In a message dated 9/18/2000 3:42:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
<< FJ>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
As one who had to have an ear operation to have one of these bones (the
stapes) in one ear replaced, I can confirm Nelson's point. I found to my
amazement when I went to the ear specialist for testing that I, and
everyone, can hear faintly through their skull and even their teeth!
>>
Okay let's change the system a little bit, rather than defining the system as
hearing, define the system as a matching impedance: Remove one item and the
system stops working. Would this be considered IC?
"By irreducibly complex I mean 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. (Behe 1996, 39)
Sounds like it but then again... And if not how does it compare or differ
from "known" IC systems?
<< The ear is not IC and it is not even ID, but IMHO it is designed. IC is
ID but not all ID is IC, and ID and IC are Design, but not all Design is
IC or ID.
>>
I suggest that It's time to define ID then.
<< And BTW I have no problem accepting that mammals' earbones were
progressively mediately created (see tagline) from a reptile ancestor's
jawbones. >>
Neither do I.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 23:43:59 EDT