Comments on: Why Irreducible Complexity Isn’t Really A Big Deal

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:50:52 +0000

Ahh this old chestnut. "Evolutionists must present the complete evolutionary history of irreducible complex systems, otherwise we wont believe it." And lets not forget it is an irrelevant to my post.

The point of my post is to show how it is possible via natural means for an irreducibly complex system to arise. It is quite possible and hence, the invocation of a supernatural being is unnecessary.

Try again guys.

By: Deinonychus antirrhopus

Deinonychus antirrhopus — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:42:31 +0000

Evolution and Religion

One of the favorite tactics of anti-evolutionists is to argue that evolutionary theory is itself a relgion. There are numerious problems with this view point. Usually this view relies on the logical fallacies of equivocation, and the argument from igno...

By: Louis Aya;la

Louis Aya;la — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:59:14 +0000

I agree, your diagram is pretty silly.

By: Doug MacLean

Doug MacLean — Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:59:26 +0000

My reaction to your irreducible complexity diagram is is simply, huh? You haven't said anything. You only have a diagram which is a hypothetical construct. You have completely ignored how this applies to reality. You have not provided one single example of how your diagram corresponds to a real life biological system.

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:29:59 +0000

Yes. Yes.

By: Reich Winger

Reich Winger — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:08:13 +0000

Steve,

You noticed!

Can you hazard an answer to my question?

By: small dead animals

small dead animals — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:46:52 +0000

Intelligent Design In A Minor Key A few weeks ago, I was asked by someone privately about my "position" regarding Intelligent Design is. It just so happens that today at Outside The Beltway Steve Verdon helped to set up my answer with a post titled "Why...

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:29:23 +0000

Reich,

So many people have taken apart the mouse trap analogy it isn't even funny. There is even a javascript out there that shows the evolution of the mousetrap from a sharpened spike sticking out of the floor to the trap you all know and love today.

By: Reich Winger

Reich Winger — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 03:20:34 +0000

Mike Behe argues from analogy. He says that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex. Remove any part, say the trigger, and it won't function. He's wrong. It can co-opt another function, as a tie clip, for instance. Or as a kid's spit-wad launcher (trebuchet). Mike should get another analogy, don't you think?

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:45:23 +0000

Joe,

Uhhhh...yeah, no kidding I wrote pretty much the samething. See, it is right here,

Notice that now we have to go through each node, whereas before we did not. This pathway is IC. Remove any part (i.e. node) and the pathway no longer functions.

Beyond re-stating one of the points of my post your comment is...well...pointless.

As for Myers, while he and I have diametrically different viewpoints on many political issues, on evolutionary theory and biology we don't. Sometimes being consistent and following the data leads one to having strange allies.

By: Joe Carter

Joe Carter — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:12:21 +0000

You seem to missing the point that if you remove one of the nodes (A, B, C) then it is not longer functional. IC does not mean that there are no alternate pathways. As a general rule you should never copy anything that PZ Myers puts up. He may be a biologist but he isn't exactly a logical thinker.