(M.H-35)"Standard" Argument for Irreducible Complexity

[OdwinOddball]

You say speak alot but don't say much




Well really it is a little more elaborate than that. But I am critiquing the ridiculous notion that a stone arch proves ID is wrong.

.
You say speak alot but don't say much and certainly no matter how many citations you provide, you can turn a pig into a swan. The arch proves nothing






I have. You obviously don't display understanding. You say the arch proves something regarding ID




I have

Nuh-unh

 

[jamesrwright3]

Nuh-unh

Uh huh

 

[Loudmouth]

And those are built by men with intelligence.

The mmammalian middle ear was not, and it is an evolved IC system. You continue to ignore it. Here is a comparison between the reptillian and mammalian middle ear.

According to Behe, for the irreducible parts (incus and malleus) to insert themselves between the tympanum and the inner ear the hearing apparatus would have to 1)go through a non-functional stage, 2)fall into place in one fell swoop. This is not what we see in the fossil record. Instead, the jawbones change in such a way that preserves the function of the jaw and middle ear throughout the evolutionary pathway. What Behe claims is impossible is actually observed in the fossil record. It is a direct evolutionary pathway that creates an IC system. Removal of the incus or malleus causes the system to be non-functional and yet they evolved.

Until you can deal with this example you have no right to claim that we have not supplied examples.

 

[caravelair]

The mmammalian middle ear was not, and it is an evolved IC system. You continue to ignore it. Here is a comparison between the reptillian and mammalian middle ear.

According to Behe, for the irreducible parts (incus and malleus) to insert themselves between the tympanum and the inner ear the hearing apparatus would have to 1)go through a non-functional stage, 2)fall into place in one fell swoop. This is not what we see in the fossil record. Instead, the jawbones change in such a way that preserves the function of the jaw and middle ear throughout the evolutionary pathway. What Behe claims is impossible is actually observed in the fossil record. It is a direct evolutionary pathway that creates an IC system. Removal of the incus or malleus causes the system to be non-functional and yet they evolved.

Until you can deal with this example you have no right to claim that we have not supplied examples.

i also mentioned the following example, which he has also ignored:

http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html

 

[Edx]

Not by using the arch example.

If its silly use to a rock formation, or a man-made arch to show IC is wrong on principle, then its equally stupid to use mousetraps in favour of IC.

 

[Split Rock]

One of the biggest problems with all ID arguments (including IC) is that IDers put natural intelligence in the same category as supernatural intelligence. They only do this so they can equate the things we build using natural intelligence with what they claim God did utilizing supernatural intelligence. Yet, our intelligence arrives via nature, just as other natural processes, such as erosion, wind, lightning, etc.

 

[Split Rock]

One can observe the evolution of an IC structure in the fossil record. The mammalian middle ear is composed of three bones. If one is removed then the function of the system (ie hearing) ceases. What we see in the fossil record is that two of the bones of the "irreducible system" actually started out as jaw bones. Each step is functional and selectable, and the final product is an IC system.

It is this example and others (eg intermediates for eye evolution) that led Behe to focus on molecular systems which did not leave a fossil record.

Behe makes two leaps of faith. First, that IC systems can't evolve. He tries to stack the deck by claiming that direct evolutionary pathways can not result in IC systems. So what? Indirect pathways can. So what does Behe do? Claims that indirect pathways are improbable which he quickly conflates with impossible. Behe has yet to supply any evidence to support his incredulity.

The second leap of faith is the very historic characteristics of his IC systems. Was the first flagellum irreducibly complex, or did it have redundant parts that were removed through mutation later on? Without this answer Behe can not claim that the system is unevolvable.

Indirect evolutionary pathways, in theory, can produce IC systems. For Behe to claim that IC systems can not evolve he must show how these indirect pathways are impossible, outside of his own incredulity.

*BUMP!*

 

[BVZ]

I just want ot say this: Just because james in unable to understand what you are saying, his failure to understand is in fact a good thing.

Why?

Because many lurkers read this. The repetition ensures that lurkers read how ID fails over and over.

So just because james is a lost case, does not mean you should feel discouraged.

 

[shinbits]

Which machines? Talk about bad analogies. The comparison of hunks of rock with hunks of meat is just as valid as the comparison of cells with machines, only on a different level. The structure of a hunk of meat is very much that of one of concrete, namely solid parts (cells) with a binder (collagen).

But "hunks of meat" are made up of cells, each of which have thier own components. In mammals, they also have structures that enable hair to grow from pores. They can also sweat, and can also bleed. The blood running through it is also part of a complex system.

"Chunks of meat" are not as valild a comparison with rocks.

 

[Baggins]

But "hunks of meat" are made up of cells, each of which have thier own components. In mammals, they also have structures that enable hair to grow from pores. They can also sweat, and can also bleed. The blood running through it is also part of a complex system.

"Chunks of meat" are not as valild a comparison with rocks.

That rather depends on what your comparison is trying to show. If you actually read this thread and see why this has been brought up you will see that the analogy is solid.

 

[shinbits]

That rather depends on what your comparison is trying to show. If you actually read this thread and see why this has been brought up you will see that the analogy is solid.

will do.

 

[Baggins]

I think the idea is:

if cell can = mouse trap

then rock = animal

although that is grossly over simplifying the argument.

It is, partially, about whether a rock arch is irreducibly complex

 

[Edx]

I just want ot say this: Just because james in unable to understand what you are saying, his failure to understand is in fact a good thing.

Why?

Because many lurkers read this. The repetition ensures that lurkers read how ID fails over and over.

So just because james is a lost case, does not mean you should feel discouraged.

I wish I could find an old thread with James. It would put into perspective his attitude.

 

[c'mon sense]

Uh huh

I think James wants an example of a hunk of rock that actively counteracts its own erosion.

 

[pittguy579]

I just want ot say this: Just because james in unable to understand what you are saying, his failure to understand is in fact a good thing.

Why?

Because many lurkers read this. The repetition ensures that lurkers read how ID fails over and over.

So just because james is a lost case, does not mean you should feel discouraged.

He didn't fail to understand. It is others who have failed to understand the example of the arch prove absolutely nothing, at least in terms of biological systems. The best examples of irreducibly complex systems unfortunately come with intelligence being involved i.e. manmade systems.

 

[Mocca]

He didn't fail to understand. It is others who have failed to understand the example of the arch prove absolutely nothing, at least in terms of biological systems. The best examples of irreducibly complex systems unfortunately come with intelligence being involved i.e. manmade systems.

You're defining your argument as correct.

We're trying to see whether irreducibly complex systems can arise without intelligence. You now state that the best examples of irreducible complex systems are those that arise with intelligence. Therefore, since they're the best systems, we need to look at them, and then therefore obviously irreducibly complex systems need intelligence to arrive.

Or maybe you have an actual reason why the best examples of IC systems arise from intelligence? 'Cos you pretty much failed when you attempted to provide reason.

Anyway, our analogy works. Our analogy didn't attempt to "say anything about biological systems." The point of the analogy was to refute Behe's and Dembinski's claims about Irreducible Complexity, and that's what it did. If you didn't understand that after several, several reiterations of that point, then you're on the same level as James.

 

[pittguy579]

Or maybe you have an actual reason why the best examples of IC systems arise from intelligence? 'Cos you pretty much failed when you attempted to provide reason.

Because that is the case. Even the mousetrap example someone had to build the mousetrap.

Anyway, our analogy works.

Well if you want to believe that, that is fine. But it is clear it proves nothing regarding biological systems

Our analogy didn't attempt to "say anything about biological systems." The point of the analogy was to refute Behe's and Dembinski's claims about Irreducible Complexity,

Well you didn't do it because your analogies don't disprove anything regarding ID which deals with biological systems, not hunks of rock.

If you didn't understand that after several, several reiterations of that point, then you're on the same level as James.[

That is fine. I would glad to be on the same level as James. He appears to be smarter than most others on this board.

 

[Mocca]

Because that is the case. Even the mousetrap example someone had to build the mousetrap.

If you'd read the previous posts, you'd realize that if mousetraps were biological organisms where usefulness was rewarded, then they would evolve without intelligence.

Well if you want to believe that, that is fine. But it is clear it proves nothing regarding biological systems

Well you didn't do it because your analogies don't disprove anything regarding ID which deals with biological systems, not hunks of rock.

You don't understand. WE'RE REFUTING BEHE'S STATEMENT! Behe states irreducibly complex systems are systems in which removing any part would cause the system to fail. He never stated this system had to be biological. Don't you understand?! It's been said far too many times on this thread; yet you still don't seem to get it. Behe never stated an IC system had to be biological. I'll even say it again.

Behe never stated an IC system had to be biological. In fact, when referring to IC, Behe himself used non-biological examples.

CAPICHE?

That is fine. I would glad to be on the same level as James. He appears to be smarter than most others on this board.

Stop insulting my intelligence.

 

[pittguy579]

If you'd read the previous posts, you'd realize that if mousetraps were biological organisms where usefulness was rewarded, then they would evolve without intelligence.

Well to begin with that is a poor example as well. That assumes that some part at least has some function to begin with. There is no guarantee that would occur in a biological system. You are assuming the functionality of the system in that example

Regardless, some of those early mousetraps are so highly inefficent that the organism would probably die out long before it could sustain itself with mice.

You don't understand. WE'RE REFUTING BEHE'S STATEMENT! Behe states irreducibly complex systems are systems in which removing any part would cause the system to fail. He never stated this system had to be biological

.

Listen, use logic here. What area of science are Behe and Dembski speaking about and involved in? Astronomy? Geology? No, biology. Just because it wasn't EXPLICITLY stated doesn't mean they were trying to say it applied to everything. So no, it wasn't explicitly stated but you have to put everything into context They certaintly weren't talking about rocks, stars, etc.

Don't you understand?! It's been said far too many times on this thread; yet you still don't seem to get it. Behe never stated an IC system had to be biological. I'll even say it again.

I will even say it again. It is clear that he was referring to biological systems. You can analogize items created with intelligent design i.e. mousetraps to life processes or any other dynamic/functional system that is similar to a machine. You can't take a hunk of rock and try to say it proves the concept is wrong because the evidence you are using is not equivalent to the system you are comparing it with.

Stop insulting my intelligence.

I wasn't insulting anyone's intelligence. I was simply stating that his posts are on the money. That is all.

 

[Mocca]

Well to begin with that is a poor example as well. That assumes that some part at least has some function to begin with. There is no guarantee that would occur in a biological system. You are assuming the functionality of the system in that example

No. Every step in USIncognito's mouse-trap evolution would have a use. Not necessarily a use for catching mice, but a use for something, and as shown with biological examples, the function of systems can change.

Regardless, some of those early mousetraps are so highly inefficent that the organism would probably die out long before it could sustain itself with mice.

Just as in biological systems (note the analogy), the function of a system can change, as shown in biological systems. So these "early mousetraps" didn't have to be used as mousetraps.

Listen, use logic here. What area of science are Behe and Dembski speaking about and involved in? Astronomy? Geology? No, biology. Just because it wasn't EXPLICITLY stated doesn't mean they were trying to say it applied to everything. So no, it wasn't explicitly stated but you have to put everything into context They certaintly weren't talking about rocks, stars, etc.

If IC didn't apply to all systems, as you put in Behe's mouth, then why do Behe and Dembski USE non-biological examples?

Why do Behe and Dembski apply IC to non-biological cases if IC is a solely biological concept?!

I will even say it again. It is clear that he was referring to biological systems. You can analogize items created with intelligent design i.e. mousetraps to life processes or any other dynamic/functional system that is similar to a machine. You can't take a hunk of rock and try to say it proves the concept is wrong because the evidence you are using is not equivalent to the system you are comparing it with.

If it is so clear that Behe is referring to non-biological systems, then why does he apply IC to arrowheads and mousetraps himself?
I and others have said this so many times: Behe applies IC to non-biological cases himself. Why would he do this if "it is clear that he was referring to biological systems?"

I'll say it again, just for the emphasis: Why would Behe apply IC to non-biological cases such as mousetraps if "it is clear Behe was referring to biological examples?"