Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 2 of 223 (85043)
02-10-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Loudmouth
02-10-2004 12:55 PM


Overall, Behe's argument that irreducibly complex (IC) systems can not evolve is refuted by this one example.
Actually, the beauty of the whole IC argument is that all you've proven is that this one example isn't irreducibly complex. ICers can keep making new lists of IC systems, and you'll have to shoot them all down one by one...ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Loudmouth, posted 02-10-2004 12:55 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 02-10-2004 1:34 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 4 by ThingsChange, posted 02-10-2004 1:42 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 5 of 223 (85051)
02-10-2004 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Loudmouth
02-10-2004 1:34 PM


Actually, the beauty of Behe's argument is that NO irreducibly complex system could have evolved.
Well, this is true, but what if the system you are describing simply isn't irreducibly complex.
Am I missing something in the definition of an IC system that forces those middle ear bones to be irreducibly complex? If it were me, I'd just say that one system isn't IC, since it clearly evolved, and I'd move on to the next thing that others can't explain.
The poster of message 4 (can't remember who now) said that creationists (although Behe's not a standard creationist) would try to suggest this evolution didn't happen. Ok. Seems easier to write this one off and move to the next one.
I'm not an ICer, and I haven't studied it that much. I was sort of playing with that post. What's the definition of an IC system to Behe. If it had been me, I would have left the definition to "those systems that couldn't have evolved," and it would have been self-perpetuating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Loudmouth, posted 02-10-2004 1:34 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 02-10-2004 3:26 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 7 by ThingsChange, posted 02-10-2004 3:33 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 10 of 223 (85112)
02-10-2004 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Loudmouth
02-10-2004 3:26 PM


An IC system is such that if you remove one of the parts the system no longer works. With the middle ear, if you remove one of the middle ear bones the result is deafness. Hence, the mammalian middle ear is irreducibly complex.
Hmm. Okay, he looks hung to me. Good point.
I tried. My failure would bother me a lot more if I believed in IC in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Loudmouth, posted 02-10-2004 3:26 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024