----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1@dont-email.me> e8fa7ae6
@REPLY:
<df34bd32-89b8-4297-8900-27d06ce0401en@googlegroups.com> 920a0839
@REPLYADDR Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Mark Isaak
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 1@dont-email.me>
@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>
<df34bd32-89b8-4297-8900-27d06ce0401en@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X
10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 9/27/23 11:11 AM,
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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:
[big skip for focus]
>>>>> "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.
Okay, I accept that Muller`s interlocking complexity allows some
non-essential parts. However, it does not *require* them. Thus Behe`s
(original) irreducible complexity is a subset of Muller`s interlocking
complexity.
Muller remains significant in that he showed how Behe`s IC could evolve
naturally, indeed that such systems might be expected to evolve. Of
course, he preceded Behe by decades, so he was not directly addressing
Behe`s claims, and he did not (as far as I know) mention the other ways
that Behe`s IC could evolve gradually. For example, possible ambiguity
in what may be regarded as a "part", which Peter thinks he can ignore
now that he has made up a lampoon about it.
>
>>>>> 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?
Why do you ask?? Did you forget to "skip for focus"?
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between `That
doesn`t make sense` and `I don`t understand.`" - Mary Doria Russell
--- Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (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