Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The challenge to Darwin’s theory of evolution – Part 5
World Peace Herald ^ | October 20, 2006 | Sekai Nippo

Posted on 10/20/2006 9:49:15 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

TOKYO -- Unlike his collegue Dr. Scott Minnch, Dr. Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry, did not develop doubts about Darwinism during his years in research. This is because Darwinism was described as a proven fact in many college textbooks and taught accordingly.

What triggered his doubts about Darwinism was a book entitled “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” written by Australian molecular geneticist Michael Denton. He read the book in the latter half of 1980s during spare time while doing research.

Denton presented his critique of neo-Darwinism based on the latest biochemistry achievements of the time. One of the focal points of his presentation was a comparison of the amino-acid sequence of cytochrome-c, a small heme protein loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion commonly found in all aerobic organisms. It is an important protein involved in taking in oxygen and generating energy, and is composed of a little more than 100 amino acids. The three-dimensional structure of all types of cytochrome-c is similar and therefore common. But its amino-acid sequence differs according to organisms.

The book points out the remarkable fact that the cytochrome-c amino-acid sequences of bacteria, horses, pigeons, tuna, silkworm moths, wheat and natural yeast are 64 to 69 percent identical.

Neo-Darwinism claims that organisms evolved from bacteria to intermediate types, and then to sophisticated species. However, based on evidence in the book, cytochrome-c of natural yeast is not considered to be an intermediate type between bacteria cytochrome-c and eukaryotic cytochrome-c. The book states: “Whatever eukaryotic cytochrome it may be, it is not considered to be an intermediate type between bacteria cytochromes and other eukaryotic cytochromes.” This was clearly contrary to neo-Darwinism.

Professor Behe grew indignant over the fact that he could only teach neo-Darwinism in colleges and graduate schools. After this, he started to reflect on his chosen field seriously. He arrived at the term and concept of “Irreducible Complexity.”

Behe received his Ph.D. in biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. After engaging in the research at the National Institutes of Heath, he became associate professor in 1985 and professor in 1997 at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Moravian Christian immigrants from Czechoslovakia founded Bethlehem in the 18th century. Professor Behe’s laboratory is in the Iacocca Hall at Lehigh University’s Mountaintop campus.

Professor Behe took time to welcome Sekai Nippo reporters to his lab despite his busy schedule. In addition to his teaching and research, he was writing a book. Prominently displayed was a family photo with his wife and all nine of his children.

Asked about his feelings when he coined the term Irreducible Complexity, he said, “I think it was in1990. I didn't jump in excitement, but I wrote it down.

“It did not take much time to come up with the phrase, he said, "but I was certainly very excited when I did.

"This is because with this phrase I could encapsulate the problems [of Darwinism].

"Usually, if a phrase does not adequately express the issue, people have difficulty understanding it. I found that most people will intuitively understand the issue when they hear the phrase Irreducible Complexity.”

Simply speaking, Irreducible Complexity means complexity that cannot be reduced to anything simpler.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: behe; crevo; crevolist; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last
Nine children, he obviously doesn't spend all his time in the lab.

The views expressed by this author do not necessarily represent the views of DaveLoneRanger or the creation ping list.

Do not bother attacking the source, for I will not bother to respond to those. I am aware of the affiliations of this paper. Concentrate your disagreements on the substance of the article.

1 posted on 10/20/2006 9:49:15 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gobucks; mikeus_maximus; MeanWestTexan; JudyB1938; isaiah55version11_0; Elsie; LiteKeeper; ...


You have been pinged because of your interest regarding news, debates and editorials pertaining to the Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective.
Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list:
Add me / Remove me



Be nice, or I will pour mucilage in your houseshoes.
2 posted on 10/20/2006 9:50:30 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
proven fact

It might be noted that proven scientific theories are said to be facts, whereas they are not facts at all. They are called scientific facts to distinguish them from facts. Evolution is not a theory but a principle. By analogy, if it were mathematical it might be taken as an axiom. Axioms are not susceptible of proof.

3 posted on 10/20/2006 9:54:16 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Simply speaking, Irreducible Complexity means complexity that cannot be reduced to anything simpler.

That's the definition of irreducible simplicity. No wonder creationists are confused.

If something is irreducibly simple, it doesn't imply a more complex organization couldn't also preform the same function -- complexity you might expect from two or more other functions merging to create a new function. The "simplicity" then coming as the extra unneeded complexity eroded away.

4 posted on 10/20/2006 10:40:53 AM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

You obviously don't understand the concept of irreducible complexity.


5 posted on 10/20/2006 12:08:07 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
You obviously don't understand the concept of irreducible complexity.

A misnomer. It's irreducible simplicity.

6 posted on 10/20/2006 12:15:50 PM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

Funny, all of the scientists working on this call it irreducible complexity. Who, besides yourself, uses your phrase?


7 posted on 10/20/2006 12:40:39 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
all of the scientists working on this call it irreducible complexity.

It's debatable whether they're scientists. But none the less, it is perfectly obvious it is irreducible simplicity -- i.e. it can't get any simpler without failing to function. Of course in most cases even that is likely wrong, as for many functions, just because we can't imagine a simpler arrangement doesn't mean one couldn't exist.

But the main point about irreducible simplicity is that it leads to the notion that two or more functions could merge to create a third function with unneeded or redundant complexity.

Even in "intelligent design" by humans, functions are often overly complex when first proposed, and by trial and error a more simple function is found.

The notion of "irreducibly complex" seems to lead to people believing that something had to self-assemble spontaneously out of random molecules. Such as an amoeba suddenly sprouting an eyeball. It puts creationists in a confused state of mind.

If you go trying to figure the probabilities of an amoeba suddenly developing an eyeball you will get a huge number. But of course you are chasing the wrong mechanism.

Rather, the path to the eyeball was through incremental change on seperate subsystems that then merged with excess complexity of the task, and then eventually lost the unneeded stuff.

Which is very much like human invention -- which also depends heavily on trial and error.

8 posted on 10/20/2006 1:03:56 PM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

Once again, you display your lack of understanding of "complexity" and, at the same time, reveal your natualistic presuppositions. Also you failed to articulate the creationist position, choosing instead to create a straw man...one that no creationist adheres to.


9 posted on 10/20/2006 2:39:43 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

One definition: "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."


10 posted on 10/20/2006 2:42:01 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

Second Definition: "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".


11 posted on 10/20/2006 2:42:37 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
reveal your natualistic presuppositions.

The point isn't to convince you against your religious dogma. A futile task.

The point being made is that all this "certainty of improbability" is based on something that isn't certain at all, and therefore the mathematical calculations of improbability are built on a foundation of straw.

The process by which something becomes "irreducibly simple" offers a REASONABLE alternative to the quantum leaps suggested by proponents of "irreducible complexity."

I presume "irreducible complexity" theory is offered as a scientific arguement, and not a religious one, to convince scientists of the errors of evolutionary theory.

Therefore to be meaningful to scientists it must pass the tests of logic -- such as whether it is imperative. Since there are obvious alternate explanations that are both reasonable and more likely, you really aren't going to find "irreducible complexity" theory making much headway with real scientists.

It's just FYI. If you are happy to preach to the choir, well then it doesn't matter. But if you really want to affect science, you should be aware of the error of your arguments.

12 posted on 10/20/2006 2:56:46 PM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper; Dracian
One definition: "A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."

Let's see you try to justify the phrase I've highlighted in bold. It'll be pretty amusing watching you make this attempt, because it's twaddle.

For extra amusement, explain how you'd go about determining the "basic" function of a given biological structure. We'll wait.

Then define "system". How do you plan to go about marking where one "system" ends and another "system" begins in a biological organism? Ditto for "parts".

Next, give us a metric for "well-matched". What's the cutoff figure for "well-matched" versus "sorta so-so-matched"?

Next, give a stab at defining "nonarbitrarily individuated". That should be fun.

Creationists are fond of engaging in a lot of fuzzy buzzword blathering when they attempt to do science, but upon examination they're just mouthing stuff that sounds good but can't be pinned down in any way that can be actually tested, validated, falsified, or used to make predictions.

13 posted on 10/20/2006 3:21:53 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper; Dracian; DaveLoneRanger
Second Definition: "A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".

Yeah, that's Behe's definition -- it has the same fuzziness problems as Dembski's. "System"? "Parts"? "Basic"? "Effectively cease"?

But ambiguous language aside, so what? If Behe wants to slap a label on something, that doesn't advance understanding any.

Oh, right, you and Behe and the Jesus-denying Moonie cult that DaveLoneRanger has been quoting from for days now want to claim that a "system" (*cough*) that matches this description must be "unevolvable", right?

Wrong.

Behe's line of "reasoning" for arriving at that conclusion is fatally and unfixably flawed.

Here's some of my own analysis of Behe's central thesis (some from older posts of mine) -- let me know if you find any oversights in it...

The next idea you probably will not like, and that is irreducible complexity.

As an "idea" I like it just fine, and so do evolutionary scientists. The problem is that Behe (and the creationists who follow him) have created a "straw man" version of "IC" which is quite simply incorrect -- but appears to give the conclusion they want.

The original notion of "IC" goes back to Darwin himself. He wrote:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859
That's "Irreducible Complexity" in a nutshell. It's not as if Behe has pointed out anything that biologists (or Darwin) didn't already realize.

But let's examine Darwin's description of "IC" in a bit more detail (emphasis mine):

No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind. Numerous cases could be given amongst the lower animals of the same organ performing at the same time wholly distinct functions; thus the alimentary canal respires, digests, and excretes in the larva of the dragon-fly and in the fish Cobites. In the Hydra, the animal may be turned inside out, and the exterior surface will then digest and the stomach respire. In such cases natural selection might easily specialise, if any advantage were thus gained, a part or organ, which had performed two functions, for one function alone, and thus wholly change its nature by insensible steps. Two distinct organs sometimes perform simultaneously the same function in the same individual; to give one instance, there are fish with gills or branchiae that breathe the air dissolved in the water, at the same time that they breathe free air in their swimbladders, this latter organ having a ductus pneumaticus for its supply, and being divided by highly vascular partitions. In these cases, one of the two organs might with ease be modified and perfected so as to perform all the work by itself, being aided during the process of modification by the other organ; and then this other organ might be modified for some other and quite distinct purpose, or be quite obliterated.

The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one, because it shows us clearly the highly important fact that an organ originally constructed for one purpose, namely flotation, may be converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely respiration. The swimbladder has, also, been worked in as an accessory to the auditory organs of certain fish, or, for I do not know which view is now generally held, a part of the auditory apparatus has been worked in as a complement to the swimbladder. All physiologists admit that the swimbladder is homologous, or 'ideally similar,' in position and structure with the lungs of the higher vertebrate animals: hence there seems to me to be no great difficulty in believing that natural selection has actually converted a swimbladder into a lung, or organ used exclusively for respiration.

[Example snipped]

In considering transitions of organs, it is so important to bear in mind the probability of conversion from one function to another, that I will give one more instance. [Long detail of example snipped] If all pedunculated cirripedes had become extinct, and they have already suffered far more extinction than have sessile cirripedes, who would ever have imagined that the branchiae in this latter family had originally existed as organs for preventing the ova from being washed out of the sack?

-- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species", 1859

Darwin makes two critical points here:

1. A modern organ need not have evolved into its present form and function from a precursor which had always performed the same function. Evolution is quite capable of evolving a structure to perform one function, and then turning it to some other "purpose".

2. Organs/structures can reach their present form through a *loss* of function or parts, not just through *addition* of function or parts.

Despite the fact that these observations were laid out in 1859, Behe's version of "Irreducible Complexity" pretends they are not factors, and defines "IC" as something which could not have arisen through stepwise *ADDITIONS* (only) while performing the same function *THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE*.

It's hard to tell whether Behe does this through ignorance or willful dishonesty, but the fact remains that *his* definition and analysis of "IC" is too restrictive. He places too many "rules" on how he will "allow" evolution to reach his examples of "Behe-style IC" structures, while evolution itself *IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THOSE RULES* when it operates. Thus Behe's conclusion that "Behe-style evolution" can not reach "Behe-style IC" hardly tells us anything about whether *real-world* evolution could or could not have produced them.

For specific examples, Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" flagellum is flawed because flagella are composed of components that bacteria use FOR OTHER PURPOSES and were evolved for those purposes then co-opted (1, 2), and Behe's example of the "Behe-style IC" blood-clotting process is flawed because the biochemistry of blood-clotting is easily reached by adding several steps on top of a more primitive biochemical sequence, *and then REMOVING earlier portions which had become redundant* (1, 2).

Even Behe's trivial mousetrap example turns out to not actually be "IC".

The usual qualitative formulation is: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced...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..."

Note the key error: By saying that it "breaks" if any part is "missing" (i.e. taken away), it is only saying that evolution could not have reached that endpoint by successively only ADDING parts. True enough, but Behe misses the fact that you can also reach the same state by, say, adding 5 parts one at a time, and then taking away 2 which have become redundant. Let's say that part "A" does the job, but not well. But starting with just "A" serves the need. Then add "B", which improves the function of "A". Add "C" which helps A+B do their job, and so on until you have ABCDE, which does the job very well. Now, however, it may turn out that CDE alone does just fine (conceivably, even better than ABCDE does with A+B getting in the way of CDE's operation). So A and B fade away, leaving CDE. Note that CDE was built in "one change at a time" fashion, with each new change improving the operation. HOWEVER, by Behe's definition CDE is "Irreducibly Complex" and "could not have evolved (been built by single steps)" because removing C or D or E from CDE will "break" it. Note that Behe's conclusion is wrong. His logic is faulty.

The other error in Behe's definition lies in this part: "...any precursor to an irreducibly complex system, that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional". The problem here is that it may be "nonfunctional" for its *current* function, but perfectly functional for some *other* function helpful for survival (and therefore selected by evolution). Behe implicitly claims that if it's not useful for its *current* function, it's useless for *any* function. The flaw in this should be obvious.

"Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."

True as far as it goes, but but this is hardly the same as Behe's sleight-of-hand in the first part of his statement, which relies on the false premise that a precursor to a structure is 100% useless for *any* purpose if *taking away* (but not adding) one part from the current purpose makes it unsuitable for the current purpose. Two gaping holes in that one...

Behe (an anathematized name)

For reasons I've outlined above.

talks of the bacterial flagellum, which contains an acid-powered rotary engine, a stator, O-rings, bushings, and a drive shaft. The machinery of this motor requires approximately fifty proteins.

Except that it doesn't. As many biochemists have pointed out, other organisms have function flagella (even *as* flagella) with fewer proteins (and/or different proteins). That flagellum isn't even "IC" by Behe's own definition since you *can* remove proteins and have it still work as a flagellum. [...]

For a far more realistic look at the evolutionary "invention" of the flagellum, see Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum , which I linked earlier in this post. From the abstract:

The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum.
Now *that's* science. Behe's stuff is just hand-waving and ivory-tower blowhardedness.
And:

For an analysis of numerous errors and such in Dembski's Design arguments/examples, see Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates: A critique of William Dembski's book No Free Lunch. It also contains material on the flagella issue you raise next.

As for Behe (the other author):

One small example is the flagella on a paramecium. They need four distinct proteins to work.

Actually they need a lot more than that. And as far as I know, Behe never used the cilia on paramecia as his example, he has primarily concentrated on bacterial flagella.

They cannot have evolved from a flagella that need three.

Contrary to creationist claims (or Behe's) that flagella are Irreducibly Complex and can not function at all if any part or protein is removed, in fact a) there are many, many varieties of flagella on various species of single-celled organisms, some with more or fewer parts/proteins than others. So it's clearly inaccurate to make a blanket claim that "flagella" in general contain no irreplacable parts. Even Behe admits that a working flagella can be reduced to a working cilia, which undercuts his entire "Irreducibly Complex" example/claim right off the bat.

For a semi-technical discussion of how flagella are *not* IC, because many of their parts can be eliminated without totally breaking their locomotive ability, see Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella

But even if one could identify, say, four specific proteins (or other components) which were critically necessary for the functioning of all flagellar structures (and good luck: there are three unrelated classes of organisms with flagella built on three independent methods: eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, and eukaryote flagella -- see Faugy DM and Farrel K, (1999 Feb) A twisted tale: the origin and evolution of motility and chemotaxis in prokaryotes. Microbiology, 145, 279-280), Behe makes a fatal (and laughably elementary) error when he states that therefore they could not have arisen by evolution. Even first-year students of evolutionary biology know that quite often evolved structures are built from parts that WERE NOT ORIGINALLY EVOLVED FOR THEIR CURRENT APPLICATION, as Behe naively assumes (or tries to imply).

Okay, fine, so even if you can prove that a flagellum needs 4 certain proteins to function, and would not function AS A FLAGELLUM with only 3, that's absolutely no problem for evolutionary biology, since it may well have evolved from *something else* which used those 3 proteins to successfully function, and only became useful as a method of locomotion when evolution chanced upon the addition of the 4th protein. Biology is chock-full of systems cobbled together from combinations of other components, or made via one addition to an existing system which then fortuitously allows it to perform a new function.

And, lo and behold, it turns out that the "base and pivot" of the bacterial flagella, along with part of the "stalk", is virtually identical to the bacterial Type III Secretory Structure (TTSS). So despite Behe's claim that flagella must be IC because (he says) there's no use for half a flagella, in fact there is indeed such a use. And this utterly devastates Behe's argument, in several different ways. Explaining way in detail would take quite some time, but it turns out that someone has already written an excellent essay on that exact thing, which I strongly encourage you to read: The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity" .

(Note: Several times that essay makes a reference to the "argument from ignorance", with the assumption that the reader is already familiar with it. I'd like to point out that contrary to the way it sounds, Miller is *not* accusing Behe et all of being ignorant. Instead, he's referring to this family of logical fallacies, also known as the "argument from incredulity".)

That is called irreducible complexity.

That's what Behe likes to call it, yes. But the flagella is provably *not* IC. Oops for Behe. Furthermore, while it's certainly easy to *call* something or another "Irreducibly Complex", proving that it actually *is* is another matter entirely.

As the "Flagellum Unspun" article above states:

According to Dembski, the detection of "design" requires that an object display complexity that could not be produced by what he calls "natural causes." In order to do that, one must first examine all of the possibilities by which an object, like the flagellum, might have been generated naturally. Dembski and Behe, of course, come to the conclusion that there are no such natural causes. But how did they determine that? What is the scientific method used to support such a conclusion? Could it be that their assertions of the lack of natural causes simply amount to an unsupported personal belief? Suppose that there are such causes, but they simply happened not to think of them? Dembski actually seems to realize that this is a serious problem. He writes: "Now it can happen that we may not know enough to determine all the relevant chance hypotheses [which here, as noted above, means all relevant natural processes (hvt)]. Alternatively, we might think we know the relevant chance hypotheses, but later discover that we missed a crucial one. In the one case a design inference could not even get going; in the other, it would be mistaken" (Dembski 2002, 123 (note 80)).
For more bodyblows against the notion of Irreducible Complexity, see:

Bacterial Flagella and Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible Complexity Demystified

Irreducible Complexity

Review: Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box"

The fatal flaws in Behe's argument were recognized as soon as his book was published, and countless reviewers pointed them out. And yet, creationists and IDers, who seem to rely mostly on the echo-chamber of their own clique and appear to seldom read much *actual* scientific sources, still seem blissfully unaware of the problems with Behe's thesis, and keep popping in on a regular basis to wave the book around and smugly yell something like, "See, evolution has already been disproven!"

What's funny is that by Behe's own argument, a stone arch is "irreducibly complex" because it could not have formed by nature *adding* sections of stone at a time (it would have fallen down unless the entire span was already in place -- and indeed will fall down if you take part of the span away):

Needless to say, what Behe's argument is missing in the case of the stone arch is that such arches form easily by natural means when successive layers of sedimentary rock added on top of each other, and *then* erosion carves a hole out from *under* the arch by *removing* material after the "bridge" of the arch itself *was already there*.

Similarly, Behe's arguments about why certain types of biological structures "could not" have evolved fall flat because he doesn't realize that evolution does not only craft features by *adding* components, it also does so by *lateral alteration*, and by *removing* components.

Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. It only "proves" that a *simplified* version of evolution (as envisioned by Behe) couldn't give rise to certain structures -- not that the *actual* processes of evolution could not.

14 posted on 10/20/2006 3:34:50 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the master -- that's all"

15 posted on 10/20/2006 3:35:12 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dracian
You nailed it. Don Lindsay nailed it.

How Can Evolution Cause Irreducibly Complex Systems?

I've been posting this link and others saying the same thing for maybe the last five years on FR. Doesn't matter.

H. Allen Orr nailed it.

The first thing you need to understand about Behe's argument is that it's just plain wrong...

Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become—because of later changes—essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.

The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches—like dry land—that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries—they are essential. The punch line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system "have to be there from the beginning" is dead wrong.

It's worth noting that our scenario is neither hypothetical nor confined to the often irretrievable world of biological history. Indeed it's a common experience among computer programmers. Anyone who programs knows how easy it is to write yourself into a corner: a change one makes because it improves efficiency may become, after further changes, indispensable. Improvements might be made one line of code at a time and, at all stages, the program does its job. But, by the end, all the lines may be required. This programming analogy captures another important point: If I were to hand you the final program, it's entirely possible that you would not be able to reconstruct its history—that this line was added last and that, in a previous version, some other line sat between these two. Indeed, because the very act of revising a program has a way of wiping out clues to its history, it may be impossible to reconstruct the path taken. Similarly, we have no guarantee that we can reconstruct the history of a biochemical pathway. But even if we can't, its irreducible complexity cannot count against its gradual evolution any more than the irreducible complexity of a program does—which is to say, not at all.

I wish I could claim credit for this Darwinian model of irreducible complexity, but I'm afraid I've been scooped by eighty years. This scenario was first hinted at by the geneticist H. J. Muller in 1918 and worked out in some detail in 1939.6

ID is a shopworn bag of thoroughly refuted "Back Again Dumb As A Stump"-isms. It's transparently dishonest to keep coming back with such discredited material. What bugs me about ID is not that it's wrong, but that it's a lie.
16 posted on 10/20/2006 3:37:45 PM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

God The Designer Moonies Didit placemark
17 posted on 10/20/2006 3:48:14 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

oh, the by-line means what I think it does, then?


18 posted on 10/20/2006 4:39:11 PM PDT by King Prout (many complain I am overly literal... this would not be a problem if fewer people were under-precise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

Google 'Reverend Moon Sekai Nippo'


19 posted on 10/20/2006 4:50:26 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dracian

:-)


20 posted on 10/20/2006 5:21:13 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. It only "proves" that a *simplified* version of evolution (as envisioned by Behe) couldn't give rise to certain structures -- not that the *actual* processes of evolution could not.


===> Placemarker <===

21 posted on 10/20/2006 8:36:07 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Knock it off with the spam!!


22 posted on 10/20/2006 8:47:47 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It might be noted that proven scientific theories are said to be facts, whereas they are not facts at all.

Do me a favor if you would, RightWhale.

A while back you posted a comment (with your usual elegant economy of words) pointing out that science (as a discipline or practice) was "X". X being a word I cannot remember, and in fact had never heard before.

The word basically meant "by mutual consensus" or something in that direction. In the same sense that nobody *knows* what another person means in their own mind by the color red, but we can all point to an object and all agree that it's red, so that is good enough to get on with...

Can you remind me what that word was, please?

Else I shall have to spend > 24 hours searching through every single post I have ever made, to find my reply to you--and from thence to your original remarks.

Cheers!

23 posted on 10/20/2006 9:26:44 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Creationists Non-academic laypersons, and some members of the "humanities" disciplines are fond of engaging in a lot of fuzzy buzzword blathering when they attempt to do science, but upon examination they're just mouthing stuff that sounds good but can't be pinned down in any way that can be actually tested, validated, falsified, or used to make predictions.

See also the autobiographical books by the late Richard Feynman, especially his discussion of cargo-cults.

Cheers!

24 posted on 10/20/2006 9:29:06 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It might be noted that proven scientific theories are said to be facts, whereas they are not facts at all. They are called scientific facts to distinguish them from facts. Evolution is not a theory but a principle. By analogy, if it were mathematical it might be taken as an axiom. Axioms are not susceptible of proof.

You have such a conglomeration of stuff here, most of it absolutely wrong, that I recommend you take a look at these definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread).

Please pay particular attention to "fact," "law," "theory," and "proof."

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.

[Last revised 9/26/06]

25 posted on 10/20/2006 9:30:36 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Five threads of Moonie cult propaganda is spammy enough. I should ask you the same thing.


26 posted on 10/20/2006 9:33:19 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Ichneumon; VadeRetro
It isn't *spam* , Dave.

What Ich is saying -- at first -- is twofold.

First, that Behe is oversimplifying by saying "if we don't see how a structure can have come about solely from similiar components with similar function, then this disproves evolution."

The oversimplification is in two parts:

1) Sometimes something originally used for purpose X happens to be useful for purpose Y as well.

2) Sometimes a structure isn't built up of smaller components, it is a subset of a larger system, which again, often started out doing something else.

He then goes on to say that the example of flagella are a poor example in any case.

I haven't read on the flagella in detail to know if they are a good example in either direction.

To my mind, the mistake Ichneumon and VadeRetro *SEEM TO ME* to be making is that they appear to then jump to the conclusion "Look, we've refuted irreducible complexity! There can be no such thing!"

I agree that Ich's and Vade's arguments seem pretty good at refuting those particular alleged cases of IC.

And I agree that it is the duty of the person alleging IC to make a convincing case.

But it remains to be seen "philosophically" whether or not there ever *IS* anything such as IC. Ich and Vade think they have several purported, suggested, laid-out mechanisms which they are confident will be sufficient to describe "in principle" any particular item which is suggested as a possible IC.

But OTOH, sometimes people might want more *specific* details about how a particular structure in question came about--it looks like the paper cited by Ich did that for the flagella.

Does that mean such details will always be readily forthcoming in all other cases? Probl'y not.

But the crux is, the evos feel there is so much substantiation of evolution on so many convergent grounds, that the lack of details on one particular point is not felt to be sufficient to overthrow the entire framework.

And the cre's often feel that "just one more" questionable datum will prove to be the fatal crack in the dam.

And so the debate rages on...

G'night all. I've gotta go to bed for a metric century tomorrow.

Cheers!

27 posted on 10/20/2006 9:43:48 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic

A thread is different than a reply.

Number one, length. Ichnuemon has posted one comment that's been longer than the combined total of the past five articles about the challenge to Darwinism.

Number two, original content. Ichnuemon is merely copying and pasting material from another website he could link to, and he has already done so in the past.

Number three, style. The article is reporting on the ID movement. Ichnuemon is slamming anyone who disagrees with him.

Number four, availability. I cannot escape it when My Comments is suddenly ballooned with the retreading spam that Ichnuemon so dearly loves. It's like a two-ton elephant that waddles into the My Comments window and plops his big tush in between the other comments. Whereas a thread is not.

Need I go on?


28 posted on 10/21/2006 3:15:51 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
But it remains to be seen "philosophically" whether or not there ever *IS* anything such as IC.

There is no way to demonstrate this philosophically. Every single case where we don't know everything about a history can be asserted as an example of IC. It doesn't take science to do this -- just a willing mob of believers.

But there is, in science, a centuries long history of taking irreducible problems and reducing them, and discovering the natural cause.

That's what science is, and what science does. Science does not throw up its hands and say, "That looks too hard, Barbie; let's go shopping."

29 posted on 10/21/2006 4:57:14 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
Number one, length. Ichnuemon has posted one comment that's been longer than the combined total of the past five articles about the challenge to Darwinism.

Dave, in the real world, the response would fill a library. We are trying not to use big words, but sometimes understanding something take time and effort.

30 posted on 10/21/2006 5:36:37 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

You are complaining it's just not fair that massive amounts of evidence and centuries of analysis exist to refute your posts.

Unfair. The horror.


31 posted on 10/21/2006 5:39:55 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

But just watch. Because my posts are short and are limited in scope, you will have no trouble dismissing them. So what's it going to be Dave, short posts that you can dismiss, or long posts that destroy your arguments?

Seems you would like to be the moderator and build a playing field where the rules don't permit refuting nonsense.


32 posted on 10/21/2006 5:44:22 AM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Have a nice, um, century. But yes, it is spam. There may be arguments embedded within, but who will search for them? A opponent of mine in the debate has just backed up a dump truck and copy-pasted the entire load into my lap, throws me a shovel and says "now, dig for my point." Given the past nature of the copy-paste binges, and given that when someone actually responds (see here, here, here, here, here and here) he ignores them, these are simply worthless copy-pasted, hackneyed pro-Darwin sermons.
33 posted on 10/21/2006 5:51:35 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"When you've got a thing to say,
Say it! Don't take half a day.
When your tale's got little in it,
Crowd the whole thing in a minute!
Life is short -- a fleeting vapor --
Don't you fill the whole blamed paper
With a tale which, at a pinch,
Could be cornered in an inch!
Boil her down until she simmers,
Polish her until she glimmers."
Joel Chandler Harris
Replies that are small in more than just size don't merit a good response. Respectful, polite and thoughtful challenges will be met with same.
34 posted on 10/21/2006 5:58:39 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
First, that Behe is oversimplifying by saying "if we don't see how a structure can have come about solely from similiar components with similar function, then this disproves evolution."

You're oversimplifying Behe's proposition Whiskers. Behe makes no such claim and in fact he regards common descent as true.

35 posted on 10/21/2006 6:30:39 AM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: js1138

If I wanted to go to a library, I'd go to a library. As it is, I'm on Free Republic.

Excessive length does not equal excessive substance.


36 posted on 10/21/2006 6:43:42 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I'm not complaining that hundreds of scientists have compiled thousands of pages of interpretation to support evolution.

I'm complaining that you guys are trying to post *all* of it here.


37 posted on 10/21/2006 6:43:44 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
An unusually non-troll post from you. Congratulations.

BTW, when I said "refraction" a while back I was confusing it with "diffraction." Paraphrasing from a bad memory: "Refraction, the tendency of light to bend around objects..." should have been "Diffraction, the tendency..." etc.

38 posted on 10/21/2006 7:17:22 AM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I'm complaining that you guys are trying to post *all* of it here.

I complain that you and your buds ignore the implications of this material when not actively denying that such exists.

39 posted on 10/21/2006 7:18:32 AM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Then let us not complain of each other's complaints.

No one denies such material exists, and no one ignores the implications. I merely protest the attempted snow-job. Even when I was trying to argue with a liberal, I did not attempt to copy and paste every single failed United Nations resolution against Iraq. Because, while the point would be legitimate, it would be very poor style.

One is a snow job. One is using a link to back up a point.
40 posted on 10/21/2006 7:23:57 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
No one denies such material exists, and no one ignores the implications.

Want me to ping you every time I see somebody say "The evos have no evidence, only ad hominem?"

41 posted on 10/21/2006 7:34:38 AM PDT by VadeRetro (A systematic investigation of nature does not negotiate with crackpots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Want me to ping you every time I see somebody say "The evos have no evidence, only ad hominem?"
Ah. Sustained.

No one I've never denied such material exists.
42 posted on 10/21/2006 8:21:48 AM PDT by DaveLoneRanger (Lord, help me to be the Christian conservative that liberals fear I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

I don't think all science is done by mutual consensus or consent, although paleoarchaeology apparently has been and perhaps still is. The highest science of all--political science (duck!, incoming!) hardly achieves consensus at all, neither in the polling nor in the courts.


43 posted on 10/21/2006 9:05:27 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Sorry, I do not buy most of those definitions. They are inconsistent from one author to the next and inadequate in that they represent snapshots of meaning that are taken at various times for various terms and never represent the state of evolution of meaning for all the terms at any one instant. It is difficult enough for one author to be entirely consistent in word meaning and use, but impossible to arrive at a consensus. I would suggest that rather than try to make a dictionary of various terms that might appear in this sideshow it would be more fruitful to pick one author (Whitehead) of substantial contribution to the topic and try to understand his points.


44 posted on 10/21/2006 9:14:35 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I posted the definitions to try to correct your misstatements:

It might be noted that proven scientific theories are said to be facts, whereas they are not facts at all. They are called scientific facts to distinguish them from facts. Evolution is not a theory but a principle.

First, scientific theories are not proven. They are theories.

Second, scientific theories never become facts. Facts are measurements, observations, or similar data points.

Third, I have never heard of "scientific facts" as being different from any other facts.

Finally, evolution is a theory in that it explains a myriad of facts and has withstood many challenges.

Do you see now why I posted those definitions?

45 posted on 10/21/2006 9:35:52 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Posting the definitions is a fine effort and might be useful in a monograph. However, these threads are far from a monograph and on top of that there are a considerable number of participants, no two of whom agree with each other on every point nor with most of the definitions. I recognize where some of the definitions came from even though they weren't sourced. Some are a century old and were never generally accepted in all branches of science or mathematics. Some are good for a freshman course in physics and will never be used afterwards. I suggest we pick one person of considerable depth and immersion in science and the philosophy of science and use his language.


46 posted on 10/21/2006 9:49:53 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
In my definitions post I sourced this thread where these definitions were refined from my original research.

If you have corrections, post there and ping me and a few of the others (those who are not banned or who have not given up in disgust) we can discuss them.

I will post my most recent revision there.

47 posted on 10/21/2006 9:59:20 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

We should choose one philosopher and use his definitions where he used those terms. I suggest Whitehead.


48 posted on 10/21/2006 10:05:41 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
We should choose one philosopher and use his definitions where he used those terms. I suggest Whitehead.

Never heard of him. I successfully avoided philosophy (as well as sociology and economics) for a dozen years of college. I'm the better for it.

Post a link.

49 posted on 10/21/2006 10:14:26 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Never heard of the Big Gun in the development of the principle of evolution. Hmm. Looks like we may have stumbled on a topic, a subtopic that could be worth devloping.


50 posted on 10/21/2006 10:19:13 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson