The case against ID....

[Whaleboy]

Second, what kind of complexity theory are you talking of here? Kolmogorov information theory? Prigoginean nonequilibrium thermodynamics? Something else?

Kauffman... self organisation in the presence of attractors... rather similar to the article Kuci posted.

Attractors... a set that a dynamic system evolves to.

Third, what does anything of this have to do with the fact that the vertebrate eye isn't irreducibly complex? That can be realized from a basic grasp of Newtonian optics and basic ecology.

Precisely... a patch of photo-sensitive cells in a pit would suffice, and indeed could evolve into a mammalian eye. Take the mammalian eye as it is today and remove, say, the cornea and the eye would no longer work, but it is a fallacy to say that each component part of the mammalian eye needed to evolve as they are now, and in place, as ID advocates mistakenly propose.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sava
I can see CyberShy's next thread:

THE CASE FOR FLAT WORLD THEORY!

Well it's the same old arguments rehashed. When will he understand that he is going to get completely 'pwned' in an argument like this. Why won't he realise that his religion is a 2000 year old lie?

It's the thing that disturbs me. We can continually refute his arguments, demonstrate the evidence and explain neodarwinism in microscopic detail and why is analogies are false. But it makes no impact. This is why I can never understand the theistic mindset.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Precisely... a patch of photo-sensitive cells in a pit would suffice, and indeed could evolve into a mammalian eye. Take the mammalian eye as it is today and remove, say, the cornea and the eye would no longer work, but it is a fallacy to say that each component part of the mammalian eye needed to evolve as they are now, and in place, as ID advocates mistakenly propose.

See my analogy about the old couple here. They may quite happily start off as separate components but once integrated and refined in their combined function and specialised then they are one and are not valid on their own. But this approach is just not 'convenient' to the ID lot...

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Attractors... a set that a dynamic system evolves to.

I know what an attractor is. I do not know of a class of attractors called "chaotic attractors".

[Whaleboy]

Ah no, I meant attractors in chaos theory... sorry should have worded it better.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by Sava
I can see CyberShy's next thread:

THE CASE FOR FLAT WORLD THEORY!

The case for Intelligent Falling, for sure.

[Sava]