Irreduceable Complexity

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Of course they can but the stories sound so ridiculous that the've hardly been recorded yet. You show me the paper that tells us step by step how anyparticular biochemical system could have evolved. These papers do not exist. No-one is even trying.

---

Utterly, utterly irrelevant.How can you tell a naturally occurring from a non-naturally occurring object?If you cannot answer this question, ID is finished.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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).

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

When is a fairy story not a fairy story any more?And what makes an untested hypothesis a fairy story anyhow?Logic suggests that if we remove something (or replace a part
with something else) we may get a 'system' which has a different
set of emergent properties than the one we started with.At the 'system' level, the outcome is not a simple combination
of the parts, because we have features of the 'system' which
are only of relevence at the level of the 'system'.If we can, by substititions and deletions obtain some different
'system' from an existing one, then by substitutions and
additions we can get back again (barring hysterisis I guess).What IC seems to be saying to me is 'I cannot imagine a route,
but I haven't looked that hard at all of the possibilities.'That's an argument from incredulity.Discounting alternative function outright is just being stubborn Of course, alternative function poses a bigger problem in the
context if ID, which may be why its rejected.If a part of 'design' is 'intended use', then a function developing
from different functions refutes 'intent' ... and is an indicator
against design.... fairy story I guess ... but many fairy stories and myths do
have a basis in fact (even Noah's flood ... but that's another
story )

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:
Mark et al

​

IC suggests non-natural, hence design.

---

I've already asked this, but I'll ask it here in isolation ::Does having a working anything, which will not work without
one part, automatically mean that there is no incremental
process that could have lead to it?I mean, my car won't run without it's engine manaement ECU, but that
doesn't mean cars have always had them.

PeterMy trinity analogies go further than you think:Sun, moon and stars are what we all can observe in the heavens. The sun (Father) as source, the moon (Son) as a reflection (daily) & perfect cover (eclipse) and stars as a multiplication (HS).DNA (Father) as source, RNA (Son) as messenger and proteins (HS) as multiplication/manifestation.Light is 3 in 1: green (emerald throne of Father in Revelations), red (blood of Christ) and blue (water of HS) and white all together.

To allIC is not a binary result - 'it is a degree of ICness'. It is not a QED.IMO Behe is saying that if evoltuion were true the tell-tale signs of where biochemical systems came from would be evident. They are not. Go read Behe and he will take you through a half dozen examples of well known biochemical systems which have parts that 'have come out of thin air'.It is the same as the hundreds of small molecule metabolic patheways of Ecoli. Regardless of reuse of proteins within genomes the proteins within the pathways are mostly unrelated to each other - they come out of thin air. Very little reuse of proteins was found within a pathway when substrate binding properties would have got a dupliated protein in the right place straight away. And there are still hundreds of proteins with no paralogs in the genome. The sorts of things that even a creationist can imagine working for evoltuion hasn't actually occurred.What has occurred is called 'mosaic evoltuion' in the literature. I translate that as 'out of thin air creation'.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-31-2002]

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

Tell me about it John.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Peter

​

My trinity analogies go further than you think:

​

Sun, moon and stars are what we all can observe in the heavens. The sun (Father) as source, the moon (Son) as a reflection (daily) & perfect cover (eclipse) and stars as a multiplication (HS).[/QUOTE]

​

Except there are also meteors and comets, too.

​

[QUOTE]Light is 3 in 1: green (emerald throne of Father in Revelations), red (blood of Christ) and blue (water of HS) and white all together.[/B]

---

Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.Aren't all of these colors in the visible spectrum, not just 3?And what about ultraviolet and infrared? These light frequencies exist, but the human eye cannot detect them.Also, white is what all five wavelenths are viewed together. It's not separate.

sorry, double post.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-31-2002]

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

I don't go for over nuttiness on scriptual numerology but I do actually believe the triples I spoke of are signatures of the Biblical God. The use of numbers in the Bile is also clearly used consistently thoughout (12 = authority, 40 = testing etc).

SchrafRed, green, blue are the primary colors of light (as opposed to paint for example). Go look at your picture tube - white is made from three pixels of red/blue/green.