In a message dated 9/15/2000 9:10:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< << FMA:
If you believe that IC is still a reliable detector of design, can you show
how it can exclude a natural pathway as a designer?
Nelson:
An irreducibly complex systems can only be built simultaneously. Thus
physical precursors are eliminated as the designer. It can not be built
gradually , step by step.
>>
FMA:
You are avoiding the question.
Nelson:
No I answered it directly.
FMA:
You presume that IC systems can only be built
simultaneously, something not supported by actual evidence and you presume
that IC systems cannot arise gradually, again not supported by evidence.
Nelson:
The actual system is the evidence. All it's parts must be present or none of
the parts are present. You can see this with chaperone machines:
>>
Still avoiding the issue I notice. You presume that the evidence shows that
this is the case rather than show that this is the case. Since ID does not
say anything about the designer, they can simply not exclude natural forces
as the designer. Design might be infered from IC or Dembski's inference, but
that leaves us to identify the designer. Wesley has shown that ID cannot
reliably exclude natural forces as the designer. Your claim has become
circular: IC systems are designed because they are IC. That presumes that
only designers (and in your case non-natural designers) can create IC systems
but as has been shown this is incorrect. Even Behe admits that such a
possibility exists. Therefor an all inclusive claim that IC systems cannot be
naturally designed is disproven and every case has to be looked at one by one
to see if there is evidence that it was designed.
<< "whenever hsp70 was present in a genome, hsp40 and grpE were also found if
enough sequencing was done; conversely, genome sequencing has demonstrated
that if the hsp70 gene is absent, hsp40 and grpE are also absent."
>>
What do you think this shows?
<<
<< Nelson:
As I illustrated with the Dawkins discussion of the 91 membranes, it
succesfully eliminates natural selection.
>> >>
FMA:
Nope, it merely eliminates a particular pathway of natural selection.
Furthermore, do you propose to say that elimination of natural selection is
evidence of design? Are there no other natural pathways possible?
Nelson:
What natural pathways do you propose? Also I have said many times that
design itself is demonstrated in these systems, it is a specified
arrangement of parts.
>>
Sure, and you have also failed to show that this precludes a natural
designer. Specified arrangement of parts like the circle of fungi hardly is
reliable evidence of design. What natural pathways do I propose? It's
interesting to see how you are trying to revert the requirement of evidence.
I would say that since ID seems to infer design based on the exclusion of
natural pathways that it is up to them to show that no such pathways exist.
But science has shown potential pathways leading to IC systems. Does this
apply to the individual cases of IC? Perhaps, perhaps not, that's why more
research is needed before design can reliably infered. So far design is
mainly infered from the absence of evidence.
<< <<
FMA:
Not really. All you are attacking is the strawman that natural selection can
only take direct routes.
Nelson:
Indirect routes are indistinguishable from direct ones and invoke pure
random chance. They are non-Darwinian.
>>
FMA:
Unsupported assertion and actually contradicted by the evidence. ]
Nelson:
What evidence?
>>
The links I have provided to talk.origins and how IC systems could arise
naturally. But could you at least try to support your assertion? And even if
they are non-Darwinian, they are still natural and could apply. How do you
suggest to reject these pathways?
<< FMA:
Indirect
routes seem to be the way much of evolution happens.
Nelson:
Can you give me an example of an indirect route that can lead to an IC
system and what evidence supports it?
FMA:
Look at the many
homologous systems found for instance. And even if they are non-Darwinian,
they are still natural.
Nelson:
No homologous systems have nothing to do with how natural selection/random
mutation can produce an IC system. And they are Darwinian, homologous
structures are indicative of common descent.
>>
Cool so there might indeed be Darwinian evidence of pathways to IC systems. I
refer to the flagellum and their homologous nature with type II and type III
secretion systems. Homologous systems have a lot to do with how IC systems
could arise, and show how indirect pathways could be used.
<<
<< FMA:
Even Behe admits that there are indirect routes,
although he seems to reject them without much supporting argument and
evidence.
Nelson:
Another handwave.
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 12:29:09 EDT