Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 76 of 304 (281638)
01-26-2006 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by kavli
01-25-2006 12:05 PM


Irreducible complexity and evolution
Like you stated above, many of the organisms that he used as examples of irreducible complexity have since been found to be ”reducible.’ However, I do not think that invalidates his point”if there are other organisms to be found that are indeed irreducibly complex, how could this not be an argument for intelligent design?
A major problem is that irreducible complexity (IC) as defined is flawed from the start. It excludes anything but single, gradual steps ( a mistaken view of what evolution calls for). It excludes, for one, thing the possiblity of co-option of a structure from some other use.
It excludes the idea of "scaffolding". The analogy given for this is a stone arch. This fits the definition of IC. Remove a stone and bang! down it falls. You can NOT build an arch one stone at a time if that is all you have.
You can however, build an arch with scafolding to hold it up until the cornerstone is in place. One biological example of this is the evolution of the mammalian jaw. It had to go through a step with both reptilian AND mamamalian structures (as scafolding).
So IC as given to date is a useless idea. It is simply meaningless.
Once you allow for the possibility of different pathways to an end point (only two of which are co option and scaffolding) I don't see that anyone can come up with any, even wildly speculative possibilities.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-26-2006 01:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by kavli, posted 01-25-2006 12:05 PM kavli has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 104 of 304 (295514)
03-15-2006 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Wounded King
03-15-2006 4:44 AM


Behe wrong?
quote:
We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10(8) generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10(9).
If the 10(8), 10(9) are exponentials then I think the numbers are beyond "moderately large". A billion of a mammal is a LOT! Is that what that means?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2006 4:44 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Wounded King, posted 03-15-2006 11:48 AM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 113 of 304 (307201)
04-27-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by inkorrekt
04-27-2006 8:38 PM


What IC is and isn't.
.I will say this again. Irreducible complexity is the superlative expression of complexity.
If you had read any of the books by the IDists you would know that this, too, is utterly wrong!
In fact, something rather simple can meet the definitions of IC that are given.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-27-2006 08:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by inkorrekt, posted 04-27-2006 8:38 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by inkorrekt, posted 04-30-2006 5:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 122 of 304 (308462)
05-02-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by ramoss
05-02-2006 10:57 AM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
Ramos, one little note. I think it is apparent that Inkorrect thinks that "irreducibly complex" means "really, very complex". He doesn't appear to have a clue about what concept is being discussed when IC is used.
It's not going to be easy for him to supply a way to measure the quantity of complexity when he hasn't a well-formed idea of what it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ramoss, posted 05-02-2006 10:57 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ramoss, posted 05-02-2006 11:36 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 125 by jaywill, posted 05-05-2006 3:08 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 127 of 304 (309519)
05-05-2006 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jaywill
05-05-2006 3:08 PM


Real real complex
I agree that your definition of IC is correct. It is Inkorrect who is posting terms that he doesn't know the definition of; or at least it appers that way.
I'm not sure that one issue has been specifically pointed out:
You can take a working system and by removing parts make it, finally, IC. That means there is a path to IC that doesn't involve adding the Nth part to build it up but by removing the N+1th part to make it IC while it still works. There are, of course, examples of this in biological evolution.
So being IC doesn't, as I think Behe suggests it does, say anything significant about the correctness of evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jaywill, posted 05-05-2006 3:08 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 05-06-2006 12:01 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 131 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 11:33 AM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 132 of 304 (309646)
05-06-2006 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by jaywill
05-06-2006 11:33 AM


N+1
Do you mean N parts cause the system to do one function A and N+1 parts cause it to do (in addition) another function B? So then by removing N+1 the system still performs function A?
Possibly. It also may do function A with N+n parts and eventually evolve to do function A with only N parts.
As I recall the early pre-mammal jaw did it's function with two hinges at one point. Then it reduced to one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 11:33 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 12:45 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 135 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 12:52 PM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 138 of 304 (309687)
05-06-2006 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by jaywill
05-06-2006 12:52 PM


Software guy
Once upon a time. That is very rusty now. Why? Is there some relevance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 12:52 PM jaywill has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9007
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 139 of 304 (309690)
05-06-2006 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jaywill
05-06-2006 12:49 PM


Refuted pointes
If Behe had made any strong points you'd think they would be presented as an opening post to a thread here wouldn't you?
All we seem to see from the ID folks is one of:
1) very poorly done probabilitiy calculations
2) claming IC (pretty much by definition) can't evolve
3) using god of the gaps arguments and general incredulity.
Do you have anything else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 12:49 PM jaywill 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