In a message dated 9/12/2000 2:26:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< Cliff:
Your original definition made no mention of exclusively for biological
concepts.
Nelson:
That is what Behe's thesis was all about. Darwin stated:
>>
Fascinating. I guess the part about the ICness of the mousetrap was just to
be ignored?
<< "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.
>>
Not really. He merely claimed: We don't know how it happened therefor it is
designed.
<< 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.
>>
Really? So far I notice that Behe was therefor misunderstanding the ICness of
the mousetrap?
>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?
>>
Who knows what it's function is? It will stop being a crystal when you for
isntance remove the electrons and bang...
<< 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.
>>
Of course, the crystal ceases to exist.
<<
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.
>>
True but there is nothing philisophical about ICness of the crystal.
<< 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.
>>
So the non-random pattern of a pulsar is irreducible to it's periodicity?
<< 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.
>>
And it stops being a crystal. The leap in logic is excluding non biological
systems. Behe does not do this.
<<
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.
>>
Not really. You already admit being confused about the crystal.
<< 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.
>>
Is it? I have shown that ICness is not very useful. 1) It has been shown that
natural pathways exist to an IC system 2) ID cannot exclude a natural
designer 3) IC ness is infered based on absence of evidence 4) no independent
evidence of design of these systems exist.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 23:35:28 EDT