Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bacterial flagellum
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 59 (109685)
05-21-2004 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by riVeRraT
05-21-2004 8:10 AM


quote:
Hmm, then is the flagellum using ions, or electric pulses?
Ions. Electricity is the movement of electrons. The flagella used charged, whole atoms instead of single electrons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 05-21-2004 8:10 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 59 (113807)
06-09-2004 8:04 AM


since i happen to have behe's book on hand at the moment, page 38 says, down at the bottom, the following.
quote:
Hitching's argument is vulnerable because he mistakes an integrated system of systems for a single system, and Dawkins rightly points out the seperability of of the components
in other words, an irreducibly complex system has to have no subsystems, but be entirely integrated and co-dependent.
from the kenneth miller v. michael behe debate:
quote:
We start with a [] fifty part bacterial flagellum, we take away forty of the parts, and what that does is it leaves just ten parts behind. [] Those ten parts ought to be non-functional by [Behe’s] definition of irreducible complexity. But it turns out [] that they are not. Those ten parts turn out to form the type three secretory system.
oops.
behe's reply is relatively weak, he restates his new definition of irreducible complexity as meaning that the overall function of the designated system fails. ...well, duh. of course it does.
but parts aiding subsystems can be build upon subsystems until a new, full system evolves, with a seperate purpose. sometimes, this original subsystem will even become unneccessary, and be removed.
everything contains subsystems, down to the molecular level.
sorry behe, you point out your own flaw.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-09-2004 07:05 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 12:43 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 59 (114455)
06-11-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
06-09-2004 8:04 AM


I will post this here also. This refutes what Arachno is saying about IC and subsystems:
What Behe really says-
"The key misleading assertion in the article is the following: Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function. In other words, opponents of design want to assert that if the individual parts of a putatively IC structure can be used for anything at all other than their role in the system under consideration, then the system itself is not IC. So, for example, Kenneth Miller has seriously argued that a part of a mousetrap could be used as a paperweight, so not even a mousetrap is IC. Now, anything that has mass could be used as a paperweight. Thus by Miller’s tendentious reasoning any part of any system at all has a separate function. Presto! There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.
That’s what often happens when people who are adamantly opposed to an idea publicize their own definitions of its key terms--the terms are manipulated to wage a PR battle. The evident purpose of Miller and others is to make the concept of IC so brittle that it easily crumbles. However, they are building a straw man. I never wrote that individual parts of an IC system couldn’t be used for any other purpose. (That would be silly--who would ever claim that a part of a mousetrap couldn’t be used as a paperweight, or a decoration, or a blunt weapon?) Quite the opposite, I clearly wrote in Darwin’s Black Box that even if the individual parts had their own functions, that still does not account for the irreducible complexity of the system. In fact, it would most likely exacerbate the problem, as I stated when considering whether parts lying around a garage could be used to make a mousetrap without intelligent intervention."
Without evidence your rhetoric pertaining to IC is very empty...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2004 8:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 06-12-2004 3:59 AM John Paul has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 59 of 59 (114632)
06-12-2004 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by John Paul
06-11-2004 12:43 PM


hi.
read the quotes.
behe points out that any argument pertaining to irreducibility of an "integrated system of systems" is vulernable to attack. that's what i'm doing. his systems have subsystems.
i'm not saying its parts have other uses, but that systems contained within them function on their own without other parts being required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 12:43 PM John Paul 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