From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 9/2/2025 11:08 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > On 8/30/25 1:54 PM, sticks wrote:   
   >> On 8/27/2025 9:05 PM, RonO wrote:   
   >>> https://scienceandculture.com/2025/08/woodpecker-is-a-stunning-   
   >>> example- of-irreducible-complexity/   
   >>>   
   >>> Someone just mentioned Karl Crawford recently, and the ID perps are   
   >>> resurrecting that old creationist argument.  They are calling it an   
   >>> example of irreducible complexity, but that is a lie so they put it   
   >>> in their new Culture category instead of their Science category, and   
   >>> it is a talk given at their Science and Faith conference, so it was   
   >>> just something to fool the religious creationist rubes with.   
   >>   
   >> That's a hell of a way to begin a post.   
   >>   
   >> ---snip---   
   >> [...]   
   >> He attacks the ID people for not producing some science that shows the   
   >> example is irreducibly complex.  I'm sure someone would have an   
   >> experiment they could do to try and accomplish that . . .   
   >   
   > Another problem, though, is that irreducible complexity is evidence   
   > *for* evolution and *against* ID.  There are multiple common mechanisms   
   > by which irreducible complexity can evolve, but such complexity violates   
   > engineering principles of keeping things as simple as possible and of   
   > having backup systems.   
      
   Just learning how things work here in T.O.   
   So things really are not irreducibly complex, but if they are it is   
   evidence for evolution.   
   Got it.  Thanks   
      
   ---snip   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)