RE: paleonet ID and function

["David Kopaska-Merkel" <davidkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This might make a good answer to "intelligent" design enthusiasts.  Make the
statement that such as such is impossible.  Describe the arguments that were
given to prove that.  Then give the current explanation, showing that it is
possible.  End by linking it to the twin ideas of progress and that we don't
know everything yet. 


David C. Kopaska-Merkel
Geological Survey of Alabama
P.O. Box 869999
Tuscaloosa AL 35486-6999
(205) 247-3695 (direct line/voice mail)
(205) 349-2852 (switchboard)
fax 349-2861
www.gsa.state.al.us

To join sednet, an e-mail group for discussion of sedimentology, send a
blank e-mail message to sednet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

To join a new list about science education in Alabama, send a blank e-mail
message to ALScienceEdNews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.



-----Original Message-----
From: paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk [mailto:paleonet-owner@nhm.ac.uk] On Behalf
Of Nancy Meyer
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 10:27 AM
To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
Subject: Re: paleonet ID and function

All this reminds me of the bumblebee.  I was taught as a child that "it
can't fly, but it doesn't know that, so it does."  This because engineers
hadn't figured out yet how it flew.  Then the humans figured it out, so you
don't hear this idea anymore.  In other words, just because it may appear to
us as though a system is so complex that removal of one part could lead to
failure, maybe that's not true. 
Remember feathers?  No one could figure a purpose for their development,
until some bright kid pointed out that they make swell inssulators.  Let's
not forget that we don't know everything.

--- Bill Chaisson/Deirdre Cunningham <chaisson@netacc.net>
wrote:

> >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
> 
> 


All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com