Behe's Irreducible Complexity Is Refuted

A couple of things:
1) Your souce, Behe, does not, (correct me if I'm wrong) disagree with billions of years. Do you mean he is not credible in this area?2)If you think it is a fallacy then why not show what is wrong with dating on one of the appropriate threads. It seems this is important since if you don't agree with something as clear as that further arguments are not going to go anywhere. It seems that creationists frequently make these littel dating comments but never are able to defend them.

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]

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?

Are you saying, actually saying, that you don't know what the ossicles do?

The ossicles act as a transmission device between the motion of the eardrum and the oval window of the inner ear. They can both amplify the sound and, if it is too loud, attenuate it.The hearing system is a complex enough system that it has some reasonably distinct subsystems. If an overall system has some subsystem that is IC then the overall system is also IC is it not?If that is true we can consider the whole hearing system as the system under consideration. (in fact, thinking about it that isn't really relevant - the hearing system as a whole, without considering subsystems at all is IC since removing an ossicle makes it fail) If any part of it is removed it doesn't work. In particular if one of the ossicles is removed it doesn't work at all. Does that meet Behe's definition of IC? If not why not?

Could you explain your reasoning here in more detail please?What is being shown is that a system which meets Behe's definition of IC can and did evolve. Therefore it is no longer enough for Behe to say that something is IC to show that it can't evolve. He now has to exhaustively show why a particular system can not evolve. There is nothing about the system itself that demonstrates that it can't evolve.

Are you saying that if one part of the middle ear is missing it still functions?

Is this definition the Hambre gave earliy correct?

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)

---

How is the middle ear not IC? What would it have to be like to be IC if you think it is not?

No, I don't agree on "the" function. That is being a bit silly. The ossicle perform more than one necessary function. If the hearing would not work without those functions why is one of them 'the' function? Why even worry about it actually?The ossicles perform amplification, attenuation, transmission and impdedance matching. I suppose if one of them is "the" function it would be transmission. If amplification, attenuation or impdendence matching weren't working some volumes of some frequencies would still be heard. If transmission isn't working there is no hearing (or at least very, very little).But for now, for the sake of argument, ok, 'the' function is whatever you want it to be.

Ok it is transmission. With an ossicle removed the hearing remaining by bone conduction is so very minimal that the individual is deaf.added by editI don't think there would be any amplification with an ossicle removed. The middle ear is air filled. I'd bet that there would be effectively no vibration transmitted through the air to the fluid of the middle ear.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-10-2004]

Not if we use the original, simple sounding definition of Behe's.Now it seems that IC systems can only be biochemical. Let me try to rephrase what the defnition of IC systems are that you want to use. Please correct it for me.An irreducibly complex system is a biochemical system at the lowest possible chemical level that we are able to proble in which the removal of any one chemical component causes that system to fail to function completely.If this is what we are talking about then, by definition, the ossicle are not BIC (biochemically IC ).Now since biochemical evolution may, or may not, be harder to trace Behe has, as has been pointed out, no evidence for the nature of it's evolution at all. It may also be true, or may not, that the evolutionary theorists have no evidence either.That leaves us with nothing to hang our hats on.I understand that many, if not all of Behe's original BIC systems have been shown to be evolvable. Is that true?Are there any new suggestions for non-evolvable BIC systems? Do any of these have any evidence to show that they are, in fact, non-evolvable since some of those original BIC systems that were claimed to be non-evolvable were incorrectly designated as such?Of course, if we do find a non-evolvable BIC system(though I don't know how we would know), all that does is suggest we need to figure out additional evolutionary mechanisms that may allow for the evolution of these systems.These additional mechanisms may be a minor modification of what we understand the ToE to be or may be a major shake up. They do not force a leap to a sentient designer.The reason Behe gets to the designer so fast is that is where he wanted to go in the first place. It does not follow from the lack of evidence he has so far.

I'd be tempted to argue that we do have access to the alleles since they show up in the phenotypes.However, I agree that things can be oversimplified. But I don't see more in Behe's definition of IC (other than restricting it to biochemical systems). Is there more to it?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-11-2004]

but: These two quotes are contradictory. Note especially the emphasis in the first. If Behe determined it to be IC then no parts can be removed without it ceasing to function. But if a part can be removed it is shown to have been miscast as IC.(We have, of course, already noted that IC systems can evolve even if they met Behe's definition in all ways.)It would also be helpful to refer to an example that Behe agrees meets all these various criteria. Which I note have now gone beyound IC. In other words, it is not as you started out to say that IC can't be simplied to a single sentence, you do that again above. It is that there is more criteria added on to make a system one that is to be considered.By the way, I'm not at all sure that we understand what "system" means or is. I've been through this problem before when doing design work (or rather meta-design). A system is a form of abstraction that can be considered at any one of a number of levels.An earlier discussion of yours had Behe moving down to strictly biochemical systems. Why then does he use a mousetrap as an aid to understanding when it is, by definition, outside of what he is considering.We need now to consider an few examples perhaps.

I can not understand a mousetrap without drilling down to a lower level than the parts mentioned. If I thought I could I would be mistified when a mousetrap with inadequate friction between some of the parts would fail to 'set' correctly.It is beginning to seem that Behe is being rather arbitrary in just what meets which criteria.If we do take a mousetrap as being IC then, of course, it has been shown that a conventional mousetrap can operate without all the parts. This doesn't mean that taking one part of an existing mousetrap leaves it working. It is just that a mousetrap can exist and work with out all the current parts but with different arrangements and forms of the parts left.It does appear that it is difficult or impossible to even determine what is actually IC. The definition seems to be about as sharp as the edge of a cloud.

Oh, i see, now we find that the cilium isn't IC either. It does get harder and harder to follow just what he is talking about. Perhaps someone has the book and can give the quotes from Behe's book where he makes this distinction between the cilium and the "core" clear. I hadn't heard it expressed that way before.Are there some other examples of IC systems that aren't but that do contain an IC core? What part of the clotting mechanism is IC then?