Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

A major problem is that irreducible complexity (IC) as defined is flawed from the start. It excludes anything but single, gradual steps ( a mistaken view of what evolution calls for). It excludes, for one, thing the possiblity of co-option of a structure from some other use.It excludes the idea of "scaffolding". The analogy given for this is a stone arch. This fits the definition of IC. Remove a stone and bang! down it falls. You can NOT build an arch one stone at a time if that is all you have.You can however, build an arch with scafolding to hold it up until the cornerstone is in place. One biological example of this is the evolution of the mammalian jaw. It had to go through a step with both reptilian AND mamamalian structures (as scafolding).So IC as given to date is a useless idea. It is simply meaningless.Once you allow for the possibility of different pathways to an end point (only two of which are co option and scaffolding) I don't see that anyone can come up with any, even wildly speculative possibilities.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-26-2006 01:13 AM

quote:

---

We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10(8) generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10(9).

---

If the 10(8), 10(9) are exponentials then I think the numbers are beyond "moderately large". A billion of a mammal is a LOT! Is that what that means?

If you had read any of the books by the IDists you would know that this, too, is utterly wrong!In fact, something rather simple can meet the definitions of IC that are given.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-27-2006 08:40 PM

Ramos, one little note. I think it is apparent that Inkorrect thinks that "irreducibly complex" means "really, very complex". He doesn't appear to have a clue about what concept is being discussed when IC is used.It's not going to be easy for him to supply a way to measure the quantity of complexity when he hasn't a well-formed idea of what it is.

I agree that your definition of IC is correct. It is Inkorrect who is posting terms that he doesn't know the definition of; or at least it appers that way.I'm not sure that one issue has been specifically pointed out:You can take a working system and by removing parts make it, finally, IC. That means there is a path to IC that doesn't involve adding the Nth part to build it up but by removing the N+1th part to make it IC while it still works. There are, of course, examples of this in biological evolution.So being IC doesn't, as I think Behe suggests it does, say anything significant about the correctness of evolutionary theory.

Possibly. It also may do function A with N+n parts and eventually evolve to do function A with only N parts.As I recall the early pre-mammal jaw did it's function with two hinges at one point. Then it reduced to one.

Once upon a time. That is very rusty now. Why? Is there some relevance?

If Behe had made any strong points you'd think they would be presented as an opening post to a thread here wouldn't you?All we seem to see from the ID folks is one of:
1) very poorly done probabilitiy calculations
2) claming IC (pretty much by definition) can't evolve
3) using god of the gaps arguments and general incredulity.Do you have anything else?