From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 9/3/2025 5:01 AM, Ernest Major wrote:   
   > On 02/09/2025 19:46, sticks wrote:   
   >> 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   
   >>   
   >   
   > Behe may have thought that he had an objective means of identifying   
   > systems that could not have evolved, but he was wrong; using the   
   > original definition of an irreducibly complex system as one which   
   > requires all of its parts to function, there are at least three broad   
   > classes of paths by which irreducibly complex systems can evolve.   
   >   
   > An additional issue is finding objective definitions of system, part and   
   > function. Divide a system into few parts, and it's more likely to be   
   > irreducibly complex; divide a system into many parts, and it's less   
   > likely to be irreducibly complex. Consider an eukaryote cell as composed   
   > of the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the cell membrane; looking at it in   
   > that way it seems irreducibly complex (until you notice that mammalian   
   > erythrocytes and thrombocytes lack nuclei). But consider it as an   
   > assemblage of nucleic acids, proteins and lipid membranes; then many   
   > parts can be removed, and it continues to function, i.e. is not   
   > irreducibly complex.   
   >   
   > A third issue is that suitably defined a system may be irreducibly   
   > complex in one species but may not have the same set of parts as the   
   > same system in another species. The clotting cascade is an example of   
   > this; it puzzles me why Behe thought that was a good poster system for   
   > his argument.   
   >   
   > As for the more general argument from complexity - the "it's oh so   
   > complex, it must be designed" - that an argument from incredulity. I   
   > look at the Heath-Robinson Rube Goldberg nature of life, and my reaction   
   > is "there's no way that's designed". (Why should you incredulity be more   
   > dispositive that mine?)   
   >   
   > (I think Dawkins is wrong when he writes that "life has the appearance   
   > of design".)   
   >   
   > You can get over the evolutionary argument from complexity by   
   > postulating an unconstrained designer. The problem with that,   
   > epistemologically, is that you're no longer explaining the observations;   
   > instead you're explaining them away.   
      
   Yes, but you're still left with explaining where the information to   
   build anything originated.  Evolutionists don't have to worry about   
   being accused of arguing from incredulity because they insist they will   
   continue looking.  The fact they cannot consider ID is a big asset that   
   ID folks don't have.  For example my two biggest difficulties are the   
   initial conditions before the Big Bang and where everything came from,   
   and this information origination problem within OoL.  Now both places I   
   come up with my conclusion using logic, philosophical/metaphysical, and   
   scientific law.  Yet, both scenarios I would be accused of simple   
   incredulity and dismissed.  It doesn't matter to me that happens, and   
   I'd be open to be shown how I am wrong in my conclusions, but using   
   deductive reasoning and the methods above is not incredulity.  It is an   
   unfair characterization.   
      
   I'm not denying things suggested as or considered IC can be show not to   
   be.  I just found the blanket statement that "irreducible complexity is   
   evidence *for* evolution and *against* ID" is a little absurd, or funny.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)