|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Irreducable complexity eh...
From:
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html "Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required. The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from the beginning" is dead wrong. It's worth noting that our scenario is neither hypothetical nor confined to the often irretrievable world of biological history. Indeed it's a common experience among computer programmers. Anyone who programs knows how easy it is to write yourself into a corner: a change one makes because it improves efficiency may become, after further changes, indispensable. Improvements might be made one line of code at a time and, at all stages, the program does its job. But, by the end, all the lines may be required. This programming analogy captures another important point: If I were to hand you the final program, it's entirely possible that you would not be able to reconstruct its history-that this line was added last and that, in a previous version, some other line sat between these two. Indeed, because the very act of revising a program has a way of wiping out clues to its history, it may be impossible to reconstruct the path taken. Similarly, we have noguarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway. But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution any more than the irreducible complexity of a program does-which is to say, not at all. I wish I could claim credit for this Darwinian model of irreducible complexity, but I'm afraid I've been scooped by eighty years. This scenario was first hinted at by the geneticist H.J. Muller in 1918 and worked out in some detail in 1939 Indeed, Muller gives reasons for thinking that genes which at first improved function will routinely become essential parts of a pathway. So the gradual evolution of irreducibly complex systems is not only possible, it's expected. For those who aren't biologists, let me assure you that I haven't dug up the half-baked lucubrations of some obscure amateur. Muller, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1946, was a giant in evolution and genetics." ROTFLMAO Did " Behe forget to do some reading?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Thats kind of the point bud given that evolution accounts for IC (and has done since 1939) we don`t need to falsify IC, in fact we expect to see it as the result of evolution which makes Behe`s assertions even more amusing, he claims something that has been predicted by evolution for the last 60 or so years is a falsification of evolution. From
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/br21.6/orr.html "I wish I could claim credit for this Darwinian model of irreducible complexity, but I'm afraid I've been scooped by eighty years. This scenario was first hinted at by the geneticist H. J. Muller in 1918 and worked out in some detail in 1939 Indeed, Muller gives reasons for thinking that genes which at first improved function will routinely become essential parts of a pathway. So the gradual evolution of irreducibly complex systems is not only possible, it's expected. For those who aren't biologists, let me assure you that I haven't dug up the half-baked lucubrations of some obscure amateur. Muller, awarded the Nobel Prize in 1946, was a giant in evolution and genetics." [This message has been edited by joz, 02-04-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
To put it bluntly the work that refutes Behe`s arguments centered on IC for a designer was published about 60 years before Darwins black box by a nobel prize winner.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Agreed Mark he is a tosser, but for the americans out there who don`t know what a tosser is it is the vernacular for masturbator.... P.S he is also a git......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Sounds like a poorly researched hypothesis to me....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Not quite Hom. sap. hasn`t been around long enough to diversify (at least not into new species)...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Um bud Hom. sap. (i.e. homo sapiens) is human.....
So asking if hom. sap. has been around to become human is a bit of a silly question.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Ok lets take the example of humans and orcs from Tolkiens books First there were humans then some big evil git (either Morgoth or Sauron can`t remember which) took some men and "twisted" them to form orcs IOW he *designed* orcs and took some material, men, and made them.... So if to form a new species takes design (as in Tolkiens work) how is it a valid argument to claim that because there is no such speciation of humans there must be design.... Surely in the (rather unlikely) case that Tolkiens work is a highly accurate portrayl of how speciation occurs the opposite conclusion would be far more logical..... (added by edit having thought about it some more I think Tolkien had orcs created fom elves and trolls from humans or something like that.... The basic proceedure remains the same though.) [This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Ever noticed that aboriginal peoples of regions with very strong direct sunlight tend to have darker skin? The fact is there are morphological differences between the human populations of geographical areas, your average Watusi looks quite different from your average caucasian.... When you say indians do you mean dots or feathers (or even west)? There were several variations from the start.... one word for you neanderthal (or homo hablis for that matter)......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024