Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

Actually, if you look at it, the arugment about 'irreducably complex' is just an attack on evolution, and does nto promote an 'intelligent designer'. Aside from that, the bacteria flagellum has been shown to be reducibly complex anyway. There are a number of articles on that (some of which that even came out before 'Darwin's black box' was published).Other than personal incredibility, Behe was not able to explain WHY an 'irreducibly complex' structure demonstrates 'an intelligent designer'. There are paths that can happen by purely evolutionary means that could theoritically produce an irreducibly complex system. HOwever, every example of 'irreducibly complex' that Behe proposed has been shown to be reducible.

I will point out that EVERY example that Behe has ever used for "Irreducibly complex" has not been shown to be "Irreducibly complex". This is not just some. This is ALL. This included the Bacterial Flagulum, that is still being waved as an example of "IC" by the 'Intelligent design' camp.

Well, maybe it is possible.However, none of the examples that the Intellgent Design proponents have
propsed to be 'irreducibly complex' have been shown to be 'Irreducibly complex'.Every time a new system is proposed, it has been shown not to be within just a couple of years (and sometimes even before the claim went out, if the I.D. proponents had bothered to read the scientific journals).So, if the evolutionary path is not known for a specific system, how can it be demonstrated to be 'irreducibly complex' rather that just a currently unknown pathway. So far, every claim has not been backed up. How can you demonstrate any specific system is 'Irreducilby complex'.Further more, let us assume that "irreducibly complex' does exist. Why can't an irreducibly complex structure evolve naturally, by having the excess items removed later on by natural selection? Can you demonstrate that IF an irreducible complex system is created, how that is evidence FOR I.D.??

Then, you will be able to describe which system is Irreducibly complex, and what experiments have been conducted to prove it is irreducibly complex.If the system you claim is Irredicuibly complex, and it can be demonstrated that it isn't, does that falsify the concept of 'irredicibuly complex'?

What does complexity vs simplicity have to do with what I said? Your response was a non-sequitor.I specificalliy asked on how to tell if somethign was "irreducibly complex", and why does I.C. means there is an intelligent designer.Can you answer the question? Or are you going to come back with another avoidance.This message has been edited by ramoss, 03-11-2006 05:12 PMThis message has been edited by ramoss, 03-11-2006 05:14 PM

That shows Behe is at least more honest and realistic than Dembski. He is, however, still very very wrong. Behe DiD try to use the scientific method. Dembski trys to redefine things to make them work.

Just so we can be on the same page then, could you please answer the following questions.1) How do you measure complexity?2) How do you test to make sure something is 'irreducibly complex'?3) How does something being 'irreducible complex' show evidence of a
designer?

I figure.. but until those questions can be answered, then, it isn't even remotely science.Of course, those questions are not able to be answered by any ID propoents either. If they could be, they wouldn't be fudging around my making up new 'laws' such as the 'Law of conservation of information' (which doesn't seem to have any evidence for it what so ever)

How did this complexity come about.Genetic varation followed by natural selection.

And how do you reach that conclusion? What is the basis for it? It seems your logic is "It's complex, I can't understand it, therefore god"

And now does that invalid what I said? It can be shown with computer simuations that random variation followed by a filter of selection can produce very complicated forms. In the case of biology, the 'random variation' is to a large extent mutation, and the filter is natural selection.No 'intelligence' is needed.

Well, there is not theory that is fully accepted for biogenesis (which is not evolution BTW. Evolution does not care about how life began, but rather the change of allees in a population over time). However, there are some very good work being done on how it might have occured.For example, did you know that amino acids assemble into protiens on quartz face crystals.. and that amino acids form naturally in the kind of atmosphere that earth had before life began?

I agree.The abilty of amino acids to self asemble is 1 raised to 42, or 100, or whatever.Of course, what you wrote is not what you meant. And what you meant is totally incorrect anyway.

In response to the claim that amino acids can not spontanitously form protiensHere is a presentation on how amino acids can align on quartz crystals to form protiens. http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/public_lectures...ppt downloadThis eliminates the fantastic odds is claimed for the formation of proteins. Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened URL length to fix page width - The Queen