Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 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: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 33 (146174)
09-30-2004 4:41 PM


Most think that Stonehenge was constructed by humans. This seems to be a logical conclusion. Recent re-enactments have shown that stone age technology would have been adequate for constructing Stonehenge. However, if this were in the biological realm Behe would claim that we do no know exactly how Stonehenge was built and therefore human construction is in serious doubt. On top of that, I could make the argument that it is improbable that humans of that age were capable of using stone age technology to construct Stonehenge. I call my theory "More Intelligent Design". Of course, staying with this argument, this leads us to only one conclusion: Aliens constructed Stonehenge. The evidence that aliens exist is quite apparent. The evidence is Stonehenge itself.
I am not trying to defend the idea that aliens constructed Stonehenge. Rather, I am showing the holes in Behe's argument. As has been shown by experiments and in theory, evolution is capable of producing IC systems. In order to counter this argument Behe claims that such a route is improbable, but not entirely impossible. Behe claims that it is then MORE probable that IC systems are due an intelligent designer. What is the evidence that the intelligent designer exists? Behe tells us that we need to look no farther than the IC systems themselves.
So in comparing Stonehenge and Irreducible Complexity (IC) the argument is shown for what it is. By arbitrarily deciding that a mechanisms, be it human construction or evolution, is improbable it leads to the conclusion that was already agreed upon, the presence of an intelligent designer other than humans. I say that pulleys and hemp rope are not enough to lift those huge stones. Behe claims that random mutations and natural selection can not result in IC systems. I say that there is no record of humans ever building Stonehenge. Behe claims that there is no record of the observed IC systems coming about due to evolution.
Let's look a little closer. As I stated earlier, stone age technology COULD have been adequate. In fact, given enough time to transport the stones it might have only taken a group of 50 or so men. This is the same with evolution, it also has the tools necessary for constructing IC systems. So what exactly does evolution require to construct an IC system? It needs the capability to create novel proteins, get rid of proteins when they are no longer needed, and the ability to increase or decrease protein specificity. All of these have been observed to happen. Just as humans COULD have constructed Stonehenge, evolution COULD have resulted in IC systems.
So why the jump to an intelligent designer, or in the case of Stonehenge a more intelligent designer? In my opinion, no such jump is warranted. At times Behe says things like "IC systems allow us to suspect intelligent design" which is well within the limits of science. However, jumping to a conclusion that ONLY an intelligent designer is responsible is going beyond the limits of logic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 10-01-2004 1:56 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 4 by jjburklo, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 AM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2004 1:27 AM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 8 by Veldmuis, posted 11-16-2004 11:33 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 33 (146498)
10-01-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
09-30-2004 4:41 PM


Bump
Patiently waiting for Admin approval.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 09-30-2004 4:41 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 3 of 33 (146507)
10-01-2004 2:33 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
jjburklo
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 33 (160000)
11-16-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
09-30-2004 4:41 PM


" So what exactly does evolution require to construct an IC system? It needs the capability to create novel proteins, get rid of proteins when they are no longer needed, and the ability to increase or decrease protein specificity"
Perhaps it is my limited ability to understand, but I don't see how these attributes allow for an IC system. I'll revert to Behe's use of a mouse trap. For it to work all parts are needed from the beginning. If you lack the bar nothing catches the mouse. Now if for the mouse trap's survival it must catch mice then this is a serious problem. Now say the trap has the ability to create the novel structure of the "bar." This would require a novel mutation in its genome to now code for the production of this "bar." The chances of this happening are slim in itself, add to it the fact that this mutation must not harm the trap. Even in a large population these chances are still slim. So without a quick way to produce the "bar" how does it survive? Again, maybe its my limited knowledge and ability to understand. Could you give an example?
While I understand your argument against Behe for assuming only an intelligent designer, I don't see a method from Darwinian evolution that can suit for IC systems. However, I think Behe argues intelligent design from the stance that its either evolution or design. Since he cannot see evolution accounting for IC systems, he assumes design from the lack of another suitable method. I don't think Behe is completely sold on the idea of design, but doesn't see another suitable explanation. I haven't read his book for some time now so maybe I'm wrong, but that was the impression I remember getting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 09-30-2004 4:41 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2004 1:52 AM jjburklo has replied
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 1:07 PM jjburklo has not replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2004 1:47 PM jjburklo has not replied

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


Message 5 of 33 (160010)
11-16-2004 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
09-30-2004 4:41 PM


er. i'm not following.
i don't think your metaphors line up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 09-30-2004 4:41 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 11:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 6 of 33 (160012)
11-16-2004 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by jjburklo
11-16-2004 12:22 AM


evolving a better mousetrap.
I'll revert to Behe's use of a mouse trap. For it to work all parts are needed from the beginning.
the problem is that you're starting with a mousetrap and working backwards. of course if you remove a part, the rest fails. that's not the definition of an "irreducibly complex" system, that's the definition of ANY system.
now, it would be preposterous to assume that a mousetrap evolved. we know man made the mousetrap. but let's use it as an extended analogy. we'll suppose that more successful features get passed on, and there is some benefit to the trap in catchin mices. (or at least dashing them into pieces)
so we'll start with a large rock. mice run under it, and sometimes it rolls over on them, killing the mouse. not a very effective trap per se, but it kills the mouse occasionally. and occasionally is better than never. rocks that are more likely to roll over accidentally do better than stable rocks.
now suppose it eventually develops a catch, so that it doesn't pointlessly roll over. put some kind of a prop under it. think wile e. coyote here. this increases its effectivity, and it doesn't accidentally go off as much, just when a mouse runs under it. these rocks with props under the them are better adapted than the ones without, so more of these get made.
now a way to attract mice would good. so they develop a baiting system. the ones with the bait are more likely to catch mice than the ones without. so more of those get made. the ones with the better bait do better.
mice are pretty fast though. so the ones that start having a form of propellant (spring) on the other side of the rock start doing better and better, replacing the ones before it. the better the spring, the better the trap works and more of them are made.
on a similar theme, the ones that do away with the rock entirely, opting for consistently smaller, faster, and lighter things with which to smash the mouse start doing better than the ones with just the spring.
and of course, the best way to catch more mice is to be where the mice are. so the ones that become portable, with their own bases, do better than the rest.
am i forgetting any parts? that's only sort of a joke. we now have your ic mousetrap, developed through a process very similar to that of evolution. if we take away the spring, it doesn't work. it doesn't work without the catch, or the bar, etc. it doesn't really need the bait or base that much, but we'll count them too. each new part has become somewhat dependent on the sum of the last.
but look, we have examples throughout that are missing LOTS of parts!
I don't see a method from Darwinian evolution that can suit for IC systems.
well, we just made one with darwinian evolution. the sad part of this argument is that it's literally so old that darwin himself addressed it. keep in mind i did that without very many fancy techniques evolution employs on a regular basis. i only scaffolded once.
the even sadder part is that darwiniant evolution PREDICTS these sorts of systems, and is often demonstrated to be the best way to produce them. evolutionary algorithms are used in all kind of designs in engineering. the make the most efficient and interconnected piping plans, and the best wing designs for planes.
there's an old saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. is the chain an ic system? if we have a chain holding two things together, and i remove a link, it ceases to function as a chain that holds things together. yet i can make one with repeated small additions: one link at a time.
now, i'm not assuming that you actually HAVE behe's book. but if you do, turn to pages 38 and 39 and follow along. behe says that no system with subsystems can be ic. you can just reduce it to it's component parts, no problem. everything else just comes from functional additions to the subsystem, or combination of subsystems. ie: nothing with "parts" can be ic.
yet his examples all have subsystems in them. curious.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-16-2004 01:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jjburklo, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 AM jjburklo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Veldmuis, posted 11-16-2004 7:33 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 18 by jjburklo, posted 11-16-2004 6:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Veldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 33 (160035)
11-16-2004 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by arachnophilia
11-16-2004 1:52 AM


Re: evolving a better mousetrap.
So you start out with large rocks.
Then they become round (so they can roll more often).
Then you prop it up in the air with something, which means the previous phase of your "evolving mousetrap" wasn't really necessary, because the rock is standing propped up in the air all day waiting for the mice to come past.
Oops, the mouse detection system doesn't come part & parcel with thing propping it in the air, so you have a bunch of round rocks standing around propped up in the air and doing nothing.
At least the ones rolling around still kill mice occationally, so they get to live happily ever after.
You end up with nothing close to a mousetrap and nothing that is really effective either.
Adding the prop without the detector was actually detremental to the success of the design, although it was a step in the right direction. It's the same with the IC systems that Behe talks about. If you only have half the components assembled, the system will sit there and be very complicated, but utterly useless. I would like to hear an explanation on how a FLAGELLUM got put together in an evolutionary way. If such an explanation can't be given by an intelligent human being who knows what the outcome should be, how can it be that random and unguided events could "invent" such an efficient motor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2004 1:52 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2004 4:02 PM Veldmuis has not replied

  
Veldmuis
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 33 (160082)
11-16-2004 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
09-30-2004 4:41 PM


Whether humans or aliens were responsible for constructing Stonehenge - it implies that intelligence was involved either way, so your analogy has nothing to do with what Behe is saying about IC systems.
Why do we assume that Stonehenge was constructed by intelligent beings? Why do we assume intelligence to be involved whenever we see letters painted on a wall or carved into a cave thousands of years ago? Because the random forces of nature very seldom (if ever) produce anything with a high information content.
Behe focusses on IC systems, but there are numerous other signs of design in the universe - from the exactness of the physical constants in the universe and the priviledged location of the earth in our universe to the complexity of molecular machines and the existence of biological information to Cambrian explosion and our own consciousness itself.
If you make a propper study of any one of these fields you will run into great difficulties trying to explain it in evolutionary terms, so my question is this: Why is evolution accepted so widely if there are no concrete evidence to support it all the way from the Big Bang to the universe as we see it today? Evolutionists have to make excuses for everything from the lack of evidence in the fossil record to the massive odds against the unaided development of one single living cell, saying that more research will give the answers.
But that is what Darwin said about the fossil record - that later findings might support his theory. And today we DO have a lot more fossils to our disposal, but it still lacks what Darwin was hoping for...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 09-30-2004 4:41 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 3:27 PM Veldmuis has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 33 (160089)
11-16-2004 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by arachnophilia
11-16-2004 1:27 AM


quote:
er. i'm not following.
i don't think your metaphors line up.
Stonhenge = IC system
The mechanism proposed for the construction of stonehenge is stone age human construction. If I deem that stone age technology is insufficient to lift those huge stones into place, then I must conclude that another force (ie aliens) did it. This is the same logic that Behe uses, that biological IC systems can not be explained by evolutionary mechanisms, and therefore it HAS TO BE something else. Behe is incorrect, just as the alien hypothesis is incorrect, in the very first step. It is possible for stone age technology, no matter how improbable, to lift large stones. It is also possible for evolution to construct IC systems.
Is that clearer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2004 1:27 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2004 4:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 33 (160099)
11-16-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jjburklo
11-16-2004 12:22 AM


quote:
Perhaps it is my limited ability to understand, but I don't see how these attributes allow for an IC system. I'll revert to Behe's use of a mouse trap. For it to work all parts are needed from the beginning.
For a mousetrap to function as a mousetrap all of the parts need to be present. However, not all of the parts have to be present for there to be function. If all we have is a wooden plank, it can serve as a door stop. If we add a spring, it is now a tie clip. If we add a trigger, it is now a mousetrap.
Such is the same with IC systems found in biology. The bacterial flaggelum, for example, can be broken down into the type III secretory system. Just as the mousetrap, not all of the pieces need to be there in order for the system to have a function. Behe merely looks at the final product and assumes that the structure has always had the same function, something that is obviously not a guarantee.
On top of that, Behe shies away from systems that fossilize. One of the more popular IC systems that can be seen developing in the fossil record is the mammalian middle ear, which I have covered in another thread (look here). As it turns out, the bones that make up the IC system in the mammalian middle ear first started out in the reptillian lower jaw. Functionality was preserved throughout the evolution of this system, both in the jaw and in the middle ear. This one example shows that evolution is capable of producing IC systems.
The problem is that Behe calls such pathways "improbable" even though evolution has been shown to be capable of evolving such systems. Relating this back to my thesis at the beginning, stone age technology has been shown to be capable of producing Stonehenge. Now, if I claim that it is "improbable" that people were able to figure out how to build Stonehenge with what technology they had available, is it then fair to claim that it must have been aliens? Of course not. There is a viable mechanism for producing Stonehenge without invoking the unknown, and in the case of ID vs Evolution the same applies.
quote:
While I understand your argument against Behe for assuming only an intelligent designer, I don't see a method from Darwinian evolution that can suit for IC systems.
If you look at the thread explaining the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, you will see exactly how evolution is able to costruct IC systems. The bones that became the mammalian ear bones were once jaw bones. At one point, these bones served as a joint for the jaw and as sound carriers. The jaw then developed two hinges. One of those hinges was then eliminated allowing two bones to move into the middle ear. It is the addition and removal of functionality that allows IC systems to develop through evolution. Being that we do not have the evolutionary history of the flagellum or other molecular systems we can't definitively give a list of prior functionalities like we can in systems that fossilize. Behe uses this lack of knowledge to insert his intelligent designer, a move that is often called a "God of the Gaps" theory.
quote:
Since he cannot see evolution accounting for IC systems, he assumes design from the lack of another suitable method.
That is the problem. Behe's whole argument is based on what he thinks is possible, an fallacious argument from incredulity. Theories are not based on what an individual thinks is possible or impossible, theories are based on positive evidence. Behe has no positive evidence that the flagellum or any other IC system has always had the same function, has always been made of the same parts, etc. Behe has zero evidence of these IC systems coming about in "one fell swoop" as he likes to assert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jjburklo, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 AM jjburklo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 33 (160118)
11-16-2004 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jjburklo
11-16-2004 12:22 AM


Don't get hung up on the mousetrap
In case you aven't realised Behe's argument is supposed to apply to biology. And Behe specifically applies it to biochemical systems. So careating novel proteins, losing unneeede proteins and increasing and decreasing protein specificity have a lot more to do with Behe's argument than the moustrap - which is only an example of an IC system.
To take building the mousetrap as an analogy for the evolution of a biochemical system is to fall into a cognitive "trap". While it is easy to do so - and Behe himself appears to have fallen into that very trap. It is easy to think of assembling a mousetrap - the step-by-step assembly of ready-made components to produce the intended result. And that is exactly how evolution does not work. Evolution does not assemble components one-by-one to produce a preplanned result. Assembling the mousetrap is not an analogy for evolution. As an illustration of irreducible complexity it is prefectly acceptable but to take it beyond that is a serious mistake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jjburklo, posted 11-16-2004 12:22 AM jjburklo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 11-16-2004 4:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 33 (160148)
11-16-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Veldmuis
11-16-2004 11:33 AM


quote:
Whether humans or aliens were responsible for constructing Stonehenge - it implies that intelligence was involved either way, so your analogy has nothing to do with what Behe is saying about IC systems.
That is a weakness in the way I constructed my argument, I freely admit that. What I am trying to do is relate observed mechanisms to unobserved mechanisms. We directly know what tools and technology were available to stone age man. However, we don't know exactly how they built Stonehenge. In the same vein, we have observed evolution and what it is capable of at the molecular level but we do not have a direct record of this happening in the past through the fossil record. So, I decide that Stonehenge is beyond the capabilities of certain observations, in this case the capabilities of stone age man (and women too). Instead of relying on other observations, I jump straight to the unobserved influences of an alien race. Behe makes the same jumps in his argument. Even when evolution is shown to be capable of producing IC systems, Behe claims that these pathways are either "improbable" or "just so stories". He then jumps to the unobsered, an intelligent designer that worked outside of human influence. When asked for evidence of a designer, Behe points to the design. I do the same thing for aliens; aliens exist because Stonehenge exists. I have used Behe's logic to "prove" that aliens exist.
quote:
Why do we assume that Stonehenge was constructed by intelligent beings?
Because we can observe humans building monuments. It is not assumed, it is supported by observations. I might ask you why you think humans designed Stonehenge. If you stick with ID, it might well be aliens or a deity that built Stonehenge, not men.
quote:
Why do we assume intelligence to be involved whenever we see letters painted on a wall or carved into a cave thousands of years ago? Because the random forces of nature very seldom (if ever) produce anything with a high information content.
Exactly, because natural phenomena can not make cave drawings. We do know that nature can produce sculptures out of condensed water (faces in clouds) or make faces in rock (the face on Mars or other naturally produced faces) but these lack the refinement of observed human design. Applying this to biology, we have a naturally occuring mechanism that can and does result in biological design. This mechanism is evolution. At a molecular level, mutations cause changes in protein activity, specificity, and structure. Mutations also can remove proteins that are no longer needed, just like scaffolding that may have been needed to construct Stonehenge. Mutations, and subsequent natural selection, can result in IC systems. Now, we don't know for sure if evolution did or didn't result in the designs we see, but just like stone age man and Stonehenge, evolution is capable of constructing these systems.
quote:
Behe focusses on IC systems, but there are numerous other signs of design in the universe - from the exactness of the physical constants in the universe and the priviledged location of the earth in our universe to the complexity of molecular machines and the existence of biological information to Cambrian explosion and our own consciousness itself.
Behe is asking the wrong question. He is, in a way, showing how perfectly the coffee fits the coffee mug. He is arguing that if the coffee had to be designed in order to fit the inside of the coffee mug when in fact natural laws force the coffee to fit the mug. In the same way, evolution forces life to specifically adapt to the conditions it finds itself in. Life adapted to the Earth, not the other way around.
quote:
If you make a propper study of any one of these fields you will run into great difficulties trying to explain it in evolutionary terms, so my question is this: Why is evolution accepted so widely if there are no concrete evidence to support it all the way from the Big Bang to the universe as we see it today?
Evolution didn't start with the Big Bang. Evolution starts with the first reproducing life. This is why Darwin called his book Origin of Species instead of Origin of Life and the Cosmos. Evolution is a theory that describes how life changed, not how life came about.
quote:
Evolutionists have to make excuses for everything from the lack of evidence in the fossil record to the massive odds against the unaided development of one single living cell, saying that more research will give the answers.
So should we throw our hands up in the air and say "Goddidit" and stop all research?
As to fossils, we may be lacking important fossils, but the ones we have now all point to evolution. In a previous post I linked to another thread that dealt with the development of the IC system of the mammalian middle ear. The fossil record supports the evolution of mammals from reptiles quite well, with nothing contradicting this interpretation. We may not have all the answers, but we have a ton of answers so far and they all point to evolution.
quote:
But that is what Darwin said about the fossil record - that later findings might support his theory. And today we DO have a lot more fossils to our disposal, but it still lacks what Darwin was hoping for...
Actually, quite the obvious. We have a lot of fossils now and they all point to evolution. Darwin himself said that the fossil record is not complete and that we will never have a fossil history of every species that ever lived. This is expected since fossilization is a rare event, fossils are being destroyed through subduction, and some fossils can not be reached for examination because they are buried under miles of water or dirt. All of the positive evidence, the actual fossils we do have, all fit into the theory of evolution. This is what Darwin expected and it has stayed true for 150 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Veldmuis, posted 11-16-2004 11:33 AM Veldmuis has not replied

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


Message 13 of 33 (160162)
11-16-2004 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Veldmuis
11-16-2004 7:33 AM


Re: evolving a better mousetrap.
Then you prop it up in the air with something, which means the previous phase of your "evolving mousetrap" wasn't really necessary, because the rock is standing propped up in the air all day waiting for the mice to come past.
no, you missed it. the prop comes from an extention of the bit the rock is balanced on in the first place. it's not a replacement for the balanced rock, but a more effective alteration of its shape.
Oops, the mouse detection system doesn't come part & parcel with thing propping it in the air, so you have a bunch of round rocks standing around propped up in the air and doing nothing.
until a mouse hits the prop. then the rock falls, and kills the mouse. the more sensitive props, and the ones more likely to get dislodged by the mouse are more likely to succeed.
At least the ones rolling around still kill mice occationally, so they get to live happily ever after.
not exactly. the ones with props ONLY roll over when a mouse hits runs into the prop. the ones without fall over at random intervals. so the ones with props are far more likely to catch mice than the ones that go off randomly. since we've decided that there is something beneficial about catching mice, and the ones with props are more likely to catch mice instead of going off accindentally like the ones with out, we'll get more and more props and less and less precariously balanced rocks.
Adding the prop without the detector was actually detremental to the success of the design, although it was a step in the right direction.
in this case, the catch and the detector are one piece, as in a good portion of modern mousetraps. the mouse hits the prop, triggering its own death. granted, this is not the most effective detection device, but i gaurantee you that you've seen equally as simple trapping devices, if only in saturday morning cartoons. it's better than nothing, and better than less, and that's all that matters.
It's the same with the IC systems that Behe talks about.
actually, it's not. we've had one goal in this demonstration: catching mice. what if the original function was to make a loud noise? in biology, functions CHANGE. behe neglects to address this.
If you only have half the components assembled, the system will sit there and be very complicated, but utterly useless.
well, of course it will. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. you take ANYTHING apart and it doesn't work.
the problem is that that doesn't mean it ALWAYS had all of those parts. evolution means that various parts come to rely on other parts they didn't originally need. for instance, the rock didn't originally need the prop, as you pointed out. but when we added the spring, it did. and when we remove the rock entirely, the catch and the spring no longer without each other. but did it need the catch? did it need the spring? no. it didn't need EITHER. they came to rely on each other.
I would like to hear an explanation on how a FLAGELLUM got put together in an evolutionary way.
ask behe, i suspect he knows and isn't admitting. you see, like i said, behe freely admits that anything with subsystems cannot be ic (page 38 or 39. go read it.) because you can just reduce it to the subsystems.
in this case, i'm removing everything but the secretory system. look at that, it works: as a secretory system. do a little thinking, and see how this relates to the first part of the post.
If such an explanation can't be given by an intelligent human being who knows what the outcome should be, how can it be that random and unguided events could "invent" such an efficient motor?
you sing the praises of rotary flagellum very well. but they're NOT that efficient. a propellor with lifting surfaces (ala bernouli) wold be FAR more efficient. or even a screw prop would work better.
and if you've ever seen a documentary on how babies are made, you'll notice that flagellum are not very efficient at propelling much anything, and sometimes don't work very well at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Veldmuis, posted 11-16-2004 7:33 AM Veldmuis has not replied

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


Message 14 of 33 (160165)
11-16-2004 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
11-16-2004 1:47 PM


Re: Don't get hung up on the mousetrap
So careating novel proteins, losing unneeede proteins and increasing and decreasing protein specificity have a lot more to do with Behe's argument than the moustrap - which is only an example of an IC system.
no, behe's full of it anyways. and i would argue that a mousetrap is no more or less ic than any system, and that i can kill a mouse with far less parts.
It is easy to think of assembling a mousetrap - the step-by-step assembly of ready-made components to produce the intended result. And that is exactly how evolution does not work. Evolution does not assemble components one-by-one to produce a preplanned result. Assembling the mousetrap is not an analogy for evolution.
exactly. although i do not agree with your next statement. i think whole concept of ic is bunk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2004 1:47 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 11-16-2004 4:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

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


Message 15 of 33 (160167)
11-16-2004 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Loudmouth
11-16-2004 11:57 AM


Is that clearer?
no, not at all. you're mixing metaphors. human design for natural occurance, aliens for god.
behe also has reached a logical conclusion, albeit a wrong one. his flawed logic is at least a little better than arguments from incredulity, like the one you are proposing. they are both wrong in the same step, yes. but arguments are not the same.
oh, and as a side note, i saw this show on the discovery channel a little while ago about raising egyptian monoliths. scientists have been baffled for years as to how the egyptians did it, and some crackpots have argued that it must mean that aliens did it. but the program showed a bunch of college kids raising one with a kite.
so even if science LEGITIMATELY doesn't know the answer (unlike evolution and "ic") it is still possible that we haven't thought ot every mechanism there is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 11-16-2004 11:57 AM Loudmouth 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