Give me a break!
Your assertions are as empty as you claim mine to be.
You can no more demonstrate the creation of an IC by Evolution than I can demonstrate the impossibility of it.
Then again, you can’t demonstrate evolution doing anything. All you have is the before and after (Sometimes not even the before) with an assertion of what happened in between.
Richard
It does make me wonder how many ID proponents would actually fit better in the Evolutionary Creationist category. If it’s a matter of God guiding mutations in an undetectable manner, then EC would seem to be a good fit. The hangup seems to be around detectability and how they approach the relationship between science, theology, and belief. ECs seem to be able to combine the science of evolution and their intuitions about design, but ID proponents seem to struggle to find that middle ground.
If all you have to offer is ridicule, I think that says a lot.
It s better than banging my head against a brick wal.
Sometimes it takes ridicule to clarify things, apparently, and your insults about my knowledge are no better.
Richard
Edit.
Would the fact that i can’t demonstrate that a chocolate tea pot would melt mean that it wouldn’t?
that is your logic.
A converse is not logically valid.
I’ve built towers of cards that were constructed “in parts” and functioned just fine even though when I was done there was no way to remove a single card without toppling the whole thing.
“Proving” anything non-trivial in science is quite difficult.
Proving that something could not have evolved is not readily achieved. There’s always the possibility of things evolving in a way that we had not thought of. Biological complexity does evolve. We can see changes over time in molecular systems and biological structures. Feathers are made of the same types of material as other similar biological structures. Claiming that flagellae or feathers or whatever “could not evolve” is incorrect in that sense. If the right mutations occur, these features will appear, A more precise claim would be that the necessary mutations are too unlikely to occur within the available time. But proving it to be unlikely is problematic. Although there are various claims to provide probabilities, the reality is that we do not have adequate data to calculate appropriate probabilities. [That applies equally to claiming that the mutations are likely or unlikely.] A major challenge is the fact that we don’t really know what range of possibilities would do just as well. There are billions of different DNA sequences that all work to code for producing a human, though of course those sequences are quite similar to each other. If I am dealt a hand of 13 cards for playing bridge, should I accuse the dealer of cheating because there is only a 1 in about 2*10^27 chance of people getting that exact set of cards? No, because the probability of getting some set of cards was 100%. We don’t know exactly how many possible DNA sequences would code for making a human. And do we have to actually code for making humans? Would it make much difference if, instead of mammal primates, no asteroid had hit at the end of the Cretaceous and some sort of dinosaur had developed human-like intelligence instead? The answer depends entirely on your subjective assessment of what is “much difference”.
Again, that does not prove that things did evolve. But it raises questions about ID claims to prove that things did not evolve.
That is a belief, not a certainty. Your first statement confirms it.
Eureeka!
That is all I have ever claimed.
Richard
Only in mathematics. Linguistically I have the correct meaning.
Your arguments always ignore the fact that there is life involved. For the construction to survive in evolution it must be both viable, and competitive.
Your house of cards collapses at the first move.
Richard
I am not keen on AI , but out of curiosity i asked it about irreducibiity/
When it honed in on IC I got two answers
In terms of the proposal IC means what I said. That the system cannot be made up incrementally.
However, it then claimed that Biological science contests that view and gave several mechanisms it is claimed can circumnavigate the need for each element to be viable, the main ones being that it might have a different function up to that point, or part of a different system reappropriated.
I am sorry, I have to smile.
There is stubborn logic in those get outs. I can easily see how they can be appealing. I can also se that they might appear compelling. What they fail to account for is why,
There is no logical reason why a self contained system should suddenly attach itself to other self contained systems to form a new one. There is no way nature could know that to make a complex system it first has to grow three or four independent ones to combine at the last minute. You are talking building with a goal.
Evolution cannot have goals. Evolution cannot have a predetermined destination Both are contradictory to a system without guidance or intelligence
IC is specifically cited as a proof of intelligent involvement. The scientific wriggling and solutions also imply intelligence and guidance.
So unless you are going to admit that there is an intelligence guiding evolution IC stands as an argument against ToE.
Richard
Edit.
An example of the idea that a function could change is the old chestnut of the feather.
Downy feathers are for warmth and could have evolved for that purpose. A flight feather is just an adaption. Brilliant.
I wonder if these scientists realise the difference between a downy feather and a flight feather? Or the fluke that would produce such a thing just in time to fledge wings?
Oh yes, it could be a display. Display feathers can have all the elements of flight feathers, but why would they? the flexible rigidity of the structure is what might be termed over engineered for a simple flag or signpost. I guess you could stretch a point. (And science will take any point they can stretch)
What Behe defined it to mean, as already provided.
You don’t even know what those examples are.
I’m claiming that they could once, but have changed so that they can’t any more.
You really should have noticed by now that most evolution works by changes to existing components and not by adding new ones.
Try to escape from the trap of thinking that everyone who disagrees with you must know less than you do.
The probability that these scientists disagree with you because they know more about feathers than you do is non-zero.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.