Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it possible to identify the parts of a system objectively?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 8 of 12 (486230)
10-17-2008 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by BVZ
10-16-2008 4:35 AM


Apparently not. For instance the flagellum is classified either in terms of proteins or three larger units ("motor", "hook" and "whip" IIRC). Behe wasn't clear in his book, and readers tended to assume that he meant proteins. Dembski's worthless probability calculation was also protein-based. Yet Behe insists that he meant the larger units.
And that isn't the end of the problems with that definition.
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system
The bolded clause was inserted to rule out explanations involving a change of function by fiat. Which is cheating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by BVZ, posted 10-16-2008 4:35 AM BVZ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by BVZ, posted 10-20-2008 5:09 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024