This is my last post for the day, I have large work load :(
<< 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.
>>
FMA:
Remarkable, could you please explain why the inner ear is not irreducible
complex?
Nelson:
Lets apply the definition. The function is that it sends vibrations from the
ear drum to the oval window. I can remove, one bone and it will still do
this, I can remove two and it will still do this, heck, I can remove the
whole thing and I could still hear sound when pressure impacts the oval
window.One thing that should tip you off is that reptiles get by with just a
one-bone system.
FMA:
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?
Nelson:
The mouse trap is an analogy and an example of an irreducibly complex
system. I never said it was not irreducibly complex. But as far as Darwinian
selection and biological origins goes, it is irrelevant and only an example.
The mammalian ear had the help of a developmental program.Molecular machines
do not, they are what evolution uses.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 12:43:30 EDT