Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

quote:

---

BTW MrH, Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, Galileo et al. also saw the universe and life as the product of a Creator. I guess their science was incorrect....

---

Their science was correct because they used methodological naturalism. They did not insert the need for an unobserved designer anywhere in their theories. While they may have believed in God, their findings and theories did not require the existence of God.

True, but irrelevant to radioisotope dating (and making that statement is evidence of a lack of knowledge of dating), and off-topic for this thread. Care to discuss it at Distinguishing Pb from Pb????

John Paul,If 'all of knowledge shows us' that IC only arises through design, why is it that an IC system like the mammalian middle ear seems to derive in quite a striking fashion from a precursor system in our reptilian ancestors? Are you arguing that the system is not really IC, that it didn't evolve from any precursors, or that modern mammals themselves did not evolve from earlier species?You've allowed yourself to assume (excuse me, infer) that certain phenomena in nature (CSI or IC or whatever) can only arise by design, only because you assume that anything displaying these phenomena are the products of design. Circular reasoning may be irreducibly complex as well, but that doesn't make it valid. I'd say proving your car was designed is a lot easier than proving that the mammalian inner ear was designed, but you don't seem to have to offer proof when your assumption will suffice.The difference between Newton (et. al.) and Behe is that none of Newton's physics depended on supernatural intervention or the existence of a designer. I don't want to turn this into a debate about the religious beliefs of famous scientists: I just want to point out that whether or not one believes in God, physics is equally comprehensible. Not so with intelligent design creationism, which assumes that a 'designer' is a more plausible explanation for biological complexity than currently verifiable natural processes.Thanks for telling us how gullible we are for trusting in verifiable, testable mechanisms instead of pretend designers and unverifiable agents.regards,
Esteban "Deus ex Machina" Hambre

Of course, the classic and oft-repeated (in many different systems and manners) experiment that shows that mutations are random with respect to need is the Luria & Delbruck Fluctuation Test. It's been pretty solidly proven that mutations are random, not the result of some pre-programmed ability.

As has been pointed out this is not an answer which refutes dating methods. You also should note that I did suggest appropriate threads. If there isn't an existing one you can start your own.If you think the above is enough you might just learn a lot about dating.added by edit:
JonF has been good enough to start the thread for you.
Message 1[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-05-2004]

quote:

---

If you have the book (Noah's Ark:A Feasibility Study) you don't need me.

---

Well, I find the book quite lacking in specifics.Are you sure you don't want to tell me why the book is right?

quote:

---

We would use the design explanatory filter as a starting point.

---

Can you give a step-by-step example of a as-yet not understood system which has been determined by this filter to be ID?

quote:

---

If what comes out is a design inference then that is our starting assumption- that the object of our observation was the preoduct of ID.

---

What I don't understand is how it is that this assumption can ever be made, because there could always be the possibility that we just haven't developed the technology to understand the system yet, or perhaps we just haven't thought of how it could be a natural system even though it is, or that we will never, ever be smart enough to figure it out.Just because we aren't smart enough to figure out how a system is natural doesn't mean that a God did anythin.It just means we don't know.How can you know for sure?

quote:

---

Then research would either support or falsify that inference. To falsify ID all that needs to be done is to show that purely natural processes is all that is required to produce that object.

---

But what if we just can never figure it out?Not knowing how something works isn't positive evidence for anything.

quote:

---

So far no one has shown that purely natural processes can account for CSI/ SC or IC.

---

But a lack of evidence for something is not evidence FOR anything.It just means that we don't know.Oh, and IC systems have certainly been shown to come about by natural processes.Ever seen a stone arch?

quote:

---

Ya see we INFER an IDer by the observable data.

---

No, you don't.You conclude ID from a lack of evidence.Big, big, big difference.

quote:

---

Overall, Behe's argument that irreducibly complex (IC) systems can not evolve is refuted by this one example.

---

Nope, doesn't even touch Behe's argument since the ossicles don't form an IC system. If someone is going to refute Behe, they need to stick to systems that meet Behe's criteria.

As I understand it with the nylon-eating-bacteria expt.
not ALL of the individual cells adapt to eat nylon (correct
if wrong).What happens is, that over a number of generataions, only
those that CAN eat the 'food' available survive. i.e. some
don't change and die.If a mechanism is involved surely all of the individuals
would have it, and that they don't suggests that there is
no such mechanism, or that it does not work in some individuals.Either way there is a random element involved.Perhaps placing the same bacteria on some other 'food'
source could clear it up .... after all if there is an
adaptive mechanism it would be strange for it to only
work on nylon ...

Which ossicle can you remove without 'breaking'
the vibration transmission function?

For the benefit of all of us frickin' retards, this is Michael Behe's original definition of 'irreducible complexity':

quote:

---

A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)

---

This mere description certainly applies to the mammalian inner ear, and the human heart, and various other biological systems big and small. His words wouldn't have generated any controversy if Behe had not claimed that such a system could not have evolved by "numerous, successive, slight modifications."

quote:

---

An irreducibly complex system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.(ibid.)

---

These are two completely different claims: the one that asserts that certain systems require all their parts to function, and the one that asserts that this requirement can't result from any Darwinian variation-selection process. His second claim would be much more plausible if in fact Behe could offer an example of any biological system (IC or otherwise) that developed by non-Darwinian means, but I think his reliance on the mousetrap tells us how realistic his assertion is.regards,
Esteban "Double Standard" Hambre

quote:

---

Nope, doesn't even touch Behe's argument since the ossicles don't form an IC system.

---

Yes it does. Remove one part and the whole system (hearing in this case) stops working.

quote:

---

If someone is going to refute Behe, they need to stick to systems that meet Behe's criteria.

---

The middle ear meets his criteria. What Behe really needs is an IC system with a fossil record showing how it did not change over time. With biomolecular systems, he needs to show how these systems came together in one fell swoop. Since he nor anyone else can do this, it makes more sense to look at IC systems that have a record going back millions of years, that is skeletal IC systems. However, these systems show slight modification over millions of years, a far cry from Behe's hypothesized "one fell swoop" or a quick jump up Mt. Improbable.

quote:

---

Yes it does. Remove one part and the whole system (hearing in this case) stops working.

---

The function of the ossicles is hearing? Really? That's news to me.If someone is going to claim that a given system meets Behe's definition of IC, one of the first things he/she must do is identify the function of the proposed system. So, what is it? (And no, it's not hearing: the ossicles alone do not produce hearing).PS: I don't know why people don't stick to the systems Behe mentioned in his book: supposedly, he's been refuted on them.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-08-2004]

No, they do not but they are part of an IC system which does. If one of them is removed or damaged the hearing is affected or gone. My daughter has exactly this problem. She has profound hearing loss because one of the ossicles is malformed. It is througly disengenuous to suggest that because more is needed that the ossicles are not necessary for hearing.You seem to think that this doesn't meet the supplied definition that Behe supplied. How does it not in some detail please?