Joined: Oct. 2006
|Quote (Bob O'H @ Aug. 17 2008,01:56)|
|Quote (Freelurker @ Aug. 16 2008,15:19)|
Where are you seeing references to IC?
As far as I can see, he is only talking about the simple practicality of wheels as biological components. In other words, he's not addressing the feasibility of evolutionary paths to wheels, he's addressing the feasibility of wheels themselves. Even then, he specifically points out that he does not claim that they are impossible.
He doesn't formally say it, but he's talking about the sorts of difficulties in making a wheel, showing how hard it would be to get there. Dave's responding by saying that wheels are less fit, the naughty evolutionist.
You're not going to win this argument, you know. If you continue I'll demand you explain every step of the path of evolution of a wheel, including selection coefficients for all intermediates. If you still want to go on, I'll claim a wheel would exhibit CSI.
You''ve missed my point. My point is that you've missed GCUGreyArea's point. He is not making a case that wheels could not have evolved. He is speculating on why they have not evolved.
See his previous comment @92:
|The problem with wheels is not the complexity but how you grow them.|
He's talking about development, not evolution. This is confirmed by his subsequent comment @96:
|Iím speculating about methods of design and construction, not making claims about whether wheels can evolve or not.|
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box