Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Irreducible complexity

Expand Messages
  • Dave Oldridge
    ... one ... it is ... The ... irreducibly ... Deceptions are often founded on fallacies of ambiguity. Irreducible complexity has two definitions. One of them
    Message 1 of 143 , Dec 31, 2012
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      > gabevee
      > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:21 PM
      > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Irreducible complexity
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, <humancarol@...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > The
      > > Flagellum Unspun
      > >
      > > The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
      > >
      > > Kenneth
      > > R. Miller
      > >
      > > Brown University
      > >
      > > Providence, Rhode Island 02912 USA
      > >
      > > This
      > > is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared
      > > in "Debating Design from Darwin to DNA," edited by Michael Ruse and
      > > William Dembski. Debating Design
      > >
      > > http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
      > >
      >
      >
      > Thanks so much for this article. I am soaking it up as I write. However,
      one
      > point sticks in my craw, one that I have been arguing all along:
      >
      > "However, if the flagellum contains within it a smaller functional set of
      > components like the TTSS, then the flagellum itself cannot be irreducibly
      > complex - by definition. Since we now know that this is indeed the case,
      it is
      > obviously true that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex."
      >
      > This is not true, as I have demonstrated often. This is a flawed argument.
      The
      > crystal radio argument I use shows that the components in themselves
      > perform functions in and of themselves. But, the radio as a radio is
      irreducibly
      > complex. More misunderstanding of the phrase.

      Deceptions are often founded on fallacies of ambiguity. Irreducible
      complexity has two definitions. One of them is extreme fragility, which is
      to say, removal of any single part destroys function.
      The other is that it is what cannot evolve by mutation and natural selection
      (thus begging the question).

      Biological examples of fragile systems often contain fragments of other
      systems that are fully functional with some OTHER function--or they descend
      from predecessors that were functional. For example, Doolittle showed that
      the clotting factor gene in lobsters derived from a copy of the egg yolk
      gene. I have shown mathematically that any amount of irreducible (by
      creationist definitions) complexity can arise from mutation and natural
      selection. I think the creationists are generally counting on a "wow"
      factor produced by demonstrations of extreme complexity and fragility in
      biological systems that had evolutionary pathways that involved exaptation
      and redundancy removal.

      When evaluating creationist propaganda, it is necessary to take into account
      the target audience's general education on the subject and the actual goals
      of the propagandists.

      --

      Dave Oldridge
    • Dave Oldridge
      ... one ... it is ... The ... irreducibly ... Deceptions are often founded on fallacies of ambiguity. Irreducible complexity has two definitions. One of them
      Message 143 of 143 , Dec 31, 2012
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        > gabevee
        > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:21 PM
        > To: creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Irreducible complexity
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com, <humancarol@...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > The
        > > Flagellum Unspun
        > >
        > > The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity"
        > >
        > > Kenneth
        > > R. Miller
        > >
        > > Brown University
        > >
        > > Providence, Rhode Island 02912 USA
        > >
        > > This
        > > is a pre-publication copy of an article that appeared
        > > in "Debating Design from Darwin to DNA," edited by Michael Ruse and
        > > William Dembski. Debating Design
        > >
        > > http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
        > >
        >
        >
        > Thanks so much for this article. I am soaking it up as I write. However,
        one
        > point sticks in my craw, one that I have been arguing all along:
        >
        > "However, if the flagellum contains within it a smaller functional set of
        > components like the TTSS, then the flagellum itself cannot be irreducibly
        > complex - by definition. Since we now know that this is indeed the case,
        it is
        > obviously true that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex."
        >
        > This is not true, as I have demonstrated often. This is a flawed argument.
        The
        > crystal radio argument I use shows that the components in themselves
        > perform functions in and of themselves. But, the radio as a radio is
        irreducibly
        > complex. More misunderstanding of the phrase.

        Deceptions are often founded on fallacies of ambiguity. Irreducible
        complexity has two definitions. One of them is extreme fragility, which is
        to say, removal of any single part destroys function.
        The other is that it is what cannot evolve by mutation and natural selection
        (thus begging the question).

        Biological examples of fragile systems often contain fragments of other
        systems that are fully functional with some OTHER function--or they descend
        from predecessors that were functional. For example, Doolittle showed that
        the clotting factor gene in lobsters derived from a copy of the egg yolk
        gene. I have shown mathematically that any amount of irreducible (by
        creationist definitions) complexity can arise from mutation and natural
        selection. I think the creationists are generally counting on a "wow"
        factor produced by demonstrations of extreme complexity and fragility in
        biological systems that had evolutionary pathways that involved exaptation
        and redundancy removal.

        When evaluating creationist propaganda, it is necessary to take into account
        the target audience's general education on the subject and the actual goals
        of the propagandists.

        --

        Dave Oldridge
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.