Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Behe essentially claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution ie
(P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
(P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
(C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.sounds good but the 1st part of the argument is wrong.. evolution can also change or remove parts. In contrast, Behe’s irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve.
eg a stone bridge:
A clear example of this is a simple stone bridge. Consider a crude “precursor bridge” made of three stones. This bridge spans the area needed to be crossed and is thus functional. For step one of the evolution of the bridge, a part is added: a flat stone on top, covering all precursor stones. Whether this improves the functionality of the bridge is irrelevant — it may or may not, the bridge still functions. Now remove the middle stone. Voilá, we have an irreducibly complex bridge, since the last step made the top-stone necessary for the function but only simple gradual steps were used to create this.There are plenty of biological examples of the stone bridge effect.
this page has in interesting article by behe and a response by miller which uses behe’s own pet mousetrap argument against him
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html
there are string of essays here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
showing why Behe is just wrong.with regard to the above there are a few issues:
1) when you state creation scientists it sounds like an organised bunch of people but in reality none of them agree between themselves..ie no amount of natural selection can create such massive diversity as we see in 6000 years.
2)what you outline seems to go against many experiments I have read. In particular take e-coli experiments which have show that given enough mutations e-coli (which normally metabolise glucose) can mutate to the point that it can change enough to enable it to metabolise another food source entirely in addition to glucose. The huge improvement did not diminish its original capability it was an entirely additional capability in an identical environment over 35000 generation (every day they put half of yesterdays colony in a new flash and fed it the same broth for 25 years) This and many more fascinating experiments are in the book. Well worth a read@TurksMeister wrote:
I hated the PS3 controller to start off with, but as with most things, I became awesome with it over time.
We need a cross compatible game (PS3 team, Xbox team and PC team) to play, and then we will truely see which is the best platform of them all…
Surely someone has thought of this in the gaming world?!
i would love that but also add Mac players in there.. fuck knows they need at least one game to play. I could wet my self at the thought of mowing down mac owners and dancing around console players on their funny controllers,
i insalled this a few weeks back as riley likes to play it (when lis is not looking)
where are you guys playing and i will try and find you?
as in electric? or network?
the only advice is can give you on the 1st is dont touch the red one… it fucking hurts
