I read your remarks again, you said that you think lungs might not have
been lungs to start with. I'm not sure how that makes me saying that
systems are probably for the same function now as they started out as,
dangerous. But I guess that doesn't really matter....
>
>Dona;d: <<It doesn't make any difference however, because they had to have
been lungs
>for a while before being in their present state, and what they started as
>has no significance.>>
>
>Nonsense. Your argument was that organs always must have had this
function. Now I show this to be potentially erroneous and you consider it
'making no difference' ? Perhaps you should first determine what your
argument really is and then stick to it ?
>
The reason I said it makes no difference is because we are talking about a
system that performed a function, slowly improved through little steps, all
the while performing that function. It doesn't matter if it started as
something else, as long as it changed to performing a specific tast, and
that it then went on to develope further in that task.
>>Not necessarily. What about a football stadium with a vaulted roof. Even
>while the roof is being built, the stadium can serve its purpose, just no
>roof and when it rains, the field gets wet.
>>Irreducibly complex presumes that there is no use for intermediate steps.
>But that can easily be shown to not be a requirement. Note that it might
>still be correct but it should not presume but show that intermediate steps
>could not have a purpose
>>
>
>Donald: <<What is the use of the roof? Does it serve a purpose while it is
being
>built? That's like saying that if you already have one arm, then having a
>half made arm is fine because you can still do things with the other arm!>>
>
>You could not have made my argument better. If everyone has one arm and
you have one and a 'hald made' second arm then this might be an advantage.
>
But we are talking about an arm, not a body, the arm isn't helpful if it
doesnt work. We are not talking about a system where one lung is fully
developed, and we are watching the other one grow. This is the whole system
growing at once, that's the whole point.
>
>Donald: <<I have a friend who's little finger on his right hand didn't
work. Even
>though in a few generations this finger may have started to work, he had it
>amputated. Do you know why? Because it was useless, and it got in the way.>>
>
>Now you are reversing the argument dear Donald. You are now having
perfectly good items turn into bad items,
>
what?
>Donald: <<If you had the start of a roof, with all the scaffolding and
supports there
>but it didn't protect you from the weather, and you weren't going to finish
>building it, I think you would tear it down, becuase it would be useless
>and would get in the way, and would probably not be safe.>>
>
>It might or it might not. The additional scaffolding might make
maintenance easier, might help providing additional support.
>
Maintenance of what? Support to what? We don't want to maintain a roof that
does nothing, or support it. To do so would be nonsense.
>>Donald: <<I didn't see anything that showed a pathway, there was a bad
>example of a
>>mouse trap as a irreducibly complex system, that turned out to be not
>>irreducibly complex. Does this mean that there is no such thing as
>>irreducibly complex? >>
>>
>>Nope but it shows that something 'irreducibly complex' can still have its
>origin in small steps.
>>But I was refering to the example of the chemical pathway. Perhaps you
>should look again ? It shows how using small steps the end result is
>irreducibly complex, yet it was reached through small incremental steps
>which weren't. That shows that Behe's argument does not hold.
>>
>
>Donald: <<It showed something that wasn't irreducibly complex!>>
>
>
>Hurah and yet it ended up being such. So it was shown that something which
in the end appears to be irreducibly complex, could have emerged in small
steps. And that puts an end to Behe's arguments.
>
It wasn't irreducibly complex, because you took away one bit and you could
still get it to work. It may have appeared to be irreducibly complex, but
it wasn't. That's what you showed. Therefore, it could have gotten there is
small steps.
>Donald: << There were two people throwing a ball to each other. Then
another person
>asked to join in, so now the ball is moving in a triangle. If now one of
>the people leave, and the remaining people still try and throw in a
>triangle, it won't work, the system falls down.
>
>This seems to me like a trick. It's an addaption of you enviroment by a
>chain of events, but if it can adapt one way, it should be equally able to
>adapt in the opposite way. So that if you remove one player, it should be
>able to change just as well as it did to include that player to start ain,
this is not implied but presumed by Behe. Behe's argument is
>inherently flawed as it presumes that it could not have had any function
>until completed. The talk.origins page as well as others have shown this
>argument to be 'meritless'.
>>Behe might want this to be the case but his argument becomes circular in
>that he considers a system irreducible if it could not have gotten there
>through small steps and then calls something irreducible because removing a
>part makes it fall apart and concludes that therefor it could not have
>gotten there through small steps.
>>
>
>Donald: <<Well, lets ignore Behe for a moment and ask these questions.
Could a very
>complex system, such as a lung, arrive at the state it is currently in,
through a series of small steps?>>
>
>Possibly. Unlike Behe I am not going to deny this possibility beforehand
>
>Donald: << If so, was it useable throughout the process? If it wasn't
useable throughout that process, when did it become useable? If not untill
near completion, how did it progress to a useable
>state, and what drove it?>>
>
>Usable as what ? It might have been usable all the way through, just
different functions ?
>
I have never seen any evidence of this. If you mean the lung thing, it
became a lung at an early stage, so lets just count from there, then I
think we will be looking at the real problem. Unless you have some good
evidence for something else.
>
>Donald: <<My logic here is that in all the examples you have given, the
object is useless untill completed, if that is the case, then I see that as
a fundamental flaw in the theory of evolution on a large scale.>>
>
>So the stadium is useless without a roof ? But I am glad to hear that at
least you are willing to 'drop Behe's argument'. As you have seen that
argument has remained without little support in logic and reality. So now
your argument is: "It might have happened, but I do not understand how it
could have been useful all the way through". That's a good first step. Now
however you are back to the old creationist assumption that something
cannot be useful until it is fully completed. I guess you should read up on
the 'evolution on the eye' to understand the logical fallacy in this
argument ?
>
A stadium isn't useless without a roof. A roof is useless if it doesn't do
anything.
My problem now is that I see no reason to believe that these things evolved
when looking at them in this context. All I see are reasons not to believe,
and some attempts to try and show that it might be possible.
Heres a question about the eye. What came first, the part of the brain to
recieve the signals, the nerve to transmit them, or the light sensitive
patch? And how were these things useful before the others were there?
>What good is half an eye ? Well, it's better than no eye ....
>
Only if its the right half.
Donald Howes
Acting Research Systems Co-Ordinator
Research Services
University of New England