Regulation - Complexity sidebar

Pages

AuthorTopic: Regulation - Complexity sidebar
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #25
Stillness, that's still asserting impossibility. If any pathway at all is found in which your (as yet unproven) assertion is not true — that the parts are only useful after fully formed as a whole — then the structure is no longer irreducible.

You have to show that it is impossible to construct an evolutionary pathway to create blood clotting, eyes, etc. All evolutionists have to do is show that it is possible to construct one.

In other words, I'm calling you on your description of eyes as irreducible. Demonstrate that no proto-parts of eyes could have any value on their own without the full structure of an eye. If you can't do that, you can't prove that eyes are irreducible.

[ Thursday, May 10, 2007 13:44: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #26
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Your second is fine, I guess, but non-periodic and non-random forms can arise without the intervention of an intelligence, as we've discussed over and over again.
By all means, speak up man! Give us the examples. I can't think of one.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #27
quote:
Originally written by *i:

We don't see nature make systems like this (as you define them above) because our observation time is dramatically limited. The only real conclusion we can draw is that nature does not do this on the time scales we observe. This does not, however, preclude significantly longer time scales.
I think the real concern is generations, not time, right? With things like flies and bacteria this becomes observable in our lifetimes, yet I don’t know of any such case where such a system has evolved.

quote:
Originally written by *i:

A way to show design is to be able to show very rapid changes (on the order of decades, although I'll even take centuries or a few millennia) occurring early on in the history of Earth and you would have a stronger case.
The fossil record shows this very thing! That is why you all like punctuated equilibrium. I’ve been yelling this all along, that complex structures spring up suddenly in the record. There’s no sex, then sex; no feathers, then feathers; no insects, then insects; etc.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #28
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

In other words, I'm calling you on your description of eyes as irreducible. Demonstrate that no proto-parts of eyes could have any value on their own without the full structure of an eye. If you can't do that, you can't prove that eyes are irreducible.
Kelandon, we can’t progress because you still don’t understand the definition and it’s usefulness. You think it it has something to do with common descent, creation, or impossibility and it absolutely does not.

Please read and think carefully. Human vision is irreducible because it has many parts that have no function without multiple parts in place. If one of the parts that form the irreducible system is removed, it is rendered completely useless. The same can be said of many nonbiological systems. My truck does not run without the pistons, wheels, and sparkplugs. Those parts, along with many others form part of in irreducibly complex system. If you take the passengers seat, the air conditioner, or the speedometer out the truck can still run. Those are nice to have, but not part of the irreducible system. If you take out the retina (supposedly made of some of the most complicated tissue in the human body), optic nerve, or visual cortex humans cannot see. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or mine - it is a fact.

Here is where my understanding comes in. I believe that our creator not only created life, but also created with great variety. These initial acts do not account for all the variety though. Ability to adapt was placed into all life. If I want to try to get a feel for what was originally created and what evolved from that creation, irreducible structures serve me as a guide because they are only seen to arise from purpose driven action. Why should I think any differently?

Enter the misguided nonbeliever (e.g. Kelandon, SoT, *i, Thuryl, Alo, and friends), raining on my parade. :mad: They make wild claims such as irreducible structures not being a reliable guide for me to discover the creator’s works. They say that observable reality is not a good guide, because these structures could evolve slowly so that they would be invisible to us. Good ol’, faithful, salt-of-the-Earth folks (like me) are shocked by this affront to the Creator. But since we are patient and understanding, we proceed to listen at the description of how this is claimed to be possible.

Only in some kind of bizzaro world is the ownness on me to develop infinite numbers of paths to support a theory I don’t believe to show how it doesn’t work. The owness is on you to develop your theory! As I said on the previous thread, I recognize that this is difficult. You’d have to show the starting state (including related systems); describe the initial regulatory mechanisms; have a stepwise route to the new state; a description of how regulatory mechanisms adapted to the new state; and more. It would have to be very explicit and detailed. And after all this work you’d have me picking apart every detail. Either that or show how evolution has made an equally complex system. The latter is preferable (probably for both of us).

(Interestingly I heard a story on NPR today of a man who could see just fine, but as he got older his mind had more and more difficulty distinguishing objects. All his equipment worked, but his perception was off. It started with faces, but got worse. He though his wife was a hat for example. And he was perfectly sane. So, even having the right hardware and software might not be enough).
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #29
I'm now convinced that you're trolling. I'm not sure that you're even a creationist at all.

[ Thursday, May 10, 2007 18:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #30
quote:
The fossil record shows this very thing! That is why you all like punctuated equilibrium. I’ve been yelling this all along, that complex structures spring up suddenly in the record. There’s no sex, then sex; no feathers, then feathers; no insects, then insects; etc.
Within a span of a decades to a few centuries? Source. Remember, quick on these time scales is tens of thousands of years.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #31
Why does this look familiar?

Yes, the eyeball is incredibly complicated. It did not evolve one piece at a time, though! Eyes didn't start with just a retina, then develop a lens, then the optic nerve, and then some humors. That's ridiculous and nobody has made such a proposal.

In other words, it doesn't go like this:

One complex component -> Two complex components -> ... -> Complex structure assembled from complex components.

It does go like this:

A small number of primitive structure -> a small number of less primitive structures -> a larger number of less primitive structures -> ... -> a complex structure assembled from a large number of complex structures.

I'm honestly not sure if you've noticed the difference yet. You've certainly never acknowledged it.

—Alorael, who actually thinks irreducible complexity in man-made items is an interesting problem. The components of cars weren't invented all together to make a car. They were invented one by one, often for different uses. They didn't come into existence at the same time and they never existed uselessly.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #32
Why does this look familiar?

Yes, the eyeball is incredibly complicated. It did not evolve one piece at a time, though! Eyes didn't start with just a retina, then develop a lens, then the optic nerve, and then some humors. That's ridiculous and nobody has made such a proposal.

In other words, it doesn't go like this:

One complex component -> Two complex components -> ... -> Complex structure assembled from complex components.

It does go like this:

A small number of primitive structure -> a small number of less primitive structures -> a larger number of less primitive structures -> ... -> a complex structure assembled from a large number of complex structures.

I'm honestly not sure if you've noticed the difference yet. You've certainly never acknowledged it.

—Alorael, who actually thinks irreducible complexity in man-made items is an interesting problem. The components of cars weren't invented all together to make a car. They were invented one by one, often for different uses. They didn't come into existence at the same time and they never existed uselessly.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 4204
Profile #33
Stillness:

Even if your god created everything according to some unknown design, it doesn't matter.

The Saint of Killers laid him low long ago.

--------------------
What really went on there, we only have this excerpt...
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sunday, April 4 2004 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #34
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Human vision is irreducible because it has many parts that have no function without multiple parts in place. If one of the parts that form the irreducible system is removed, it is rendered completely useless. ... If you take out the retina ..., optic nerve, or visual cortex humans cannot see. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or mine - it is a fact.
You do not seem to be thinking through your own arguments, Stillness. Removing a retina from a human eye no doubt renders it useless. But removing a retina is a huge, abrupt change, like the ones you postulate and attribute to design. It is nothing like the tiny, gradual changes that evolution involves. So unless you can identify structures that are irreducible by tiny changes, you are not criticizing evolution: you are criticizing unintelligent design.

A brief point about numbers: a fruit fly generation is some number of days, where that of a large animal is some number of years. So to see something that took a million years of historical evolution in a larger species, you would still have to run your fruit fly experiment for a millennium. And that's if you used as many flies as there were in the global population of the evolving species.

[ Thursday, May 10, 2007 23:43: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ]

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #35
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

You do not seem to be thinking through your own arguments, Stillness. Removing a retina from a human eye no doubt renders it useless.
Not just the eye, but also the lateral geniculate nucleus and the optic chiasm become useless. That is what makes it part of an irreducibly complex system. Until I see how small stepwise changes can make a system like this from scratch (organism that can’t sense visible light at all to human vision) while at the same time giving advantages that surpass disadvantages I have no reason to think life is different from non-life in that systems with such complexity are made with intelligence. I can’t imagine it and I have never seen a model that explicitly and quantitatively details such changes.

quote:
you are not criticizing evolution: you are criticizing unintelligent design.
Evolution is real. Common descent is weak. There’s no continuum in the historical record and changes of the type it requires are unseen. It requires faith to accept them. Creation by a purposeful agent explains systems like DNA/RNA protein production; avian flight; sexual reproduction and is supported by the sudden appearance of organisms in the record. If identifying intelligent cause over unintelligent cause was impossible or pointless, then we could never convict an unwitnessed murderer or determine that an arrowhead was made. Only when it’s convenient does “science” want to exclude an intelligent cause.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #36
quote:
Originally written by Kirby had never eaten toes before.:

Why does this look familiar?
Déjà vu?

quote:
A small number of primitive structure -> a small number of less primitive structures -> a larger number of less primitive structures -> ... -> a complex structure assembled from a large number of complex structures.

I'm honestly not sure if you've noticed the difference yet. You've certainly never acknowledged it.

—Alorael, who actually thinks irreducible complexity in man-made items is an interesting problem. The components of cars weren't invented all together to make a car. They were invented one by one, often for different uses. They didn't come into existence at the same time and they never existed uselessly.

I see the difference, but as of yet have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur. Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much. In the teachings of common descent, organisms don’t have an intelligent agent that can move structures about, plan, and adapt them for sophisticated new purposes like a car does. Not only do they have to be functioning through the whole theoretical process, but also there has to be some advantage so that these genes are passed.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #37
quote:
Originally written by *i:

quote:
…complex structures spring up suddenly in the record. There’s no sex, then sex; no feathers, then feathers; no insects, then insects; etc.
Within a span of a decades to a few centuries? Source. Remember, quick on these time scales is tens of thousands of years.

First of all the break between inanimate and animate is extremely sharp. I know that some may not view this as relevant, but it is nonetheless as the first life is said to be simple. It is not, at least not compared to lifeless chemicals, which lack extraordinarily complex mechanisms such as protein production.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html

The overriding question is when (and then how) sexual reproduction itself evolved. Despite decades of speculation, we do not know. The difficulty is that sexual reproduction creates complexity of the genome and the need for a separate mechanism for producing gametes. The metabolic cost of maintaining this system is huge, as is that of providing the organs specialized for sexual reproduction (the uterus of mammalian females, for example). What are the offsetting benefits? The advantages of sexual reproduction are not obvious” Maddox, John, What Remains to be Discovered, The Free Press, New York, p. 252, 1998.

“Unlike many other transitions in evolution, there are no intermediates between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. It is as if honeybees mutated into humans without any evidence of rats, cats, or chimpanzees in between. The evolutionary processes behind this great revolution have had to be discerned without the help of one of the evolutionist’s most trusted sources of evidence—the fossil record” Wakeford, Tom (2001), Liaisons of Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons) pp.147-148

“Fossil remains of the skin of reptiles are rare and tell us little to nothing about the morphology of scales in possible avian ancestors among the reptiles…. We lack completely fossils of all intermediate stages between reptilian scales and the most primitive feather ” Bock, Walter J. (2000), “Explanatory History of the Origin of Feathers,” American Zoologist , pp. 480.

“The oldest known feathers from the Late Jurassic are already modern in form and microscopic detail” Martin, Larry D. and Stephen A. Czerkas (2000), “The Fossil Record of Feather Evolution in the Mesozoic,” American Zoologist pp. 687

“The most primitive insects known are found as fossils in rocks of the Middle Devonian Period and lived about 350,000,000 years ago. The bodies of those insects were divided then, as now, into a head bearing one pair of antennae, a thorax with three pairs of legs, and a segmented abdomen.”
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-41296/insect

“…insects first appear suddenly in the fossil record at the very beginning of the Late Carboniferous period, Early Bashkirian age , about 318 million years ago. Insect species were already diverse and highly specialized by this time, with fossil evidence reflecting the presence of more than half a dozen different orders .”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_evolution

The fossil record does not support common descent. Anyone who thinks it does has been fooled.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #38
Thuryl,

I believe everything I’ve said on this forum. I’m not trolling. Unless 20+ pages of discussion can be considered trolling.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #39
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I see the difference, but as of yet have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur.
The problem is that you haven't been saying "This is conceivable in theory, but I haven't seen a detailed theory as to how it could occur." You've been saying "This is impossible. It just can't happen."

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #40
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I can’t imagine it and I have never seen a model that explicitly and quantitatively details such changes.
As Slarty has already objected, you're going from "I can't imagine it and haven't seen it" to "It can't exist." Irreducibly complexity says that such a model can't exist, not that it doesn't exist right now.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #41
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Not just the eye, but also the lateral geniculate nucleus and the optic chiasm become useless. That is what makes it part of an irreducibly complex system.

You seem to have missed the point. Yes, there are several large modules in the visual system, and abruptly removing any one of them makes it all useless. But this is absolutely not irreducibility in any sense relevant to evolution, because evolution is about changes far more gradual than anything as gross as abruptly removing an entire module.

Harping on about how removing nerves or lenses or retinas makes eyes fail, and calling that irreducible complexity, is sheer dodge. It has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. I mean, congratulations: you've proven that eyes can't evolve by having modern lenses suddenly pop into modern eyes that were only missing lenses. If you can possibly find anyone who thinks eyes could develop that way, you can really set them straight. But if you imagined that scenario had anything to do with evolution, you were really out of touch.

[ Friday, May 11, 2007 10:29: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ]

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #42
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

As Slarty has already objected, you're going from "I can't imagine it and haven't seen it" to "It can't exist." Irreducibly complexity says that such a model can't exist, not that it doesn't exist right now.
You and slarty are wrong. I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to explain this. I honestly don't know how to make it clearer. You don't know the definition of irreducible complexity and apparently don't want to know.

Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting with baited breath for your examples of things that have specified complexity. You claimed you had some.

[ Friday, May 11, 2007 14:00: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #43
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

You seem to have missed the point. Yes, there are several large modules in the visual system, and abruptly removing any one of them makes it all useless. But this is absolutely not irreducibility in any sense relevant to evolution, because evolution is about changes far more gradual than anything as gross as abruptly removing an entire module.
Finally somebody seems to understand that irreducibilty has nothing to do with evolution! Now if you can understand that it doesn't have anything to do with impossibility you will have truly outshone your peers. It seems that you're still unsure about that. I'll give you time to work it out.

The issue with irreducibly complex systems is the lack of models or the lack of detail in the models that show how they can arise in a Darwinian framework. Of course you think they can evolve - you think anything can evolve. Can you show how though?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #44
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I see the difference, but as of yet have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur. Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much. In the teachings of common descent, organisms don’t have an intelligent agent that can move structures about, plan, and adapt them for sophisticated new purposes like a car does. Not only do they have to be functioning through the whole theoretical process, but also there has to be some advantage so that these genes are passed.
quote:
A copied and pasted answer:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Note that one sentence is untrue: "Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight." Actually, every change has to confer no disadvantage strong enough to cause the mutation to breed out before some advantage accrues. A few generations of slight disadvantage are perfectly fine.

Your fossil examples are very nice, but we've already explained that the absence of evidence doesn't mean that the intermediates never existed.

—Alorael, who now doesn't understand your irreducible complexity anymore. If it has nothing to do with evolution, why are you talking about it in a discussion of evolution? Not all evolution is common descent, but common descent is evolution. If it's not impossible, what's the point? Any mechanism with no steps that could be impossible is preferable to one with steps that might be impossible. A creator falls into the latter category: there is no evidence for the existence of a creator except the creation, and that logic is obviously circular.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #45
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I see the difference, but as of yet have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur. Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much. In the teachings of common descent, organisms don’t have an intelligent agent that can move structures about, plan, and adapt them for sophisticated new purposes like a car does. Not only do they have to be functioning through the whole theoretical process, but also there has to be some advantage so that these genes are passed.
quote:
A copied and pasted answer:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Note that one sentence is untrue: "Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight." Actually, every change has to confer no disadvantage strong enough to cause the mutation to breed out before some advantage accrues. A few generations of slight disadvantage are perfectly fine.

Your fossil examples are very nice, but we've already explained that the absence of evidence doesn't mean that the intermediates never existed.

—Alorael, who now doesn't understand your irreducible complexity anymore. If it has nothing to do with evolution, why are you talking about it in a discussion of evolution? Not all evolution is common descent, but common descent is evolution. If it's not impossible, what's the point? Any mechanism with no steps that could be impossible is preferable to one with steps that might be impossible. A creator falls into the latter category: there is no evidence for the existence of a creator except the creation, and that logic is obviously circular.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #46
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Finally somebody seems to understand that irreducibilty has nothing to do with evolution! Now if you can understand that it doesn't have anything to do with impossibility you will have truly outshone your peers.
Okay, now we're getting a serious disconnect. This makes no sense as a response to my post, and it doesn't even make sense as a continuation of your own statements. If 'irreducible' doesn't mean 'impossible to reduce', then you've been abusing language badly. If all it means is that things break if you suddenly tear big important chunks out of them, then why on earth have you been talking so much, in this discussion of evolution and design, about such an irrelevant banality?

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #47
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

If 'irreducible' doesn't mean 'impossible to reduce', then you've been abusing language badly. If all it means is that things break if you suddenly tear big important chunks out of them, then why on earth have you been talking so much, in this discussion of evolution and design, about such an irrelevant banality?
Quoted for emphasis. This was exactly my reaction.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #48
Let’s try this again. When you all see the phrase “irreducible complexity” it seems you are interpreting that to mean “this system can’t develop by means of evolution” or maybe “this system is can only arise by means of intelligent design.” It says nothing of the sort. It means that the parts that make it up work together to perform a function in such a way that if one part is removed the others become useless and the system fails. Stop for a few moments before proceeding to digest this…

OK, here is the relevance to our discussion. We all know about beneficial mutations. We can see them occur. If a fish gets into a cave it loses its eyes. Now it can survive better. A bacteria gets into an environment with a substrance it can’t process well and mutates to survive off of it. No one can deny these sorts of things happen. What we don’t see evolution doing is creating irreducibly complex structures. We know that intelligent agents can though. So from observation it is reasonable to conclude that these structures were created purposefully. If you want to get around observable reality you need a strong theory as to why we should.

quote:
Originally written by Kirby had never eaten toes before.:

Originally written by Stillness:
Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much.

quote:
A copied and pasted answer:
The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin … Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch…At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed… Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina…Over time a lens formed… It could have arisen ...
What do you think Alo, is this an explicit detailed description or does it gloss over details?

And notice how it starts with a “simple” light sensitive patch simple, when it is nothing of the sort. That is a major leap forward from no light perception. Do you all remember the description I pasted before of a light sensitive spot? It is far from simple. It’s probably irreducible as well.

And this only details changes in the receptor. The model would also have to account for concurrent changes in neural pathways and the brain. How do chance mutations write the software in the brain to makes use of the “depression?” Let’s say the creature can see. How does that give it an advantage? It has to be able to translate attenuation in photon intensity to “this is my prey” to “I should move towards it” and be able to act on this.

quote:
Actually, every change has to confer no disadvantage strong enough to cause the mutation to breed out before some advantage accrues.
Are you aware that this works the other way? Let’s say your creature can see half as well as us. Now let’s say an offspring in the next generation gets 50.5% vision. Is it realistic to think such an advantage is enough to overcome the tendency for genetic drift to eliminate even beneficial mutations?

quote:
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve.
What species are these? Eyes can’t simply descend from other eyes. To have any weight at all the species would have to line up according to this model in the supposed parent-daughter lines.

quote:
according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
At that rate we should be able to get enough bacteria generations to see irreducible systems as complex as an eye spring up in a few years.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #49
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Let’s try this again. When you all see the phrase “irreducible complexity” it seems you are interpreting that to mean “this system can’t develop by means of evolution” or maybe “this system is can only arise by means of intelligent design.”
When I see "irreducible complexity," I think "complexity that cannot be reduced." It's hardly my fault if you're using words to mean things that they don't actually mean.

quote:
It means that the parts that make it up work together to perform a function in such a way that if one part is removed the others become useless and the system fails.
You're talking about interdependent parts. That's related to irreducible complexity, but it's not the same thing. Please use words correctly.

quote:
What we don’t see evolution doing is creating irreducibly complex structures. We know that intelligent agents can though. So from observation it is reasonable to conclude that these structures were created purposefully. If you want to get around observable reality you need a strong theory as to why we should.
You're again making the leap from "We haven't seen it in our lifetimes" to "It didn't ever happen" (or at the very least "It probably didn't ever happen"). That leap is, as we have said over and over again, unjustified.

[ Friday, May 11, 2007 20:51: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00

Pages