| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
>I've been mulling over potential arguments against ID from a >biomechanics viewpoint. I've seen a number of mentions of the idea >that the "knee is badly designed, the back is badly designed, the >retina is inside-out etc..." What I have not seen discussed in this >context, however, is the fundamental postulate of ID; i.e., that >some biological systems are so complex that removal of even one part >leads to failure - i.e.., "irreducible complexity." What I am >thinking is that even if true, it would actually be an argument >against an "intelligent designer," i.e., a competent engineer would >design systems against such a situation, such as building in >redundancies wherever possible (the multiple fuel sensors on the >space shuttle come to mind). I've discussed this with Steve Vogel >at Duke and he puts it (with his typical eloquence) like this >"Maybe minimal use of redundancy, a terrifically effective way to >reduce the change of disabling failure, in nature, is evidence >against intelligent design. After all, if something is 99% reliable >and backed up with something else that's 99% reliable, you have gone >from a chance in a hundred of trouble to a chance in ten thousand. >Two things don't halve the worry, they reduce it a hundred-fold!" >Offhand, the only redundant systems I can think of is being able to >breath through your nose and mouth and that some systems (e.g., >kidneys) are paired. > >My question to all of you is if anyone else has made an argument >along this line. If they haven't I'm going to pursue it further. >-Roy I don't think that the "remove-one-part-and-it-fails" argument is about a lack of redundancy in the system. I believe the argument is that systems are so full of overlapping feedbacks and interdependent parts that there couldn't have been any transitional stage before the observed state. This argument assumes that 1. all the functions of all the parts have always been the same as their present functions. 2. all the parts that are present are all the parts that were ever present. I.e., none have disappeared. Bill -- --------------------------------------------------- William P. Chaisson Adjunct Assistant Professor Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Rochester Rochester, NY 14627 607-387-3892
Partial index: