|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreduceable Complexity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Are you saying that something can be 'a bit irreducibly complex' ? Does that make any sense at all?
quote: Why would they be 'evident'? It's taken years of research to even find out that theyexist in the first place, so why assume that an incremental development scheme (which few are actually looking for on a case by case basis) would have been found yet? Everything you have said so far, in my opinion, supports theview of IC as argument from incredulity. In the systems with 'parts out of thin air' ... are the'parts' the irreducibly complex sub-systems?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I mentioned comets and asteroids too, but the answer seems
to be that it doesn't matter about them 'cause we don't see 'em all the time, and they don't fit into a trinity red, green, and blue are the primary colours of light,though. All the other colours are a mix. if two or more in varying proportions/intensities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I'm sure if you look hard enough, and manipulate the
scenario enough that you can find threes in anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
monkenstick Inactive Member |
quote: If you're talking about bacterial genomes, and it seems you are, haven't you ignored lateral gene transfer? Lateral Gene Transfer actually has a very large impact on bacterial genomes, its the primary reason for the mosaic like phylogenies of bacteria.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Arachnophile Inactive Member |
"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'."
Behe made the famous statement that "There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems." (Darwin's Black Box, page 179). The following webpage proves him wrong, wouldn't you say? Publish or Perish: Some Published Works on
Biochemical Evolution "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." I wouldn't say that millions upon milliones of years of evolution is "out of thin air". The problem with ID believers seems to be a lack of the abillity to understand the power of continual evolution through all those years. The Arachnophile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Hi Arachno
You are all missing the point that Behe made. If you read his book you'll see that he acknowledges that there are tens of 1000s of papers on molecular evolution but almost none of them deal with the origin of genuinely novel proteins and systems. Evolutionists track homologous genes - they'll study supposed duplicaiton events (Haemoglobins etc) and they'll study well founded horizontal transfer. But there is almost no literature on (i) the origin of genuinely new protien families and (ii) the origin of actual subsytems - descibing which proteins first appeared, where from, how they could do the job alone etc. There might be 10 papers on Medline which could be said to cover this area! Almost everyone who says they study evoltuion either (i) studies microevotluion or (ii) studies homoologies that just as well could be the signature of a common designer. Almost no-one actually answers the quesiton of where the things that dont have precursors came from. I'll check out the abstracts on that site and give you a professional opinion ASAP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5893 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi TB:
You've been on about the protein family thing as being a falsification of evolution and support for ID for awhile now. I'm not really sure I follow your reasoning. Could you elucidate a bit? Since the requirement is (apparently) that novel protein families are necessary for the differentiation of various taxa (and consequently their absence is indicative of the barrier to macroevolution), can you indicate which specific "families" distinguish, f'rinstance, arthropods from chordates? What happens to your theory when families are seen across taxa? Wouldn't that be an indication that the taxa are related somehow? Anyway, I'd appreciate a fuller explanation of the barrier you've postulated (now that I have some time to actually respond to you ). Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Quetz,
Welcome back! Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
TB,
Fot the xxth time, How can you tell a naturally occurring from a non-naturally occurring object? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Frustragulating init it? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Or fives... Or sevens... Or any other "special" number you want to ascribe meaning to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: 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? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Yeah, what he said! ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024