"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Simplistic?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Simplistic?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I know such claims don't refute claims of irreducible complexity. I just want to know why such claims are made, and when they are, critics of ID say "game over, you lose." I mean, it was even asserted at Dover that Michael Behe's examples of irreducibly complex systems had been refuted. When they hadn't. And I think your analogy of crossing a river is somewhat simplistic. That is all.
Really?
With what basis can you claim that the eye shows Irreducible Complexity?
So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.
Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.
So, in the hypothetical evolution of the eye, we assume that irreducibly complex systems are already in place. Shouldn't you have to explain those too? Evolution is supposed to explain everything. And some claim it does.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Well, an eye requires a light detecting mechanism (unless we radically redefine what an eye is). So how does this have nothing to do with the irreducible complexity of an eye?BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So let me ask you, do you think the bio-chemical basis for vision is drastically different between an insect an octopus a frog and a human?AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
First of all, I no longer like analogies. For your last question, see pages 18-25, Darwin's Black Box. Unlike the hypothesis of how the eye evolved, Michael Behe looks at how vision works at the level of proteins and ions etc-not the "lens, retina, cornea" level.
Is Behe arguing that the eye could not have evolved or is he arguing that the light detecting mechanisms are irreducibly complex. It would seem the latter. And thus this has absolutely no bearing on the discussion of the eye itself as being irreducibly complex.
Yes we assume the system is in place given the fact that three different series of eyes exist in nature which all use the same visual pathway. You're the one who assumes it is irreducibly complex.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So, in the hypothetical evolution of the eye, we assume that irreducibly complex systems are already in place.BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Because the evolution of the eye does not involve changes in the light detecting pathway only in the structures around it. It's like saying that the refridgerator is spicy because there is a bottle of hotsauce inside of it.
How can a science explain everything at the level of specificity you seem to be demanding? That's forensics, an (application of scientific theories and technology in investigation), not science itself, the (process of developing theories). For instance in physics we have the atomic theory and countless tables and charts of physical properties. We don't need a general theory for how a specific combination of semiconductors and other materials create transistors. The theory of Evolution contains explanations of the processes involved. We can only speculate on past occurances.AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Shouldn't you have to explain those too? Evolution is supposed to explain everything.