View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2008, 07:25 AM
raytri's Avatar
raytri raytri is offline
Site Moderator
Guru
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minnesota
Age: 41
Posts: 18,489
usa us minnesota
raytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond reputeraytri has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 115,531
Default

[quote=The12thMan;432708]Ah, but there is always a point of irreducible complexity. Always.[quote]

Well, then, you should be able to reach a point where the "irreducible complexity" argument isn't refutable, even by conjecture. Give me an example of such a point. Because most such claims turn out to be bunk -- a willful failure of imagination more than an actually "irreducible" datum.

Quote:
And if you dismiss conjecture with conjecture, it's a tie.
Not, as I noted, if the original claim is absolute.

In math, if someone posits a theorem to be true in all cases, I only have to show that it's false in *one* case in order to disprove the theorem.

Quote:
Now, I'll have to ask for a link. I've only seen possible explanations. Take the umpteen different chemical reactions required for a cell to sense light and go from there. Chance mutation? Of course! So how did it replicate itself once it accidentally got it right?
But that's easy. If the mutation was heritable, then its offspring would have the mutation and also be able to see. And the sighted members of the species would have a huge advantage over standard, nonsighted members, and thus rapidly outreproduce -- and thus replace -- them.
__________________
Man up.
Reply With Quote