[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
[B] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I am interested in YOUR deductive reasoning; i.e., empirical mechanisms of how even just ONE "FINE-TUNED IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY" (FIC) could possibly have developed from a precursor. Not Behe's nor Darwin's reasoning, both of which are grossly oversimplified in this matter; neither having provided anything in the way of detailed mechanisms; the latter speculated nothing about 'punctuated equilibria' (sudden ‘hopeful’ mutations).
Consider any of the following FICs:
STELLAR: A vast mega-universe (itself a FIC) with innumerable sub-FICs if you will: The space-time continuum as we know it, a fine-tuned star system, solar system, galaxy-system, etc. Pick a FIC that first appears mundane: An asteroid, comet, lesser planet. Study it carefully, it probably is much more of a FIC then meets our existential senses.
GEOLOGICAL: (Too numerous) Depending on how you examine nature, it seems numerous systems would apply, not just the delicate hydraulic systems, O2 systems, ‘fields’ of nature, but also, peculiar lush land-masses, and any fruit(s) and any vegetation.
BIOLOGICAL: All life-forms (choose any), that each is a unique FIC despite the homologies.
PHYSIOLOGICAL: Cellular membranes (extremely complex), though you or I may dotingly argue that they graft easily. An EYEBALL (I know, not again) or any other species-specific sense, kidney, pancreas, heart, etc of almost any genus.
ANATOMICAL: i.e., A foot (or any other body member)
BIOCHEMICAL/MICROBIAL: (numerous): Blood cells, RBCs, WBCs, osteo and chondroblasts, tissues, etc.
PSYCHOLOGICAL: (alright, just one): Your last dream.
COMPUTERS: Your last program that you wrote.
Note: Doubtless many of you will argue that sharing of FICs among different species, invalidates them. This thread of logic is doting and cantankerous. The syllogisms seem more clearly presented here. I apologize if they are not.
In conclusion, like Aristotle, Luther, the Genesis logic of ‘like-kinds’, and other creationists here (please correct me JP if you disagree)
It immediately appears that there CAN BE NO INFERIOR PRECURSOR of any FIC and YOU AND I BOTH SEE THIS (at least to some extent) IS TRUTH.
Note how each FIC (analogous somewhat it appears to each Species-Proper) is essentially OF ITS OWN KIND with DIVERSE VARIANTS. No viable mechanism to date has been proposed that links or even chains one FIC into another as a precursor, because each FIC is too unique and complex.[/b][/QUOTE]
You should read some books written by Dawkins, like the Blind Watchmaker. He explains perfectly well how the multitude of beings and complexity of life came to be this way. There have also been numerous astronomers, like Carl Sagan, who have emphasized that complexity
can come out of simplicity, or small beginnings.
By the way, how do you define "fine-tuned"? When is a system fine-tuned and when is it not? In nature, there are various animals who have some clumsy way of making a living. Also, it happens quite often, on a geological scale timescale, that errors take place during the copying of genes. Also most mutations of genes aren't beneficiary but cause the new-born crfeature to die. All such things don't really contribute to the idea that the universe is "fine-tuned" or in "total balance."
[This message has been edited by Floris O, 03-12-2002]
™ Version 4.2
