Posted on 02/18/2005 7:09:03 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
You have just debunked the "irreducible complexity" arguement.
Precisely, which is exactly what IC predicts. How the accurate prediction of a theory debunks the theory escapes logic.
Do youself a favor. Read Behe's book. Then you won't look quite so foolish when you utter statements like the above.
Too late!
(I'm already here.)
;)
From what I recall of reading your posts in the past, you're intellegent and (mostly) un-biased in your opinions.
You aren't part of that group I was referring to. Not in my mind anyway.
Thank you for your kind words.
I'm on the evo-ping list, but I'm taller than most of the other guys.
;)
>>You have just debunked the "irreducible complexity" arguement.
> Precisely, which is exactly what IC predicts.
Amazing! A notion that predicts that it will eventually be shown to be bunk.
> Do youself a favor. Read Behe's book.
Don't worry, it's on the list. Right after Uri Geller's book.
Just so you can keep up on the latest, have your seen:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341981/posts
What else do you have? It appears to me that it is still a mousetrap which doesn't work because not all of the critical (irreducible) elements are in place.
> It appears to me that it is still a mousetrap which doesn't work
Not as a mousetrap, no. But it may well work as something else. Just as a wing without feathers is an arm.
More brain dead pap from an evolution-is-fact proponent who clearly doesn't understand either science or basic anatomy.
A wing without feathers is a wing without feathers.
It's little wonder you evolutionists are so confused about the big things when they can't even grasp the smallest, and most obvious things.
Evolutionists suffer from the same disconected dementia and internal contradictions that their political allies in the Democrat party suffer from in the sense that both live their sad, confused, contradicted lives missing what intellectual cartoons they are making of themselves with every utterance they make.
For more fun with your evolutionary internal contradictions, admitted to on of all things a site catering to atheits, let's serve up some Darwinian Dissonance from an earlier FR thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1016524/posts
Oh yeah? Well you double.
Odd that someone would lead off his "comment" with "brain dead pap", continue on the same vein for the entire post, and then conclude it's someone else making a "cartoon" of themselves.
> A wing without feathers is a wing without feathers.
Indeed? Compare the forelimbs of Archeopteryx and Compsognathus. Let us all know how massively different they are.
But that would actually involve examination of evidence, so I can see how it would make IDiots afraid...
Lousy analogy. A wing with or without feathers is an arm. However, a wing without feathers won't fly.
And that, gentlemen, is the sound of the anti-intellectual bigoted mind slamming shut.
> A wing with or without feathers is an arm.
Indeed so. Add feathers, and a wing can become an arm. So the "irreducible complexity" issue is shown to be nonsense: take away one thing and a structure might not do what it does... but it might be perfectly capable of doing something else.
> However, a wing without feathers won't fly.
Tell that to bats. And to pterodactyls. And to insects.
No. It is the sound of someone who knows BS when he sees it, and compartmentalizes it appropriately.
My jeans are drifting.
No longer able to contain the expanding universe.
An arm WITH feathers won't fly; too much loading, too little power.
> An arm WITH feathers won't fly; too much loading, too little power.
Well, now, that depends on the arm, doesn't it? And again, I invite you to compare the forelimbs of compsognathus and archaeopteryx. The compi couldn;t fly at all, and had no feathers (that we know of), the archi had feathers and flew, though perhaps not very well... but their forelimbs are very similar apart from length. Two mutations - length and feathers - turned an arm into a functional wing. Either one of those mutations would have been useful on it's own... shorter arms with feathers would have allowed the arms to be used as "nets" to catch bugs (the Compi food); longer arms without feathers would have extended the Compis reach to allow it to catch more bugs, and also allow it to climb trees substantially better. A halfway stage... short feathers with a mid-length arm... would have allowed the Compi to climb trees and leap from braches and glide tolerably well. As this is a useful survival talent in a forested area, it is easy to see how natural selection would have preferentially produced longer forelimbs and better feathers.
So, once more... irreducible complexity is nonsense in this case. There are useful transitional uses between an arm and a wing. Take away one feature - arm length or feathers - and, yes, it's not a wing anymore. But it remains a useful structure nonetheless.
LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.