Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins

This is old stuff. At the Dover "ID" trial Behe admitted that there were no known IC mechanisms that could not be explained.There was a thread discussing the trial that had links to the transcripts and quotes from it.Also see (Dr) Ken Miller's website:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/AcidTest.htmlAnd Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

quote:

---

... the definition Michael Behe used when he made the term up ("Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." - p 39):

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.

The conclusion made by Behe and others is that IF evolution cannot produce them, THEN they must have been made, designed, created.

---

How did this arch form by natural processes:

quote:

---

The Bridge of Ross is situated in County Clare in the west of Ireland. Photo by Ray Millar.

---

Is that a clue maybe? Then he is telling you falsehoods. Mutations can add nucleotides so there is no limit. Every time the limit for the existing number of nucleotides is reached you can add another base pair and start again. ... not likely to bear any relationship to reality. Especially when they are calculated by someone feeding you false information on how many possibilities there are ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So selection of some BRAND NEW traits involved compromise on some others. Is this a problem? If we consider this in the context of natural selection instead of artificial, then the selection FOR the trait will mean it has net benefit to the organism that compensates for the loss in the compromised element. Start with this precept: The concept of information (increase\decrease\whatever) either does not apply to evolutionary systems OR the concept that it cannot increase is invalidated.http://EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments -->EvC Forum: Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experimentsEnjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's the argument from incredulity (a logical fallacy):

if it looks designed, how can you possibly believe it isn't designed???

​

Coupled with the "all {A} is {B} ... {B}!!! ... therefore {A}" logical fallacy:

​

And if it IS designed then there MUST be a designer!!!(wets self)

​

IDians ("ID christians" - in case there is any other kind) pride themselves on their grasp of logic.

​

Enjoy.

​

Edited by RAZD, : i

​

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Is that why the straw man argument is so common?

and a relativistic welcome for me, wall-on-the-fly, Actually we can use this argument as a basis for another: if we can determine design solely from the object with no context, then we should be able to detect design where we don't know whether there was a designer or not.Thus we should be able to develop a technique that can distinguish the design of DNA and test it with known modified plants and animals and bacteria.Enjoy.ps - if you haven't figured it out yet, type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Exactly, and this also talks to ONE well known element of design when done by humans -- horizontal transfer into different lineages. One car gets a feature that is popular and next year all similar cars have that feature. Good design is spread across "species" suddenly in a manner that would disrupt phylogenetic trees.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Doesn't matter. Change is also not taken from one individual and then inserted into another, or retrofitted, the way it can be with human designed cars (options for radios for instance).The point is that in known design we see this transfer occur horizontally from first development in one instance to other design lineages that have no previous developmental record of that design.We do NOT see any such design transfer from one species (or variety) where it first occurred horizontally (ie not by hereditary descent) from that first development into other species (or varieties)that have no previous developmental record of that design.There is no copying of design without heredity and common descent.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Horizontal gene transfer would be one way design was transfered from one hereditary lineage {A} to another {B} without the second needing to evolve the trait.To qualify as a design transfer you would need to show that it resulted in the same trait in lineage {B} as occurred in {A} at the level of the phenotype, ie - it would need to be expressed.Thus a horizontal transfer of the genetics necessary for a flagellum to appear in a previously non-flagellum species would qualify.The question is: is there a mechanism for ID to operate? I'd say there are a number of mechanisms that could be possibilities (mosquitos, germs, cancers, etc), but none of them show use.And if we can only demonstrate such transferal in bacteria and the like, then that will tell us where the designer is interested ...Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, :

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.