"a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
Do you know what it means?
I will readily admit that “tact” occasionally eludes me…
Evidence of what? That sitting quietly makes you feel good? Again, what’s your point?
I know what IC is and who most of the ID proponents are.
It’s bankrupt unfortunately (no offense), if you are truly interested, pick up “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins. Or you could open up another thread if you want to explore the issue.
Evidence of what exactly?
I mean, I can accept that you find it particularly convincing-don’t get me wrong, that’s good I suppose- but it’s not really evidence.
I know that there are people with Ph.D.s in biochemistry who believe in it - and the sheer number of people who believe in it make me tend to think that at least some of them will be smarter than you. You might also note that I make no claim of being smarter than you - because I don’t know how smart you are, as you said. At the very least, unless you have a Ph.D. in biochemistry, there are people who are far more knowledgeable on the matter than you who believe in it (and who don’t, of course).
And yes, I know what IC is, I’ve read/am reading material in various forms (books, articles, reviews) on either side of the debate.
Evidence suggests something might be true, but does not “prove.” Hence, if I feel better when I pray, it might suggest that there is a God. It could also suggest that I expect to feel better, therefore I do, and a number of other things.
“Fallacy - Argumentum ad populum ( even assuming you could show this to be true)”
That quote is not in context - I said that if there’s a large group of people and therefore it is rather likely that at least one of them will be smarter than you. Please refrain from misquoting me. Not that since many people believe it, it must be true. Obviously, that would work against me (well not really, considering I’m not debating the truth of IC, just saying a lot of people believe it) since more people don’t believe in it.
No, I said I’d rather not debate it, what in that post made you think I wanted to?
Gah, I should’ve previewed that post… Here it is reformatted and corrected:
That quote is not in context - I said that there’s a large group of people and therefore it is rather likely that at least one of them will be smarter than you. Not that since many people believe it, it must be true. Please refrain from misquoting me (I meant out of context here, not misquoting). Obviously, that would work against me (well not really, considering I’m not debating the truth of IC, just saying a lot of people believe it (seeing as you like to read out of context, I’ll stress again that I’m not saying that it proves it)) since more people don’t believe in it (than believe in it).
No, I said I’d rather not debate it, what in that post made you think I wanted to? (seeing as I said before I’d rather not, and you’re the one who opportunistically descended on a point I said I’d rather not debate - because it’s not relevant to the point, since there are ZERO absolutes in the world)
IC is really irrelevant to the OP, but if you want to make assertions that IC deserves any more respect than UFOs or flat-earthism, then I suggest you look for old threads on the subject. If you still think IC deserves respect, then please feel free to start a new thread. I’d be very interested to see what you have to say.
Behe came to my school and lectured on IC to an auditorium packed with PhD’s and PhD students. They pretty much universally thought he was a joke.
**
What a remarkable coincidence! I have a Ph.D. (from an Ivy League school, no less) and I’m a practicing molecular biologist. And I’m here to tell you that IC is a joke, and Behe is a liar. If you want to start your own thread, go ahead, but I suggest you read old threads on the topic so as not to waste our time giving you remedial lessons.
Have you read anything criticising IC, or are you just trumpeting it after having only heard Behe’s lies?
I missed your original post or I would have replied earlier.
Ben - name and proof of that? I can understand you not wanting to give out information on an information forum, but there’s nothing stopping anyone from saying that… besides, you are not roundguy
Anyway, could you kindly point me to the mechanism that produces RNA in the first place?
PS - an internet forum is not where I look for insight, the library is. Hence, if I want to read something against ID, I’ll pick up something by Dawkins or someone like him.
While I think that picking up some of Dawkins books (such as The Blind Watchmaker) is an excellent idea-I think you should not de-value learning via internet MBs. There are a lot of experts on the SD and unlike a book, you can ask questions if something is unclear.
It’s as easy to pick up those things from books as well (I’m not saying this of Dawkins book BTW-I think it’s excellent), the difference though is that if someone attempts to spred misinformation on this MB, there is a good (a very good) chance of someone else calling them out for it.
I mean, as with anything, it’s up to you what you accept and of course, if you doubt, you should always ask for a cite or take it upon yourself to do further research.
I would suggest, especially if you are truly interested, opening up another thread on IC/ID. As I said, there are a few posters around who really know there stuff (Ben, Darwin’s Finch, and several others) and it’s always a lot better to be able to ask them questions to clear up concepts then to be stuck thinking “what’s the author talking about?”.
It’s as easy to pick up those things from books as well (I’m not saying this of Dawkins book BTW-I think it’s excellent), the difference though is that if someone attempts to spred misinformation on this MB, there is a good (a very good) chance of someone else calling them out for it.
I mean, as with anything, it’s up to you what you accept and of course, if you doubt, you should always ask for a cite or take it upon yourself to do further research.
I would suggest, especially if you are truly interested, opening up another thread on IC/ID. As I said, there are a few posters around who really know there stuff (Ben, Darwin’s Finch, and several others) and it’s always a lot better to be able to ask them questions to clear up concepts then to be stuck thinking “what’s the author talking about?”.
No, dreadnougat, I’m not going to provide proof of my credentials, because I don’t give out personal information online. Besides, it’s irrelevant. If you want proof of my knowledge, then anyone who’s been around here can vouch for that. Or, you can check out my webpage.
**
Once again, the best the Jesus-science people can come up with is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because science can’t explain something doesn’t mean that God did it.
Don’t waste our time, dreadnougat. If you have a genuine interest in approaching this topic with an open mind, read the old threads, and then if you still have questions, start one of your own. It simply is not our job to give you individualized tutoring.
I tend to take stuff with a grain of salt. That said, with a book I find it’s a lot easier to pick out the biases. Internet forums are good for arguing and discussing, but I don’t think so much for learning. It’s quite easy to find two books with opposing views that are well researched. It’s hard to know on an internet forum if you’re getting the best of both arguments.
No, dreadnougat, I’m not going to provide proof of my credentials, because I don’t give out personal information online. Besides, it’s irrelevant. If you want proof of my knowledge, then anyone who’s been around here can vouch for that. Or, you can check out my webpage.
**
Once again, the best the Jesus-science people can come up with is the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Just because science can’t explain something doesn’t mean that God did it.
Don’t waste our time, dreadnougat. If you have a genuine interest in approaching this topic with an open mind, read the old threads, and then if you still have questions, start one of your own. It simply is not our job to give you individualized tutoring.
I tend to take stuff with a grain of salt. That said, with a book I find it’s a lot easier to pick out the biases. Internet forums are good for arguing and discussing, but I don’t think so much for learning. It’s quite easy to find two books with opposing views that are well researched. It’s hard to know on an internet forum if you’re getting the best of both arguments.
Anyway, Ben, if you want to slander me and put words in my mouth, I have zero respect for you. I asked you to point me to the mechanism. There isn’t one. Obviously, I wasn’t asking for literal directions to it…
I was not the one who started this debate - I said I didn’t want to! But until you can show some way RNA can be produced in nature, it seems that there is evidence for IC. I didn’t say proof, as it’s just about impossible to prove that something is impossible.
I’ve been wrongly accused of a fallacy a couple of times now in this thread, what do you know of the ad hominem fallacy?
Scoffing at an idea is not disproving it.
And with that, I retire from this forum. I didn’t come here to be insulted. Good day, sir.
