The Stone Bridge example and IC

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Bilbo

Dr. Swamidass, it’s difficult to engage an argument that isn’t able to present an actual example. Since you say the stone bridge is not an actual example, could you provide one?

As for specific example, I have already given 2 examples. There are several more in the literature that have been identified by others. However, this request is a red herring, which seeks to apply a higher standard to Behe’s critics than the IC1 argument itself has met.

@Bilbo

Dr. Swamidass, until someone presents me with an actual example to illustrate the argument, I’ll just conclude that the argument is vacuous and not worth considering. I’ll get back to the discussion of the definition of IC in the proper thread. Not here.

Moreover, the case that Orr and Muller make against IC1 is of equivalent empirical value as Behe’s case for IC1. They are both logical arguments, that are made with words, not data. If you ignore Orr and Muller’s case, you must also ignore Behe’s case for IC1. Otherwise you are not being consistent. If you think this is vacuous, you must also conclude that Behe’s case for IC1 is vacuous. In no place does he demonstrate or show that IC1 systems cannot evolve. The only thing he does is define IC1, and show that biology includes IC1 systems (and everyone agrees with him that IC1 exists).

I’d suggest you also rapidly clarify this issue on another thread:

@swamidass

It appears you missed a very critical point about IC1 and IC2. Do you really believe that IC1 is hard to measure, but IC2 is easy to measure? Why is that? Most of us think exactly the opposite. IC1 is very easy to measure (that is its brilliance). IC2, however, is nearly impossible if not entirely impossible to measure.

Can you explain why you disagree? Or retract your statement, and acknowledge your stated reason for why he created IC2 is false. Either way works for me. Until that is settled, however, we are certainly not talking about the same things.