On 4/22/2011 8:52 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> No, just to the point where it is in principle provable, but in practice
>> not.
>
> But nobody has even come up with an idea of how you would show a protein
> could not have evolved. "Irreducible complexity" doesn't show a protein
> could not have evolved. So how would you recognize such a protein?
>
They have tried math that claims its unlikely, if you 1) get the math 
wrong, 2) make a lot of assumptions from the start, and 3) presumes you 
have less time to do it that was actually available. Its the lotto 
ticket hypothesis. I.e., one person's odds of winning at 1:6 billion is 
stupidly low, so it should be somehow equally improbable for 100 million 
people, attempting it twice a week, for an entirely unspecified length 
of time, to do it either. In reality, people manage to win it almost 
every time tickets are sold. In short, their *entire* argument hedges on 
the odds of a solution happening with *one* attempt, in *one* step, 
within *one* organism, instead of in like 900 trillion gazillion 
attempts, with similar numbers of individuals, over multiple steps.

Its about as honest an attempt to describe why "Irreducible Complexity" 
is even a valid concept as it would be if they included the joke math, 
where you are made to prove that X = Y, by dividing by zero at some 
point in the process. There only other hole card is the whole 
"ontological depth" thing, which is just more hand waving. The principle 
behind it being, "If we have a coherent description of what this was, 
and how to measure it, it would amount to, 'Wow, this is X times more 
complex that that other thing, thus Y times less likely to happen, in 
the same, one step, single organism, single attempt case IC claims had 
to happen for evolution to work.'"

Its one of the ironies of the whole idiot mess that evolution says, "You 
don't just get things popping up out of no place, it happens slowly, in 
all cases.", yet the central themes of ID/Creationism are that things 
*do* just pop into existence, without any precursors, in DNA, but that 
somehow this disallows rabbits hatching out of chicken eggs, while, at 
the same time *claiming* that this is exactly what evolution proposes. 
The stupid thing being, one would think that under the, "god did it!", 
hypothesis, this is precisely how entire species would have had to 
happen. lol

Even their claims about what evolution says (but doesn't), and therefor 
ID, are incoherent with respect to their own argument about how you get, 
say parrots, if the only birds on their stupid boat had been doves.

Post a reply to this message