In a message dated 9/12/2000 10:30:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< Nelson:
Not only is it not "anti-Christian" but it's not even "anti-ID". The
mammalian ear is at the phenotypical level, thus at this level alone it is
irrelevant to the irreducible complexity of molecular machines. Also, the
mammalian inner ear is not irreducibly complex. Thus showing a pathway to
this system is doubly irrelevant.
>>
Remarkable, could you please explain why the inner ear is not irreducible
complex? Also why is the phenotypical level not relevant? Is IC somehow
limited to systems for which supporting evidence is likely not to exist? I
guess this means that the mouse trap example by Behe was irrelevant as well?
you can't have it both ways. You cannot use evidence of design in non
molecular systems as evidence of design in molecular systems. Or you have to
admit that both an intelligent designer as well as natural forces can lead to
IC systems. But then why could this not happen at the molecular level?
But you might want to start with explaining why the inner ear is not IC.
Let's take away the middle bone. Does the system still work?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 23:21:05 EDT