----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<df34bd32-89b8-4297-8900-27d06ce0401en@googlegroups.com> 920a0839
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> b19ab170
@REPLYADDR peter2...@gmail.com
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 peter2...@gmail.com
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID:
<df34bd32-89b8-4297-8900-27d06ce0401en@googlegroups.com>
@RFC-References: 1@dont-email.me>
<59d3bbbb-1e86-4e2d-9645-26a6449b96b3n@googlegroups.com> <e1c3e4ea-0a83-4fd1-a956-e9c4a5d4f4f8n@googlegroups.com>
<1be1474c-55f9-4fcd-a218-3702777492e3n@googlegroups.com> 1@dont-email.me>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:35:45 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/22/23 2:34 PM,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:44 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 1:40:44 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
> >
> > Finally, someone (Gary Hurd) actually looks in detail at the challenge.
> > Below, his commentary comes in for some criticism from both
Lawyer Daggett and myself.
> >
> > But then, talk.origins is a good medium for thrashing out
differences of opinion,
> > as long as it is done in good faith. So let the chips fall where they may.
> >
> >
> >>> James Tour`s latest bullshit claimed there are 5 "impossible" problems;
> >>>
> >>> 1. Polypeptides
> >>> 2. Polynucleotides
> >>> 3. Polysaccharides
> >>> 4. Specified Information
> >>> 5. Assembly of a Living Cell
> >
> > These were the *topics* of the different problems. Tour had
specific challenges
> > pertaining to each one.
In particular, for 4., he was interested in specified complexity.
> >>> Item #4, Specified Information has an interesting history.
> >>>
> >>> It starts 50 yers ago with Leslie Orgel in his
> >>> 1973 book "The Origins of life: Molecules and Natural
Selection" New York: John Wiley and Sons.
> >>>
> >>> Here was the first use of "specified complexity" as an
attribute of life (19n 1973). Orgel was contrasting the specified structure of
a crystal which is not alive, and the complexity of a bowl of crude
oil which is not alive, with the "specified complexity" of things that
are alive.
I wonder whether anyone has ever given a synopsis of Orgel`s
writings on "specified complexity" here in talk.origins.
Orgel was a world-class biochemist and a leading researcher in OOL
until his death.
> > Hurd shifts without warning to a completely different topic,
and promptly produces a historical howler:
> >
> >>> "Irreducible Complexity" was originally proposed by Herman J.
Muller in 1918.
> >
> > This is one of the most enduring falsehoods in the anti-ID literature.
> > Muller only talked about SOME components being essential.
Irreducible complexity
> > says, by definition, that EACH AND EVERY component is essential.
Now you come in, Mark, with a generality and no specific examples, except for
Behe`s teaching aid of a mousetrap.
> Well, in practice, Behe`s IC, like Muller`s, says that each and every
> one of the *essential* components is essential.
Wrong. Muller`s "interlocking complexity" is applicable to the human body,
in which the heart is essential but the individual kidney is not essential.
That`s what makes kidney donation such an important part of modern medicine.
And the individual kidney is far from irreducibly complex: you could lose
80% of the parts that make up your kidney, and as long as the
rest is working efficiently,
you will be OK.
Behe`s actual examples are different. Minnich broke down a bacterial flagellum
into its individual molecules, and found that each and every one of them
was essential to the basic function of swimming. Take away molecule X,
it doesn`t swim; restore molecule X, it swims.
The individual components of the clotting system and the immune
system are molecules.
>To take an extreme and
> silly example, your ability to alter the company`s logo on a mousetrap
> does not mean the mousetrap is not IC.
I`m glad you caught on to that much. It spares me from going into
detail on a satire I did a number of years ago about your use
(back then) of the word "part."
Anyway, the mousetrap has always been for educational purposes,
to illustrate the *concept* of irreducible complexity. Smart-alecky
nitpicks miss that point.
>And even if Muller`s argument
> does talk about SOME components (actually, to quote him (p. 464), "very
> numerous different elementary parts or factors"), his argument does not
> change an iota if ALL components are involved.
I take it you are referring to loss of components making a formerly
nonessential component essential [same page]. That still doesn`t
mean that ALL nonessential components suffer the same fate.
So the gulf between Behe and Muller is still there.
> >>> He called it "interlocking complexity," and showed how it was
supporting evolutionary theory. That original paper was, "Genetic Variablity,
Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors",
Hermann J. Muller, Genetics, Vol 3, No 5: 422-499, Sept 1918.
Google was my friend, as usual. Bing betrayed me by sending me to a specific
webpage that was flagged as suspicious by my anti-virus software.
Bing has started using ChatGPT, so that might account for the difference.
What say you to that, Mark?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: University of Ediacara (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441