Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Heartlander
It seems ‘I’ am not arguing but agreeing with you...

With God, anything is possible. ;)

But my statement summarizes irreducible complexity. From the article;

Miller’s argument is that since a subset of the proteins of the flagellum can have a function of their own, then the flagellum is not IC and Darwinian evolution could produce it. That’s it! He doesn’t show how natural selection could do so; he doesn’t cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible; he doesn’t give a theoretical model.

The author is asking for a complete model at the least. Miller's point was that the parts do have functions. It was creationists who stated that the parts had no function without having to "cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible;..." or "give a theoretical model."

The bar gets raised again.

25 posted on 02/18/2004 6:29:57 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: <1/1,000,000th%
The author is asking for a complete model at the least. Miller's point was that the parts do have functions. It was creationists who stated that the parts had no function without having to "cite experiments showing that such a thing is possible;..." or "give a theoretical model."

From Mike Gene:
“All of this takes us back to the first essay in this series. In that essay, I noted how Ken Miller was able to explain the simple mousetrap in evolutionary terms. In other words, Miller (and others) have unintentionally demonstrated that the human mind can imagine evolutionary transitions when there were none. I noted:”

What is interesting about this logic is that we already know that the mousetrap was intelligently designed. We also know that it did not first exist as a clipboard, then a tie clip. Thus, while it is logically possible to see the mousetrap as Miller does, that is, as a modified clipboard and tie clip, such perceptions are not tied to history nor the origin of the mousetrap. Thus, coming up with imaginary accounts that tap into our ability to imagine cooptional origins, by itself, is rather meaningless. If we can successfully come up with such explanations where they are known to be false(the mousetrap), how do we know that our ability to do likewise with things like the flagellum are not also inherently flawed?

27 posted on 02/18/2004 6:49:57 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Miller's point was that the parts do have functions.

So? You can ascribe any function to anything, as Behe stated ANYTHING with mass could be a paper weight - therefore - no IC, right? Behe's point is that is doesn't matter if one of the proteins is also a proton pump - get rid of said protein and the flagellum ceases to work. It's simple, but much too honest for most.

42 posted on 02/19/2004 8:18:32 AM PST by realpatriot71 ("But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise . . ." (I Cor. 1:27))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
I this case, the bar isn't so much being raised as being moved to another place. Behe is changing his definition of "irreducible complexity" again.
50 posted on 02/19/2004 10:02:00 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson