Sorry, the answer is probably in there somewhere but I will ty and explain my thoughts
The initial aim is to prove irreducibility, but in trying to make it compatible to evoltion I made it possible to complete. Whtr i could have chosen better or no is probably a mute point.
However, those who have succeeded admitted that they started from both ends which, in terms of the analogy was a cheat. They also admitted that they needed to use their knowledge and intelligence to guide the result, which is also contrary to evolutionary theory.
So the conclusion, apart from proving that the analogy did not really work, is
To make an IC would seem to be beyond the capacity of a system driven by chance and not intelligence. This is as much to do with the need to gather together components and know that they are needed, as it is to do with the limitations of incremental growth.
There is always the claims about time and inevitability, and the fallacy of statistics, but we neednāt go there.
The other thing this thread has proved is that scientists are both unable to conceive an IC (having changed the definition) and unwilling to accept the original meaning as being possible because evolution can create anything given enough time.
It has been entertaining from a slightly masochistic viewpoint and revealing, hopefully, to those in the wings who have no vested interest in the conclusions.
Richard
Edit.
A side issue is whether there is a code for each element of Nature, be it organ or skill,(Like a word dictionary) that nature only has to hit, as in a lottery draw, for it to occur and function. if that code exists it would indicate an intelligent oversight (AKA God), and would make evolution equivalent to a computer plug and play module assembly.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
102
Nearly all vertebrates have a tympanum (i.e. ear drum).
The ossicles are needed to transmit the movement of the ear drum to the cochlea (i.e. the inner ear).
āYour ossicles are three bones in your middle ear. They are the malleus (hammer), incus (anvil) and stapes (stirrup). Together, they form a chain that pushes sound vibrations from your eardrum to your cochlea.ā
If any one of the three mammalian middle ear ossicles are removed you donāt get sound transmission from the ear drum to the cochlea which is the function of the middle ear. Therefore, the mammalian middle ear is irreducible because removing any of the parts stops it from functioning.
Then what does the I and C stand for? If something can be both irreducible and complex but not be IC, then what gives?
Or as actually happened with bicycles, add a motor to a bicycle; it runs just fine with either pedals or motor. But since it runs great with just the motor, pedals became extraneous ā and the motorcycle was born.
Not really ā itās because the application of math says there are no such gaps.
I recall an instance from botany where a certain species had a mutation that made a new protein for the cells, but that protein just got made and then dismantled, not actually doing anything. Then there was another mutation such that extra of proteins already in use were being made, which also effectively did nothing. But then one of these plants, that had two new items that were useless, crossed with one that had a different mutation, and the three mutations together were no longer useless but resulted in a new structure for the offspring ā thus two mutations from one parent combined with a mutation from the other parent and the three made something new (I canāt remember if the third, sole mutation was useless or not).
Our (students) question wasnāt how three distinct mutations could come together to produce something new but rather why the cells of the one parental population didnāt stop making the new useless proteins.
Biologists acknowledge ICs when they encounter them ā using the narrow definition of something that stops working if any one part is removed.
In botany we looked at a mutation where guard cells around stomata became thorn-like instead of flat.
Not entirely ā there will be some through the tissues and skull ā but a person with that situation would be legally deaf.
Not enough to be useful.
Frog ears are not just a drum; they have a stapes.
I do not know where to start.
An engine, needs, fuel, and an electrical system. Are you going to pair them off as well? And where exactly do you put this second engine in the body of the car?
If that is your solution you have no concept of complexity or incremental, let alone the scope of evolutionary change.
If you think that evolution could produce the equivalent of a fully functional engine in one move you have no idea what evolution is.
That is plug and play!
Complex and irreducible are not synonyms.
That woulf make IC an irreducible irreducible.
As you point out, a complex system can be built up slowly. An irreducible one can not.
If it was built up slowly it was no irreducible! Do I have to spell it out for you?
Find me a hybrid petrol and diesel and I will concede!
A hybrid is a separate designed self contained system. It is a petrol car being changed. It was built that way.
All you are doing is proving you misunderstanding.
You have no idea why your suggestion of switching a diesel engine into a petrol driven car was stupid do you? (If you do you are trying unsuccessfully to cover it up)
There is a saying about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I concede that your knowledge of evolution is greater than mine. The less said about your wisdom and understanding the better.
You have egg on your face and cannot see it, apparently.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
110
Thatās not what that word means. Irreducible means that if you remove a single part the entire system stops functioning. If you remove one of the middle ear bones the system that transmits sound from the ear drum to the cochlea stops working. It is irreducible.
Itās rather funny that you claim evolutionists canāt admit that there are IC systems, and yet here you are denying the irreducibility of the mammalian middle ear.
It means that you do not have to confront the original intent and meaning.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
112
āBy 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.āāMichael Behe
Now read the whole thing, instead of the bit you want to focus on.
I gave you the definition I wish to use. I you do not agree then tough.
The only reason you think ICs can be made incremetally is that if they canāt Evolution fails!
You refuse to believe that such a system does or even can exist. It is as simple as that.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
114
Irreducible means removing a part causes the system to cease functioning. That is always what it has meant. The only reason you are rejecting this definition now is that we can find irreducible systems that evolved in a step wise manner.
Well, I guess you showed us. I hereby apologize on behalf of all the folks who actually know stuff.
Science works. We know that because it produces working results. Patents, inventions, medical treatments, and opening new areas of research, and all the hallmarks of good science. This includes evolution.
If evolution is wrong, then the way to show that is to produce a new scientific theory, one that can do everything the old theory can do, and more. Instead we get this sort of childish challenge from someone seemingly proud of their own lack of knowledge. It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the US right now that anti-knowledge has become politically popular.
There are a lot of cars withtwoengines, and though they usually have two identical engines, thereās nothing to prevent one being built with one petrol engine and one diesel engine. The reasons for not doing it are practicality and simplicity, not impossibility.
You said it was impossible, because āthe car is dead while it is being doneā. You are wrong.
