Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

Pure gobbledegook...

Oops, replied to myself back there... what a prat Now, can you please explain in complete structured sentences what you are trying to say. The big bang is not the place for carbon production, it is in helium burning in stars. That is where our carbon 12 comes from. Now, what has this got to do with anything?

Where are you reading their stated objectives and concerns? The statement they signed has no such information. We are not interested in your assumptions. They are not all PhDs. Nope. E.g., I immediately see that Harvard, RPI, and Brown are not reperesented. And far more non-research and non-teaching fields Interesting. You have no idea whether or not they have performed any valuable scientific service, you have no idea whther their work has anyting to do with evolutionary biology (hint: most of them don't), yet you calim to know what they will do in the future. We don't care what you suspect. You are lying. There are no department heads at Rice (one of the signatories is director of the Rice Space Institute, which is noot a department) and there are not even any faculty members from MIT on the list, much less department heads. (BTW, Walter Brown is living proof that an MIT degree is no proof agains looniness and significant sciwentific error).

Several postes from cave and chiop seemed to be pulling in the formation of carbon in star cores by triple collision processes but such is totally irrelevent to this discussion as evolution is defined as constrained to things that occur at less than fusion temperatures right here on earth.

Yet you brought up the fact that there was no naturalistic origin for carbon. Either the origin of carbon is relevant to the discussion, or it is not relevant to the discussion. Either way, its relevancy or irrelevancy applies to both you and me equally.

FWIW, Richard Forrest classified the current list of signatories' school affiliations in this message (they seem to be essentailly all reputable, with a fair number of Christian colleges) and classified their fields as 2% don't know, 42% irrelevant science, 33% relevant science, and 23% non-science in this message.

I am so content to let you demonstrate the character asassination and
ranting about these people .. it is prima facia evidence of the irrational hostility directed at any scientists who disagree with the true believers on your team. Keep going ... it strengthens our hand.

Any of 100 citations would demonstrate that carbon 14 was not produced in the big bang, occurs now in star cores, is possible only at fusion temperatures and the carbon cycle on earth is hardly dependent on the transport of carbon from stars a billion light years away. Try CO2 CO et al

Actually, there was no character assassination in that post. JonF was merely clarifying the signatories' affiliations and fields. No mention, or even hints, as to those peoples' characters.

Why have you just shifted to Carbon 14??? You were talking about Carbon 12... Do you not know where Carbon 14 comes from?I'll assume you meant carbon 12... yes, carbon 12 is made in stellar cores. Billions of light years away? You really have no knowledge of astrophysics do you? Do you know how big the Galaxy is? Or should I say how small... Au contraire, Blackadder

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)Now throughout the Evo world Behe is given full credit for defining the terms of debate.So I don't think we'll let you redefine the widely accepted definition Irrecuible complexity.Are living systems the subject of evolutionary theory? YesAre all such systems highly dependent on carbon 12 for their existence and functionality?Can the carbon 12 atom be considerd a sub-system of the components which make up living organisms? Yes by any definition of the word system.If all carbon 12 is removed from any life form will it continue to function as living? No, not everIf all carbon 14 is removed from any lifeform can it be shown to function with a substitutionary atom that performs the life tasks sufficiently well as to be declared alive? No not everCan a series of simpler life form systems be demonstrated that build up to a carbonless life form over long time periods? Nope not everThus any and every known life for is dependent on carbon for its existence and function no matter where in its evolutionary development we look and if that system component is removed life ceases always with no possible substitute being even a rational suggestion.Life systems are thus ireducibly complex with regard to carbon.This of course can be falsified in a single morning by demonstrating a noncarbon based lifeform or a life form where removeal of all carbon atoms leave a well functioning and living lifeform.Evopeach

How can the presence of C12 make anything ireducibly complex?From Behe's own definitiion of IC found here

quote:

---

Michael Behe's Original Definition:
A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)

---

it can clearly be seen that for a system to be ireducibly complex, the removal of any one of its subsystems will cause the system to stp functioning.You can't have a system that is ireducably complex with respect to something. For such a thing to be possible would make everything everwhere, ireducably complex by definition since everything relies on something.
Ireducable complexity is by Behe's own definition with respect to everything.Besides, as has already been pointed out, C12 is itself not ireducably complex. You can make it in a reactor quite easily. In fact it is a byproduct of the irradiation of Be9 by a rather complex pathway. (I can probably give you the full path if you like.)In theory you could replace all the C12 with C13 and the system would carry right on.

quote:

---

"a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Michael Behe, Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference)

---

Note the phrase: "removal of any one of the parts". Not "the removal of any particular part".Yet you write:

quote:

---

Life systems are thus ireducibly complex with regard to carbon.

---

"With regard to" implies that it may be possible to remove other parts, just not this part.Life systems are either irreducibly complex, or they are not. They are not "irreducibly complex with regard to" some part or another. Your extra phrasing is, at best, a redundancy; at worst, it shows that you don't understand the concept.

Actually my entire thesis and demonstration are perfectly not just similar to Behe's definition but truly congruent in every respect.No one having read Darwin's Black Box would assume he is talking about removing "one" as in counting one molecule or one atom or one eye since mostly there are more than one. Surely you are not proposing such.... well silliness.Any one means pick from among the components that apparently contribute very distinctly to the living entity and remove it and determine by observation whether the entity remains functional or ceases to function.Please feel free to pick any any living system and then remove all its carbon atoms and see if it can function in any living capacity.Are carbon atoms a suitable subsystem? Of course because in living matter every component has carbon in it because its a cell.Is carbon 12 irreducibly complex of course because if you remove the electrons, protons or neutrons you no longer have a carbon atom. I did not say one electron or whatever, as between isotopes, I said all of any one type of particle whichever.Now we have identified a component ubiquitous throughout each and every living entity, carbon ,which is itself irreducibly complex.It is apparent that the designer used a unique and particular component for creating every form of life and that the component is not reducable itself if it is to continue its function and idenity.Since such systems cannot arise in any steps where carbon is not present in every functioning part and since no substitutionary subsystem has been identified regardless of how much less complex the system may be in consideration of time,place or circumstance then by darwins words the theory is falsified. It cannot be built up from a series of connected evolving entities.

Let me remind you of what you said: Let's consider my pocket watch. Would Behe consider it irreducibly complex? No, because removing the crystal would not interfere with its functioning in any way; in fact, removing the calendar would not interfere with its time keeping function.Yet, if I take out its battery, it would cease to function completely. Is my watch "irreducibly complex respecting its battery"? If you say yes, then you do not understand what irreducibly complex.If I remove all of the iron atoms it will also cease to function, since most of it is composed of iron alloys. Would you say that the watch is "irreducibly complex respecting iron"? If you say yes, then you do not understand what Behe means by irreducibly complex.