Re: [asa] The Agent and the Mousetrap

*For those who haven't read the book, could you give more details on the
arguments of interest?*

I'll probably oversimplify, but on exaptation, he says that the cooption of
parts requires availability, synchronization, localization, coordination,
and interface compatability of the system's parts. For a
biological-mechanical system like the flagellum, a limited number of
protiens are available to do the specialized jobs of the paddle, rotor, and
motor, particularly considering interface compatibility. Though we can
perhaps identify parts from other systems that theoretically could be
coopted to make a flagellum, it seems highly improbably that the further
requirements of synchronization, coordination, and interface compatibility
could be met with respect to those parts in relation to the whole system.

I have seen that Ken Miller and others cite a number of journal articles
showing parts that could have been coopted to form the flagellum. Do those
articles collectively satisfy all Menuge's requirements, or is a significant
amount of "time and chance of the gaps" still required? Or are Menuge's
requirments all wet?

On 10/20/06, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For those who haven't read the book, could you give more details on the
arguments of interest?
>
> I know of good examples of "IC" plausibly originating from exaptation of
existing systems or parts thereof, so I'm dubious about how good his
argument is. The more fundamental problem is that irreducible complexity
assumes that the system had to be achieving the same function throughout the
process.
>
>
>
> On 10/19/06, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've been reading Angus Menuge's book "Agents Under Fire." His critique
of "strong" and "weak" agent reductionism is interesting in its own right.
He tries to bolster that critique with a broader critique of Darwinism based
on irreducible complexity. He responds to a number of standard objections
to IC, including the theory that apparently IC systems could have developed
through co-optation. His response to the co-optation scenario seems fairly
strong.
> >
> > Why is co-optation considered a slam dunk in light of responses like
Menuge's? Also, aside from his critique of Darwinism, any thoughts on the
philosophical critique of SAR and WAR?
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Campbell
> 425 Scientific Collections
> University of Alabama
> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Oct 21 06:13:23 2006