bases.
Cliff:
The point of this is that you have arbitrarily thrown out the crystal as IC
because you don't understand the language.
Nelson:
That is a leap in logic. You cannot call something IC only because you want
to. There is no function and you have admitted that you can remove it's
parts.
Cliff:
It doesn't fit your definition, which is rather vague,
Nelson:
I don't see how it is vague at all. I am able to determine which discrete
systems are IC and which are not.
Cliff:
If Dembski or Behe could quantify any of their statements, then most of the
criticisms of ID would go up in the air. But, they haven't, I don't know if
they can, and it certainly appears that they aren't even trying.
Nelson:
One cannot demand precise definitions in Biology, as Doolittle has pointed
out.But the definition of IC is specific and useful.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 17:25:56 EDT