Re: [asa] Innate design detector?

*The flagellum exists. Therefore the criteria have been met.*

Right, I'm not summarizing this correctly. I think he's getting at that
there's no evidence that any known natural process, including cooption, can
meet those criteria. The literature cited by Miller et al. purporting to
show how components of the flagellum could have existed elsewhere and been
coopted doesn't meet these criteria. The question of probabilities then
remains open. (Again, just summarizing his argument here).

On 11/8/06, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> I don't understand how he can argue that "there is no evidence that they
> have been met." That seems the easiest. The flagellum exists. Therefore the
> criteria have been met. He might argue that there's no clear evidence of
> exactly how they were met and by what causal factors. It just seems to me
> that if the criteria can be met in principle and there's no clear argument
> from low probabilities, then the lack of definitive knowledge of exactly how
> and when each step occurred is of little significance. At least for this
> argument.
>
> I admit I'm still searching for the pony in the IC argument. Surely it
> must be there somewhere.
>
> Randy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Sunday, November 05, 2006 10:12 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Innate design detector?
>
>
> As I understand Angus' argument, it's not that they can't be met in
> principle, but in certain systems, particularly the bacterial flagellum,
> there is no evidence that they have been met. He is in particular
> responding to arguments by Ken Miller and others purporting to show how the
> flagellum could have arisen through cooption. He isn't offering any
> probabilities. I think this is more a defensive argument, responding to
> arguments against IC in general and relating to the flagellum in particular,
> than a positive argument for design.
>
> On 11/5/06, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> > Ever since you posted Angus' criteria, I've been a little baffled by
> > the significance. Certainly the criteria cited seem to be reasonable
> > conditions that need to occur in the development of complex systems. But are
> > there any indications that they cannot, in principle, be met? Or is it
> > simply an argument of low probability for each of these criteria to be met?
> > We're a long way from determining any probabilities quantitatively so is
> > this one of the arguments from incredulity? that surely these conditions
> > couldn't possibly be met so something else must have happened?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> > *....*
> >
> > What I'm asking is specifically whether those availability,
> > synchronization, localization, coordination, and interface compability
> > criteria are reasonable. Perhaps they are reasonable criteria and chance
> > and regularity can meet them. I'm just curious whether the criteria make
> > sense, and if not, specifically why not.
> >
> > **
> >
> >
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 8 20:44:52 2006