Luskin pwned, again!

One-wheeled bicycles? It's sheer loomacy!

Lost your Wheels? Wheels?

"..a great 2008"? You mean millions losing their jobs? Oh - I get it - svival of the fittest. If ya good enough, ya'll find a job. If not...well...

novparl said: "..a great 2008"? You mean millions losing their jobs? Oh - I get it - svival of the fittest. If ya good enough, ya'll find a job. If not...well...

I admire the way Zimmer wasted no verbiage in his
response. "Nuff said, true believer!"

I tend to see Casey Luskin in terms of the old joke (customized a bit) that if he saw a video of Richard Dawkins
walking on water, he'd write in EN&V:
DAWKINS DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO SWIM!

I have to sigh at Luskin's single-minded determination to
churn out propaganda -- but on the other side of the coin,
it's comforting to think he's the best the other side's
got.

Cheers -- MrG (www.vectorsite.net)

Regarding the title: "Again"? I thought the operative word was "Still"!

But the removal of one wheel will clearly be a big disadvantage. I mean you can't drive 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel.

Thanks for the link love. The post is now updated, with shocking VIDEO of bicycles breaking the law of irreducible complexity. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/12/30/oh-no-ive-seen-the-impossible-my-eyes/

By the way, Nils--it's true you can't ride 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel. But you couldn't do it on a kid's tricycle either. It's not--dare I say it--adapted for that ecological niche. Besides, the "argument" in which the one-wheeled bicycle figures claims that you cannot ride a bicycle AT ALL with one wheel, just as the blood-clotting cascade cannot work AT ALL without all its proteins. So the mountain stuff is beside the point...

What do Luskin's bosses at Teh Discovery Institute do when they fire up their inter-webs and view another big pile of Luskin on their monitors?

Top 10 Habits of Casey Luskin's Bosses

10.) Drink heavily, early and often
9.) View Travel Posters longingly
8.) Update resume and send out on a regular basis
7.) Send out Casey's resume to other employers every day
6.) Evolve from fervent ID Creationist to Type 1 Atheist (How could a good and loving God inflict a Luskin on me???!!!)
5.) Develop an unreasoning fear of caterpillars*
4.) Finally begin to realize what Shakespeare meant with his line about "the lawyers".
3.) Start to re-read old legal cases with verdicts of "justifiable homicide".
2.) Pressure HR to start hiring disgruntled Postal Workers
1.) Start writing fiction books as an escape from reality - first book called The Design Of Life

* For this of you that have not had the privilege of viewing Luskin in person, this is just a cheap shot about his unibrow.

I apologize for the formatting of my top ten list - when I hit send, it was a nice list. Oh well.

@Carl Zimmer:

Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

In order for Luskin's analogy to have any validity or relevance whatsoever, he must be claiming that the wheel was invented just for bicycles, that the wheel couldn't possibly have any other uses and that a bicycle couldn't possibly have any function whatsoever if even one part was removed. Now of course everyone knows that every one of these things is absolutely false. I guess Luskin was just hoping that no one would notice and that everyone would just play along wth his little proof for the existence of God.

Of course Luskin is perfectly free to believe in God whether he has any proof or not. He is also free to make nonsensical arguments trying to convince someone that they should also believe in God. And of course everyone else is perfectly free to believe in God whether they fall for Luskin's nonsense or not. Kind of makes you wonder why he continually tries to make his faith look so foolish and weak doesn't it? It is almost like he is trying to give people an excuse to not believe in God just so that they won't appear to have fallen for his nonsensical crap. Nice going Casey.

Maybe we should teach this stuff in public schools as a weakness of evolution. Of course then we would have to teach a critical analysis of it as well.

Nils Ruhr said: @Carl Zimmer: Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

Hey Carl,

Since I know you read PT occasionally, just wanted to say thanks for this great post of yours over at the Loom (And PvM, thanks for re-posting it.). You may recall that Ken Miller wanted to wear his mousetrap tie-clip while testifying as the first witness on behalf of the plaintiffs, but I believe Judge Jones had overruled him.

Anyway, your bicycle example is almost exactly akin to Ken's mousetrap, since he demonstrates how one could make a crude, but still quite effective, mousetrap by removing a couple of parts..... and still have something working that is NOT irreducibly complex.

Appreciatively yours,

John

@386sx:

The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop.
The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Nils Ruhr said: @Carl Zimmer: Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

Nils Ruhr said: @Carl Zimmer: Thx for the answer! What if I define the function of the bike as "being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain"? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function.

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Nils Ruhr said: The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don’t know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

I agree. And yet, I can see that what Casey said, for the scientifically uneducated masses, would make sense. Without thinking about it, many would say, "Yes- of course! Intelligent Design must be correct!"

The problem of course is most of the masses don't think about it. And that's why we need places like PT.

I'm on dial up (really slow) so maybe one of those links covered this but here goes anyway. Casey Luskin said if you remove a wheel from a two wheeled bicycle it won't function. B.S.! As every 7 year old boy has discovered two wheeled bikes can do "wheelies" Gee it does function as a bike with only one wheel and you don't even have to be a scientist to figure it out. I knew the Discovery Institute had difficulty "discovering " things I had no idea they couldn't even replicate the discoveries of young children. Then again I did know they never try.

Mary H said: I'm on dial up (really slow) so maybe one of those links covered this but here goes anyway. Casey Luskin said if you remove a wheel from a two wheeled bicycle it won't function. B.S.! As every 7 year old boy has discovered two wheeled bikes can do "wheelies" Gee it does function as a bike with only one wheel and you don't even have to be a scientist to figure it out. I knew the Discovery Institute had difficulty "discovering " things I had no idea they couldn't even replicate the discoveries of young children. Then again I did know they never try.

The point is that not only is a bicycle still functional on one wheel, but that the rear wheel assembly can be used for other purposes. Powering a pump, for instance. Or as a pulley, with variable mechanical advantage. In that case, remove the tyres and front forks as well. And so on, down to the individual spokes on the wheels. They make excellent skewers, as I have seen, to my distress.

Luskin simply ignores - or denies, or has never heard of, or something - the well-known, frequently observed biological mechanism of exaption.

Nils Ruhr said: But the removal of one wheel will clearly be a big disadvantage. I mean you can't drive 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel.

Nils Ruhr said: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer.

.... What if I define the function of the bike as “being able to drive on the bike for 20 miles on mountained terrain”? In this case by removing a wheel the bike will cease to function. ...

Umm. No. Apparently people havn't heard of mountain unicycling! ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXGi6zrYBIg

PvM said: Lost your Wheels? Wheels?

Poor Casey! The people at the Discovery Institute were a little too quick to remove the training wheels from his bicycle (and his mind).

And dare we recollect that the Wright brothers built the Kitty Hawk in their...yes...their... bicycle shop.

Our ever evolving language has just acquired a new word:

luskin.....(noun). An argument that can immediately and trivially be disproved in a way the proves the counter-argument.

............(verb). To use such an argument.

However, in this case, Luskin's argument can be salvaged if instead of removing one of the bicycles wheels, he removes one of the riders legs. (OK. Let's see you find a YouTube of a one legged unicycle rider)

AnswersInGenitals said: However, in this case, Luskin's argument can be salvaged if instead of removing one of the bicycles wheels, he removes one of the riders legs. (OK. Let's see you find a YouTube of a one legged unicycle rider)

Wheels said:

PvM said: Lost your Wheels? Wheels?

It's heresy, I tell you! If wheelkind is made to believe that we are not specially created, two to a bicycle, that we can be removed from the bigger picture without much fuss, then what's to stop wheels from committing wholesale slaughter, debaucher, or combining the two into deslauchery!?
Then we'd have gay wheels getting married, or one wheel having multiple wheelwives! Wheels within the same bicycle might plot to remove their partner at every turn, thinking this one-wheeled-bike nonsense had validity! Throw out the Special Wheeldom and anything goes! While some cynics may reduce this to a purely pragmatic stance (civilization, as we know it, depends on the Noble Lie of Special Wheeldom), it is clearly a natural Truth! I've never seen a bicycle become a unicycle! Take off the front wheel, and you still have the frame! The chain! Besides, we all know that a loss of information can't possibly represent an improvement!

I think it's safe to say that the wheels have fallen off of the Intelligent Design propaganda machine.

Ed Garrice said: I think it's safe to say that the wheels have fallen off of the Intelligent Design propaganda machine.

They have started to respond on the Uncommon Descent site. It seems that if a wheel is removed from a bicycle it is no longer a bicycle, does not function as a bicycle, and is therefore is IC. So there! (Huh?!)

I suppose it's like a 3-toed sloth with an amputated toe on each foot-- it's no longer a 3-toed sloth, right? Ah, intelligent design...

Karen S. said: I suppose it's like a 3-toed sloth with an amputated toe on each foot-- it's no longer a 3-toed sloth, right? Ah, intelligent design...

If the wheel is removed, and it doesn't work as a bicycle any more, then it functions as some other sort of machine, if the environment be changed a little.

Let's see... it becomes some other sort of beast entirely....

Casey, wasn't that what evolution has been saying all along?

More than once I've seen a circus performer on a bicycle remove one part at a time--handlebars, front wheel, fork, even most of the frame--continuing to ride it all the while.

How can anyone be so dumb as to state that you can't remove any part of a bike and still have it function? I know for a fact that I can remove over 50% (by number) of the parts on my bike and still have a 2-wheeled, easily rideable bike.

Dave Luckett said: If the wheel is removed, and it doesn't work as a bicycle any more, then it functions as some other sort of machine, if the environment be changed a little. Let's see... it becomes some other sort of beast entirely.... Casey, wasn't that what evolution has been saying all along?

Just Bob said: More than once I've seen a circus performer on a bicycle remove one part at a time--handlebars, front wheel, fork, even most of the frame--continuing to ride it all the while. How can anyone be so dumb as to state that you can't remove any part of a bike and still have it function? I know for a fact that I can remove over 50% (by number) of the parts on my bike and still have a 2-wheeled, easily rideable bike.

AnswersInGenitals said: luskin.....(noun). An argument that can immediately and trivially be disproved in a way the proves the counter-argument.

John Kwok said: As a loyal member of the Dishonesty Institute, Luskin would claim that Plate Tectonics doesn't work because it isn't irreducibly complex too.

Nils Ruhr said: But the removal of one wheel will clearly be a big disadvantage. I mean you can't drive 20 miles on mountained terrain with only one wheel.

Well folks, you might say the "wheels came off" this argument for ID

AR AR AR ARrrrrrr !

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: OTOH one wheel is an advantage in some environments. Circuses have been mentioned...

If I take a wheel off of my bike I can't ride it - therefore God exists and evolution is a lie. Man, just think what earth-shaking discoveries they will make when they find out that you can't eat walnuts wthout first removing the shell! Happy New Year.

DS said: If I take a wheel off of my bike I can't ride it - therefore God exists and evolution is a lie. Man, just think what earth-shaking discoveries they will make when they find out that you can't eat walnuts wthout first removing the shell! Happy New Year.

Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.

Surveying the landscape of Christian apologetics, the heavyweights are notable missing from atheistic critique. I suspect that's for the most part because they are thoroughly schooled in Theology, Philosophy, and, in most cases, Science. It is in that transdisciplinary arena that proof for God and for most of his works is going to be played out. The resolution is not going to be found in the backwaters (no pun intended) of evolutionary biology.

But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics. So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

Silver Fox said: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.

What about sidecars?

Silver Fox blathered: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.

Surveying the landscape of Christian apologetics, the heavyweights are notable missing from atheistic critique. I suspect that's for the most part because they are thoroughly schooled in Theology, Philosophy, and, in most cases, Science. It is in that transdisciplinary arena that proof for God and for most of his works is going to be played out. The resolution is not going to be found in the backwaters (no pun intended) of evolutionary biology.

But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics. So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

Karen S. said: They have started to respond on the Uncommon Descent site. It seems that if a wheel is removed from a bicycle it is no longer a bicycle, does not function as a bicycle, and is therefore is IC. So there! (Huh?!) I suppose it's like a 3-toed sloth with an amputated toe on each foot-- it's no longer a 3-toed sloth, right? Ah, intelligent design...

Silver Fox said: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like. Surveying the landscape of Christian apologetics, the heavyweights are notable missing from atheistic critique. I suspect that's for the most part because they are thoroughly schooled in Theology, Philosophy, and, in most cases, Science. It is in that transdisciplinary arena that proof for God and for most of his works is going to be played out. The resolution is not going to be found in the backwaters (no pun intended) of evolutionary biology. But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics. So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

There is actually nothing unique about Casey Luskin -- there
are many people on his side of the fence operating at a
similar level of credibility. The really awkward fact
about Casey Luskin is that the Discovery Institute uses him
as a spokesman, when they would seem wiser to distance
themselves from him.

Incidentally, Steve Fuller is busy over on Uncommon
Descent. I tend to find him something of an interesting
read. Unlike Egnor, O'Leary, and Luskin, Fuller actually
can surprise me -- if admittedly in the sense of staring
at my display with a "huh?" expression on my face.
I get the impression that Fuller is honestly trying to
do the right thing, but that his reach far
exceeds his grasp.

Cheers -- MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

It's amazing how much ink Luskin has received from the atheist bloggers and how little attention any of the more erudite apologists has received.

"Luskin is a scientist"?
Luskin has a degree in geology.

"Timothy Keller...I glanced at some of his prose on evolution and he doesn't seem to have a problem with it."

I think you'll find that none of the more competent apologists would have a problem with evolution. They know that proof for the existence of God is not found in delving around in whether some slimy little creature in the Devonian era came crawling up on shore as a tetrapod and then went back out to sea.

The fertile areas of exploration are in the universality of basic belief, the resolution of the existence of time/space in the singularity, etc.

Silver Fox said: It's amazing how much ink Luskin has received from the atheist bloggers and how little attention any of the more erudite apologists has received.

"PT not interested in pursuing apologists unless...make foolish claims about science."

The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all. Getting into science in order to prove the existence of God and his works is, pardon the expression, sucking a dry tit. Atheists take advantage of this futility and exploit it to the end of pursuing their own agenda, i.e. "there is no God". Let the slimy little tetrapods of the Devonian to the scientists and atheists and concentrate on the cosmological and philosophical areas that I alluded to before.

Silver Fox said: "PT not interested in pursuing apologists unless...make foolish claims about science." The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all. Getting into science in order to prove the existence of God and his works is, pardon the expression, sucking a dry tit. Atheists take advantage of this futility and exploit it to the end of pursuing their own agenda, i.e. "there is no God". Let the slimy little tetrapods of the Devonian to the scientists and atheists and concentrate on the cosmological and philosophical areas that I alluded to before.

Silver Fox blathered:

PT not interested in pursuing apologists unless...make foolish claims about science.

The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all.

Getting into science in order to prove the existence of God and his works is, pardon the expression, sucking a dry tit. Atheists take advantage of this futility and exploit it to the end of pursuing their own agenda, i.e. "there is no God".

Let the slimy little tetrapods of the Devonian to the scientists and atheists and concentrate on the cosmological and philosophical areas that I alluded to before.

The point being that those making foolish claims about science are not apologists at all.

Silver Fox said: But, individuals like William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Hugh Ross and Timothy Keller have emerged as able thinkers on the frontier of Christian apologetics.

Silver Fox said: It's amazing how much ink Luskin has received from the atheist bloggers and how little attention any of the more erudite apologists has received.

So it seems that the days of the free ride for atheists who have enjoyed feasting on the likes of Luskin are about over and the day of reckoning has arrived

Tell you what, SF: you go someplace where you don't have to endure discussion about slimy Devonian tetrapods. Seriously. You won't find much to interest you here.

See, I know that this doesn't make sense to you, but slimy Devonian tetrapods interest many of us, but Christian apologetics doesn't, because there's evidence for the tetrapods, and - call us heathens, if you like - we're interested in what you can find out from evidence, not in what you can build out of airy structures of pure logic. Not that the logic is ever truly pure, rather like the human mind itself. But you see what I mean.

Evidence, SF, verifiable, testable, physical, material evidence. Reasoning, sure, but from the evidence. Not reasoning, no matter how rarified, no matter how elegant, that's based on nothing. That's what science is - and this is a science blog, you know?

Flint said: There may be atheists who use the fact that the gods are not necessary for scientific understandings or explaining our world, to try to conclude that therefore, there are no gods. But all they can establish is that no gods are required for scientific explanations. If one were to argue that science establishes the means the gods use to accomplish their goals, the atheists have no good response.

Flint is not arguing, (donning the deist cloak for the nonce) that there are gods. He is arguing that if there were gods, we would not necessarily see any change to the way the Universe functions as opposed to the way it does if there were not. God, or the gods, could reasonably run the Universe by the means that they have established, which we call "natural law", with the occasional miracle thrown in where He, or they, deem it necessary.

Miracles, by definition, stand outside the order of natural law, and cannot be observed in a systematic way, producing repeatable, testable evidence. Therefore science has nothing to say about them. Natural law can be observed, but who is to say that its fundamentals - whatever they may be, for we do not know them, yet - are not the ordinance of God, or a god, or the gods?

Hence, the deist is perfectly entitled to posit a deity or deities, and good luck to him, her or them. It just doesn't get anyone very far, which is the real point. It doesn't actually even break the principle of parsimony, exactly, though that is often averred. The laws have come from somewhere. They have been caused by something. Call the something "god", if you like.

As to benefits of worshipping such a thing, what makes you think that there have to be any benefits? I don't know about you, but I reckon any agency that caused the laws of nature to be such that every snowstorm is made up of billions of perfect crystals, or who designed the laws that make a rainbow, would be worthy of worship, if I could convince myself that such an agency existed. Ah, but there's the rub.

Luskin's claim is really hilarious. Not long ago there was a dude here in Portland who used to ride all over my neighborhood on his rear wheel, front wheel off the ground. Removing the front wheel would've only made his trick *easier*. Luskin must not get out of the cubie very often, eh? Never saw a motorcyclist doing a wheelie?

Silver Fox said: I think you'll find that none of the more competent apologists would have a problem with evolution.

So tell us again who gave you the authority to dictate what atheists can and can not write about, and tell us again specifically what this has to do with Casey Luskin making a total fool out of himself?

Silver Fox said: "That's what science is and this is a science blog, you know" The following is from this blog's statement found under the ABOUT label above: "Much as in any tavern serving a university community, you can expect to hear a variety of levels of comments ranging from the picayune to the pedantic" "The Panda's Thumb" encourages a wide variety of comment"

To PvM:

Pim, as much as I know how much you like watching pious bigots like Silver Fox use their piety and self-righteous indignation to make complete and total morons out of themselves, would it be too much to ask if you could put a muzzle on Silver Fox to stop him from further derailing this thread? He's repeating his rant, and it's already boring.

Silver Fox is dodging the questions directed to him about Lee Strobel. It has been pointed out to him that Lee Strobel's anti evolution arguments are worse than Luskin's, if that is possible.

According to Silver Fox, "None of the more competent apologists would have a problem with evolution."

Lee Strobel, of course, does, and he wrote a whole book about it, uncritically parroting the DI line and misrepresenting science in the process.

Silver? Your thoughts on Strobel? Are you still offering him as an example of a competent apologist for Christianity?

Silver Fox said: "Tell me again what this has to do with Casey Luskin making a total fool of himself" Tell me again what does Casey Luskin making a total fool of himself has to do with Richard Dawkins making a total fool of himself.

Pim, as much as I know how much you like watching pious bigots like Silver Fox use their piety and self-righteous indignation to make complete and total morons out of themselves, would it be too much to ask if you could put a muzzle on Silver Fox to stop him from further derailing this thread? He’s repeating his rant, and it’s already boring.

The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself.

The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

What I notice is the fantastic overkill. The way that mere abuse is constantly repeated and repeated. It's as if under the surface you're worried that evolution is not so obvious after all.

Now for more peer-reviewed abuse! Punish me! I love it!

10.10 a.m.

novparl said: It's as if under the surface you're worried that evolution is not so obvious after all.

Silver Fox said: The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself. The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

Silver Fox said: The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself. The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

novparl said: What I notice is the fantastic overkill. The way that mere abuse is constantly repeated and repeated.

Nils Ruhr said: @386sx: The function of your hat is the intention of the designer. You can furthermore for example logically assume that the function of your hat is to be weared, since you bought it in a clothes shop. The bike is an analogy to a biological system. We don't know what the intention of the designer is. In this case the function is defined arbitary.

Just Bob said: More than once I've seen a circus performer on a bicycle remove one part at a time--handlebars, front wheel, fork, even most of the frame--continuing to ride it all the while. How can anyone be so dumb as to state that you can't remove any part of a bike and still have it function? I know for a fact that I can remove over 50% (by number) of the parts on my bike and still have a 2-wheeled, easily rideable bike.

iml8 said: Just imagine what Agatha Heterodyne could do with a unicycle. Of course you might be terrified to get on it.

The main foolishness is that whether a bicycle—or anything else—is irreducibly complex has no bearing on Luskin's thesis. Irreducible complexity is not a counterexample to natural selection, it is a consequence. Features that can be removed without detriment to an organism (e.g. because some other feature that does the job better has evolved) no longer have selection pressure to keep them around. Reducible complexity is either selected against, if the feature has a cost, or at best is left to the fates of genetic drift.

Biologists, please forgive me if I'm belabouring the obvious, but in the comments so far people seem to be chasing after the irreducibility-of-bicycles issue as if it were relevant—other than as a joke.

The main foolishness is that whether a bicycle—or anything else—is irreducibly complex has no bearing on Luskin's thesis. Irreducible complexity is not a counterexample to natural selection, it is a consequence. Features that can be removed without detriment to an organism (e.g. because some other feature that does the job better has evolved) no longer have selection pressure to keep them around. Reducible complexity is either selected against, if the feature has a cost, or at best is left to the fates of genetic drift.

Biologists, please forgive me if I'm belabouring the obvious, but in the comments so far people seem to be chasing after the irreducibility-of-bicycles issue as if it were relevant—other than as a joke.

Silver Fox said: The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself. The point of my reference to Dawkins is to note that there are people on both end of the spectrum making fools of themselves. To zero in on Luskin is, in my view, to offer cover to those on the other side of the issue who are doing the same thing.

The main foolishness is that whether a bicycle—or anything else—is irreducibly complex has no bearing on Luskin's thesis. Irreducible complexity is not a counterexample to natural selection, it is a consequence. Features that can be removed without detriment to an organism (e.g. because some other feature that does the job better has evolved) no longer have selection pressure to keep them around. Reducible complexity is either selected against, if the feature has a cost, or at best is left to the fates of genetic drift.

Biologists, please forgive me if I'm belabouring the obvious, but in the comments so far people seem to be chasing after the irreducibility-of-bicycles issue as if it were relevant—other than as a joke.

Sorry about the multiple posting—the software kept telling me that the submission had failed, and I believed it.

Ted Powell said:

The topic of this thread is LUSKIN making a fool of himself.

The main foolishness is that whether a bicycle—or anything else—is irreducibly complex has no bearing on Luskin's thesis. Irreducible complexity is not a counterexample to natural selection, it is a consequence. Features that can be removed without detriment to an organism (e.g. because some other feature that does the job better has evolved) no longer have selection pressure to keep them around. Reducible complexity is either selected against, if the feature has a cost, or at best is left to the fates of genetic drift.

Biologists, please forgive me if I'm belabouring the obvious, but in the comments so far people seem to be chasing after the irreducibility-of-bicycles issue as if it were relevant—other than as a joke.

Patrick said: Maybe she could use it to find some way to improve Phil Foglio's art so that his characters' facial features actually stay in one place on their heads instead of shifting around like some sort of bizarre tectonic plates floating on an amorphous blob of flesh.

Stanton said: I think you're spinning your wheels about that.

I actually do have a good response: you are begging the question.

This is a logical fallacy in which one assumes what one claims to prove. You cannot claim that science is studying the methods of gods without first demonstrating that gods exist.

I’m neither a scientist nor a theologian, but the way it works for me is that we can explain (or at least study) how humans got here, how life got here, how the planet got here, and how the universe got here all without ever making a reference to any god.

It’s impossible to establish whether there’s an intelligent designer who set all the rules up initially, pushed the on button, and let things go, but this potential designer would have to be so uninvolved in the workings of the universe that I can’t see how it could be called a god.

Certainly there’s no benefit to worshiping such a being, even if one assumed for no reason at all that it exists.

It’s as if under the surface you’re worried that evolution is not so obvious after all.

What does "pwned" mean? I keep seeing that term everywhere but it's not in any dictionary.

Please use only real words, not made-up ones.

greg lorentz said: What does "pwned" mean? I keep seeing that term everywhere but it's not in any dictionary.

Silver Fox said: Luskin is, of course, an easy target for atheists looking to feast on below average Christian apologetics. Maybe that's all that need be done when the oppositional talent consists of clowns like Myers, blowhards like Dawkins and their like.