Excellent Letter To School Board On Intellegent Design Teachings

wolfsbane

monosharp wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm confused, are you stating that or asking me if that's the definition ?



I'm confused again, what you've asked is the very definition of IC itself.



This is the whole definition of IC. If the system had a function (which it does) missing a part then it isn't IC.

Am I misunderstanding your question ?

Irreducible 'means' it cannot be reduced, it cannot have a function if a part is removed. Thats ID's and IC's whole argument.

Its also completely false but you asked what they are trying to teach.



No idea what your asking here.

See my last to Wickie about ID defs.

As to what my question, Can the missing part be 'found' by minor changes, or does it require a 'non-slight' modification of complexity?, I imagine a non-slight modification would be one not enabled by a common level of mutation. One that required many changes to the genetic code at the one time. That's my take on their meaning anyway.

monosharp

wolfsbane wrote: »

See my last to Wickie about ID defs.

Again I am sorry if I am not understanding you but I really am confused.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me ?

Behe's original definition of IC failed in court so he changed it when Ken Miller destroyed it to take into account 'exceptions'.

So now the argument is that an IC system can come about by an indirect route (shown by Miller, not Behe). So a system missing a part can have a different function. (shown by Miller)

Behe says "But these pieces couldn't form a functioning mousetrap without extensive modification, and while the modification was going on, they would be unable to work as a mousetrap. Their previous functions make them ill- suited for virtually any new role as part of a complex system. "

Are we arguing about the definition or whether or not this has been disproven or not ?

Because I can promise you it has been disproven and kicked out the door a hundred times in a hundred different ways.

Behe wrote:

IC operates on a collection of parts, not each individual part. Even if a separate function could be found for a sub-system, the latter would not refute the irreducible complexity and the unevolvability of the system as a whole.

That is the biggest load of drivel I have ever heard.

Irreducible complexity = The system cannot have evolved through stages because the system is not reducible to a simplier form.

This has been shown time and time again and again to be completely false.

Miller did not take a 'part' of the flagellum and decide it fit another function, he took a part OFF the flagellum and showed it had a function.

The test for irreducible complexity does not ask “can one small part of the macrosystem be used to do something else?” as Miller claims, but rather asks “can the system as a whole be built in a step-by-step fashion which does not require any ‘non-slight’ modifications to gain the final target function?” Any non-slight modifications of complexity required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system, represent the irreducible complexity of a system.

And he didn't do this.

The flagellum's job is motion, it is in effect a motor ok ?
If you take away some of the parts and suddenly you have an injector used by viruses.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

See my last to Wickie about ID defs.

As to what my question, Can the missing part be 'found' by minor changes, or does it require a 'non-slight' modification of complexity?.

It requires slight modification, through simple mutations. It is therefore no obstacle to evolution.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

It requires slight modification, through simple mutations. It is therefore no obstacle to evolution.

Interesting. Care to specify how many changes in the code qualify as 'slight' changes? And how many are required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system in the bacterial flagellum?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Interesting. Care to specify how many changes in the code qualify as 'slight' changes? And how many are required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system in the bacterial flagellum?

One.

As for the bacterial flagella: We don't have any simple means of unearthing a list of mutations that have occured, so the complete evolutionary path of the flagella is not yet known (to the best of my knowledge anyway). But what is relevant to this thread is the IC objection (the claim that the flagella cannot evolve) is not valid due to the possibility of function change. For the objection to be valid, you would have to show that function change through a single step cannot occur.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Interesting. Care to specify how many changes in the code qualify as 'slight' changes? And how many are required to go from functional sub-part(s), operating outside-of-the-final system, to the entire final functional system in the bacterial flagellum?
One.

As for the bacterial flagella: We don't have any simple means of unearthing a list of mutations that have occured, so the complete evolutionary path of the flagella is not yet known (to the best of my knowledge anyway). But what is relevant to this thread is the IC objection (the claim that the flagella cannot evolve) is not valid due to the possibility of function change. For the objection to be valid, you would have to show that function change through a single step cannot occur.

You would have to show an example of where one such function change through a single step had occurred, for it is the impossible odds against that makes the IC argument.

Let's take the example used in the trial. The case was made there and helpfully encapsulated here by monosharp:
You take away some of the flagellams components and suddenly you have a secretion system used by viruses all over the world.

How many code changes were required to go from a functioning secretion system to a functioning bacterial flagella?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Morbert said:

You would have to show an example of where one such function change through a single step had occurred, for it is the impossible odds against that makes the IC argument.

Where is it demonstrated that such function changes have impossible odds? If a function change can occur through a single step, why would the odds be impossible.

Let's take the example used in the trial. The case was made there and helpfully encapsulated here by monosharp:
You take away some of the flagellams components and suddenly you have a secretion system used by viruses all over the world.

How many code changes were required to go from a functioning secretion system to a functioning bacterial flagella?

To answer that question, we would have to know how many function changes took place. We certainly don't have a complete model of function changes in bacteria (Otherwise there would be no active research into the area.) But that doesn't mean we can get away with saying "There is no complete model therefore evolution is impossible."

For specific info on research on flagella, check out this collection of works, representing a tiny sample of research into molecular evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html