Against Behe's ID 'theory'

[Mark Buchanan]

For those interested in detailed examples that show increase in DNA complexity Venema has a good series of articles going:

http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity-5

Mark

[Kalkidas]

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:
>
> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity-5

It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
complexity exists.

[Ray Martinez]

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:
>

> >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...

>
> 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?

Ray

[Burkhard]

On Jun 14, 10:50 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:
>

> >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...

>
> 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.

[Robert Camp]

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:
>

> >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...

>
> It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
> complexity exists.

How long have you been asleep?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Suboptimal.cfm
http://www.sirc.org/articles/intelligent_design.shtml

RLC

[Burkhard]

Because there is no problem for IC systems to evolve?

[Robert Camp]

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

[Ray Martinez]

Then these systems cannot be IC.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

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

[Kalkidas]

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:
>>
>>> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>>
>> It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
>> complexity exists.
>
> How long have you been asleep?

If I were asleep, Darwinism wouldn't be in my wildest dreams. So I must
have been awake all this time.

[Mark Buchanan]

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

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

[jillery]

I have to admit you were certainly awake enough to delete Robert's
cites, which disprove your previous baseless assertion.


Restored so you can ignore them again:

[Ernest Major]

In message
<cd7bbaa0-f57b-4f1f...@mi5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

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.)
>
>Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

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

[backspace]

On Jun 14, 10:41 pm, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> For those interested in detailed examples that show increase in DNA complexity Venema has a good series of articles going:
>

> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>
> Mark

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.

[backspace]

On Jun 15, 12:54 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> 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:
>
> > > > >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>
> > > > 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.

I am still working on a post on this matter at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Aristotle

If said
> phenomena was produced by gradualism then the same cannot be
> irreducibly complex. It can be complex, but not irreducibly complex.
>
> Ray

This is the same view Aristotle had. Spontaneous generation is a
different means of invoking a miracle but without God.

[backspace]

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?

[backspace]

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?

[Burkhard]

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


>
> Ray

[Burkhard]

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.

[TomS]

"On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:20:53 -0700 (PDT), in article
<878749d5-4043-4ab2...@q29g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, backspace
stated..."

>
>On Jun 14, 11:06 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 10:50 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:
>>
>> > >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>>
>> > 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)

[TomS]

"On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:58:36 -0700, in article
<jremer$gp1$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>On 6/14/12 2:50 PM, Kalkidas 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:
>>>
>>>http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity-5
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>

There is a long history of talk about irreducible complexity of
biological systems. See the Wikipedia article

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners>

[Steven L.]

On 6/14/2012 5:41 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:
>
> For those interested in detailed examples that show increase in DNA complexity Venema has a good series of articles going:
>
> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins-of-irreducible-complexity-5

Thank you.

Parts of this writeup are also a good refutation to Dr. Kleinman's
calculations.





-- Steven L.

[Ron O]

On Jun 15, 6:21 am, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:58:36 -0700, in article

> <jremer$gp...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 6/14/12 2:50 PM, Kalkidas 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:
>

> >>>http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...

>
> >> 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.
>
> There is a long history of talk about irreducible complexity of
> biological systems. See the Wikipedia article
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Forerunners>

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.

Ron Okimoto

[backspace]

On Jun 15, 9:25 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:54 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> 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:
>
> > > > > >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>
> > > > > 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

In terms of the *original* definition given by Behe yes. I defined the
*intent* of Behe, D'arcy Thompson, and Alexander Pope as Irreducible
Functionality http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionality

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

I disagree, would you elaborate?

[Burkhard]

That seems to me to be a rather problematic exercise in reading Behe's
mind. What you describe as irreducible functionality would not do the
job that Behe wants IC to do.

>
> 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?
>

Since I said that an objects IC status can be decided independently of
evolution, it really does not matter, that's what "independent" means.
We need not know anything else but if we take away a part, the thing
woudl stiull work as before.

> > 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
>
> I disagree, would you elaborate?

An IC system is one where you can't remove a part and the system still
works. The fewer parts you have, the fewer you can remove. Highly
complex systems have lots of redundancy, so we can remove lots of
(redundant)parts without interfering with the working of the system. A
computer with 40 backup drives is more complex than one that has only
one harddrive, but it is in the simple one that you can't remove the
harddrive without losing functionality.

As a limiting case, all objects with just one part are by definition
and trivially irreducibly complex.

[Robert Camp]

On Jun 14, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> 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:
>
> > > > >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>
> > > > 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.

[Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Herman Muller described
"IC" (interlocking) systems as a product of evolution long before
Behe...]

No, the claim is based on the definition, which you have wrong.

But the claim is not a fact, it is an argument that requires
evidential support. It is premised upon IC as defined by Behe (see
Burkhard's post) and I would have you observe, as Burkhard pointed
out, that Behe does not include "cannot have evolved" in the
definition. There's a good reason for this. Behe understood that doing
so would amount to begging the question, and it would have done him no
good. Defining an IC system as something that cannot have evolved
would have been a direct assumption of the conclusion he was
attempting to put forward and would have earned him nothing but scorn
for his inability to formulate a coherent argument.

Thus the *definition* of IC was an observation about interrelated
parts in a system, and the *argument* which followed from it was that
such a system cannot evolve. Many pathways have since been offered by
which such systems can in fact evolve, leaving Behe's specific claims
essentially falsified.

You do not understand what IC is, and you've gotten the argument
backwards. When will you recognize that your dependence upon personal
definitions is dysfunctional?

RLC

[Kalkidas]

I thought the old strategy was, ala Kenneth Miller, to take a system
that an IDer claims is IC and show how it's not *really* IC.

So my take is that this strategy failed so spectacularly that a new one
is being developed, where IC is admitted, but evolution is invoked to
"explain" it.

Although, as usual, the strategist feels no obligation to give an actual
evolutionary pathway, but only to show that a pathway is not absolutely
forbidden, and then claim that therefore it *must* exist).

[TomS]

"On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:15:03 -0700 (PDT), in article
<90170922-64bf-4d96...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Ron O
stated..."

The chain of bones consisting of the hammer, anvil and stirrup are
certainly as "well matched" as one can imagine.

And the evidence for the evolution of this chain of bones - or, to
put it conservatively, the demonstration that it is possible for
this chain to have arisen by incremental, small steps - is as
convincing as one could hope for. And if one shows merely that there
is such a possible evolutionary sequence, that is enough to show that
the IC argument (that it is impossible to arrive at an IC structure by
small, incremental steps) is not sound.

[Robert Camp]

Come now, are you telling me your dreams don't include a little
differential reproduction every now and then?

RLC

[backspace]

On Jun 15, 6:28 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 3:06 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 10:50 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:
>
> >>>http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>
> >> 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 thought the old strategy was, ala Kenneth Miller, to take a system
> that an IDer claims is IC and show how it's not *really* IC.
>
> So my take is that this strategy failed so spectacularly that a new one
> is being developed, where IC is admitted, but evolution is invoked to
> "explain" it.

Evolution could be gradual(Darwin) or spontaneous(Aristotle). In terms
of Platonic duality we understand Spontaneous assembly as the opposite
of gradual assembly. A watch is gradually assembled as the end goal is
the mind of the assembler. With the inverse PID control
algorithms(neural control actually) we have a universal mathematical
construct that is IF (Irreducibly functional), meaning that the inter
relationship between the variables and differential equations can't be
reduced below a certain point or the function of stabilizing a human,
chicken,dog, cat etc. can't be achieved.

There is no means that the neural control algorithms itself could be
gradually acquired, the control concept must function as a functional
whole. The actual muscles only represent this unseen algorithm.

> Although, as usual, the strategist feels no obligation to give an actual
> evolutionary pathway, but only to show that a pathway is not absolutely
> forbidden, and then claim that therefore it *must* exist).

Spontaneous or gradual. With evolution itself we have gradualism and
punkeek, to which sect is being referred.

[Robert Camp]

On Jun 15, 10:28 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 6/14/2012 3:06 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 10:50 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:
>
> >>>http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>
> >> 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 thought the old strategy was, ala Kenneth Miller, to take a system
> that an IDer claims is IC and show how it's not *really* IC.

> So my take is that this strategy failed so spectacularly that a new one
> is being developed, where IC is admitted, but evolution is invoked to
> "explain" it.

Then you, like Ray, have failed to distinguish between the definition
and the argument based upon the definition.

Showing "how it's not *really* IC" (per Behe's claim) never meant
arguing the system didn't exist, it meant demonstrating that it could
be produced by natural processes. This has always been the strategy.

> Although, as usual, the strategist feels no obligation to give an actual
> evolutionary pathway, but only to show that a pathway is not absolutely
> forbidden, and then claim that therefore it *must* exist).

This rhetorical dodge is as silly now as when you first started
talking about it. Do you also require that geologists produce maps
that describe in exacting detail the movement of the continents in
order to accept plate tectonics?

RLC

[Kalkidas]

On 6/15/2012 10:51 AM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On Jun 15, 10:28 am, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 6/14/2012 3:06 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 14, 10:50 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:
>>
>>>>> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>>
>>>> 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 thought the old strategy was, ala Kenneth Miller, to take a system
>> that an IDer claims is IC and show how it's not *really* IC.
>
>> So my take is that this strategy failed so spectacularly that a new one
>> is being developed, where IC is admitted, but evolution is invoked to
>> "explain" it.
>
> Then you, like Ray, have failed to distinguish between the definition
> and the argument based upon the definition.
>
> Showing "how it's not *really* IC" (per Behe's claim) never meant
> arguing the system didn't exist, it meant demonstrating that it could
> be produced by natural processes. This has always been the strategy.

Kenneth Miller did try to show that Behe's examples were not *really*
IC. He practically made a career out of poo-pooing the very idea of IC.
He brought a contrived "mousetrap" to public debates so he could pretend
to show how removing a part did not reduce the functionality.

Of course, Miller's not the only one who did this, and to be fair there
may have been others all along who did not disagree that IC systems
exist in nature. But Miller got the publicity, so the public image of
anti-ID is that it claims there is no such thing as irreducible
complexity, or at the very least, that there is no way to operationally
define IC.

>> Although, as usual, the strategist feels no obligation to give an actual
>> evolutionary pathway, but only to show that a pathway is not absolutely
>> forbidden, and then claim that therefore it *must* exist).
>
> This rhetorical dodge is as silly now as when you first started
> talking about it. Do you also require that geologists produce maps
> that describe in exacting detail the movement of the continents in
> order to accept plate tectonics?

I require that Kenneth Miller produce a complete chemical pathway from a
non-flagellar bacterium to a flagellar bacterium.

[Ernest Major]

In message <jrftgg$pf6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>
writes

It is hard to find an unambiguously IC system, because of the lack of
objective criteria for identifying systems, parts and functions - in
many cases a system is IC if you define parts coarsely, and not IC if
you define parts finely. My reductio ad absurdam is to consider each
amino acid residue in a protein to be a part - you'd be hard put to find
a protein which is 100% conserved.

Furthermore one might take the view that the system of nucleus,
cytoplasm and mitochondrion is irreducibly complex - in most eukaryote
cells remove one and cell doesn't work any more. But mammalian
erythrocytes are enucleate, and some protists are secondarily
amitochondriate. Just because a part can't be immediately removed
doesn't mean that there isn't a longer pathway to working system with
the part lacking.

So while there are systems which can reasonably be labelled as
irreducibly complex, it seems to me that an operational definition is
indeed lacking.

>
>>> Although, as usual, the strategist feels no obligation to give an actual
>>> evolutionary pathway, but only to show that a pathway is not absolutely
>>> forbidden, and then claim that therefore it *must* exist).
>>
>> This rhetorical dodge is as silly now as when you first started
>> talking about it. Do you also require that geologists produce maps
>> that describe in exacting detail the movement of the continents in
>> order to accept plate tectonics?
>
>I require that Kenneth Miller produce a complete chemical pathway from
>a non-flagellar bacterium to a flagellar bacterium.
>

Thank you for you implicit concession that irreducible complexity is not
a challenge to the theory of evolution.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Robert Camp]

Sure. He was arguing with Behe's concept of IC. He also spent a lot of
time showing how each successive stage in the construction (evolution)
of a mousetrap might be beneficial, thus preserved. It was an in
principle argument aimed at Behe's claim, not his definition.

> Of course, Miller's not the only one who did this, and to be fair there
> may have been others all along who did not disagree that IC systems
> exist in nature.

I'll grant you that there was something of a shift. But that happened
as more and more rationalists realized where the problem with the IC
argument lay. My point is that no one said said "You don't actually
have a mousetrap there," they said "Your claims about the mousetrap
are incorrect."

> But Miller got the publicity, so the public image of
> anti-ID is that it claims there is no such thing as irreducible
> complexity, or at the very least, that there is no way to operationally
> define IC.

I don't agree that "there is no such thing as irreducible complexity"
was ever Miller's claim *or* the public image. "Irreducible complexity
isn't what Behe thinks it is" was the claim.

> >> Although, as usual, the strategist feels no obligation to give an actual
> >> evolutionary pathway, but only to show that a pathway is not absolutely
> >> forbidden, and then claim that therefore it *must* exist).
>
> > This rhetorical dodge is as silly now as when you first started
> > talking about it. Do you also require that geologists produce maps
> > that describe in exacting detail the movement of the continents in
> > order to accept plate tectonics?
>
> I require that Kenneth Miller produce a complete chemical pathway from a
> non-flagellar bacterium to a flagellar bacterium.

Fine. Ignore both consistency and reason, that's your prerogative. But
at least have the self-awareness to stop presenting that argument as
if it's anything but ideological smoke.

RLC

[Kalkidas]

It's a challenge to Darwinian evolution, but not to the kind of
"evolution" that simply means "systems which are assembled over time by
successive fitting of parts". After all, that is how a mousetrap is
assembled, even though it's irreducibly complex.

IC systems are more resistant to the attempts of blind watchmakers, i.e.
Darwinian evolution, than non-IC systems. That's rather common sense,
isn't it?

[Kalkidas]

Now THAT'S a smoke screen, since Miller (nor anyone else, to my
knowledge) never said what ID *really* is if it isn't what Behe says it is.

>>>> Although, as usual, the strategist feels no obligation to give an actual
>>>> evolutionary pathway, but only to show that a pathway is not absolutely
>>>> forbidden, and then claim that therefore it *must* exist).
>>
>>> This rhetorical dodge is as silly now as when you first started
>>> talking about it. Do you also require that geologists produce maps
>>> that describe in exacting detail the movement of the continents in
>>> order to accept plate tectonics?
>>
>> I require that Kenneth Miller produce a complete chemical pathway from a
>> non-flagellar bacterium to a flagellar bacterium.
>
> Fine. Ignore both consistency and reason, that's your prerogative. But
> at least have the self-awareness to stop presenting that argument as
> if it's anything but ideological smoke.

Fine, just as soon as you stop presenting Darwinism as "science".

[Ernest Major]

In message <jrg02d$jrf$1...@dont-email.me>, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> writes

Firstly, common sense is a poor guide to processes that operate on
spatial and temporal scales far removed from everyday experience.

Secondly, no, it's not common (to me) sense. Common sense says that in
the absence of something that actively maintains a non-IC status
coevolution of parts leads to IC systems.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Kalkidas]

Except that there are no examples of such an alleged process. Details
are required. Simply waving a TTSS wand is not sufficient.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/14/12 4:47 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:
>>
>>> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>>
>> It's nice to see an anti-ID author finally admitting that irreducible
>> complexity exists.
>

> "Evolutionist admits IC exists."


"IC" as explained to you many times, is not a problem for evolutionary
theory. 'Irreducibly' complex systems can form by incremental steps,
as long as some of those steps are modifications, and subtractions, not
just additions.

>
> If true, why does said author remain an Evolutionist?

Because evolution is the best scientific explanation for the evidence.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/14/12 5:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> 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:
>>
>>>>> http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>>
>>>> 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.

But that claim is wrong. "IC" can be produced by gradual, and
incremental processes. All you need is to understand that not every
step in an incremental process is an addition.

> If said
> phenomena was produced by gradualism then the same cannot be
> irreducibly complex. It can be complex, but not irreducibly complex.

That is where you, and Behe make your mistakes. As already shown "IC"
is not the same as "not possible to evolve".


DJT


y
>

[Ron O]

On Jun 15, 12:38 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 05:15:03 -0700 (PDT), in article

> <90170922-64bf-4d96-a915-eb2fa4b99...@h10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Ron O

Not enough parts to be Behe's type of IC. Somewhere there was
something by Behe where he admitted that a tree branch falling between
two rocks would create an IC system, but it wasn't complex enough to
qualify as his type of IC system.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <roki...@cox.net>
wrote:

Behe limited his examples of IC to biomolecular systems, save for his
trademark mousetrap analogy. IIRC Dembski thought of Behe's IC as a
special case of Specified Complexity, which covered macro systems like
eyes and ears.

[jillery]

As was shown long ago, mousetraps are not irreducibly complex:

http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

>IC systems are more resistant to the attempts of blind watchmakers, i.e.
>Darwinian evolution, than non-IC systems. That's rather common sense,
>isn't it?

You would have to argue that point. It isn't obvious to me.

Behe's argument that Darwinian evolution can't produce IC systems is
based on two points: 1. the individual parts must evolve the function
they are to perform prior to the existence of the IC system, which is
highly unlikely. 2. the individual parts, along with their
pre-evolved functions, must join together into an IC system at the
same time, else the IC system by definition can't function.

What Behe ignores is that biology offers two pathways to get around
that apparent obstacle. The first pathway has the individual parts
evolving functions separate and distinct from the functions they will
do in the IC system. When the parts join together into an IC system,
they likely will not perform optimally. However, evolution will
continue to modify the IC system as a whole to help optimize its
function.

The second pathway is to duplicate existing biochemical systems. This
allows the separate systems to independently evolve separate
functions. The separate systems can then join as part of a larger IC
system.

Since there is no need to pre-evolve non-functioning parts in
anticipation of their function in future IC systems, Behe's argument
that evolution can't evolve IC systems falls apart. IC system are
evolvable.

[jillery]

That's an obvious mis-characterization. The argument is that an
actual evolutionary pathway is either very unlikely or impossible. In
order to prove that wrong, it's only necessary to show a plausible
a/or likely evolutionary pathway.

You would have to cite a case where a scientist claimed said pathway
*must* exist.

[backspace]

http://biologos.org/blog/evolution-and-origin-of-biological-information-part-1-intelligent-design
''....When I reviewed Signature for the American Scientific
Affiliation journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF)
what struck me, repeatedly, was that Meyer made no mention of the
evidence for natural selection as a mechanism to increase biological
information.....''

Nowhere in the paper is ns defined.


Information can never increase or decreas, it can only be expressed.
By analogy matter can never be created or destroyed but only expressed
in different formats. Information was itself never created, it existed
before the beginning. We are OOP derived instances of information,
made in the image of Information(God.)

premise: Information has no physical location, it is neither destoryed
nor created by only expressed as the Platonic opposite do adaptation.
Communication is not the same thing as information, because
communication has a physical dimension as Shannon explained in his
paper on Communication. IN terms of Platonic duality entropy is
another term for uncertainty and uncertainty is understood as the
contrast to certainty. There is no third alternative to the certainty/
uncertainty duality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28information_theory%29

[TomS]

"On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:44:48 -0400, in article
<ns4ot7tgt27fefe4l...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

A major problem with IC is that we don't have a single definition of
what IC is. As problems are discovered with one definition, then there
is a revision. I don't know that we have a final description to deal
with. At times, it seems that "cannot have evolved" shows up as part
of the definition.

So, depending upon what description of IC is taken, there are
different problems with the argument from IC to unevolvability.

One convenient approach is simply to point out that there is no
demonstration that the argument is valid. It is not enough to say
that it isn't obvious how an IC system could evolve. But to show
that the argument is not valid, it is enough to show at least one
possible evolutionary pathway to at least one IC system. A single,
even hypothetical, counter-example is enough to show that an
argument is not valid.

[backspace]

p.345 http://laboratoriogene.info/Ciencia_Hoje/Popper1978.pdf Popper
wrote:

"...In its most daring and sweeping form, the theory of natural
selection would assert that all organisms, and especially all those
highly complex organs whose existence might be interpreted as evidence
of design and , in addition, all forms of animal behaviour, have
evolved as the result of natural selection, that is, as the result of
chance-like inheritable variations, of which the useless ones are
weeded out, so that only the useful ones remain ....."

Useful and remain are the dissimilar terms that self-referentially
refer to the same fact, saying the same thing twice. If not even
Popper could spot a tautology then it is no wonder the rest of society
has such difficulty.

Note the many ways of using dissimilar terms to say the same thing
twice about the Adaptation premise:
1) Favorable attributes are preserved - Wikipedia ns article version.
2) useful ones remain - Popper
3) Perpetuators proliferate - Stanford tautologies usenet talk.origins
thread
4) Those constituted were preserved - Aristotle, on my wiki
5) Differential reproductive success are another cluster of terms used
as proxy for 1-4.

The formulators of these rhetorical tautological sentences have
different views on the scale by which attributes were acquired:
Spontaneous such as Aristotle or gradual as Darwin had it. Their basic
premises is the same.
1) Information has a physical dimension only(Adaptation), the contrast
to YEC (expression)
2) Information is acquired(adaptation) either gradually(Darwin,
Miller) or spontaneously(Aristotle) and never expresses a pre-existing
attribute.

Note how Darwin lifted Aristotle's tautological proposition,
guaranteeing the truth of his proposition(Spontaneous generation) to
formulate a different guaranteed proposition from which he derived a
different conclusion. Because tautologies guarantee the truth of the
proposition, it allows one to come to any arbitrary conclusion. This
allows evolutionary theory(Aristotle) to adapt past,present and
future; itself to the facts(Genes) like a fog adapts to a mountain.

[jillery]

ISTM a solution is to distinguish between Behe's specific IC from more
generalized forms of irreducible complexity. When discussing the
former, as I do above, it's appropriate to restrict the discussion to
Behe's definition, given in the 2006 revision of "Darwin's Black Box":

"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."

That Behe's definition is still unclear in detail doesn't alter the
validity of arguments which counter its substance. IC advocates
shouldn't be allowed to hide behind the weaknesses of their premise.

>One convenient approach is simply to point out that there is no
>demonstration that the argument is valid. It is not enough to say
>that it isn't obvious how an IC system could evolve. But to show
>that the argument is not valid, it is enough to show at least one
>possible evolutionary pathway to at least one IC system. A single,
>even hypothetical, counter-example is enough to show that an
>argument is not valid.

Yeppers. Kalkidas' requirement that Miller produce a complete

chemical pathway from a non-flagellar bacterium to a flagellar

bacterium simply retreats into solipsism.

[TomS]

"On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:47:23 -0400, in article
<k13ot71pr1rv2empn...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."

The original example of Irreducible Complexity, which Behe (I believe)
still holds to is the mousetrap.

Behe (and others) have, in the face of (obvious) non-designed examples
have modified the "definition" in order to account for those examples.

But is there any reason given for the modification of the definition,
other than as an *ad hoc* device to take care of the counter-examples?

Why restrict it to biomolecular systems? Why restrict it to many parts?
Why restrict it to well matched parts? Why restrict it to living systems?
Why restrict it to micro (rather than macro) systems?

Is there something about biomolecular systems which distinguishes their
irreducible complexity from the corresponding property of biomechanical
systems?

[backspace]

On Jun 16, 6:18 pm, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 00:47:23 -0400, in article

> <k13ot71pr1rv2empn0etvlk9tr0npsh...@4ax.com>, jillery stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:32:18 -0700 (PDT), Ron O <rokim...@cox.net>

Why don't you read What D'Arcy Thompson said about the issue?

=== Composite Integrity ===
[[D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson]] on Composite Integrity. These are
scratchpad notes, trying to distill the CI concept by Thompson.
See [[D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson]] for context and Gutenberg press
link.

-------------------------------------------------------
In various ways our structural problem is beset by "limiting
conditions." Not only must rigidity be associated with flexibility,
but also stability must be ensured in various positions and
attitudes ; and the primary function of support or weight-carrying
must be combined with the provision of points

It has been remarked over and over again how harmoni-
ously the whole organism hangs together, and how throughout
its fabric one part is related and fitted to another in strictly
''functional correlation''.

We tend, as we analyse a thing into its parts or into its
properties, to magnify these, to exaggerate their apparent
independence, and to hide from ourselves (at least for a time) the
essential integrity and individuality of the composite whole.

We divide the body into its organs, the skeleton into its bones, as
in very much the same fashion we make a subjective analysis of
the mind, according to the teachings of psychology, into component
factors: but we know very well that judgment and knowledge,
courage or gentleness, love or fear, have no separate existence,
but are somehow mere manifestations, or imaginary co-efficients,
of a most complex integral.

And likewise, as biologists, we may go so far as to say that even the
bones themselves are only in a limited and even a deceptive sense,
separate and individual things. The skeleton begins as a continuum,
and a continuum it
remains all life long. The things that link bone with bone,
cartilage, ligaments, membranes, are fashioned out of the same
primordial tissue, and come into being -pari jmssu, with the bones
themselves.

The entire fabric has its soft parts and its hard, its
rigid and its flexible parts ; but until we disrupt and dismember
its bony, gristly and fibrous parts, one from another, it exists
simply as a "skeleton," as one integral and individual whole.

A bridge was once upon a time a loose heap of pillars and rods
and rivets of steel. But the identity of these is lost, just as if
they were fused into a solid mass, when once the bridge is built;
their separate functions are only to be recognised and analysed
in so far as we can analyse the stresses, the tensions and the
pressures, which affect this part of the structure or that; and
'''these forces are not themselves separate entities, but are the
resultants of an analysis of the whole field of force'''.

''Moreover when the bridge is broken it is no* longer a bridge, and
all its
strength is gone.''

So is it precisely with the skeleton. In it is
reflected a field of force : and keeping pace, as it were, in action
and interaction with this field of force, the whole skeleton and
every part thereof, down to the minute intrinsic structure of the
bones themselves, is related in form and in position to the lines
of force, to the resistances it has to encounter; for by one of
the mysteries of biology, resistance begets resistance, and where
pressure falls there growth springs up in strength to meet it.

And, pursuing the same train of thought, we see that all this is
true not of the skeleton alone but of the whole fabric of the body.
Muscle and bone, for instance, are inseparably associated and
connected ; they are moulded one with another ; they come into
being together, and act and react together*. We may study
them apart, but it is as a concession to our weakness and to the
narrow outlook of our minds. We see, dimly perhaps, but yet
with all the assurance of conviction, that between muscle and
bone there can be no change in the one but it is correlated with
changes in the other; that through and through they are '''linked
in indissoluble association''' ; that they are only separate entities


714 ON FORM AND MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY [ch.

in this limited and subordinate sense, that they are parts of a
whole which, when it loses its '''composite integrity''', ceases to
exist.

:(* John Hunter was seldom wrong ; but I cannot believe that he was
right when
he said (Scientific Works, ed. Owen, i, p. 371), "The bones, in a
mechanical view, appear to be the first that are to be considered. We
can study their shape,
connections, number, uses, etc., without considering any other part of
the body.^' )



'''The biologist, as well as the philosopher, learns to recognise
that the whole is not merely the sum of its parts. '''

It is this, and much more than this. '''For it is not a bundle of
parts but an
organisation of parts''', of parts in their mutual arrangement,
fitting one with another, in what Aristotle calls "a single and
indivisible principle of unity" ; and this is no merely metaphysical
conception, but is in biology the fundamental truth which lies at
the basis of Geoffroy's (or Goethe's) law of "compensation," or
"balancement of growth."


Nevertheless Darwin found no difficulty in believing that
"natural selection will tend in the long run to reduce any part
of the organisation, as soon as, through changed habits, it becomes
superfluous : without by any means causing some other part to
be largely developed in a corresponding degree.
('''NOTES''': '' Tautology: reduce any part <=> becomes superfluous'')

And conversely, that [[Natural Selection]] may perfectly well succeed
in largely developing an organ without requiring as a necessary
compensation
the reduction of some adjoining part*.

This view has been developed into a doctrine of the "independence of
single char-
acters" (not to be confused with the germinal "unit characters"
of '''Mendelism'''), especially by the palaeontologists.

('''NOTES:''' This must have been the chain of reasoning to deal with
the ''composite integrity'' or IC argument back then. It seems
genetics was not yet accepted. Needs further review)


Thus '''Osborn'''
asserts a "'''principle of hereditary correlation,'''" combined with
a
" principle of hereditary separability whereby the body is a colony,
a mosaic, of single individual and separable charactersf-"

I cannot think that there is more than a small element of truth
in this doctrine.

As '''Kant''' said, "die Ursache der Art der Existenz
bei jedem Theile eines lebenden Korpers ist im Ganzen enthalten..'^

And, according to the trend or aspect of our thought, we may
look upon the co-ordinated parts, now as related and fitted to the
end or function of the whole, and now as related to or resulting
from the physical causes inherent in the entire system of forces
to which the whole has been exposed, and under whose influence
it has come into being J.

* Origin of Species, 6th ed. p. 118.

t Atner. Naturalist, April, 1915, p. 198, etc. Cf. infra, p. 727.

J Driesch sees in "Entelechy" that something which differentiates the
whole



XVI] THE PROBLEM OF PHYLOGENY 715

It would seem to me that the mechanical principles and
phenomena which we have dealt with in this chapter are of no small
importance to the morphologist, all the more when he is inclined
to direct his study of the skeleton exclusively to the problem of
phylogeny; and especially when, according to the methods of
modern comparative morphology, he is apt to take the skeleton
to pieces, and to draw from the comparison of a series of scapulae,
humeri, or individual vertebrae, conclusions as to the descent
and relationship of the animals to which they belong.

It would, I dare say, be a gross exaggeration to see in every
bone nothing more than a resultant of immediate and direct
physical or mechanical conditions ; for to do so would be t® deny
the existence, in this connection, of a principle of heredity. And
though I have tried throughout this book to lay emphasis on the
direct action of causes other than heredity, in short to circum-
scribe the employment of the latter as a working hypothesis in
morphology, there can still be no question whatsoever but that
heredity is a vastly important as well as a mysterious thing; it
is one of the great factors in biology, however we may attempt to
figure to ourselves, or howsoever we may fail even to imagine,
its underlying physical explanation.

But I maintain that it is no less an exaggeration if we tend to
neglect these direct physical and mechanical modes of causation
altogether, and to see in the
characters of a bone merely the results of variation and of heredity,
and to trust, in consequence, to those characters as a sure and
certain and unquestioned guide to affinity and phylogeny.
Comparative anatomy has its physiological side, which filled
men's minds in '''[[John Hunter]]''' day, and in Owen's day ; it has
its

from the sum of its parts in the case of the organism:

:"The organism, we know, is a system the single constituents of which
are inorganic in themselves ; only the whole constituted by them in
their typical order or arrangement owes its specificity to
'Entelechy'" {Gifford LerAures, p. 2"?9, 1908): and I think it could
be shewn that many other philosophers have said precisely the same
thing.

('''NOTES''': Entelechy seems to have been some sort of vernacular for
IC, by Gifford Leraures - DO A SEARCH)


So far as the argument goes, I fail to see how this Entelechy is shewn
to be peculiarly or specifically related to the living organism.

'''The conception that the whole is ahvays somethini^ very different
from its parts is a very ancient doctrine. '''

The reader will perhaps remember how, in another vein, the theme is
treated by '''Martinus Seriblerus''': "In every Jack there is a meat-
roasting Quality, which neither resides in the fly, nor in the weight,
nor in any particular wheel of the Jack, but is the result of the
whole composition; etc., etc."



716 ON FOKM AND MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY [ch.

classificatory and phylogenetic aspect, which has all but filled
men's minds during the last couple of generations; and we can
lose sight of neither aspect without risk of error and misconception.

It is certain that the question of phylogeny, always difficult,
becomes especially so in cases where a great change of physical
or mechanical conditions has come about, and where accordingly
the physical and physiological factors in connection with change
of form are bound to be large. To discuss these questions at
length would be to enter on a discussion of Lamarck's philosophy
of biology, and of many other things besides. But let us take
one single illustration.

[backspace]

Notice this part by D'Arcy Thompson, how he traces back the IC concept
back to Aristotle:

http://archive.org/details/ongrowthform00thom

The biologist, as well as the philosopher, learns to recognise that
the whole is not merely the sum of its parts. It is this, and much
more than this. For it is not a bundle of parts but an organisation of

parts, of parts in their mutual arrangement, fitting one with another,

[TomS]

"On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:49:19 -0700 (PDT), in article
<d5fbaffc-f84a-4429...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, backspace
stated..."

I am aware that a concept very much like Behe's Irreducible
Complexity existed in biology long before Behe and even before Darwin.

For example, it was widely used in the 18th century to argue for
preformation.

[backspace]

After googling, it seem the paragraph below is what Thompson referred
to:

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Aristotle#a_single_and_indivisible_principle_of_unity
''...But again, if unity is more of the nature of a principle, and the
indivisible is one, and everything indivisible is so either in
quantity or in species, and that which is so in species is the prior,
and genera are divisible into species for man is not the genus of
individual men), that which is predicated directly of the individuals
will have more unity. ...''

I don't understand this, is there any Aristotle experts around?

[jillery]

Other than that Behe is a biochemist by profession, there's nothing I
can think of. ISTM to be merely a convenient way to mitigate the
"which IC?" question. To be explicit, I see no conceptual distinction
between Behe's IC and Dembski's SCI, but if you want to discuss the
one, it's best not to conflate it with the other.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 15, 10:28 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 14, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> 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:
>
> > > > > >http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>
> > > > > 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.
>

> [Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Herman Muller described
> "IC" (interlocking) systems as a product of evolution long before
> Behe...]
>
> No, the claim is based on the definition, which you have wrong.
>
> But the claim is not a fact, it is an argument that requires
> evidential support. It is premised upon IC as defined by Behe (see
> Burkhard's post) and I would have you observe, as Burkhard pointed
> out, that Behe does not include "cannot have evolved" in the
> definition.

That's precisely why I said "The definition of IC is based on the
claim of fact...." (above). Behe goes on to say because these systems
are irreducible gradualism is falsified.

I fail to understand what both you and Burk don't understand?

> There's a good reason for this. Behe understood that doing
> so would amount to begging the question, and it would have done him no
> good. Defining an IC system as something that cannot have evolved
> would have been a direct assumption of the conclusion he was
> attempting to put forward and would have earned him nothing but scorn
> for his inability to formulate a coherent argument.
>
> Thus the *definition* of IC was an observation about interrelated
> parts in a system, and the *argument* which followed from it was that
> such a system cannot evolve.

Agreed.

Again, all I said was "The definition of IC is based on the claim of

fact: certain phenomena, if it exists, could not have been produced by

gradualism" (RM).

> Many pathways have since been offered by
> which such systems can in fact evolve, leaving Behe's specific claims
> essentially falsified.
>

This is another subject, but what you say is not true (Behe 1996 has
never been falsified).

> You do not understand what IC is, and you've gotten the argument
> backwards. When will you recognize that your dependence upon personal
> definitions is dysfunctional?
>
> RLC

All this says is that you misread what I wrote.

Conclusion: If irreducible phenomena exists then gradualism is
falsified. If the phenomena known as "IC" systems was produced by
gradualism then the quote marks are justified.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

What you don't understand is that we actually do understand.

You are arguing that it is part of the definition of IC that the
condition cannot come about by natural processes (evolution). This is
not part of Behe's definition, nor is it part of anyone else's
(besides yourself). What this means is that an example of IC can be
identified by either side of the argument (and in fact has been)
without compelling any resolution of the argument offered by ID
proponents. Both sides agree that structures may be irreducibly
complex. They disagree about what that implies.

> > There's a good reason for this. Behe understood that doing
> > so would amount to begging the question, and it would have done him no
> > good. Defining an IC system as something that cannot have evolved
> > would have been a direct assumption of the conclusion he was
> > attempting to put forward and would have earned him nothing but scorn
> > for his inability to formulate a coherent argument.
>
> > Thus the *definition* of IC was an observation about interrelated
> > parts in a system, and the *argument* which followed from it was that
> > such a system cannot evolve.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Again, all I said was "The definition of IC is based on the claim of
> fact: certain phenomena, if it exists, could not have been produced by
> gradualism" (RM).

Again, the definition is *not* based on the claim, the claim is based
on the definition.

And your assertion which follows is also wrong The reason it's wrong
is that, even using Behe's definition, your conclusion ("could not
have been produced...") does not follow from the existence of IC. It
is something that must be further established by evidential
demonstration.

> > Many pathways have since been offered by
> > which such systems can in fact evolve, leaving Behe's specific claims
> > essentially falsified.
>
> This is another subject, but what you say is not true (Behe 1996 has
> never been falsified).

For all reasonable intents and purposes, it has.

> > You do not understand what IC is, and you've gotten the argument
> > backwards. When will you recognize that your dependence upon personal
> > definitions is dysfunctional?
>
> > RLC
>
> All this says is that you misread what I wrote.
>
> Conclusion: If irreducible phenomena exists then gradualism is
> falsified. If the phenomena known as "IC" systems was produced by
> gradualism then the quote marks are justified.

You are wrong. Utterly wrong. And it is because you are using an
idiosyncratic definition of IC.

RLC

[jillery]

Again you presume your conclusions. Irreducible phenomena exist.
Gradualism is not falsified.

[Burkhard]

Because you fail to understand the distinction between a definition,
and a claim about the object thus defined. Your odd grammar use may
play a role in this.

Try this analogy:
I DEFINE "cricket " as "a bat-and-ball game played between two teams
of 11 players on a field, at the centre of which is a rectangular 22-
yard long pitch"
I CLAIM it has, as an empirical fact, a certain PROPERTY: "cricket is
20 years old"
I INFER from this that cricket evolved from baseball.

Now, someone comes and shows that cricket is really much older, from
the 16th century

This person has of course not shown that cricket does not exist, he
has just shown that i does not have a certain PROPERTY that I said it
had, and hence my inferencen is invalid.

Same with Behe:
He DEFINES IC as: any system that stops functioning if your remove a
part
He CLAIMS any such system has a certain POPERTY, as a matter of
empirical fact:"IC systems can't evolve.
Form this he INFERS: therefore the ToE is wrong

If now someone comes and shows tha claim is wrong, IC systems can
evolve, then this does not mean there are no IC systems, just that
they don;t have a specific property Behe claims they have

[jillery]

As someone who once argued that Behe's definition of IC included
evolution, I thank you for this excellent explanation of how that
argument is wrong.

Wow, old dogs can learn new tricks. Whodathunkit?

[Rolf]

If the concept of IC is applicable to evolution as we know it, that doesn't
mean evolution is falsified. It would just default to what Behe says, that
some thing has been tampering with DNA at certain times during evolution.
Btu since there are no reasons for assuming IC in the biology that we know,
the point is pointless anyway.

But since Behe accepts common descent and a very old Earth with evolution
all the time until today, your peculiar idea about a second creation a few
thousand years ago is not what Behe is tlaking about.

You have got to decide what your theory is and explain it by presenting
evidence or admit defeat. What about your pet subject, the rationale for
your long awaited book soon to be publihsed making all our lives miserable:
Darwin and Natural Selection?

You see, we need an alternative to the theory of evolution as it stands
today. Your "invisible designer' is not an alternative, he exist in your
mind only and doesn't explain anything. We have facts, all you have is
'Intelligent Designer". He hasn't even got a name? But you know he is a very
capable designer, with the resurces to tamper with life all over the planet?

Read the Bible, Ray, pray and wait for doomsday. Your place in heaven is
guaranteed.

[Rolf]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> 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:
>>
>>>>>
http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-evolutionary-origins...
>>
>>>> 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, you talk nonsense. We don't usually refer to a concept as a fact.

Saiyng that "If A exists, then B", is not a fact! it is wehat it is: A claim
that needs to be proven. Where is oyu proof of the validity of IC ib
biology? IC means it cannot be reduced, but we know a great del of
irreversible processes but that doesn't mean they didn't work in the one
direction.

Since you are 100% science illitterate, what you say about science is
worthless, it might as well come from a shaman.


> Ray

[Burkhard]

:o) Thanks!

[Ray Martinez]

Since the issue is truly basic, both of you do not.

> You are arguing that it is part of the definition of IC that the
> condition cannot come about by natural processes (evolution). This is
> not part of Behe's definition, nor is it part of anyone else's
> (besides yourself).

Yes, it is.

After reading the entire book the definition relates phenomena that
cannot have been produced by the most basic claim of Darwinian
evolution: step by step gradualism. That's the claim and it is true.
All integral parts must function or the entire system fails. If the
system exists, evolution is falsified.

> What this means is that an example of IC can be
> identified by either side of the argument (and in fact has been)
> without compelling any resolution of the argument offered by ID
> proponents. Both sides agree that structures may be irreducibly
> complex. They disagree about what that implies.
>

These comments depart the confines of Behe 1996 (the book itself, our
subject). The same becomes proof that you need said departure to
falsify what I say. No wonder a "misunderstanding" is in place.

>
>
>
>
> > > There's a good reason for this. Behe understood that doing
> > > so would amount to begging the question, and it would have done him no
> > > good. Defining an IC system as something that cannot have evolved
> > > would have been a direct assumption of the conclusion he was
> > > attempting to put forward and would have earned him nothing but scorn
> > > for his inability to formulate a coherent argument.
>
> > > Thus the *definition* of IC was an observation about interrelated
> > > parts in a system, and the *argument* which followed from it was that
> > > such a system cannot evolve.
>
> > Agreed.
>

Yoo hoo, Robert?

Since you admitted using sources and information not under
consideration, the issue is solved, closed.

A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
up. You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
falsified, but it never has. All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
phenomena exists, evolution is falsified. We know for a fact said
phenomena exists. To discover Rube Goldberg machines, at the molecular
level, is spectacular evidence supporting Intelligent design. The only
thing left for explanation is: why are you guys unable (not unwilling)
to admit? A certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question.

Ray

[Prof Weird]

Translation : reality contradicts Ray, so the problem lies with
REALITY, since Ray is utterly incapable of error due to his belief in
Magical Sky Pixies.

> > You are arguing that it is part of the definition of IC that the
> > condition cannot come about by natural processes (evolution). This is
> > not part of Behe's definition, nor is it part of anyone else's
> > (besides yourself).
>
> Yes, it is.

Good thing that, IN REALITY, since IC systems can evolve, finding them
is not a problem to evolution.

> After reading the entire book the definition relates phenomena that
> cannot have been produced by the most basic claim of Darwinian
> evolution: step by step gradualism. That's the claim and it is true.
> All integral parts must function or the entire system fails. If the
> system exists, evolution is falsified.

Only if you're a demented f*ckwit who REFUSES to understand that
functions can CHANGE over time.

That parts to a system can be added, subtracted or modified.

Multicomponent systems where the removal of any part destroys the
system have been observed to evolve.

For instance, the atrazine degradation pathway in bacteria. 3 enzymes
are required to utilize atrazine as an energy source.

Atrazine is NOT a natural compound - it was invented decades ago.
Therefore, bacteria EVOLVED an IC system to digest it.

Therefore, the addle-pated gibbering idiocy of 'IF ** I ** CANNOT SEE
A PATHWAY, A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE MUST HAVE INSTALLED IT ALL AT ONCE !!!"
refrain of the IDiocreotards is thus demonstrated wrong.

> > What this means is that an example of IC can be
> > identified by either side of the argument (and in fact has been)
> > without compelling any resolution of the argument offered by ID
> > proponents. Both sides agree that structures may be irreducibly
> > complex. They disagree about what that implies.
>
> These comments depart the confines of Behe 1996 (the book itself, our
> subject). The same becomes proof that you need said departure to
> falsify what I say. No wonder a "misunderstanding" is in place.

Yup - reality does not conform to your delusions, so you claim
everyone else is confused ...

Translation : "since reality shows me am wrong, I'll scream 'ME AM
RIGHT !!!', delcare the matter closed and run away !!"

> A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
> falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
> up. You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
> spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
> falsified, but it never has.

The f*ckwitted idea that the ONLY 'explanation' for an IC system is
'GOD/INTELLIGENT DESIGNER DIDIT !!!!!11!!11!!!' has been falsified
several times over.

Since parts of a system can change, and functions can change, there is
no real barrier to an IC system evolving.

Since IC systems can evolve, there is no sane or rational reason to
leap to 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!1!1!!' the way Behe and his glassy-eyed,
slack-jawed IDiot drones and parrots do.

> All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
> phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.

Again, twit : IC systems have been OBSERVED to evolve. Therefore, the
presence of IC systems are NOT a threat to evolution.

> We know for a fact said
> phenomena exists. To discover Rube Goldberg machines, at the molecular
> level, is spectacular evidence supporting Intelligent design.

Only if you're a demented f*ckwit with a pathological need to grovel
before Magical Sky Pixies.

SIMPLICITY is a hallmark of design, not complexity. The more complex
a system, the more likely it can be damaged - something a COMPETENT
designer would try to avoid.

All that Rube Goldberg complexity is FULLY EXPLAINABLE VIA EVOLUTION.
The only reason you'd 'think' that it can only be explained by the
direct intervention of Magical Sky Pixies is the fact you are ignorant
of about half a century of biology.

Again, buffoon : 'functions' can change over time. Parts can be
added, subtracted, or modified in a system. IC systems have been
OBSERVED TO EVOLVE.

> The only
> thing left for explanation is: why are you guys unable (not unwilling)
> to admit? A certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question.

"An unknowable being with unknowable motives somehow did stuff
sometime in the past for some reason !!!" is not an answer.

Again, twit : given the FACT that IC systems are easily evolvable,
they are not a threat to evolution.

You 'think' they are because you are unwilling/unable to comprehend
the realities of biology - like the FACT that 'functions' can change,
and parts of a system can be added, subtracted and modified.

[Robert Camp]

On Jun 18, 2:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 7:08 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 17, 2:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 10:28 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 14, 2:50 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 6/14/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:

<snip>

> > You are arguing that it is part of the definition of IC that the
> > condition cannot come about by natural processes (evolution). This is
> > not part of Behe's definition, nor is it part of anyone else's
> > (besides yourself).
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> After reading the entire book the definition relates phenomena that
> cannot have been produced by the most basic claim of Darwinian
> evolution: step by step gradualism. That's the claim and it is true.
> All integral parts must function or the entire system fails. If the
> system exists, evolution is falsified.

The definition is distinct from the argument, Ray. I can't say it any
plainer. After your oblivious contradiction of reality above, you go
on to confirm my point by discussing the book and its claims, which
are based upon, but separate from, the definition.

> > What this means is that an example of IC can be
> > identified by either side of the argument (and in fact has been)
> > without compelling any resolution of the argument offered by ID
> > proponents. Both sides agree that structures may be irreducibly
> > complex. They disagree about what that implies.
>
> These comments depart the confines of Behe 1996 (the book itself, our
> subject). The same becomes proof that you need said departure to
> falsify what I say. No wonder a "misunderstanding" is in place.

The above is probably intelligible were I motivated enough, but at
this point you seem committed to your misapprehensions so I can't be
bothered to wade through it.

> > > > There's a good reason for this. Behe understood that doing
> > > > so would amount to begging the question, and it would have done him no
> > > > good. Defining an IC system as something that cannot have evolved
> > > > would have been a direct assumption of the conclusion he was
> > > > attempting to put forward and would have earned him nothing but scorn
> > > > for his inability to formulate a coherent argument.
>
> > > > Thus the *definition* of IC was an observation about interrelated
> > > > parts in a system, and the *argument* which followed from it was that
> > > > such a system cannot evolve.
>
> > > Agreed.
>
> Yoo hoo, Robert?

Yes, I ignored your apparent agreement, because everything else you
wrote indicated you had no idea what you were saying. Everything
you've written since then reinforces that impression.

<snip>

> > > > You do not understand what IC is, and you've gotten the argument
> > > > backwards. When will you recognize that your dependence upon personal
> > > > definitions is dysfunctional?
>
> > > > RLC
>
> > > All this says is that you misread what I wrote.
>
> > > Conclusion: If irreducible phenomena exists then gradualism is
> > > falsified. If the phenomena known as "IC" systems was produced by
> > > gradualism then the quote marks are justified.
>
> > You are wrong. Utterly wrong. And it is because you are using an
> > idiosyncratic definition of IC.
>
> > RLC
>
> Since you admitted using sources and information not under
> consideration, the issue is solved, closed.

What are you talking about?

> A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
> falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
> up. You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
> spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
> falsified, but it never has. All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
> phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.

Refusing to learn, refusing to embrace and encompass new information
in pursuit of a more refined understanding, is, or would be if one
exists, an affront to God. I wish you would try to lessen your
blasphemous outbursts, Ray. It's likely at least a few people of faith
read this forum.

> We know for a fact said
> phenomena exists.

And no matter how hard we try to agree with you, you just won't have
it.

> To discover Rube Goldberg machines, at the molecular
> level, is spectacular evidence supporting Intelligent design.

No, it's a spectacular example of you continuing to completely
misunderstand the issues.

> The only
> thing left for explanation is: why are you guys unable (not unwilling)
> to admit? A certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question.

He was a nut, Ray. Wake up and smell the cigar.

RLC

[Ray Martinez]

Behe has never said Black Box falsified. Your comments above change
the claims of Black Box in a arbitrary manner. In other words your
claims falsify claims that don't exist.

Completely false.

Behe has proposed to remove the gene that codes for the flagellum,
then see if evolution can do it. Guess what?

> Since parts of a system can change, and functions can change, there is
> no real barrier to an IC system evolving.
>
> Since IC systems can evolve, there is no sane or rational reason to
> leap to 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!1!1!!' the way Behe and his glassy-eyed,
> slack-jawed IDiot drones and parrots do.
>
> > All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
> > phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.
>
> Again, twit : IC systems have been OBSERVED to evolve.  Therefore, the
> presence of IC systems are NOT a threat to evolution.
>

Evolution is inferred, Einstein, not observed.

If any of that were true, then evolution should be described as an
Intelligent process.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You need follow along. Re-read my last post. In it you'll find the
answer, or scroll up. We were talking about the claims of Black Box.
Then you "admitted" that you were including claims and information
concerning the entire debate (post-Black Box), which departed our
subject (the claims of Black Box).

> > A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
> > falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
> > up. You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
> > spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
> > falsified, but it never has. All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
> > phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.
>
> Refusing to learn, refusing to embrace and encompass new information
> in pursuit of a more refined understanding, is, or would be if one
> exists, an affront to God.

Non-sequitur.

Whatever students you may have in life, I am not one of them. Perhaps
you could tell me where you obtained this idea?

> I wish you would try to lessen your
> blasphemous outbursts, Ray. It's likely at least a few people of faith
> read this forum.
>

Truth is not blasphemy.

Darwinists are fucking liars, especially the ones who claim to be
Christians.

> > We know for a fact said
> > phenomena exists.
>
> And no matter how hard we try to agree with you, you just won't have
> it.
>

It was I who typed "Agreed" to your most true remarks, then you
ignored. Those remarks captured everything I was saying. Then, when
forced to acknowledge, you typed non-sense. It is YOU who cannot be
placated, even with agreement.

> > To discover Rube Goldberg machines, at the molecular
> > level, is spectacular evidence supporting Intelligent design.
>
> No, it's a spectacular example of you continuing to completely
> misunderstand the issues.
>

The usual evo method of evading, "the misunderstanding" card.

> > The only
> > thing left for explanation is: why are you guys unable (not unwilling)
> > to admit? A certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question.
>
> He was a nut, Ray. Wake up and smell the cigar.
>
> RLC

Since your kind believes all anti-evolutionists are nuts, what's the
point?

There is no insult in being called a nut by a person who believes apes
morphed into Africans over the course of millions of years.

Ray (Protestant Evangelical, anti-evolutionist)

[Robert Camp]

On Jun 18, 4:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:37 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 17, 7:08 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 17, 2:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 15, 10:28 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 14, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 14, 4:03 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 2:50 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/14/2012 2:41 PM, Mark Buchanan wrote:

<snip>

> > > > > All this says is that you misread what I wrote.
>
> > > > > Conclusion: If irreducible phenomena exists then gradualism is
> > > > > falsified. If the phenomena known as "IC" systems was produced by
> > > > > gradualism then the quote marks are justified.
>
> > > > You are wrong. Utterly wrong. And it is because you are using an
> > > > idiosyncratic definition of IC.
>
> > > > RLC
>
> > > Since you admitted using sources and information not under
> > > consideration, the issue is solved, closed.
>
> > What are you talking about?
>
> You need follow along. Re-read my last post. In it you'll find the
> answer, or scroll up. We were talking about the claims of Black Box.
> Then you "admitted" that you were including claims and information
> concerning the entire debate (post-Black Box), which departed our
> subject (the claims of Black Box).

I don't recall "admitting" any such thing. Have you confused your
attributions?

RLC

<snip>

[Ray Martinez]

"What this means is that an example of IC can be identified by either
side of the argument (and in fact has been) without compelling any
resolution of the argument offered by ID proponents. Both sides agree
that structures may be irreducibly complex. They disagree about what

that implies" (RC).

Then in response I wrote:

"These comments depart the confines of Behe 1996 (the book itself, our
subject). The same becomes proof that you need said departure to
falsify what I say. No wonder a 'misunderstanding' is in place."

Then I said:

"Since you admitted using sources and information not under
consideration, the issue is solved, closed."

At any rate, I am through here. But if you choose to respond I will
read it.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/18/12 3:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 17, 7:08 pm, Robert Camp<robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip

>>
>>> I fail to understand what both you and Burk don't understand?
>>
>> What you don't understand is that we actually do understand.
>>
>
> Since the issue is truly basic, both of you do not.

The issue may be "basic" but you are still the one who is wrong, Ray.
You don't understand that an irreducibly complex system is not
necessarily impossible to evolve by gradual steps.

>
>> You are arguing that it is part of the definition of IC that the
>> condition cannot come about by natural processes (evolution). This is
>> not part of Behe's definition, nor is it part of anyone else's
>> (besides yourself).
>
> Yes, it is.

Then show where Behe states such a condition.

>
> After reading the entire book the definition relates phenomena that
> cannot have been produced by the most basic claim of Darwinian
> evolution: step by step gradualism.

That is where you, and Behe make your mistake. Those "phenomena" can be
produced by step by step gradualism. All you have to do is realize that
not every step is an addition. Some steps may alter the function, and
some may delete a function that once was.

> That's the claim and it is true.

It may be the claim, but it's not true, and that's the point.

> All integral parts must function or the entire system fails. If the
> system exists, evolution is falsified.

Except that not all 'integral parts' need to have come together by
addition alone. Some of those parts may have played another role at
one time, and some parts that existed at one time may now be missing.
Since evolution can cause changes in function, and cause deletions, the
existence of some irreducibly complex system does not falsify evolution.

>
>> What this means is that an example of IC can be
>> identified by either side of the argument (and in fact has been)
>> without compelling any resolution of the argument offered by ID
>> proponents. Both sides agree that structures may be irreducibly
>> complex. They disagree about what that implies.
>>
>
> These comments depart the confines of Behe 1996 (the book itself, our
> subject).

Since science itself "departs from" the confines of Behe's book, so what?

> The same becomes proof that you need said departure to
> falsify what I say. No wonder a "misunderstanding" is in place.

What you don't realize is the misunderstanding is your own.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> There's a good reason for this. Behe understood that doing
>>>> so would amount to begging the question, and it would have done him no
>>>> good. Defining an IC system as something that cannot have evolved
>>>> would have been a direct assumption of the conclusion he was
>>>> attempting to put forward and would have earned him nothing but scorn
>>>> for his inability to formulate a coherent argument.
>>
>>>> Thus the *definition* of IC was an observation about interrelated
>>>> parts in a system, and the *argument* which followed from it was that
>>>> such a system cannot evolve.
>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>
> Yoo hoo, Robert?

The point being the argument itself is wrong, even if one agrees with
the definition.

>
>>> Again, all I said was "The definition of IC is based on the claim of
>>> fact: certain phenomena, if it exists, could not have been produced by
>>> gradualism" (RM).
>>
>> Again, the definition is *not* based on the claim, the claim is based
>> on the definition.
>>
>> And your assertion which follows is also wrong The reason it's wrong
>> is that, even using Behe's definition, your conclusion ("could not
>> have been produced...") does not follow from the existence of IC. It
>> is something that must be further established by evidential
>> demonstration.

Ray, you seem to have missed this.

>>
>>>> Many pathways have since been offered by
>>>> which such systems can in fact evolve, leaving Behe's specific claims
>>>> essentially falsified.
>>
>>> This is another subject, but what you say is not true (Behe 1996 has
>>> never been falsified).
>>
>> For all reasonable intents and purposes, it has.
>>
>>>> You do not understand what IC is, and you've gotten the argument
>>>> backwards. When will you recognize that your dependence upon personal
>>>> definitions is dysfunctional?
>>
>>>> RLC
>>
>>> All this says is that you misread what I wrote.
>>
>>> Conclusion: If irreducible phenomena exists then gradualism is
>>> falsified. If the phenomena known as "IC" systems was produced by
>>> gradualism then the quote marks are justified.
>>
>> You are wrong. Utterly wrong. And it is because you are using an
>> idiosyncratic definition of IC.
>>
>> RLC
>
> Since you admitted using sources and information not under
> consideration, the issue is solved, closed.

Yes, you are wrong, Ray.

>
> A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
> falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
> up.

Just as you've never "coughed up" any evidence to support your claims.

> You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
> spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
> falsified, but it never has.

Behe has been falsified, by the realization that gradual changes don't
have to all be additive. Behe's claim that IC can't evolve is based on
the mistaken belief that evolution can only add. See:

http://www.universaldarwinism.com/documents/Behe%27s%20Empty%20Box1.htm

http://www.btinternet.com/~clare.stevens/behenot.htm

http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/behe.html

> All you guys are fucking liars.

Because you have a mistaken idea about how evolution works? Sorry,
Ray, but you are the one who is lying.

> If IC
> phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.

No matter how often you repeat this, it's still false.

> We know for a fact said
> phenomena exists.

Who is the "we" here, and what examples would you like to present?

> To discover Rube Goldberg machines, at the molecular
> level, is spectacular evidence supporting Intelligent design.

Actually, if you look at "Rube Goldberg" machines, you will see they are
not well designed, or efficient. An intelligent designer could have
made something much more simple, and effective.

> The only
> thing left for explanation is: why are you guys unable (not unwilling)
> to admit? A certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question.

Your "Stanford Ph.D" was wrong about a lot of things, and this is just
one more place he was wrong. There's no mystical reason for not
admitting "ID". Real science rejects it because the evidence doesn't
support it.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/18/12 4:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 18, 3:15 pm, Prof Weird<pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:

snip

>> Atrazine is NOT a natural compound - it was invented decades ago.
>> Therefore, bacteria EVOLVED an IC system to digest it.
>>
>> Therefore, the addle-pated gibbering idiocy of 'IF ** I ** CANNOT SEE
>> A PATHWAY, A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE MUST HAVE INSTALLED IT ALL AT ONCE !!!"
>> refrain of the IDiocreotards is thus demonstrated wrong.
>>
>
> Behe has never said Black Box falsified.

Whether Behe himself has realized it or not, Behe's basic point in DBB
has been falsified. 'IC' systems can evolve, because evolution doesn't
simply add to functions. Behe based his claims on the idea that
evolution only adds.

> Your comments above change
> the claims of Black Box in a arbitrary manner. In other words your
> claims falsify claims that don't exist.

What do you think are the "claims" Behe made?

snipping

>>> A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
>>> falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
>>> up. You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
>>> spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
>>> falsified, but it never has.
>>
>> The f*ckwitted idea that the ONLY 'explanation' for an IC system is
>> 'GOD/INTELLIGENT DESIGNER DIDIT !!!!!11!!11!!!' has been falsified
>> several times over.
>>
>
> Completely false.

Then why are there explanations for "IC" systems other than a
supernatural designer? See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

http://www.dreamviews.com/f77/irreducible-complexity-predicted-1918-a-83571/

>
> Behe has proposed to remove the gene that codes for the flagellum,
> then see if evolution can do it. Guess what?

Again, you are laboring under the mistaken impression that evolution can
only add, not subtract, or change functions.

>
>> Since parts of a system can change, and functions can change, there is
>> no real barrier to an IC system evolving.
>>
>> Since IC systems can evolve, there is no sane or rational reason to
>> leap to 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!1!1!!' the way Behe and his glassy-eyed,
>> slack-jawed IDiot drones and parrots do.
>>
>>> All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
>>> phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.
>>
>> Again, twit : IC systems have been OBSERVED to evolve. Therefore, the
>> presence of IC systems are NOT a threat to evolution.
>>
>
> Evolution is inferred, Einstein, not observed.

Wrong again, Ray. Evolution is observed directly in operation. You
attempt to infer "design" but you use illogical assumptions to do so.

snip

>> You 'think' they are because you are unwilling/unable to comprehend
>> the realities of biology - like the FACT that 'functions' can change,
>> and parts of a system can be added, subtracted and modified.
>
> If any of that were true, then evolution should be described as an
> Intelligent process.

Why? There's no indication that an "intelligent" input is required for
life to evolve. Your mistaken assumption that order can only be
produced by an intelligent being doesn't hold up to reality.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/18/12 5:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>>> Since you admitted using sources and information not under
>>> consideration, the issue is solved, closed.
>>
>> What are you talking about?
>>
>
> You need follow along. Re-read my last post.

Why would that make your nonsense any more credible?

> In it you'll find the
> answer, or scroll up. We were talking about the claims of Black Box.
> Then you "admitted" that you were including claims and information
> concerning the entire debate (post-Black Box), which departed our
> subject (the claims of Black Box).

Of course, those "claims and information" refuted Behe's claims within
the book.

>
>>> A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
>>> falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
>>> up. You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
>>> spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
>>> falsified, but it never has. All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
>>> phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.
>>
>> Refusing to learn, refusing to embrace and encompass new information
>> in pursuit of a more refined understanding, is, or would be if one
>> exists, an affront to God.
>
> Non-sequitur.

Your lack of learning is quite relevant, Ray.

>
> Whatever students you may have in life, I am not one of them.

True. Students want to learn. You have as much ambition to learn as a
rock.

> Perhaps
> you could tell me where you obtained this idea?

Since Robert is much more educated than you are, and understands the
issue much better, listening to him wouldn't be out of the question.

>
>> I wish you would try to lessen your
>> blasphemous outbursts, Ray. It's likely at least a few people of faith
>> read this forum.
>>
>
> Truth is not blasphemy.

And your statements, Ray, are not truth.

>
> Darwinists are fucking liars, especially the ones who claim to be
> Christians.

That's your own lie, Ray. You are the one who is lying, and just
lashing out at people better educated than yourself.

>
>>> We know for a fact said
>>> phenomena exists.
>>
>> And no matter how hard we try to agree with you, you just won't have
>> it.
>>
>
> It was I who typed "Agreed" to your most true remarks, then you
> ignored.

Because you obviously didn't understand what he was talking about.

> Those remarks captured everything I was saying. Then, when
> forced to acknowledge, you typed non-sense. It is YOU who cannot be
> placated, even with agreement.

Ray, you don't have enough knowledge to say if something is, or is not
nonsense. Just because you disagree with something, it's not nonsense.

>
>>> To discover Rube Goldberg machines, at the molecular
>>> level, is spectacular evidence supporting Intelligent design.
>>
>> No, it's a spectacular example of you continuing to completely
>> misunderstand the issues.
>>
>
> The usual evo method of evading, "the misunderstanding" card.

Ray, when you obviously don't understand something, what else would you
call it?

>
>>> The only
>>> thing left for explanation is: why are you guys unable (not unwilling)
>>> to admit? A certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question.
>>
>> He was a nut, Ray. Wake up and smell the cigar.
>>
>> RLC
>
> Since your kind believes all anti-evolutionists are nuts, what's the
> point?

What makes you think that Robert, or his 'kind' believes that? Gene
Scott was a nut, because he did nutty things, and preached nutty claims.
It has little to do with his supposed opposition to evolution.

>
> There is no insult in being called a nut by a person who believes apes
> morphed into Africans over the course of millions of years.

Ray, all humans are apes, and the descendants of apes, not just African
populations. Human populations are all the same in that regard.
Since humans are a species of apes, they can't have 'morphed from' apes.
They evolved into a particular species of ape.

DJT

[Robert Camp]

My only response is astonishment, Ray. None of what you interpret me
to have said has much of a connection to what I actually said, nor do
any of you're explanations about your responses to what I said make
sense.

You seem to understand virtually nothing of what you read unless it
fits your particularly narrow preconceptions.

RLC

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/18/12 10:10 PM, Robert Camp wrote:
> On Jun 18, 7:42 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

>> Then I said:
>>
>> "Since you admitted using sources and information not under
>> consideration, the issue is solved, closed."
>>
>> At any rate, I am through here. But if you choose to respond I will
>> read it.
>
> My only response is astonishment, Ray. None of what you interpret me
> to have said has much of a connection to what I actually said, nor do
> any of you're explanations about your responses to what I said make
> sense.
>
> You seem to understand virtually nothing of what you read unless it
> fits your particularly narrow preconceptions.

You should not find this astonishing, as it's been Ray's pattern since
he started posting here. Ray lives in his own little world. There's
been much speculation on what color the sky is in that world.

DJT

[Robert Camp]

Yeah, I just always hold out a bit of hope that I'll catch Ray in a
rare objective and self-reflective moment.

RLC

[Burkhard]

No they don't. They are based on Behe's definition in tha book. The
whiole point is for him to define IC so that everybody can decide if a
system is IC, regardless of what they think of the conclusion,
otherwise he'd be accused of question begging. It is the empirical
claim that IC systems can't evolve that is at the core of his
argument, and teh aprt on which the sides disagree on

[Burkhard]

So? That does not change the fact that it has been, through examples
as such as the one above. Whether or not Behe subjectively accepts
this is irrelevant

>Your comments above change
> the claims of Black Box in a arbitrary manner.

No, they test the claims of the Black Box and find them wanting

> In other words your
> claims falsify claims that don't exist.

<snip>

>
> > > A while back Ron Okimoto claimed that Behe admitted "Black Box"
> > > falsified. I immediately asked him for the quote. He never coughed it
> > > up. You are very close to saying the same thing, Robert. Evolutionists
> > > spam the banks of knowledge with claims that Behe 1996 has been
> > > falsified, but it never has.
>
> > The f*ckwitted idea that the ONLY 'explanation' for an IC system is
> > 'GOD/INTELLIGENT DESIGNER DIDIT !!!!!11!!11!!!' has been falsified
> > several times over.
>
> Completely false.
>
> Behe has proposed to remove the gene that codes for the flagellum,
> then see if evolution can do it. Guess what?

Doesn't make much sense. How did he "remove the gene", and how did he
test" if evolution can do it"? These are thought expriments only. The
problem with the flagellum is that it is not even IC, as defined by
Behe.
Parts can be removed, and it keeps functioning. See Rajagopala et al.
(2007). "The protein network of bacterial motility". Molecular Systems
Biology 3:

>
> > Since parts of a system can change, and functions can change, there is
> > no real barrier to an IC system evolving.
>
> > Since IC systems can evolve, there is no sane or rational reason to
> > leap to 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!1!1!!' the way Behe and his glassy-eyed,
> > slack-jawed IDiot drones and parrots do.
>
> > > All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
> > > phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.
>
> > Again, twit : IC systems have been OBSERVED to evolve.  Therefore, the
> > presence of IC systems are NOT a threat to evolution.
>
> Evolution is inferred, Einstein, not observed.
>
> > > We know for a fact said
> > > phenomena exists. To discover Rube Goldberg machines, at the molecular
> > > level, is spectacular evidence supporting Intelligent design.

"Rube Goldberg systems" are really really bad candidates for IC. They
are all over engineered, that's the point of them. So they all have
pathways and parts that could be eliminated, and teh main function
still work.

>
> > Only if you're a demented f*ckwit with a pathological need to grovel
> > before Magical Sky Pixies.
>
> > SIMPLICITY is a hallmark of design, not complexity.  The more complex
> > a system, the more likely it can be damaged - something a COMPETENT
> > designer would try to avoid.
>
> > All that Rube Goldberg complexity is FULLY EXPLAINABLE VIA EVOLUTION.
> > The only reason you'd 'think' that it can only be explained by the
> > direct intervention of Magical Sky Pixies is the fact you are ignorant
> > of about half a century of biology.
>
> > Again, buffoon : 'functions' can change over time.  Parts can be
> > added, subtracted, or modified in a system.  IC systems have been
> > OBSERVED TO EVOLVE.
>
> > > The only
> > > thing left for explanation is: why are you guys unable (not unwilling)
> > > to admit? A certain Stanford Ph.D. has answered this question.
>
> > "An unknowable being with unknowable motives somehow did stuff
> > sometime in the past for some reason !!!" is not an answer.
>
> > Again, twit : given the FACT that IC systems are easily evolvable,
> > they are not a threat to evolution.
>
> > You 'think' they are because you are unwilling/unable to comprehend
> > the realities of biology - like the FACT that 'functions' can change,
> > and parts of a system can be added, subtracted and modified.
>
> If any of that were true, then evolution should be described as an
> Intelligent process.
>

No, why? If adding gradual parts is not intelligent (the part of the
ToE Behe agrees with anyway) , then why should subtracting gradually,
or gradually acquiring new functions, be any more intelligent?
Addition is not less "intelligent" than subtraction.

[Prof Weird]

Of COURSE he would never admit he was wrong - he IS a posturing
charlatan after all.

The WHOLE POINT of 'intelligent design' was to come up with a way to
sneak supernatural beings into science - 'evolution cannot explain X;
therefore, God, er, "Intelligent Designer" DIDIT !!! '

Since there is no evidence FOR intelligent design, all they have (and
all they have EVER had) is negative argumentation - 'evolution cannot
explain X; therefore, ** MY ** untestable idiocy MUST be true !!'

According to Behe, it should be IMPOSSIBLE for a 3-enzyme irreducibly
complex system to evolve (so if we found one, we'd 'know' a Magical
Sky Pixie DIDIT !!!!!!11!!!!)

Examination of REALITY shows that irreducibly complex systems can
evolve; therefore, there is no need to invoke the intervention of
external designers (intelligent or otherwise) when we find one.

Nope - completely true. Again, twit : the whole POINT of the ID scam
was to present an 'scientific' 'alternative' to evolution.

According to the IDiots, an IC system is one that has several parts
that must all be present for the system to work.

If such a system could evolve, there would be no point in invoking the
intervention of designers - SO THE ASSUMPTION 'IC, THEREFORE
DESIGNER !!!' is a core idiocy of the movement.

IC systems can evolve; therefore, no need for designers, and no
evidence for ID.

> Behe has proposed to remove the gene that codes for the flagellum,
> then see if evolution can do it. Guess what?

DID HE EVER ACTUALLY _DO_ THE EXPERIMENT ? Of course not !

There is no one 'gene' for the flagellum, for the flagellum is
composed of many different proteins.

Again, twit - IC systems can evolve. Breaking one does not prove it
could not have evolved in the first place.

> > Since parts of a system can change, and functions can change, there is
> > no real barrier to an IC system evolving.
>
> > Since IC systems can evolve, there is no sane or rational reason to
> > leap to 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!1!1!!' the way Behe and his glassy-eyed,
> > slack-jawed IDiot drones and parrots do.
>
> > > All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
> > > phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.
>
> > Again, twit : IC systems have been OBSERVED to evolve.  Therefore, the
> > presence of IC systems are NOT a threat to evolution.
>
> Evolution is inferred, Einstein, not observed.

Nope - evolution is a deduction, based on all available real world
evidence.

Again, buffoon : IC SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED TO EVOLVE. For
instance, atrazine degradation requires 3 enzymes - it is an IC
system.

AND WE KNOW IT EVOLVED, since we know the sequence of each protein,
and can determine what it was derived from.

[Roger Shrubber]

> whole point is for him to define IC so that everybody can decide if a

> system is IC, regardless of what they think of the conclusion,
> otherwise he'd be accused of question begging. It is the empirical
> claim that IC systems can't evolve that is at the core of his
> argument, and teh aprt on which the sides disagree on

No no no.
Behe say IC systems can evolve. Well, sometimes he says that.
But he says it is very^n hard for them to evolve. How many "very"s
depends on who he is talking to. By the way, are multiple "very"s
additive or multiplicative? My bias is multiplicative.

So he basically panders to those who want to think there are
things that probably could not have evolved while playing with
a technical escape clause in case anybody wants to get all logical
and rational about his claims.

Also, we've seen Behe define away certain IC systems as not being
IC if they have a nicely traced evolutionary history.

[TomS]

"On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:16:27 +0930, in article
<pr-dnVO8NZaaN3zS...@giganews.com>, Roger Shrubber stated..."

Has anybody ever addressed the various anticipations of irreducible
complexity? Such as in support of preformation?


--
---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)

[Roger Shrubber]

You mean animolcules or homunculi?
Interesting sociology to have old fallacies reinvented but not
likely to convert skeptics from one camp to another.

[Syamsu]

On Jun 19, 9:43 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:

> Since there is no evidence FOR intelligent design, all they have (and
> all they have EVER had) is negative argumentation - 'evolution cannot
> explain X; therefore, ** MY ** untestable idiocy MUST be true !!'

The screechings aside, there is substantial evidence for sophisticated
decisionmaking in nature, decisions which form life. Nobody who
affirms the fact that freedom is real thinks otherwise, intelligent
design is a reality. Irreducable complexity is an obvious indicator
that the several parts were decided at once, as a whole.

It is just that Darwinists won't affirm the fact that freedom is real,
not even people have freedom according to the likes of Prof Weird.
There is no evidence for free will of people, there is no evidence for
intelligent design in nature, and then the screeching starts, which
passes for argument among Darwinists.

[Burkhard]

True on the last one, and I'd think the reason why Jillery and others
not unreasonably thought that it was, after all, part of the
definition. If you look at what he was doing, rather than what he
said, he seemed indeed willing to sacrifice the claim "X is IC"
whenever there was a danger that "X has easily evolved" was about to
be etsablished

[Ymir]

In article
<nando-a8176bba-0e34-4...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com
>,

Syamsu <nando_r...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jun 19, 9:43 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > Since there is no evidence FOR intelligent design, all they have (and
> > all they have EVER had) is negative argumentation - 'evolution cannot
> > explain X; therefore, ** MY ** untestable idiocy MUST be true !!'
>
> The screechings aside, there is substantial evidence for sophisticated
> decisionmaking in nature, decisions which form life.

Please provide some examples. Since the evidence is so substantial, you
should have no difficulties offering 5 or 10 pieces of evidence.

André

[Prof Weird]

On Jun 20, 7:14 am, Syamsu <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:43 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > Since there is no evidence FOR intelligent design, all they have (and
> > all they have EVER had) is negative argumentation - 'evolution cannot
> > explain X; therefore, ** MY ** untestable idiocy MUST be true !!'
>
> The screechings aside, there is substantial evidence for sophisticated
> decisionmaking in nature, decisions which form life.

RiiIIiiIIiiight !!

You 'think' coins and ROCKS can 'make decisions', so you declarations
are questionable at best.

Random variation filtered through selection (or pure luck) can produce
the APPEARANCE of design; the slow-witted, feeble-minded or willfully
stupid leap to the conclusion that an intelligence was behind it.

> Nobody who
> affirms the fact that freedom is real thinks otherwise, intelligent
> design is a reality.

Freedom - as sane and rational folk understand the term - is real. It
just doesn't apply to inanimate or insensenate objects like rocks,
molecules, planets, etc.

'Intelligent design' is a glorification of ignorance - "we ASSERT that
since WE can't/won't see how evolution could produce this, a Magical
Sky Pixie, er God, er 'Intelligent Designer' DIDIT !!!!"

> Irreducable complexity is an obvious indicator
> that the several parts were decided at once, as a whole.

Not really, given the FACT that since functions can change, and parts
can be added, subtracted or modified in a system, IC SYSTEMS CAN
EVOLVE.

Thus finding one does not mean a Magical Sky Pixie/'intelligent
designer' DIDIT.

> It is just that Darwinists won't affirm the fact that freedom is real,
> not even people have freedom according to the likes of Prof Weird.

Again, you scrotum-gnawing simpleton : freedom - as sane and rational
folk understand the term - exists. You just apply it where it isn't -
like to rocks, molecules, planets, etc.

> There is no evidence for free will of people, there is no evidence for
> intelligent design in nature, and then the screeching starts, which
> passes for argument among Darwinists.

Translation : "Reality refuses to conform to my wishes !! Must prance
and posture more arrogantly !!"

Again, twit : the concept of free will is necessary for responsibility
- something that laws are based on.

If you were FORCED to rob a bank (had no choice in the matter) because
someone threatened to kill your family if you did not, that would be
a mitigating circumstance - the jury might let you off scot free.

The CLASSIC way to evade responsibility is to whine "God/the Devil/
Twinkie-induced sugar overload MADE ME DO IT !!" and hope people
believe you.

[Ray Martinez]

Completely false.

History of Science 101 says before the advent of Darwinian evolution
Paleyan IDism was the paradigm of science. You need to log-off and
read Darwin's autobiography. In it you'll find many matter-of-fact
memories that support the preceding fact.

> Since there is no evidence FOR intelligent design, all they have (and
> all they have EVER had) is negative argumentation - 'evolution cannot
> explain X; therefore, ** MY ** untestable idiocy MUST be true !!'
>

Just the opposite is true: No evidence exists supporting natural
selection or evolution. Species remain "independently created,
immutable" (Darwin 1859:6; London: Murray).

> According to Behe, it should be IMPOSSIBLE for a 3-enzyme irreducibly
> complex system to evolve (so if we found one, we'd 'know' a Magical
> Sky Pixie DIDIT !!!!!!11!!!!)
>
> Examination of REALITY shows that irreducibly complex systems can
> evolve; therefore, there is no need to invoke the intervention of
> external designers (intelligent or otherwise) when we find one.
>

Behe proposed that the gene that codes for the flagellum be removed to
see if evolution could do it? Guess what? You guys are left making
excuses. People see and understand that evolution, when tested and
scrutinized, fails. It is a dying theory. A few generations down the
road and the ToE will be taught as a Philosophy. A few generations
later it will suffer the same fate as Phrenology. After that, it will
be remembered as gutter racism.

The whole point is that these systems cannot evolve. That's what
"irreducible" means, Einstein. If the systems exist, evolution is
falsified. Said systems exist. End of Story. The day Behe published
was the day the ToE began to die rapidly. You guys are just too proud
and stupid to see the writing on the wall. Everyone else has moved on.
The world is moving TO and IN the direction of the supernatural, not
away.

> > Behe has proposed to remove the gene that codes for the flagellum,
> > then see if evolution can do it. Guess what?
>
> DID HE EVER ACTUALLY _DO_ THE EXPERIMENT ?  Of course not !
>
> There is no one 'gene' for the flagellum, for the flagellum is
> composed of many different proteins.
>

Yeah, about 42 and unless these all exist the flagellum ceases to
function. In response, you offer excuses. Pitiful indeed since you
can't see them for what they are, unlike the general public.

> Again, twit - IC systems can evolve.  Breaking one does not prove it
> could not have evolved in the first place.
>
> > > Since parts of a system can change, and functions can change, there is
> > > no real barrier to an IC system evolving.
>
> > > Since IC systems can evolve, there is no sane or rational reason to
> > > leap to 'DESIGNERDIDIT !!1!1!!' the way Behe and his glassy-eyed,
> > > slack-jawed IDiot drones and parrots do.
>
> > > > All you guys are fucking liars. If IC
> > > > phenomena exists, evolution is falsified.
>
> > > Again, twit : IC systems have been OBSERVED to evolve.  Therefore, the
> > > presence of IC systems are NOT a threat to evolution.
>
> > Evolution is inferred, Einstein, not observed.
>
> Nope - evolution is a deduction, based on all available real world
> evidence.
>

Laughable ignorance. Evolution is inferred.

> Again, buffoon : IC SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN OBSERVED TO EVOLVE.   For
> instance, atrazine degradation requires 3 enzymes - it is an IC
> system.
>
> AND WE KNOW IT EVOLVED, since we know the sequence of each protein,
> and can determine what it was derived from.

AND WE KNOW since Atheists believe no God exists they MUST believe
evolution-did-it.

Ray

[Syamsu]

That you deny freedom for rocks, means you deny freedom for people as
well. Alll what freedom amounts to is alternative possible states in
the moment. And rocks have that, molecules have that, thats the way
things work. Your idea is that freedom is irrellevant in the universe,
that no sophisticated ways of deciding exist in nature. That is
ideological rubbish, got nothing to do with the evidence, got to do
with intellectual corruption.

[Mitchell Coffey]

In the First They Came for the Calc-alkaline Hypabyssal Laccoliths
category:

> That you deny freedom for rocks, means you deny freedom for people as well.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

I realize I'm being unfair: Nando wouldn't know a Calc-alkaline
Hypabyssal Laccolith from a hole in the ground.

Mitchell

[Slow Vehicle]

Yo' magma!

[Mark Buchanan]

Being 'dumb as a rock' might not be a bad thing.

Mark

[Prof Weird]

No, I do not. Again, you scrotum-gnawing simpleton : people have
AWARENESS. They can THINK, and IMAGINE the results of options.
Rocks do neither. Therefore, only a deranged f*ckwit would claim
rocks have freedom in the same sense that people do.

Again, buffoon : the idea that PEOPLE have free will and can decide
things is the BASIS OF THE CONCEPT OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Again, twit : THE classic way to evade responsibility for one's
actions is to claim 'I HAD NO CHOICE !'

> Alll what freedom amounts to is alternative possible states in
> the moment.

That is not the definition sane and rational folk use. A six-sided
die can show one of six sides when it lands, but only a gibbering loon
would claim it makes 'decisions'.

> And rocks have that, molecules have that, thats the way
> things work.

Only in your deranged, confused 'interpretation' of quantum mechanics.

Rocks decide NOTHING. Just because a few molecules (out of 10^30 or
more of them) move about on occassion does not mean the rock is
thinking or deciding anything.

Has a rock EVER 'decided' to leap into the air and hit you on the
head ? Or just float away like a weightless cloud ?

What a rock can or cannot do is highly CONSTRAINED BY ACTUAL
REALITY.

You wouldn't know that because you have not been on speaking terms
with reality for what ? A few years now ?

DNA does not have 'possible alternative states in the moment'. I have
been working with the stuff for over 25 years, and I have YET to see a
DNA sequence 'decide' anything.

On occassion a mutation might arise, but that is chemistry, not your
idiotic 'alternative states' vomitus.

WERE YOUR IDIOCY VALID, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO DO MOLECULAR
BIOLOGY, FOR THE DNA WOULD KEEP CHANGING BEFORE ANYONE COULD FIGURE IT
OUT.

Sequencing it would be impossible - just because a strand had the
sequence 'aaacctaagaga' today does not mean it will have that sequence
mere seconds later.

This is NOT observed in reality.

It would be IMPOSSIBLE to sequence DNA at all - that relies on primer
binding, and if the sequence of the DNA and the primer can have
'alternative states', ALL sequencing reads (if they could start at
all) would always be
'NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN ....'

This is NOT observed in reality.

If EVERYTHING were 'properly subjective', it would be IMPOSSIBLE to
convince anyone of anything.

> Your idea is that freedom is irrellevant in the universe,
> that no sophisticated ways of deciding exist in nature.

Deciding is something SENTIENT beings do. SENTIENTS have
sophisticated ways of deciding things, and their freedom can be
relevant (at least on the timescales they function at).

Rocks, planets, molecules, etc are NOT sentients. Only a demented
f*ckwit would extend 'decision making' and 'freedom' to them in the
same sense it applies to sentients.

> That is
> ideological rubbish, got nothing to do with the evidence, got to do
> with intellectual corruption.

Translation : "I am unable to deal with Prof Weird's points, so I'll
act pompous and dismissive before running away !!"

[pnyikos]

On Jun 19, 3:43 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 3:15 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 18, 5:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 17, 7:08 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 17, 2:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 15, 10:28 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 14, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
> > > > > > > > if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism.

Martinez is putting the cart before the horse. Since he is all messed
up on the definition of IC, it is small wonder that Robert Camp is
also:

> > > > > > > [Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Herman Muller described
> > > > > > > "IC" (interlocking) systems as a product of evolution long before
> > > > > > > Behe...]

IC does NOT mean "interlocking," and Muller did NOT describe
irreducibly complex systems. He described systems in which SOME of
the parts (by no means all) were essential.

> > > > > > > No, the claim is based on the definition, which you have wrong.
>
> > > > > > > But the claim is not a fact, it is an argument that requires
> > > > > > > evidential support. It is premised upon IC as defined by Behe (see
> > > > > > > Burkhard's post) and I would have you observe, as Burkhard pointed
> > > > > > > out, that Behe does not include "cannot have evolved" in the
> > > > > > > definition.

This last bit is very true, and I wish people would stop needing to be
corrected in this way. The FAQ is partially to blame -- in one of
them, in a rare lapse into complete stupidity, the otherwise sensible,
mature Keith Robison claimed that a system is IC if Behe cannot
imagine a way it could have evolved.

> > > > > > That's precisely why I said "The definition of IC is based on the
> > > > > > claim of fact...." (above). Behe goes on to say because these systems
> > > > > > are irreducible gradualism is falsified.

I've never seen anything like this from Behe.

[snip]

> > > > > You are arguing that it is part of the definition of IC that the
> > > > > condition cannot come about by natural processes (evolution). This is
> > > > > not part of Behe's definition, nor is it part of anyone else's
> > > > > (besides yourself).
>
> > > > Yes, it is.

Alas, it is part of the definition of all too many people I've
encountered since 1996, not only in talk.origins but in many other
forums. But not that of Behe, of course.

> > > Good thing that, IN REALITY, since IC systems can evolve, finding them
> > > is not a problem to evolution.

Some IC systems, especially those with autocatalytic components, can
and do evolve. The method by which those that do have autocatalytic
components could evolve by small, Darwinian steps was the discovery of
Robison and Kenneth Miller.

Even the bacterial flagellum has evolved by eliminating two of the
rings in gram-positive bacteria, which lack the outer coat of the gram-
negative bacteria and so the rings are no longer needed.

> > > > After reading the entire book the definition relates phenomena that
> > > > cannot have been produced by the most basic claim of Darwinian
> > > > evolution: step by step gradualism. That's the claim and it is true.

Not in all cases: see above. And all other cases must still undergo
scrutiny.

> > > > All integral parts must function or the entire system fails. If the
> > > > system exists, evolution is falsified.
>
> > > Only if you're a demented f*ckwit who REFUSES to understand that
> > > functions can CHANGE over time.

Howdy, Prof. Weird. I don't think the two of us have interacted
before, and I think it is high time we did.

I have, of course, seen you argue with Kleinman, and quite well at
that.

> > > That parts to a system can be added, subtracted or modified.
>
> > > Multicomponent systems where the removal of any part destroys the
> > > system have been observed to evolve.
>
> > > For instance, the atrazine degradation pathway in bacteria.  3 enzymes
> > > are required to utilize atrazine as an energy source.

If each of the 3 is required, that fits one part of the definition of
IC. But there is another part, see below.

> > > Atrazine is NOT a natural compound - it was invented decades ago.
> > > Therefore, bacteria EVOLVED an IC system to digest it.

How do the parts of the system interact with each other?

You realize, don't you, that this is an essential component of the
definition of IC. It is what is missing from the Krebs cycle, about
which Robison did another inexplicable lapse into stupidity, first
expressing puzzlement that Behe hadn't mentioned such an obvious
candidate for IC status and then knocking down his own strawman by
refuting its IC nature.

[I can't recall now whether he used the "each and every part is
essential" part of the definition or his own bogus "definition" of IC;
either way, he was knocking down a straw man.]

> > > Therefore, the addle-pated gibbering idiocy of 'IF ** I ** CANNOT SEE
> > > A PATHWAY, A MAGICAL SKY PIXIE MUST HAVE INSTALLED IT ALL AT ONCE !!!"
> > > refrain of the IDiocreotards is thus demonstrated wrong.

Your style reminds me of that of Craig Chilton. Ever heard of him?

> > Behe has never said Black Box falsified. Your comments above change
> > the claims of Black Box in a arbitrary manner. In other words your
> > claims falsify claims that don't exist.
>
> Of COURSE he would never admit he was wrong - he IS a posturing
> charlatan after all.

I've seen countless people say things to that effect, and all of them
fell flat on their faces to date. Will you be an exception?

> The WHOLE POINT of 'intelligent design' was to come up with a way to
> sneak supernatural beings into science - 'evolution cannot explain X;
> therefore, God, er, "Intelligent Designer" DIDIT !!! '

That's a conclusion everyone is free to make, and lots of creationists
make it, but I've never seen an ID researcher make it.

It's a conclusion some idiots put in my mouth from time to time, but I
spit it out each time. Ever hear of "my" panspermists, entities first
hypothesized by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel?

> Since there is no evidence FOR intelligent design,

Nor is there evidence for abiogenesis having taken place ON EARTH, by
the high standards for "evidence" that you are evidently using.

And you wouldn't be caught dead using double standards, would you?

> all they have (and
> all they have EVER had) is negative argumentation - 'evolution cannot
> explain X; therefore, ** MY ** untestable idiocy MUST be true !!'
>
> According to Behe, it should be IMPOSSIBLE for a 3-enzyme irreducibly
> complex system to evolve

Your "information" is 16 years out of date: I see you haven't gotten
as far as the page (in the forties) in _DBB_ where he explicitly
allows for such things, with a mere three components, to evolve.

It's time for me to hit the sack. I'll attend to the rest of your
post if it seems called for.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

PS I see you are at the University of Pittsburgh, not far from CMU,
where I got my doctorate in 1971. I visited "Pitt" just a few months
ago, as an invited speaker in a mini-conference led by Paul Gartside.

[wiki trix]

On Jun 20, 3:37 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In the First They Came for the Calc-alkaline Hypabyssal Laccoliths
> category:
>
> > That you deny freedom for rocks, means you deny freedom for people as well.

When you "deny" freedom for rocks, does that actually reduce the
amount of freedom of the rocks in some way? That is so cool.

[Mitchell Coffey]

And when you deny freedom for rocks you're also denying the Holocaust.

Mitchell Coffey

[Burkhard]

Only if you grind them up and make them into a thermostat - the only
object in the universe that does not have free will.

>That is so cool.

[Karel]

Oy vey, let the poor rock do what it wants!

[Robert Camp]

On Jun 20, 8:45 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 3:43 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 6:42 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 18, 3:15 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 18, 5:40 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 17, 7:08 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 17, 2:04 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 15, 10:28 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 14, 4:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The definition of IC is based on the claim of fact: certain phenomena,
> > > > > > > > > if it exists, could not have been produced by gradualism.
>
> Martinez is putting the cart before the horse.  Since he is all messed
> up on the definition of IC, it is small wonder that Robert Camp is
> also:
>
> > > > > > > > [Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Herman Muller described
> > > > > > > > "IC" (interlocking) systems as a product of evolution long before
> > > > > > > > Behe...]
>
> IC does NOT mean "interlocking," and Muller did NOT describe
> irreducibly complex systems.

"IC" (notice the quotes in the original) *does* mean "interlocking
complexity," when one is referring to Hermann Muller. Please read more
carefully.

And Muller *did* in fact describe systems that fit Behe's definition
of IC.

"Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of
evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken
place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value
from the effect which it produced upon the “reaction system” that had
been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in
cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose
effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very
numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the
characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an
asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and
factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the
former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or
even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to
disturb fatally the whole machinery; for this reason we should expect
very many, if not most, mutations to result in lethal factors, and of
the rest, the majority should be “semi-lethal” or at least
disadvantageous in the struggle for life, and likely to set wrong any
delicately balanced system, such as the reproductive system."
Muller, Hermann J. (1918) "Genetic variability, twin hybrids and
constant hybrids, in 
a case of balanced lethal factors." Genetics 3:
422-499.
http://www.genetics.org/content/3/5/422.full.pdf

Now let's take a look at Behe's definition of IC,

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single 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." - Darwin's Black Box (p. 39)

...and Muller again,

"...necessary because other necessary characters and factors had
subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It
must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight
change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the
whole machinery..."

Sounds pretty IC to me.

> He described systems in which SOME of the parts (by no means all) were essential.

"...a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these
parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery..."

Hmmm..."any one of these parts." Hard for me to interpret that as
anything but "all," or ALL, if you like.

RLC

[wiki trix]

By that you are denying my freedom to do things to rocks. So if the
converse holds true, "That you deny freedom for people, means you deny
freedom for rocks as well" , then your "let the poor rock do what it
wants" indirectly reduces the amount of freedom of the rocks actually
have. This is very tricky territory, and we must go back to the master
to see if the converse does indeed hold true. What say you Syamsu? Is
there a way out of this quagmire you have put us in? Help us!