From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   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.   
      
   > The video he links to gives examples of the evolution crowd finding a   
   > way to insert some kind of intelligence into the evolutionary process by   
   > claiming "nature's engineering brilliance," and "marvel of engineering   
   > craftsmanship."  Similar to using the term "Mother Nature", or claiming   
   > "Life finds a way."  I take the real evolutionists at their word and   
   > accept that those things simply aren't real.  If Ron were aligned with   
   > the ID crowd, he would say they're simply nice words and phrases we can   
   > use to fool the evolutionist rubes.   
   >   
   > But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what   
   > seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the   
   > human eye.  The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't   
   > work with evolutionary processes.   
   >   
   > https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/   
   >   
   > The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar   
   > push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the   
   > necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea   
   > involved instead for this movement.  Somehow, we are supposed to believe   
   > that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution ...   
      
   No, you are supposed to *NOT* believe that. What you are supposed to   
   believe (and what is seen happening time after time in the real world)   
   is that a genetic mutation somehow came up with a slight improvement,   
   that that improvement caused that mutation to become more common through   
   selection (a process which is the VERY OPPOSITE OF CHANCE), and that   
   further improvements and further selection built even further upon that.   
      
   > That's all you get, chance.   
      
   You could not be more wrong about that.   
      
   --   
   Mark Isaak   
   "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That   
   doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)