Massie writes: [...]
[George Andrews' description ofchaotic attractors removed...]
>Not familier with this specific expample. But, I have seem examples
>from various sources which were claimed to be "specified complexity"
>arrising from physical mechanisms.
>
>What is the overwhelming evidence? The overwhelming evidence is
>for many complex features in biological organisms without the
>faintest suggestion by anyone as to how they might form gradually
>and saltationism begs for a creator.
>
>I think we can reasonably expect some certain "complex" thinks to
>fall out of physics. Salt crystals have certain lattice structures
>and so forth but not much sc here. Approaching this issue from the
>margins is not very convincing.
>
>Obviously I would appeal to the flagellium of Bethe and perhaps
>you could outline for us how this came into being.
[...]
Interestingly, components of the bacterial flagellum exhibit
similarities to some protein transport components found on cell
surfaces. This connection is faint and apparently obscured by
intense selection over the millenia, but suggests the possibility
that the rotational motion of the flagellum arose from a defective
or "stuttering" protein transport complex.
Another irreducibly complex system discussed by Michael Behe
was the vertebrate blood clotting cascade. Here there seems to
be an even stronger case for adaptation of previously existing
components for new uses. This is outlined in Kenneth Miller's
book _Finding Darwin's God_ (Cliff Street Books, NY 1999 ISBN:
0-06-017593-1), specifically in Chapter 5: "God the Mechanic".
Bert, you've mentioned "irreducible complexity" as if it's some
bellweather of Intelligent Design™. Yet, this relationship has
long been questioned and has generally been found to be less
straightforward than suggested by ID proponents. Basically,
irreducible complexity cannot, by itself, provide much insight
into the evolvability of biological systems. That's because we've
observed the evolution of IC systems and found that most components
of IC systems exhibit strong resemblances to other components in
the cell. (discussed previously on the evolution reflector eg.:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0069.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199809/0114.html
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0191.html
and elsewhere on the web. See also Ken Miller's book and
Robert Pennock's _Tower of Babel_ MIT Press, MA 1999,
ISBN: 0-262-16180-X).
Granted, the first emergence of life remains quite unknown,
but positing its subsequent evolution doesn't seem like
terribly much of a stretch to make.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 04 2000 - 23:44:34 EST