Re: IC from Evolvability

From: bivalve (
Date: Mon Nov 06 2000 - 11:57:02 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Glenn's assertion"

    >Peter: I don't think the leading ID [intelligent design] people would be satisfied with an IC [irreducible complexity] definition admitting partial systems "not favored by selection", but viable. Rather, they would insist that each partial system on any conceivable evolutionary path would be lethal.

    I do not see how this could be proven. More importantly, I do not see prominent ID advocates promoting this approach. I do not see any connection between Dembski's specified complexity and the viability of intermediate systems. (For that matter, I do not think specified complexity is a very good correlate of special design). Many of Behe's complex systems are not necessary to life, so partial systems will not be inviable. Even some systems that currently must be complete for all modern organisms show traces of ancient gene duplications that indicate that an ancestral organism was getting by with fewer parts.

        Dr. David Campbell
        "Old Seashells"
        Biology Department
        Saint Mary's College of Maryland
        18952 E. Fisher Road
        St. Mary's City, MD 20686-3001 USA, 301 862-0372 Fax: 301 862-0996
    "Mollusks murmured 'Morning!'. And salmon chanted 'Evening!'."-Frank Muir, Oh My Word!

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Nov 06 2000 - 11:53:48 EST