I just realised that this post never went up even though it was supposed to go with my last post...
But yes, the final part of risk that I want to discuss is the idea of decisions under ignorance. Except I guess in this sense it is more of an argument under ignorance...
A large argument that comes from proponents of ID is the idea of irreducible complexity. This basically means that some organisms have parts that are made up of many systems working together, or a system with many different parts. The system is so set in how it works that there's no way that the trait could have evolved, as without one part of the system, it would be useless and non functional.
Evolutionary scientists have already shown how these types of traits can arise. For example, a component's original function may have been completely different, but was assimilated into a system to gain a new function. One part may be useful but not necessary, until other parts are removed. Most genes control more than one trait.
Yet even in light of these kinds of explanations, the arguments for irreducible complexity continue. No effort if made to find this information to see how true their claims are. This isn't the only ID argument where this happens either. I guess it really comes back a bit to the not being able to trust 'experts'.
No comments:
Post a Comment