Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

well, then i might go so far as to say that my computer was not intelligently designed. it sure isn't that efficent.although, if the claim is that an ultimate intelligence designed something, well, it better damn well be a good design, yes. biological systems.... just aren't. i don't see the connection either. and the fact that compluters with evolutionary algorithms routinely evolve "irreducibly complex" systems kind of cuts the argument off at its feet. so you remove a part, and the system fails, or serves another purpose. so what?that, and judging from that article before, behe's argument of complexity fails gloriously. my car is an irreducibly complex system, right? well, if i remove the transmission and the engine, it doesn't go. it does however roll down a hill quite well. the wheels also function fine on their own.i was however, waiting for miller to pull out this argument, instead of his mousetrap argument: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Mousetraps.html a good point. i always like the "well that's the way god designed us, how are we to understand him?" argument which people are bound to give in return.from the earlier post: evolution says no such thing. and no, logically, it is not. also, as pointed out, the fundamental assumption that ic systems cannot evolve is indeed false.

....what?

i picked up a copy of "Darwin's Black Box" at the library. and along with it a copy of "the blind watchmaker" and "the origin of species"i'm writing an english paper on the subject, since we may choose any controversial subject we wish. i'm suprised to note that behe doesn't seem to have much problem at all with gross "macroevolutionary" changes.he even refutes the eye and beetle arguments very early on, by quoting dawkins, of all people, in context. he states that dawkins hasn't really made his case (which any rational reader can see is a ludicrous assertion) and then lets the point go.what he has a problem with is the development of the parts. the actual photo-sensitive cells of the eye for instance.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-07-2004 06:46 AM

i seriously do not mean this as an insult, and frankly it probably only make me look stupid, but...i don't understand a single thing you say.i used to think i spoke english.

nope, still lost.what are you trying to say?

alright, i give up. do you have any clue?

oh jesus, just what i need right now. i can barely convery my own thoughts in a coherent matter.all nighters, english papers on biology, and writing literary criticism of books you hate for 15 some odd pages really drains one of coherence. as this post probably illustrates.