Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

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

We are glad that you chose to join us.

---

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.

If Irreducible complexity does not exist, then it should be easy for you and me to invent them. Why have we not done that?

quote:

---

If Irreducible complexity does not exist, then it should be easy for you and me to invent them.

---

Just like God!

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Not necessarily God. It can be a Computer programmer, Chemical Engineer, ARchitect or even an alien from Moon.

DDPThis message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2006-02-12 05:45 PM

inkorrect It does not follow that just because irreducible complexity does not exist that it is thereby easy to accomplish. Perhaps you could explain why this would be the case?

It seems to me that NosyNed's example below satisfies Behe's description of irreducible complexity: If you pull any single piece of the arch out, it collapses. The arch cannot stand without every existing component remaining in place.So we have a designer, and a designed structure that cannot function without every bit of the design remaining in place.Doesn't this satisfy your question about why we haven't invented irreducible complexity? We most certainly have. What this invention of irreducible complexity demonstrates is that a current state of irreducible complexity does not require that the structure be magicked into existence complete.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-12-2006 07:47 PM

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Very interesting. How can you deny irreducible complexity? I do not understand. Alright, if we had irreducible complexity will this be possible?

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.??

I am shocked as well as surprised how could a biologist who has studied at least graduate level can deny the complexity of the cell?Oversimplifying such complex systems do not take us anywhere except to fulfil our egos. There is double talk. When we talk about complexities in life which we do not even understand, they are simplified. When we talk about simple reactions that do not occur, we are told that they are not Science.

I am shocked as well as surprised how could a biologist who has studied at least graduate level can deny the complexity of the cell?Oversimplifying such complex systems do not take us anywhere except to fulfil our egos. There is double talk. When we talk about complexities in life which we do not even understand, they are simplified. When we talk about simple reactions that do not occur, we are told that they are not Science.

I'm shocked as well as surprised, how could anyone trying to argue for ID so totally fail to comprehend the difference between 'complexity' and 'irreducible complexity'.Come to that I'm shocked by the woeful lack of reading comprehension that somehow led you to in any way take from what Ramoss wrote that cells were not complex or that any oversimplification was being practiced.TTFN,WK

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'?