RE: Irreducible Complexity.
November 10, 2008 at 10:50 am
(This post was last modified: November 10, 2008 at 10:51 am by leo-rcc.)
Hi Catherine,
Well Ken Miller has a better way of words than I, that is for sure. Basically we mean the same thing. What ID proposes is that all components need to be "designed" for a specific function to work, but there is no need for it to be designed in such a way in the first place. These things can simply evolve over time, when there is a evolutionary advantage for it that gives the organism an edge in natural selection.
No I don't. Because the individual parts may have had independent functions in the past which have gradually changed over to do a different task. Just like the bones in the inner ear are remnants of our reptilian jaws, it now serves a totally different purpose.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=foss...-in-action
To function as a mousetrap, sure. But that is because human beings made that thing to serve that purpose.
In evolution there is no path to create something specific, just the premise that something that has a little more use than a previous arrangement gets an edge on other lifeforms that don't have that mutation. Natural selection will filter out most of the bad mutations, some of the good mutations, but overall the better mutations survive.
Therefore over time there will be more of the species with that edge over the others than the ones that don't, and than that becomes the norm. Now that edge might evolve even further, and then natural selection takes it course on that, and so on and so forth. And as time progresses, the mutations can become more complex and start to look more and more designed.
(November 10, 2008 at 9:58 am)CoxRox Wrote: Leo , regarding your first point (of which I hope I understood correctly)- : 'it is still very possible for components of that "irreducible complex" device to serve and work in different functions': Miller says this of the flagellum: 'By the logic of irreducible complexity, these individual components should have no function until all 30 are put into place, at which point the function of motility appears'
Well Ken Miller has a better way of words than I, that is for sure. Basically we mean the same thing. What ID proposes is that all components need to be "designed" for a specific function to work, but there is no need for it to be designed in such a way in the first place. These things can simply evolve over time, when there is a evolutionary advantage for it that gives the organism an edge in natural selection.
(November 10, 2008 at 9:58 am)CoxRox Wrote: The article I've found discussing this says:
'This is a false deduction from Irreducible Complexity. IC does not forbid subsets of components of molecular machines being utilised in other molecular machines. IC simply asserts that there are multiple interacting components, the individual parts of which have no independent function.'
(http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Miller...Design.PDF)
Do you accept this point?
No I don't. Because the individual parts may have had independent functions in the past which have gradually changed over to do a different task. Just like the bones in the inner ear are remnants of our reptilian jaws, it now serves a totally different purpose.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=foss...-in-action
(November 10, 2008 at 9:58 am)CoxRox Wrote: Regarding the mouse trap example, you can indeed find a 'different' use for the separate parts of the mouse trap, but by taking one part away you will no longer have a mouse trap. Do you accept this? If you take the base away you would still need to utilise a surface of some kind ie the floor, in order for it to function.
To function as a mousetrap, sure. But that is because human beings made that thing to serve that purpose.
In evolution there is no path to create something specific, just the premise that something that has a little more use than a previous arrangement gets an edge on other lifeforms that don't have that mutation. Natural selection will filter out most of the bad mutations, some of the good mutations, but overall the better mutations survive.
Therefore over time there will be more of the species with that edge over the others than the ones that don't, and than that becomes the norm. Now that edge might evolve even further, and then natural selection takes it course on that, and so on and so forth. And as time progresses, the mutations can become more complex and start to look more and more designed.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
