It is trivial to explain the existence of allelopathy using natural
selection, but it seems to contradict the entire explanation given of
the Fall, at least as I usually hear it. Nuphar lutea secretes 6, 6'
dihydroxythiobunipharadine, which has been shown to prevent water
lettuce seed germination. Did it do this before the fall? Did the
ability of some plants to kill others appear after the Fall?
Perhaps this is a pointless question. Perhaps the answer is that "God
changed them," the same way S/he changed the dinosaurs and dogs to
force them to eat meat. Allelopathy is a relatively new field,
however, so I thought it ought to be discussed.
plants arent alive according to the bible, so plant "death" before the
fall was possible. PRAYSE JEBUS!
Before the fall, the secretion of Nuphar lutea was beneficial to one
and all. However water lettuce could have prevented Eve from being
tempted and so bears a great deal of responsibility, hence knows sin.
As a result, it was punished by reacting negatively to what previously
had been pure and noble and good.
By what method did God change them? Can we see where God changed them?
Why did God change them? Can we see God changing other species of water
plants? And who is this God person anyways?
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Dobzhansky's dictum: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light
Harshman's corollary: "Nothing in creationism makes sense."
Townsend's footnote: "Nothing in ID"
Coaster's cheer: "Can I get a 'Gamma'! Can I get an 'Omicron'! Can I
get a 'Delta'! What's that spell!? COD!"
Nothing makes sense to me.
> Allelopathy is the release of biologically active chemicals by one plant
> that help or hinder another organism.--
another reason to believe in irreducible complexity
And another reason you're talking out of your arse. It isn't
irreducibly complex. So far nothing has.
>another reason to believe in irreducible complexity
The best example we have of irreducible complexity is your brain. You
chemically removed a few cells and it stopped functioning.
>> Dobzhansky's dictum: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the
>> light of evolution."
>> Harshman's corollary: "Nothing in creationism makes sense."
> Townsend's footnote: "Nothing in ID"
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
and the tooth fairy as well....
>On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:04:18 -0700, John Vreeland wrote:
>> Allelopathy is the release of biologically active chemicals by one plant
>> that help or hinder another organism.--
>another reason to believe in irreducible complexity
When you find an example please feel free to tell us all about it.
While allelopathy is clearly NOT an example of IC, the concept od
irreduceable complexity is demonstrable everywhere. Almost any
biological system can be argued to be IC. But so what? Darwinian
evolution permits (if not outright predicts) the existence of IC
systems. Michael Behe is helping to flesh out biological evolutionary
theory. Perhaps he shall be remembered for that.
>On May 5, 2:42 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 May 2007 21:31:08 -0500, Dale Kelly
>> <dale.ke...@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>> >On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:04:18 -0700, John Vreeland wrote:
>> >> Allelopathy is the release of biologically active chemicals by one plant
>> >> that help or hinder another organism.--
>> >another reason to believe in irreducible complexity
>> When you find an example please feel free to tell us all about it.
>While allelopathy is clearly NOT an example of IC, the concept od
>irreduceable complexity is demonstrable everywhere. Almost any
>biological system can be argued to be IC. But so what? Darwinian
>evolution permits (if not outright predicts) the existence of IC
>systems. Michael Behe is helping to flesh out biological evolutionary
>theory. Perhaps he shall be remembered for that.
As I understand it irreducible complexity is supposed to be functional
system "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that
contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of
the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".
The presupposition of this claim of Behe's is that these systems could
no have "evolved" but must have been designed.
I agree that Behe is helping to flesh out biological evolutionary
theory - by driving scientists to prove him wrong. A job, I will add,
that they are doing well seeing as every system put forward by him as
IC has proven not to be IC after all.
No, IC is still IC. IC doesn't mean "can't have evolved;" that's
Behe's mistake. IC just means "irreduceably complex," the definition
of which you gave. It implies a non-trivial evolutionary history.
Behe's problem is that he is unable to grasp anything other than the
most trivial examples of evolution.
Behe's gift to biology is that he has found an interesting way to
classify different types of evolution. That he draws entirely
inappropriate conclusions from this tool does not mean that it is not
useful. I think IC is a useful concept for explaining some of the
more interesting aspects of all types of selection-driven evolution.
Ok, I think I get what you are saying now.
I was under the impression that the IDCreationists went further than
that, though, that they were arguing that there was no _possible_
pathway through which a particular IC structure could have evolved.
>Behe's gift to biology is that he has found an interesting way to
>classify different types of evolution. That he draws entirely
>inappropriate conclusions from this tool does not mean that it is not
>useful. I think IC is a useful concept for explaining some of the
>more interesting aspects of all types of selection-driven evolution.
That may be, but using two different definitions of a term like
"irreducibly complex" will lead to any number of arguments from
IDCreationists that rely on switching the meaning of IC in the middle of
Agreed. Invoking the secret alternative definition of a word is known
as "weaseling." The DI jumped up and down in celebration of Behe's
work but it doesn't really help them at all. In any continuous
solution space, given enough time a path can always be found between
two arbitrarily dissimilar species. The best that the DI can hope to
do is claim that not enough time has passed, and Behe is not helping
them there, as he is fairly certain that the Earth is olde. The DI
misrepresents Behe's ideas out of some kind of ignorance, willful or
otherwise. That also like to assert that it is plainly obvious that
paths simply do not exist. This seems to be an important article of
faith with them, so it might in their minds have grafted itself onto
I haven't read all or even most of Behe's works, but the literal
meaning of "Irreduceable Complexity" seems to be the correct one, with
the idea of "no possible paths" coming from Dembski's work, perhaps
through some assumed synthesis from a dialectic not in evidence. At
least, I never found it, and I spent a lot of time looking. That's
why I finally decided Dembski doesn't know what he is talking about.
As far as I can tell the dot product of Information theory and Behe's
work is zero. You can only get the two to combine synergistically by
misunderstanding one or both, and "misunderstanding" seems to be
Dembski's job at the moment.
But I could be wrong about Behe. Did he take his thesis farther than
I thought? If so he moved from mixed relevance through irrelevance
(from not really having done a darned thing lately) to negative
relevance. He seems intelligent enough; why he seems stuck on an idea
that would give a thesis advisor reason to be alarmed is beyond my