FMA (talking about the inner (middle) ear":
And yet this was used to argue
against evolution until evolution found the explanation.
Nelson:
Nope, not as an irreducibly complex system.
Nelson:
No, creationists, not IDists, use this to argue that there can be no
incipient stages between the reptile and human hearing. Nothing at all to do
with ID. The issue is transitional stages.
>>
[snip comment by IDer Paul Nelson]
<< Nelson:
Thank you for sharing with me Nelson's views, however, despite similiartiy
of our names, I am not Paul Nelson and Paul Nelson is not me. So your
efforts here are completely redundant. >>
But this shows that your comments were erroneous. IDers do seem to consider
the middle ear to be IC. Perhaps your argument is that Paul Nelson is not an
ID'er but that would be quite tough a stance.
<<
>>
FMA:
Your comments are a total non sequitor. Why are you assuming that I presumed
you be the same Nelson? I am showing that ID'ers disagree with your notion.
Nelson:
You have shown me one IDer who points to functional complexity. Even if he
did think the inner ear was IC, who says everything Paul Nelson says I have
to agree with?
>>
OK, so I showed you wrong. Just one IDer is enough to counter your claim that
you made above.
[...]
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.
>>
It's hardly irrelevant to Behe.
T<< he mammalian ear had the help of a developmental program.Molecular
machines
do not, they are what evolution uses.
>>
That's amazing, molecular machins and mammalian ear all benefit from a
developmental program.
<< FMA:
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?
Nelson:
Here you go again. It has not been done. You have not shown me not once
single natural pathway to any IC system.
>>
Robison did, Behe agreed but disagreed that this natural pathway could have
happened. We are now awaiting his calculations.
<< Nelson:
Since the 3-bone system is not IC you are arguing a strawman. Since it is at
the phenotypical level it is doubly irrelevant.
>>
FMA:
IC is IC,
Nelson:
Nope, IC had a point to make and that is the point of Behe's thesis.
>>
I made my point it seems. If IC had a point to make and it ignores these
natural pathways to IC systems then what's truely the point of it?
<< FMA:
if you can show that a mousetrap can be built in parts, as has been
shown,
Nelson:
If you can , and you cannot, that says nothing about what nature can do.
>>
Of course it does. It says what it could do, not what it did though. But that
means that Behe actually has to do some hard work to show that in this case
nature did not do it that way.
<< FMA:
then it shows that IC systems can arise naturally. Even if the 3 bone
system is not IC, there are plenty of IC examples.
"There are at least three different ways that an IC system can be produced
by
a series of small modifications: 1)
Improvements become necessities,
Nelson:
Handwave.
>>
Nope, this can be shown to be true.
<<
2) Loss of scaffolding
Nelson:
There is no such thing as "scaffolding" that leads to an IC system.
Scaffolding invokes pure chance and assumes plasticity among the parts of IC
systems. This prediction fails since all the parts of IC systems are
universal.
>>
Scaffolding does not require pure chance, that is an unsupported (pardon the
pun) assertion. Even worse, there are good examples of scaffolding leading to
an IC system. Robison's is one, the arch is another one. Please explain the
plasticity argument and show that scaffolding assumes this
<<
3) Duplication and
divergence.
Nelson:
Gene duplication causes gene silencing, it has never been tested to be able
to make new functions.
>>
Please explain why it causes gene silencing? There is ample evidence that
gene duplication was an important factor in evolution.
http://www.uth.tmc.edu/uth_orgs/pub_affairs/uthouston/oct_95/color.html
http://www.sinauer.com/Titles/Text/graur.html
http://metallo.scripps.edu/PROMISE/BACFRDX.html
http://www.agron.missouri.edu/mnl/69/59uberlacker.html
http://www.biologists.com/JEB/172/01/jeb8532.html
http://usa.biologists.com/Development/120S/01/dev0411.html
http://bioag.byu.edu/zoology/zool610/lecture10.htm
http://evodevo.uoregon.edu/sectiond.html
http://www.grisda.org/reports/or21_91-.htm
http://linum.cofc.edu/biology_links/bio350/latex2html/molecular-evolution.html
http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/hemostasis.html
http://evodevo.uoregon.edu/symposiu.html
<< FMA's quote:
By Behe's definition, many systems we
see around us are IC, and yet have developed gradually. Think of the chaotic
growth of towns into large cities, the self-organizing
forces behind market economies, and the delicate causal webs that define
complex ecosystems. Evolutionary algorithms run on
computers routinely evolve irreducibly complex designs. So given an IC
system, it could either be the product of coordinated
design, or of a gradual, cumulative, stochastic process.
Nelson:
This can be reduced to absurdity. All these systems were made by intelligent
agents with foresight and a goal, even if they were IC they were designed by
intelligent agency, and have absolutely nothing to do with natural selection
of random mutation.
>>
There was no foresight and goal in these examples. Please explain the
foresight and goal in the traveling salesman algorithm. Most evolutionary
algorithms show how one can efficiently evolve functions. No ID required.
<< Nelson:
Not one single example in nature is even mentioned in this entire paragraph.
This confirms everything I have been saying up to this point About IC being
a reliable eliminator of natural processes.
>>
I have shown you examples but more interestingly you conclude from the
absence that there are none. But that is what ID should show.
<<
FMA's article:
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he
concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But
one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built
gradually by adding parts that, while initially just
advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is
very simple. Some part (A) initially does
some job (and not very well, perhaps).
Nelson:
This is the pinnacle of handwaving and "just so" story telling. A does what
job? What is A? What doesn't it do very well? Why doesn't it do it very
well?
>>
It shows that a pathway exists. Sure it is handwaving but it's not more
handwaving than "it could not". Actually it's better since it proposes a
mechanism. Did it actually happen that way? We need to study that for each IC
system. ICness is not a reliable detector anymore/
<< I also was incorrect, it's the middle ear not the inner ear
Wesley wrote:
"It's the impedance-matching function of the mammalian *middle* ear that is
proffered as an example. I saw someone today
saying that it is unnecessary to mammalian hearing. This ignores the fact
that every piece is absolutely necessary to
the impedance-matching function.
Nelson:
This isn't true, as I have stated above, one can remove the entire 3-bone
system and I would still hear when pressure waves hit the oval window.
>>
Notice that the function is "impedance matching" without the bone, the
impedance matching is gone. You are now confusing this with hearing.
<< Wesley:
That function goes away (with about a 30
dB re 1 microbar decrease in sensitivity, or
about 1 / (2^10) the original sensitivity) if any of the parts are
removed.
Nelson:
Mere observation can tell us this is false, the one-bone system of reptiles
make them hear quite well.
>>
Okay, remove the one bone system and what does this for the impedance
matching? So you admit that IC systems can exist that can be reduced to
simpler systems? So where is the end? With that argument you have shown that
IC is meaningless.
<<
Wesely:
The human blood clotting system, one of Behe's
examples of IC systems, is not *necessary* to circulation in much the same
way."
Nelson:
Why can't any one anti-IDist be specific?
>>
Wesley is quite specific. It's ID that is not specific. It makes wide ranging
claims based on the absence of evidence. As I have shown, that makes for poor
science.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 00:33:59 EDT