Irreduceable Complexity

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Actually, you can remove the base of a mousetrap & nail it to the floor, & it still functions as a mousetrap (SLPx pointed this out, I believe). So the mousetrap isn't IC

​

Mark

​

---

To make things worse for IC, the various parts don't even have to work as mouse catching devises. The base could be a small door, for example.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If you can't see the folly of trying to argue that there isn't design evident in nature that strongly argues for God then that's just fine and dandy with me. It just saddens me, that's all.

---

Well, TB, then answer this : For which God does it argue?You see, TB, I made my way to my current beliefs not by asking does God exist but by asking WHICH god is the right one. Believing in the wrong God is surely as bad as believing in no God. I've spent most of my life on this quesstion. What I realized is that there is no way to chose between the options.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that.

---

That's a lot of certainty for someone with no evidence. Mark is right, TB. If you cannot distinguish designed from naturally occurring, IC is sunk. So far, you haven't even attempted such a thing.Then we'll move right along to the other tenants you cannot defend....

quote:

---

The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.

---

Behe, mighty slayer of straw men, so very desperately needs a clue.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark et al

​

IC suggests non-natural, hence design.

---

ummmm..... this is not an answer. This is not evidence. It isn't even an argument, just a definition. I don't think anyone will argue about the definition, but is it an accurate description of the universe? Where is the IC? And how would we know it if we found it?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
When we see systems which require a minimum number of components that is IC and that is evidence of design.

---

How do we know that a system requires a minimum number of components? And then, how do we know that the existing system isn't a modification of another system which performed a different task? Creationists seem to ignore that systems can change function-- that lungs can serve as air bladders, that feet can serve as flippers.....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ At the moelcular level it is harder to make up such fairy stories. That is why Behe et al think the case is so strong - not even the fairy stories exist there - let alone the evidence for non-IC or alternative use!

---

Molecules cannot have alternative uses?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I agree with mark24 on this.

​

What you seem to be saying is that IC supports ID.

​

But we cannot be sure that anything IS IC, becuase we have
not sufficiently investigated supposed IC in that context.

​

That makes IC and argument from incredulity in my book.

​

Also::

​

Take a component from a working artifact, such that it
no longer works means the artifact is IC ...

​

but doesn't that pre-suppose purpose ?

​

Suppose we have an object that, should we remove one component, we cannot use it for its original purpose, but it can be used for
some other purpose.

​

Does that invalidate IC as an argument for design ?

​

I'm thinking of a simple spear at this point. Take away
the shaft and your left with a knife, take away the point
and you are left with a staff.

​

They are in the same class of object (waepons) but serve
radically different functions in use (knife for stabbing,
staff for bludgeoning, spear for throwing).

---

ahem..... I think these would be fairy-stories....

quote:

---

in the words of the prophet (that would be Tranquility Base)At the moelcular level it is harder to make up such fairy stories. That is why Behe et al think the case is so strong - not even the fairy stories exist there - let alone the evidence for non-IC or alternative use!

---

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I think the inability to argue with the points you've made is the reason TB pushes molecular biology so hard. The field is sufficiently new and complicated that questions can be posed that may not be answerable for twenty years. In the meantime, those questions can be trumpeted as not answerable. Halleluyah!!!!!------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
My trinity analogies go further than you think:

---

TB, are you at all familiar with the Jewish Kabbalah? Not the modern new-age-ie watered down versions but the older stuff?off topic, but I'm curious.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Tell me about it John.

---

Gee... that is going to be hard, but I'll try.The Kabbalah is a branch of Jewish mysticism based on analysis of scripture-- Torah, Talmud, Pentatuach, etc. It is superficially like the 'bible code' theories, but really there is no comparison. The analysis' are lengthy and sometimes quite odd, but strangely enough what results is a remarkable metaphysical picture of the universe. Your 'triples' vaguely reminded me of some portions of it. For modern presentations I recommend anything by Aryeh Kaplin.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
TB,

​

Fot the xxth time,

​

How can you tell a naturally occurring from a non-naturally occurring object?

​

Mark

​

---

Frustragulating init it?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark

​

I thought I had answered this - sorry. If the system is IC then my first assumption is that it is designed. Like I said earlier, IC systems could potentially be natural but as IC seems to be a systematic feature of life I lean on the other view (). And, yes, ICness is not digital - something might look fairly IC or extremely IC. I personally believe that all of the cellular systems of life are designed and that natural selction has simply optimzed some of these for altered circumstances via point mutations. This belief is well supported but I can't prove it.

---

You still have not answered the question. Assuming Chemical X which you believe to be IC, how do we test it? How do we know that it is IC and not merely too complex for us to describe with current knowledge? Until you can answer this, IC is dead in the water.How? TB How?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
This going to get circular. First you have to KNOW that something is IC. How do you do that with out a god-of-the-gaps-argument-from-incredulity?

---

Yeah, what he said!------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozambu:
Man, i'm talking about gradualism.

---

It is not clear that you were talking about gradualism.And you do seem to be moving the goalposts, mostly via manipulating definitions. For example, defining gradual evolution as taking place over thousands of years is deceptive. The important factor is generations, not years. Some bacteria go through several generations per hour while the aspen pine apparently, by some estimates anyway, hasn't had a new generation since the last ice age.

quote:

---

There are many observed examples of speciation in Drosophila, for example, through the founder flush effect.

---

And? This is the result of reproductive isolation. Why does this not qualify?

quote:

---

But there is no empirical evidence that speciation is the accumulation of microevolutionary change through time.

---

The founder effect depends upon variation, yes? And that variation is due to imperfect genetic transmission-- mutation-- which, since genes are transmitted generation to generation, must accumulate over time.

quote:

---

Many scientists say that before speciation there is a period of "stasis" followed by a period of quick speciation. This is what the fossil record shows.

---

Ok.

quote:

---

I doubt that evolution is a darwinian process.

---

The alternative being.... ? If you are arguing against strict Darwinism you are wasting your time. The ToE is now significantly different from Darwins model.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 01-09-2003]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Satcomm:
John:

​

Thanks for clearing up the definition somewhat, according to the scientific community.

​

---

Don't confuse me with the scientific community. No one person can take that role. This fact is often forgotten. I do my best to be accurate. That is all.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com