In a message dated 9/12/2000 11:36:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< Nelson:
I disagree. I think that IC is is clearly defined and does indeed apply to
the bacterial flagellum. As link itself states:
>>
And the inner ear.
<< "When viewed as a motile stucture, the flagella is IC."
Thus it is realized that IC means:
"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."
>>
So far still the inner ear.
<< Although the definition is useful, I do concede that it is not precise. As
another IDist has pointed out, in Biology it is difficult to be precise.
This is simply the nature of Biology:
>>
Really?
<< "It is ironic that the words we seem to need in order to think productively
about biology, words such as 'homology', 'individual,' 'organism', and
'species,' have no precise meaning."
The nature of the universal ancestor and the evolution of the proteome
W Ford Doolittle
Current Opinion in Structural Biology 2000, 10:355-358
>>
So there might be some confusion in biology. But does this mean that ID
therefor has to be so vague that it tells us nothing?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 23:23:22 EDT