1) Scientific theories are not supported by "intuition", but by evidence.
quote:
There's as much evidence for ID as for evolution.
First of all, you have changed the subject. Your point was that a "fair minded" peron's "intuition" tells them that the evolution of IC systems is extremely unlikely.
I was making the point that "intuition" is not a valid scientific argument.
Secod, perhaps you could outline for me how I can tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural on that we
1) do not currently understand but will in the future, or
2) will never have the ability to understand?
2) How can you calculate the odds of IC systems evolving or not?
quote:
I dunno........there probably isn't a way, which is why neither side tries to use it as a trump card.
But you just did!
You just said how a fair-minded person's intuition would consider the evolution of IC systems as extremely unlikely. This means you are arguing that the odds are unlikely that IC systems could have evolved.
If you now say that there is no way to calculate the odds, then why did you make any claim at all about what is "likely" or not?
The problem with the idea that IC systems cannot evolve is that it is based upon the false premise that evolution proceeds in a step by step fashion, with one component added at a time.
quote:
It's impossible for evolution to work faster than one step at a time
Not true.
James Meritt's General Anti-Creationism FAQ: Chaos
and Complexity
ID claim: The repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations, both at the level of organs and of complete organisms.
First, how do you determine that "numerous coordinated innovations" are required? That may merely be your evaluation. For instance, some of the common examples:
poisonous snakes - fangs & poison glands.
A Gila monster has poison glands with no fangs, and there are snakes with furrowed fangs with no poison glands.
fish to land animal - legs and lungs.
The mudpuppy is a fish without lungs that goes on the land, and the ceoclanth (sp) has almost legs with no lungs. And then there is the African Lungfish, the floridian walking catfish,...
And how many of these "numerous coordinated innovations" can be caused by one change? Check out, for instance, the effect of changing the age at which bone growth stops in human beings.
This needs to be elaborated. If a genome is being stressed to some metastable level where its states can multiply, then rapid changes to more than one structure in the organism can occur simultaneously.[/b][qs]
quote:
if it does so, it is entirely by coincidence and not by selection effect.
As I have shown above, that statement is incorrect.
quote:
Therefore, I don't see how anyone can whole heartedly support the idea that certain components of an IC system just HAPPENED to evolve side by side.
Perhaps you might want to do a bit more study of evolutionary theory before you embrace a non-scientific notion.
Take a stone arch.
They are IC. Take away one stone or brick and the entire arch collapses. Are stone arches therefore a great mystery and must it be determined that the supernatural must be invoked to explain them?
Stone arches are constructed using support systems to hold the stones or bricks in place as they are laid or fitted. Once they are in place, the support structures are removed.
quote:
That's a terrible analogy, because stone archs are the product of intelligent design
But they are irreducably complex without needing supernatural forces to contruct them.
I have shown you that evolution does not require a linear, one by one addition of features to a system for the system to evolve. This makes the IC as evidence of ID premise false, correct?
™ Version 4.2