> > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > complexity exists.
> "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
Because "evolutionists" (most people in fact) tend to base their
conclusions on the merits of the evidence. Few people think as you do;
that the truth of an argument can be established definitionally -
e.g., "Irreducible complexity is disproof of evolution, therefore one
cannot accept the factuality of both."
> > > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > > complexity exists.
> > "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> > If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
> Because "evolutionists" (most people in fact) tend to base their
> conclusions on the merits of the evidence. Few people think as you do;
> that the truth of an argument can be established definitionally -
> e.g., "Irreducible complexity is disproof of evolution, therefore one
> cannot accept the factuality of both."
> RLC
The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism. If said
phenomena was produced by gradualism then the same cannot be
irreducibly complex. It can be complex, but not irreducibly complex.
On Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:54:27 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez > wrote:
> > > On Jun 14, 2:50 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > > > On 6/14/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> > > > > For those interested in detailed examples that show increase in DNA complexity Venema has a good series of articles going:
> > > > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > > > complexity exists.
> > > "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> > > If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
> > Because "evolutionists" (most people in fact) tend to base their
> > conclusions on the merits of the evidence. Few people think as you do;
> > that the truth of an argument can be established definitionally -
> > e.g., "Irreducible complexity is disproof of evolution, therefore one
> > cannot accept the factuality of both."
> > RLC
> The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
> if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism. If said
> phenomena was produced by gradualism then the same cannot be
> irreducibly complex. It can be complex, but not irreducibly complex.
> Ray
Do the philosophical details of IC definition matter? Venema takes the time to explain the specifics of Behe's concept of IC then shows by example that evolution can produce something that fits the bill. Behe's IC system not only can evolve, but it can evolve in multiple ways repeatedly.
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:11:02 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>On 6/14/2012 3:57 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 2:50 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> On 6/14/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>>>> For those interested in detailed examples that show increase in DNA complexity Venema has a good series of articles going:
>> It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
>> complexity exists.
>"Evolutionist admits IC exists."
>If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
Because, as you ought to know by now, evolution is predicted to produce irreducibly complex systems. (Neither Kalkidas nor Mark Buchanan is using your definition of irreducibly complex as unevolvable.)
> It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> complexity exists.
It was an evolutionist who *predicted* irreducible complexity would exist. More specifically, that it would evolve.
-- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Behe's ID was a different term for Darcy Thompson's Composite
Integrity. An idea Aristotle had under the label
spontaneous generation. There are various dissimilar terms for the
*claim of logic* that only related parts in a *composite integrity* in
can enable a functional device as it relates to complexity and
redundancy.
IC is a claim of logic, you either like Aristotle and unlike Darwin
get the logic or you don't . IF you don't there is very little one
can do about it.
Darwin disagreed with Aristotle as can be seen with his comments on
the formation of teeth. Aristotle correctly identified the
relationship between teeth as IC.
> > > > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > > > complexity exists.
> > > "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> > > If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
> > Because "evolutionists" (most people in fact) tend to base their
> > conclusions on the merits of the evidence. Few people think as you do;
> > that the truth of an argument can be established definitionally -
> > e.g., "Irreducible complexity is disproof of evolution, therefore one
> > cannot accept the factuality of both."
> > RLC
> The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
> if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism.
Correct as Aristotle understood it in his description of the formation
of teeth *without God*. IC could be both
miraculous or by God. Darwin felt that spontaneous generation was
indistinguishable from an outright God given miracle. He thus took
Aristotle's rhetorical tautological paragraph(claim of logic) and
derived a different non-sequitur namely gradualism.
Gradualism for complex machines, ligaments are illogical as a
proposition itself. What made it seemingly possible was Darwin's usage
of dissimilar terms that self-referentialy referred to the same fact
to formulate a proposition that guarantees its own truth, forcing the
unguarded to accept the non-sequitur of gradualism.
> On Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:54:27 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez
> > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 14, 2:50 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > > > > On 6/14/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
> > > > > > For those interested in detailed examples that show increase in DNA complexity Venema has a good series of articles going:
> > > > > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > > > > complexity exists.
> > > > "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> > > > If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
> > > Because "evolutionists" (most people in fact) tend to base their
> > > conclusions on the merits of the evidence. Few people think as you do;
> > > that the truth of an argument can be established definitionally -
> > > e.g., "Irreducible complexity is disproof of evolution, therefore one
> > > cannot accept the factuality of both."
> > > RLC
> > The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
> > if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism. If said
> > phenomena was produced by gradualism then the same cannot be
> > irreducibly complex. It can be complex, but not irreducibly complex.
> > Ray
> Do the philosophical details of IC definition matter? Venema takes the time to explain the specifics of Behe's concept of IC then shows by example that evolution can produce something that fits the bill. Behe's IC system not only can evolve, but it can evolve in multiple ways repeatedly.
> Mark
Are you using the object *evolution* to symbolically represent
1) an idea in the pattern with a purpose or pattern without a purpose
sense.
2) An idea that rejects this Platonic duality, what is it about
language itself you assume as your premise?
> > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > complexity exists.
> Don't think anybody doubted it.
> Single part systems are trivially IC.
> There is just no problem with IC systems evolving.
I agree if you are using "evolving" as a dissimilar term for
Aristotle's *spontaneous generation*. There is nothing the term evolve
that indicates a systems IC status.
1) An engineer evolved a bridge. Obviously bridges are IC and evolved
is used in the IC sense.
2) Via a gradual evolution process Darwin believed organisms acquired
their attributes.
1) is used in the IC sense and 2) is used it the gradualism sense. We
can't even determine from a full sentence - You have a green light
what is meant due to the Structural Ambiguity of language itself,
therefore the situation for a single term *evolution* is far more
ambiguous.
This issue is not what does Evolution mean, but what do you mean?
> > > > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > > > complexity exists.
> > > "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> > > If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
> > Because "evolutionists" (most people in fact) tend to base their
> > conclusions on the merits of the evidence. Few people think as you do;
> > that the truth of an argument can be established definitionally -
> > e.g., "Irreducible complexity is disproof of evolution, therefore one
> > cannot accept the factuality of both."
> > RLC
> The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
> if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism. If said
> phenomena was produced by gradualism then the same cannot be
> irreducibly complex. It can be complex, but not irreducibly complex.
Irreducible only means that it can't be reduced (duh!) any fuhrer, you
can't take parts of it away without destroying its functioning
Whether or not a system has that property can be decided independently
of any reference to evolution.
IC systems typically will not be very complex. The more complex a
system, the less likely it is to be IC, the simpler, the more likely
> > > > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > > > complexity exists.
> > > "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> > > If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
> > Because there is no problem for IC systems to evolve?
> Then these systems cannot be IC.
> Ray
I see, you still don't understand what IC mean, I remember we went
over this before.
IC systems are _defined_ as :
"A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of
the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
(Darwin's Black Box p39)"
That is _all_ that there is in the definition. Note that nowhere in
the definition, evolution is mentioned, and ability or inability to
evolve is NOT stated as part of the definition.
Rather, once he made the definition, Behe makes a twofold claim: IC
systems, as defined above, actually exists AND there is no way that
they can have evolved (because me mistakenly believes that evolution
only ever ADDS stuff)
So for Behe and his fellow travellers, the question whether IC systems
exists and whether they can evolve is not the same. Rather, "IC
systems cannot have possibly been created through evolution" is an
empirical claim _about_ IC systems that can be true or wrong (which
makes it interesting)
As it so happens, it is wrong. IC systems, as defined, exist, BUT
there are petty straightforward evolutionary pathways that show that
they can have evolved without problem.
Your rendition of IC btw makes it utterly worthless for the
discussion. If you include "did not evolve" already in the definition,
you can drop as well the IC part as redundant.
>> > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
>> > complexity exists.
>> Don't think anybody doubted it.
>> Single part systems are trivially IC.
>> There is just no problem with IC systems evolving.
>I agree if you are using "evolving" as a dissimilar term for
>Aristotle's *spontaneous generation*. There is nothing the term evolve
>that indicates a systems IC status.
>1) An engineer evolved a bridge. Obviously bridges are IC and evolved
>is used in the IC sense.
There are natural bridges which were not designed by engineers and not
manufactured according to a plan, but have come about by processes like
erosion.
>2) Via a gradual evolution process Darwin believed organisms acquired
>their attributes.
For some instances of biological structures which are "irreducibly
complex" it has been shown in some detail how they could evolve.
For example, the structure of the mammalian middle ear.
>1) is used in the IC sense and 2) is used it the gradualism sense. We
>can't even determine from a full sentence - You have a green light
>what is meant due to the Structural Ambiguity of language itself,
>therefore the situation for a single term *evolution* is far more
>ambiguous.
>This issue is not what does Evolution mean, but what do you mean?
-- ---Tom S. "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
-- ---Tom S. "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)
The usual irreducible complexity was never an issue even if it was
part of Behe's definition. Even Behe doesn't deny that systems
composed of multiple parts where if you take a part away the system
does not function in it usual manner, could evolve. Behe has
maintained, since at least 2002, that there is something else that
makes his type of IC systems different. He started emphasizing that
the parts had to be well matched, but he never came up with a
definition of well matched so that notion could never be tested.
Really, the last thing that I saw Behe add to his IC claims was that
the more parts a system had the "more" IC it was. Behe's IC never got
past the untestable hypothesis stage. He only claimed that his type
of IC systems exist. He never demonstrated that his type of IC
system existed.
> --
> ---Tom S.
> "Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
> Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
> (1999)
> > > > > It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> > > > > complexity exists.
> > > > "Evolutionist admits IC exists."
> > > > If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?
> > > Because "evolutionists" (most people in fact) tend to base their
> > > conclusions on the merits of the evidence. Few people think as you do;
> > > that the truth of an argument can be established definitionally -
> > > e.g., "Irreducible complexity is disproof of evolution, therefore one
> > > cannot accept the factuality of both."
> > > RLC
> > The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
> > if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism. If said
> > phenomena was produced by gradualism then the same cannot be
> > irreducibly complex. It can be complex, but not irreducibly complex.
> Irreducible only means that it can't be reduced (duh!) any fuhrer, you
> can't take parts of it away without destroying its functioning
A function can be constituted using any combination of parts in terms
of its redundancy and complexity. We must determine an entity's
functionality first(mouse trap) and demarcate this from its
complexity(minimum and maximum parts) and how this relates to
redundancy. Removing parts and retaining its original function,might
reduce its redundancy and resiliency.
> Whether or not a system has that property can be decided independently
> of any reference to evolution.
Evolution in the pattern or design sense?
> IC systems typically will not be very complex. The more complex a
> system, the less likely it is to be IC, the simpler, the more likely
