|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The sole function of the entire middle ear system is sound wave transfer. The parts of the mammalian middle ear are the malleus, stapes, and incus. This refutes Behe because this IC system was gradually formed via evolutionary mechanisms over millions of years. Behe must now show how his IC systems formed by an intelligent designer came about in one fell swoop. Saying evolutionary pathways are lacking with respect to IC systems is now in doubt with the evidence of an IC system forming through evolutionary mechanisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Hagemann factor (in blood clotting) is listed as an irreducible part of the clotting cascade by Behe. It is not found in dolphins or porpoises and yet their blood clots just fine. A boo-boo for Behe. From here:
KM = Kenneth Miller, MB = Michael Behe KM:. . .Let's look at the clotting pathway, this is the way in which blood clots, you call this the Rube Goldberg in the blood, great stuff, and the clotting pathway is extremely complex. It produces a clot around the red blood cell, and what you wrote is, in your book is that none of the cascade proteins, these proteins, are used for anything except controlling the formation of clots, that's very clear. Yet, in the absence of any of the components blood does not clot and the system fails. Now here's the, the hard part for me. Remember you said, in the absence of any of the components, blood does not clot and the system fails. One of those components that you've talked about is called factor 12 or Hagemann factor, and you'd think, if we take it away, the system should fail, so there shouldn't be any living organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, but it turns out, uh, lo and behold, that there are some organisms that are missing Hagemann factor, I've crossed them off up there, and those organisms turn out to be, dolphins and porpoises, they don't have, um, I assume that statement therefore is incorrect and has to be changed? MB:Well, first of all let me express my condolences for the dolphins. Umm...[laughter] KM:You don't have to have to do condolences they do fine. That's my point. It's the theory of irreducible complexity that needs condolences at this point, [laughter/ applause] because that's what's happening. [This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-09-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Behe's definition of IC does not exclude macroscopic IC systems. It is not analogy, it is direct evidence. Instead of dodging this IC system, why don't you confront it. Show me how removing one of the parts of the middle ear will not result in the loss of sound wave transmission from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Just so we all are clear on what we are arguing about, here are some pictures of both the reptilian and mammalian middle ear configurations.
Reptilian:
The stapes alone is responsible for the transfer of sound from the outer tympanum to the oval window. The quadrate and articular are part of the jaw. Sound is also transfered through these jaw bones, but independent of the outer tympanum. Mammalian:
The quadrate and articular have now become the incus and the quadrate has become the malleus. These two bones have disassociated from the jaw and inserted themselves between the stapes and the outer tympanum. These three bones form an IC systems whose function is to transfer sound waves from the outer tympanum to the oval window of the inner ear. Similar co-aptation is considered possible but inadequate for evolutionary pathways, according to Behe. This example shows how co-aptation CAN AND IS used as an evolutionary pathway. Also, even though the lower jaw is losing both the articular and the quadrate, the jaw never loses function and is adequate both for prey capture and mastication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
quote: Furthermore, can any ID theorist show me any direct evidence of a designer's "mark", so to speak, on any mechanism, process, or organism? A simple, "Made From God" sticker will do, thanks. Seriously, I just can't understand the logic (or lack thereof) of the ID theorists. How can any ID supporter claim their argument is NOT an appeal to ignorance/god of the gaps? The burden of proof has always rested upon the IDers to show the existence and possible mechanism of ID, which to the present is still wishful thinking. Why do they continue to believe that since not all evolutionary events can explain the existence of every living organism, it therefore gives credence to ID? If not "X", then "Y" has not and will never be a logical scenario unless evidence supports "Y" in the first place. Give me positive, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence that godidit to the bacterial flagella ("Y"), and I'll give it a thought. As it stands, it simply can't get past the hypothetical stage. So honestly, why waste any more time with it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1392 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Behe says:
quote:I thought this was the entire 'irreducible complexity' issue here. Making assumptions about the developmental pathway (or lack thereof) involved in creating a current system can't rule out this type of co-aption. Why should it matter whether the resulting system ends up being 'IC' or not? Behe so much as admits this with his scoffing example of the pieces for a mousetrap lying around in your garage. Of course popsicle sticks and darning needles, etc., aren't going to assemble themselves into a mousetrap, but in the micro-garage, things seem to have the ability to do just that! Just because we can't easily determine what function these components served prior to being parts in the current system, that doesn't give us the right to assume that they couldn't have had any selectable function in a precursor system. Behe claims:quote:But, in the magic micro-factory, the mitochondria 'motors' evolved somewehere else and then mounted themselves on the bikes to create the eukaryotic motorbikes we see today. The entire eukaryotic cell itself might not meet Behe's 'IC' definition, and it doesn't have to. This sort of thing happens at the subcellular level. We can't ignore these types of processes when we're discussing developmental pathways, regardless of whether we're dealing with an 'IC' system or not. regards,Esteban 'IC Loudmouth's Underpants' Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Easy. First, the customer likes the addition of a battery powered headlight. The customer then likes the improvement of a front wheeled powered magneto for supplying power to the headlight. Larger and larger magnetos supply larger and larger headlights. Then it is discovered that by applying power to the magneto, it can run in the opposite direction and power the bicycle. However, the magneto is very poor at this. Better and better mangetos, and eventually electrical engines are created to power the bicycle. Then it is found that instead of charging the battery every night, why not use a small gas powered generator to supply the battery. Then it is found that large gas powered generators are able to power the bicycle all by themselves. In this analogy, the movement towards a power system starts with a front wheel powered headlight bicycle and ends with a gas powered motorcycle. Therefore, we can go from a bicycle to a motorcycle. of course this analogy lacks one thing. It is irrelevant how machines are designed since they are not subject to natural selection mechanisms BECAUSE THEY DO NOT REPRODUCE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Well now we have disagreement among the anti-Behe crowd. NosyNed says the system under consideration is the whole hearing system, but you are limiting it to just the middle ear ossicles. Again, before any claims about what is and isn't IC can be made and supported/rejected we must agree on what the system is. Only makes sense, doesn't it?
quote: Behe does rule out macroscopic biological systems from being IC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: No. What is being CLAIMED is that a system which SUPPOSEDLY meets Behe's definition of IC can and did evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: No, it hasn't been. There's more to demonstrating that a system is IC according to Behe than just identifying the system (which still hasn't been nailed down by the anti-Behe crowd) and identifying its function (which also has not been nailed down - even you listed multiple functions for the ossicles). [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-09-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: But you also said:
quote: So what exactly are you claiming to be the function of the middle ear?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: No, it doesn't refute Behe unless you can show that the system is actually IC according to Behe. Your simply stating over and over that it's IC doesn't make it IC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
No, it doesn't refute Behe unless you can show that the system is actually IC according to Behe. Your simply stating over and over that it's IC doesn't make it IC.
Are you saying that if one part of the middle ear is missing it still functions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Behe does exclude macroscopic biological systems — such as organs and organ systems - from being IC.
quote: Yes, it is.
quote: Why don’t you? Why don’t you lay out your argument that shows that the ossicles form an IC system according to Behe’s statements? If you get all of the anti-Behe crowd here to agree on what the system under consideration actually is, and what its function actually is, then we can proceed with the analysis.
quote: I don’t need to. I’m not claiming that such would not happen. My claim is that the middle ear is not IC according to Behe, so it is irrelevant whether removing parts causes loss of function.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: No, I'm not saying that. I am saying that it is IRRELEVANT whether or not loss of function occurs when one of the ossicles is removed because the system is not IC according to Behe's statements. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-09-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024