Re: how irreducibly complex systems can evolve

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:46:52 -0700, Great Dayne wrote:

On Sep 30, 11:22 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:17:35 -0700, Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 29, 11:14 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:37:43 -0700, Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:41 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:14:28 -0700, Great Dayne wrote:
On Sep 27, 2:05 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I gave you the direct quote where he defines IC. Evolution is
not even mentioned.

Doesn't matter. If a bonafide IC sytem exists, then evolution is
falsified.

Bullshit.  IC is a prediction of evolution.  If an IC system
exists, then evolution is confirmed (even more than it is already
confirmed).

Sir, do you know what IC means?
Do you know what the theory of evolution postulates?

Better than you.

Then you would know that an IC sytem wouldn't come about by the
processes the theory of evolution espouses, dipshit ...

Thank you for making my point.  Evolution easily, even inevitably,
produces systems which may be called IC.

That is your speculative opinion.

What universe do you live in?

If you have any interest in this one, see:
Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from
the standpoint of genetics. _Biological Reviews of the Cambridge
Philosophical Society_ 14: 261-280.

If you don't have any interest in this universe, don't. But also, stop
complaining about those of us who do.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

.

Relevant Pages