In a message dated 9/13/2000 9:44:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< 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. >>
Remarkable, I am amazed at your comments here. And yet this was used to argue
against evolution until evolution found the explanation. You remove one of
the bones and hearing in that ear becomes severely impaired. Sure you can
hear with the other ear. Nelson disagrees with you
"Because design can explain primary discontinuities, the theory gives an
account of phenomena inexplicable on naturalistic scenarios. These
phenomena include the necessary minimal complexity of cells, incongruence
between developmental pathways and morphological homologies in
different taxa, the functional complexity of organismal systems (e.g., the
inner ear), the hierarchical structure of development, genetic pleiotropy, and
architectural aspects of three-dimensional form and function. I discuss these
patterns, and present some ideas for the testing of design claims via
well-established experimental methods. "
http://www.origins.org/mc/menus/abstracts.html
One thing that should tip you off is that reptiles get by with just a
<< one-bone system.
>>
So there is a gap between the bone and the membrane? You do realize that if
you remove one of the three bones in humans that hearing stops ?
If you accept the one bone system then you have to admit that IC systems are
not evidence of anything.
<< 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.
So it's ok to show that IC systems can arise naturally. Since this has been
done, ICness is not reliable evidence of design.
You seem to be desperately contradicitng yourself here. Can IC systems arise
naturally or not? >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 01:27:14 EDT