He says this is analogous to the way that one can't change the word "dog" to "mongoose" without losing meaning (i.e. function) along the way. The obvious problem with this seems to be that meaning is the only function of words and meaning is a very limited concept function.
What is his explanation for this? Why would we, given at the species level it would be way harder to see transitions without a lot more than a fossil to go on? the bones of horses slowly getting higher to become hooves over 500 years way less obvious than comparison between today and 100,000 years ago. Change in muscle preceding changes in bone even more so. At higher taxonomic levels changes a transition would be far more obvious,horse today, horse part way between foot and hoof and precursor of horse with just foot, fairly obvious to compare similarities and see the change over time. So why are they suspect? What is his explanation for apparent transitions in terms of his theory?While he accepts that they specify that it is only at the species level where the gaps occur, he says that that's the level at which we should most expect to see the smooth transitions Darwin anticipated and so any perceived transitions at higher taxonomic levels are suspect.
His argument for why natural selection can't produce the sort of drastic change between, say, reptiles and mammals, is that between two disparate forms the probability of there being an unbroken series of function intermediate configurations is impossibly small.
It certainly is! Actually, the pubs would be a better analogy for magnetism - town centres are North poles attracting pubs, but pubs, which need their own customers and are in competition, are South poles which repel each other. Which, of course, has nothing to do with the case, or even the price of fish.Atheoscanadensis wrote:Sorry for the length of this post, it's just hard to come to grips with what he's saying.
He argues that, between two disparate morphological configurations, there are more non-functional than functional configurations to bridge the gap and that the more disparate the configurations the greater the proportion of non-functional to functional configurations would be.
He argues that the further you go in any one direction from any pub, the less likely it is that the next one will be within a mile's distance and that the further apart two pubs are, the more sparsely distributed any pubs lying on the line that separates them, will be.
I think its miraculous that you've managed. I'm still struggling and will have to get back to you on that one. But I have to say your friend has come up with the first genuine example of irreducible complexity!! An argument so tangled and full of holes that truly no functional intermediates could predede it. By jove he may just have found an analogy.Sorry for the length of this post, it's just hard to come to grips with what he's saying.
But even as an dopey analogy it doesn't really work cos it doesn't seem to be right.
But I have to say your friend has come up with the first genuine example of irreducible complexity!!
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the case
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests