Regulation - Complexity sidebar

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Regulation - Complexity sidebar
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Friday, May 11 2007 21:19 Profile Homepage #50 Gah. Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Saturday, May 12 2007 02:03 Profile #51 Looks like we are all responding to an irreducibility argument that Stillness did not intend to make, or that he once advanced but has now withdrawn. This irreducibility argument is that certain complex structures are so complex and interdependent that they cannot possibly be altered even microscopically without total failure. I think it's too bad that this does not seem now to be Stillness's irreducibility argument, because this argument is the best one ID has. As far as I know it is the only ID argument that is valid, meaning that its conclusions really do follow from its premises. If there truly were any such structures, evolution could not explain them. But this argument is unsound, meaning that its premises are not true: in fact there do not exist any such structures. Very small and gradual alteration of even the most complicated interdependent system can easily change it, eventually dramatically, without any sudden loss of functionality. Anyway, what I now understand Stillness to be saying is that he doesn't mean this microscopic irreducibility argument, but only something much more trivial. He identifies modular interdependency, which is how he now defines irreducible complexity, as one particular property observed in modern organisms, and which has not been directly observed to develop by evolution. Of course there are zillions of other properties of which the same can be said. Having big wide ears is a property observed in modern elephants, and evolution of big wide ears has never been observed. Purely as a problem for evolution, modular interdependence is nothing special. Stillness does not seem to be claiming, now, that modular interdependence is any harder in principle to evolve than big wide ears, or long necks, or whatever. He is only claiming that, like those other properties, its evolution has not been directly observed. The reason Stillness picks on this one particular property of modular interdependence seems to be just that, unlike long necks and big wide ears, it is a property of many designed objects. So he considers this to be not just a problem for evolution, but also an argument in favor of intelligent design. Stillness, is this really what you are now trying to say when you write about irreducible complexity? -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Saturday, May 12 2007 04:45 Profile #52 A quote from Behe: " In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term “irreducible complexity” in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems. In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function. The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step, with no thought for their future utility. I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework. Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design." [emphasis mine] quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: Looks like we are all responding to an irreducibility argument that Stillness did not intend to make, or that he once advanced but has now withdrawn. This irreducibility argument is that certain complex structures are so complex and interdependent that they cannot possibly be altered even microscopically without total failure. As I said before, I do believe it’s impossible for evolution to make these systems, but my argument is not “it’s impossible.” So if I said, “it can’t happen” that was not intended to be the strength of my position. Whether the system is microscopic (flagellum) or macroscopic (human vision) the problem is the same. There are no models that define it well and we don’t see it. This does not mean it didn’t happen, but simply saying matter-of-factly that it happened does not mean it did. quote: Stillness does not seem to be claiming, now, that modular interdependence is any harder in principle to evolve than big wide ears, or long necks, or whatever. He is only claiming that, like those other properties, its evolution has not been directly observed. Actually we have seen length and width of features like this evolve and see it all the time. So it’s not the same as having irreducible complex systems evolve. But you have hit on a problem that I have been identifying from the beginning regarding NDT/common descent. It deals with origins and is not operational science. It’s impossible to observe, there are no witnesses (at least none forthcoming), and we can’t reproduce it. As such it has to rely on analogy: We can select for long ears in dogs so nature can select for long ears in elephants. That makes sense. This is why it’s unsatisfactory to simply say “such and such happened.” You need to show how something analogous happened or have a very solid theoretical model. The bad thing about models though is that theoretical organism can do all sorts of magical things on paper that may pose difficulties in real life. I’ll give you an example. Alo’s model states very simply, “Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye” and “only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.” The nautilus has an eye with no lens. Its cousin the squid does have a lens. The nautilus has a retina that would benefit from this “simple” change. It has supposedly been in existence for millions of years, so where is it’s lens (the very next step from the retina in alo's model) if this is such a simple process that only takes a few hundred thousand years? Might this process be a bit more complex than some of us think? Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Saturday, May 12 2007 05:07 Profile Homepage #53 quote: Originally written by Stillness: As I said before, I do believe it’s impossible for evolution to make these systems, but my argument is not “it’s impossible.” So if I said, “it can’t happen” that was not intended to be the strength of my position. AHA! Okay, now this makes sense. Correct me if I'm wrong Stillness, but basically, you keep track of what you believe separately from what you argue in the debate. That makes sense. It's very reasonable to say "I believe X and Y, but on the strength of evidence I can only argue Y." The only problem is that you tend to mention your beliefs in the same breath as your argument, which makes it hard for others to distinguish between them. quote: But you have hit on a problem that I have been identifying from the beginning regarding NDT/common descent. It deals with origins and is not operational science. It’s impossible to observe, there are no witnesses (at least none forthcoming), and we can’t reproduce it... Putting aside several issues related to how evolution is being evaluated here, I really have to ask: how the *heck* does intelligent design seem more plausible or likely (as you have been arguing) under these criteria? When have we observed intelligent design of species? (Don't say we've observed humans designing things and that's analagous to ID, because we've also observed speciation analogous to common descent.) Where are the witnesses? How can we reproduce it? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Saturday, May 12 2007 06:02 Profile #54 quote: Originally written by Yama: The only problem is that you tend to mention your beliefs in the same breath as your argument, which makes it hard for others to distinguish between them. If I keep insisting that something is my argument based on logic and observation, then that is a strong hint that it is my argument no matter how much others insist it's not. We're human, so in a discussion beliefs will creep in. The question is are these beliefs reasonable and based in reality or simply something we feel because it's what we've been told or it fits our world view better. It's the foundations that are the key. I believe common descent didnt happen not because I don't like it (which I don't). I believe it's a poor explanation compared to purposeful action because it doesn't seem to account well for a lot of things. quote: how the heck does intelligent design seem more plausible or likely (as you have been arguing) under these criteria? When have we observed intelligent design of species? (Don't say we've observed humans designing things and that's analagous to ID, because we've also observed speciation analogous to common descent.) Where are the witnesses? How can we reproduce it? Excellent! Who said we're not getting anywhere? They are the same. We need to figure which one fits better. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, May 12 2007 07:05 Profile Homepage #55 quote: Originally written by Stillness: What do you think Alo, is this an explicit detailed description or does it gloss over details? If you want a gene-by-gene chart, you're not going to get one. The science hasn't advanced that far yet. Your design glosses over far more details, though, such how the heck it happens and who's doing it and if it will ever happen again (and my favorite issue, which is, if efficiency was not the designer's top priority, what the heck was his top priority). Also, you're about two pages behind right now (which is why I'm dragging up an issue from a page ago). Catch up to the objection that has been made with regard to interdependent parts. quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: 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. To summarize: Interdependent parts do not make something irreducible by evolutionary standards. Evolution doesn't work by evolving one part and then another completely separately; it works by evolving both parts into primitive forms and then more complex forms. Your objection (that you "have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur") isn't really adequate. You have to show, in order to prove your point, that any such model is a worse explanation than design. quote: Originally written by Kelandon: 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. That is, we have every reason to believe that the complex evolutions that you're objecting to could happen in principle, since we see the baby steps of them all the time. [ Saturday, May 12, 2007 07:15: 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
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Saturday, May 12 2007 07:19 Profile Homepage #56 quote: Originally written by Stillness: quote: how the heck does intelligent design seem more plausible or likely (as you have been arguing) under these criteria? When have we observed intelligent design of species? (Don't say we've observed humans designing things and that's analagous to ID, because we've also observed speciation analogous to common descent.) Where are the witnesses? How can we reproduce it? Excellent! Who said we're not getting anywhere? They are the same. We need to figure which one fits better. You cut off the first part of my first sentence! That's why it seems like we're getting somewhere! If you put that back in, it's pretty clear that I do not agree with a statement like "They are the same." But if you feel they are the same in terms of observable evidence, why have you been arguing that the evidence better supports ID? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Saturday, May 12 2007 09:13 Profile #57 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Catch up to the objection that has been made with regard to interdependent parts. I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t see anything that wasn’t addressed in the other posts. It sounds like your argument is semantic - you oppose the word “irreducible” in favor of “interdependent.” This is not like your “mistake” over “error” argument though, because I think there is a difference. I think that interdependent parts of a system can actually accomplish something without some of the parts. If that’s wrong then it doesn’t really matter to me which is used. Call it what you like. The problem is the same. quote: Evolution doesn't work by evolving one part and then another completely separately; it works by evolving both parts into primitive forms and then more complex forms. Your objection (that you "have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur") isn't really adequate. You have to show, in order to prove your point, that any such model is a worse explanation than design.[/QB] It sounds like you’re pushing the problem back in time. What more primitive forms? This is exactly the problem. These descriptions are always vague. I mentioned earlier that the retina is probably some of the most complex tissue in the human body and afterward the model presented for vision says, “Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye.” I really appreciate at least something being presented. But by no stretch of the imagination does this explain much. This model is not as good as design because right off the bat it doesn’t deal with the parts that actually make vision irreducible. It only deals with one part. And even that is vague. We all know that someone with substantial intelligence can put parts together to make a machine work. We don’t see nature doing it though. Concluding that because you see change nature can build these sorts of structures is like concluding that I can fly because you’ve seen me jump. (that may be a sorry analogy but I’ve gotta go and it was all I could think of, the point is that it’s not good logical progression) quote: Originally written by Yama: You cut off the first part of my first sentence! That's why it seems like we're getting somewhere! If you put that back in, it's pretty clear that I do not agree with a statement like "They are the same." But if you feel they are the same in terms of observable evidence, why have you been arguing that the evidence better supports ID? I wasn’t cutting it off to misquote. I only ever cut out for economy. I certainly don’t mean they have the same relevance, nor was I implying that you did. I mean they both deal with unseen origins and as such both rely on analogy and causality. In terms of observable evidence purposeful agency is clearly superior! If I didn’t think it was I would have never engaged in this discussion. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Saturday, May 12 2007 10:28 Profile Homepage #58 You're using "irreducibly complex" to mean something that the words don't mean, but that's fine. What isn't fine is that you're using it differently from other IDers, including Michael Behe. If you're going to borrow a term, you can't alter the meaning! I now declare by fiat that your complaint is "irreducible modularity" for clarity. The argument makes no sense, though. Everything is irreducibily modular from interdependence. Eyes can't function without brains. Brains can't function without circulation. Circulation requires eukaryotic cells. Those cells need mitochondria. Mitochondria require proteins. Proteins don't work if you remove some amino acids. Amino acids can't exist if you, oh, rip off the amino group. Carbon atoms are irreducibly modular: they cannot act as carbon if you remove a proton. To address accumulation of advantages: Yes, it's possible for genetic drift to cause very uncommon but slightly beneficial alleles to disappear. They need to last long enough to evolve into something more beneficial or they need to stay in the population randomly. On lack of squid retina: The fact that something is advantageous does not mean it will evolve. It's random, remember? In this case, though, you're simply wrong. Squid do indeed have lenses in their eyes. —Alorael, who thinks you're being vague now. The retina is just many photoreceptors. Remove some and you still get an image, it just has lower resolution. Remove all but one and you just get a light/dark signal. How is one photoreceptor irreducibly modular in a meaningful sense? Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Slarty Raven v. Writing Desk Member # 261	written Saturday, May 12 2007 11:06 Profile Homepage #59 quote: Originally written by Stillness: This model is not as good as design because right off the bat it doesn’t deal with the parts that actually make vision irreducible. It only deals with one part. And even that is vague. We all know that someone with substantial intelligence can put parts together to make a machine work. We don’t see nature doing it though... (snip) In terms of observable evidence purposeful agency is clearly superior! But how does design/agency/whatever deal with those parts? With our current understanding of evolution, it isn't possible to explain the way things happen in sufficient detail for you. I want to hear an explanation of how design explains things in comparable detail. I'm willing to let you off the hook for the nature of the design itself, because that's outside the scope of this discussion just like the origin of life is. My question is: once that design had been made, what actually happened in the world of physical objects to get from organisms without eyes (or whatever "irreducibly complex" characteristic you prefer) to organisms with eyes? Evolution doesn't explain those mechanisms in perfect detail, but it does attempt to explain them. // IF your answer is "spontaneous creation of eyes" please give the evidence suggesting spontaneous creation happens. You don't contest that evolution happens on a small scale, so you agree there is an analogue for it, although you take issue with the mechanics involved in extending the analogy; fine. I contest spontaneous creation. I say it doesn't happen at all, on any scale. Prove that it happens. // [ Saturday, May 12, 2007 11:08: Message edited by: Yama ] -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 \| Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, May 12 2007 12:31 Profile Homepage #60 quote: Originally written by Stillness: quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Catch up to the objection that has been made with regard to interdependent parts. I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t see anything that wasn’t addressed in the other posts. It sounds like your argument is semantic You misunderstand me. "The objection that has been made with regard to interdependent parts" is the rest of the post, not the post that that preceded it. Yes, the post that preceded it made a point that was semantic, but I was merely pointing out that you have no grounds for being frustrate with people who don't understand you when you're actually mis-speaking. This post is solely for clarification. I'll make another, more useful post later. [ Saturday, May 12, 2007 12:31: 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
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Saturday, May 12 2007 14:01 Profile #61 quote: Originally written by Tick tock tick tock tick tick.: You're using "irreducibly complex" to mean something that the words don't mean, but that's fine. What isn't fine is that you're using it differently from other IDers, including Michael Behe. If you're going to borrow a term, you can't alter the meaning! I think you’re wrong on both counts. That’s why I quoted Behe to make it clear that I was using the definition from the man who coined the phrase. Irreducibly complex means exactly what it says. If you “reduce” said “complex” system by removing one of the parts it fails. quote: Everything is irreducibily modular from interdependence. I don’t know your definition of the term you placed upon me, but in this instance I’m going to insist that we use the established term. You all just need to understand it. Everything is not irreducibly complex, but a whole lot of stuff is. quote: On lack of squid retina: The fact that something is advantageous does not mean it will evolve. It's random, remember? In this case, though, you're simply wrong. Squid do indeed have lenses in their eyes. First it is the nautilus that lacks the lens. You misread. I can accept the point though. My real objection is to the simplistic terms used for something extraordinarily complex. It’s common for Darwinists to minimize complexity. quote: How is one photoreceptor irreducibly modular in a meaningful sense? It’s not the photoreceptor that irreducibly complex, but the whole system of vision. You can have a being covered with photoreceptors, but unless he has all the hardware and software to interpret it he won’t see. I’ll be offline for a day or two. In the meantime maybe Kelandon can give us the examples of natural objects with specified complexity. I can't wait to see them when I come back on! Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
potznorton Apprentice Member # 1802	written Saturday, May 12 2007 14:05 Profile #62 Stillness wrote: quote: A quote from Behe: " In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term “irreducible complexity” in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems. In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function. The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step, with no thought for their future utility. I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework. Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design." [emphasis mine] Behe's numbers have been thoroughly discredited. His "irreducible complexity" relied on very flawed assumptions, an assumption of point mutations only, ignoring the many other types of mutation that are well known to occur. His biochemistry may be acceptable (he hasn't done much for a long time, however), but his grasp of genetics is deeply flawed. [ Saturday, May 12, 2007 14:07: Message edited by: potznorton ] Posts: 1 \| Registered: Tuesday, August 27 2002 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, May 12 2007 15:01 Profile Homepage #63 quote: Originally written by Tick tock tick tock tick tick.: The argument makes no sense, though. Everything is irreducibily modular from interdependence. Eyes can't function without brains. Brains can't function without circulation. Circulation requires eukaryotic cells. Those cells need mitochondria. Mitochondria require proteins. Proteins don't work if you remove some amino acids. Amino acids can't exist if you, oh, rip off the amino group. Carbon atoms are irreducibly modular: they cannot act as carbon if you remove a proton. quote: Originally written by Stillness: quote: Everything is irreducibily modular from interdependence. I don’t know your definition of the term you placed upon me, but in this instance I’m going to insist that we use the established term. You all just need to understand it. Everything is not irreducibly complex, but a whole lot of stuff is. This is my problem with the way that Stillness argues. This response completely missed the point of the objection to which he pretends that he's responding. This is how we can talk for twenty-three pages and get nowhere, which does not happen in any other discussion on these boards. I give up. Stillness, you're either a really good troll or completely daft. I can't figure out which one, and I'm tired of trying. [ Saturday, May 12, 2007 15:26: 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
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Saturday, May 12 2007 15:54 Profile Homepage #64 Kel has just said what I was going to say, so I'll add just a few things: 1. I have read Behe. You're using only one part of his irreducible complexity argument. It's actually a weaker argument, too, but don't be surprised that we're all defending common descent against Behe and not against you when you adopt his language. 2. System of vision: You start with a photoreceptor. More photoreceptors means more perception, so you get a kind of proto-retina. The proto-retina is moved into a pit for protection and directional perception. The pit's opening narrows and you have even more protection, more directionality, and crude pinhole camera focus. Closing the pit entirely with a transparent cover gives yet more protection and may improve eye cleaning. Changes of the humor inside the enclosed pit can improve imaging, and outgrowths of the transparent covering makes lenses that bring the image into sharper and sharper focus. (more detail here.) You've accepted the photoreceptors as a start. Which step doesn't work for you and why? —Alorael, who would like to know if glycine is irreducibly complex. Or, for a simpler example, is a four-legged table irreducibly complex since it obviously doesn't work if it's missing a leg? Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Saturday, May 12 2007 22:20 Profile #65 I'd really like to hear a serious answer to this last post by Alorael. At the moment I have the impression that Stillness is simply confused by his own term, 'irreducible complexity'. The term has a strong definition, including the impossibility of development by gradual advantageous stages. And for Stillness at least it also has a weak definition, which includes only modular interdependence of modern biological structures. The strong form of irreducible complexity has strong implications for evolution, but not even its plausibility, and far less its truth, can be demonstrated. The weak form of irreducible complexity is a banality with no implications for evolution or design, but it is undeniably true. Stillness seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too, by claiming the consequences of strong irreducible complexity, while only offering to defend the weak version. If this is not the case, then what Stillness needs to do is state clearly and plainly: 1) exactly what properties of 'irreducible complexity' he means to draw logical conclusions from; 2) what his conclusions from those premises are; and 3) how he thinks those conclusions follow logically from his premises. It's time to cut through ambiguous terminology, and commit to a clear logical argument. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Sunday, May 13 2007 22:41 Profile #66 I had a paragraph here addressing the claim that I duck and ignore important points and am a troll or a fool, but decided to ignore it and replace it with this one. quote: Originally written by Yama: But how does design/agency/whatever deal with those parts? … once that design had been made, what actually happened in the world of physical objects to get from organisms without eyes (or whatever "irreducibly complex" characteristic you prefer) to organisms with eyes? Slarty, this is unknowable unless it was witnessed or explained by the one who put the design into action. That is why I was trying to show the sameness in our two beliefs. They deal in origins before man. I would guess you believe that birds come from reptiles (although I don’t think all Darwinists do). I wouldn’t say your theory is bad because you can’t describe or produce every animal that comes in that sequence. That’s impossible. Even if you’re right and I’m wrong those animals have come and gone without a trace. If I'm right and you're wrong, how would I be able answer your question? quote: Evolution doesn't explain those mechanisms in perfect detail, but it does attempt to explain them. // IF your answer is "spontaneous creation of eyes" please give the evidence suggesting spontaneous creation happens. You don't contest that evolution happens on a small scale, so you agree there is an analogue for it, although you take issue with the mechanics involved in extending the analogy; fine. I contest spontaneous creation. I say it doesn't happen at all, on any scale. Prove that it happens. It’s incumbent on Darwinists to explain the mechanism and model for common descent because there is analogy for natural change, but not all the change that would be necessary to get what we see. We see changes to existing coding but not creation of the code itself (ignore this if you think the first life had this coding as this would deal with biogenesis). We see changes to structures and systems, but not natural creation of irreducibly complex systems. Unless there is an a priori rejection of something beyond natural causes, why else would we accept this? “Spontaneous creation” of irreducible systems does happen. Mankind does it all the time. That is the analogy for creating irreducibly complex systems like vision. The problem with explaining a mechanism is that the technology to do it is beyond ours. Even if witnessed that doesn’t mean we could reproduce it or describe it. We can clone sheep, go to the moon, and split the atom, but we can’t make a living cell. The analogy is there though. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Sunday, May 13 2007 22:44 Profile #67 quote: Originally written by There were only six words left.: 1. I have read Behe. You're using only one part of his irreducible complexity argument. It's actually a weaker argument, too, but don't be surprised that we're all defending common descent against Behe and not against you when you adopt his language. Behe’s beliefs are different from mine, just as yours no doubt differ from other Darwinists. Does that mean you can’t use scientific terms that they’ve coined to express yourself? His use of irreducible complexity and mine describe the same thing from what I’ve read from him. I’ve given a quote to show that. Until you show differently, I’ll have to assume you’re wrong. Even if I am wrong (which I doubt), why don’t you simply address my position as I have presented it as opposed to wrangling over semantics and talking about what people who aren’t in our discussion believe? quote: You start with a photoreceptor. More photoreceptors means more perception, so you get a kind of proto-retina…You've accepted the photoreceptors as a start. Which step doesn't work for you and why? I know we’re all a bit tired of this discussion and have probably decided to leave off from responding multiple times. I think it’s starting to show, because we are getting some serious communication failures. The eye by itself is not the irreducible system in question. All of the photoreceptors in the world won’t make a blind organism see. And I didn’t accept photoreceptors as a start. Where do they come from? I asked how to go from an organism that doesn’t sense light to one that sees like us, describing all the systems involved while accounting for advantage and disadvantage. I know that’s hard to do and I’m not trying to work you. This is what your theory requires though. quote: is a four-legged table irreducibly complex since it obviously doesn't work if it's missing a leg? It works if you take all four away, because you can still set stuff on the top. An irreducible system functions in such a way that the parts only have value when together. Although your tabletop is not as high you can still set stuff on it (I’m assuming that was the purpose of your table and your system was the 4 legs and the top.) By way of contrast, an eye without the other components necessary for vision doesn’t do anything and is actually a detriment. The same goes for all parts in an irreducible system. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Sunday, May 13 2007 22:47 Profile #68 quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: At the moment I have the impression that Stillness is simply confused by his own term, 'irreducible complexity'. The term has a strong definition, including the impossibility of development by gradual advantageous stages. Source? quote: 1) exactly what properties of 'irreducible complexity' he means to draw logical conclusions from; 2) what his conclusions from those premises are; and 3) how he thinks those conclusions follow logically from his premises. 1) Such systems require multiple components/systems to be in place before functionality. 2) Irreducibly complex systems/structures in living things are a result of purposeful action. 3) Irreducibly complex systems/structures are only observed to be made by purposeful action. a. Mutations are observed to bring beneficial change, but not to create irreducibly complex systems. (This is true even in bacteria which can go through hundreds of thousands of generations for every single human generation). Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Sunday, May 13 2007 23:46 Profile Homepage #69 quote: Originally written by Stillness: quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: At the moment I have the impression that Stillness is simply confused by his own term, 'irreducible complexity'. The term has a strong definition, including the impossibility of development by gradual advantageous stages. Source? Behe. I'm not going to bother explaining how you've gotten one of the fathers of modern ID wrong, but you did. Your quote isn't everything he has to say on the subject. quote: 1) Such systems require multiple components/systems to be in place before functionality. 2) Irreducibly complex systems/structures in living things are a result of purposeful action. 3) Irreducibly complex systems/structures are only observed to be made by purposeful action. a. Mutations are observed to bring beneficial change, but not to create irreducibly complex systems. (This is true even in bacteria which can go through hundreds of thousands of generations for every single human generation). Are you familiar with formal logic at all? You've just committed egregious question begging. 3 is the same as 2, and neither follow from 1. How about trying again, this time laying out all assumptions, all reasoning that stems from them, and the conclusions you reach? quote: ...photoreceptors... You're moving the goal posts. I've explained how you get from photoreceptors to eyes. Either admit that the problem must lie with photoreceptors or complain now, please. Talking about the evolution of photoreceptive cells is hard because it's ancient. It's also necessarily a detailed problem of molecular biology and biochemistry. I'm not equipped to weigh in on the subject. I will say, though, that it doesn't seem like an insurmountable barrier. Even the most primitive cells must have a way to respond to stimuli. Light sensitivity just means a way to trigger the signal pathway for response based on a light stimulus. All that really takes is one light-sensitive protein. If bacteria can evolve means of metabolizing new sugars, surely they can evolve means of responding to new signals. —Alorael, who should point out that sugars are, in fact, just signals. Metabolizing them means recognizing them when they were previously unrecognizable. [ Sunday, May 13, 2007 23:47: Message edited by: Perejil ] Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Monday, May 14 2007 05:04 Profile #70 What Stillness has really said is this: 1) The particular property of his kind of irreducible complexity upon which he intends to argue further is, that it is only observed now to arise through purposeful action. 2) The conclusion he wishes to draw from this premise is that his kind of irreducible complexity can only have arisen at any time, or over any time period however long, through purposeful action. 3) Stillness has not actually said why he thinks 2) follows from 1), but he seems to be implicitly assuming that nothing can happen on very long time scales that is not observed on short time scales today. Stillness needs this assumption, because without it his 2) does not follow at all from his 1). But this assumption is, of course, tantamount to simply assuming that evolution has not occurred. So the only real role played by irreducible complexity in this argument by Stillness is to throw the spoils to design after evolution has been slain by assumption. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Monday, May 14 2007 06:36 Profile #71 quote: Originally written by Perejil: quote: Originally written by Stillness: quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: At the moment I have the impression that Stillness is simply confused by his own term, 'irreducible complexity'. The term has a strong definition, including the impossibility of development by gradual advantageous stages. Source? Behe. I'm not going to bother explaining how you've gotten one of the fathers of modern ID wrong, but you did. Your quote isn't everything he has to say on the subject. The issue is my definition, not “everything Behe has to say.” quote: Are you familiar with formal logic at all? You've just committed egregious question begging. 3 is the same as 2, and neither follow from 1. How about trying again, this time laying out all assumptions, all reasoning that stems from them, and the conclusions you reach? Maybe you don’t think it follows because you didn’t read well. I know you didn’t because you claim 3 is the same as 2 and it’s not. The first sentence is different and there is a second. The idea behind the second in 3 is that one might conclude that because an organism is seen to have one trait change to make it more fit for an environment it can have 10 traits adapt in a stepwise fashion. The same logic does not follow when a trait requires many other well-fitted traits/structures to be in place before any of them add an advantage. This is not to say it’s not impossible in a naturalistic framework, but how? Simply insisting it’s possible isn’t enough. Better yet show us one that we can verify has been created naturally. I think human vision is throwing you off because of the macroscopic parts. The problem is really the same as the one for the microscopic electric-motor-driven bacterial flagellum which requires many proteins organized in the correct way to be in place before it works. (Man, you should look at these things. They have some of the same parts that we use for motors!) quote: You're moving the goal posts. I've explained how you get from photoreceptors to eyes. Either admit that the problem must lie with photoreceptors or complain now, please. quote: Originally written by Stillness May 11, 2007 11: 19 AM: 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: Originally written by Stillness May 4, 2007 (I pulled this Word file from the other thread): You say all kinds of light-reacting systems are advantageous. But why? Because the creature can translate the presence of light into the need for action and has the ability to act. That takes sophisticated programming and machinery. Without that the light sensitive spot has no value. Without the light-sensitive spot the programming to interpret it has no value. So which comes first? So how am I moving any goalposts? The system in question is vision as a whole. It always has been. I have no clue how you got the idea that it’s photoreceptors or the eye by itself. I certainly never said that. quote: Light sensitivity just means a way to trigger the signal pathway for response based on a light stimulus. All that really takes is one light-sensitive protein. If bacteria can evolve means of metabolizing new sugars, surely they can evolve means of responding to new signals. And you were getting on me about failure in logic. One light sensitive protein doesn’t do anything. How would this “means of responding to new signals” work? Why would the bacteria evolve this protein without the means to use it first? Why would it develop the means to interpret light without the protein to use this means? Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Stillness Lifecrafter Member # 7723	written Monday, May 14 2007 06:37 Profile #72 quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: What Stillness has really said is this: 1) The particular property of his kind of irreducible complexity upon which he intends to argue further is, that it is only observed now to arise through purposeful action. 2) The conclusion he wishes to draw from this premise is that his kind of irreducible complexity can only have arisen at any time, or over any time period however long, through purposeful action. 3) Stillness has not actually said why he thinks 2) follows from 1), but he seems to be implicitly assuming that nothing can happen on very long time scales that is not observed on short time scales today. Stillness needs this assumption, because without it his 2) does not follow at all from his 1). But this assumption is, of course, tantamount to simply assuming that evolution has not occurred. So the only real role played by irreducible complexity in this argument by Stillness is to throw the spoils to design after evolution has been slain by assumption. I love how you guys put words in my mouth. I would have actually placed 2 before 3 in my response, but I followed your questions as you asked them. Switch the positioning and you get my logical development. Your claim of what I said is different. I’ll put mine here in logical order. 1) [Irreducibly complex] systems require multiple components/systems to be in place before functionality. 2) Irreducibly complex systems/structures are only observed to be made by purposeful action. a. Mutations are observed to bring beneficial change, but not to create irreducibly complex systems. (This is true even in bacteria which can go through hundreds of thousands of generations for every single human generation). 3) Irreducibly complex systems/structures in living things are a result of purposeful action. I’m not assuming anything about long time scales. You are. My conclusions are based off of observation. If you claim time changes anything you need to show how. Irreducibly complex systems serve to point to design by way of analogy and to place a hurdle in the way of stepwise advance. If you think unguided nature can jump then explain. Posts: 701 \| Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Student of Trinity Electric Sheep One Member # 3431	written Monday, May 14 2007 07:23 Profile #73 Sorry to put words in your mouth, Stillness, but I'm afraid you need some help in making your own logic clear. Your point 1) is not actually used in any of the rest of your logic, so you should not list it. Your point 2) is what actually serves the logical purpose of being a premise in your argument. In your mind you may think of 1) as a reason why 2) is true, but you have never actually argued from 1) to 2). Nor do you need to; everyone will, I think, agree that 2) is empirically true. So your logic starts from 2) as its premise, which is what I said. Your point a) serves no logical purpose in your argument, either. The proposition that mutations are not observed to produce X is already implied by your 2), that only purposeful action is observed to produce X. Nothing can follow from a) that does not already follow from 2), so you should not list a). Your point 3) does not logically follow from your 2). Saying this is not a subjective judgement on my part; it is a simple fact. Consult any logician you like, and they will all agree. Creationist logicians may agree with you that 3) is true, but they will still tell you that it does not follow from 2) alone. If you do not understand this, please ask about it and I will try to explain further. If you do not simply mean to assume 3), then you must somehow show that 3) follows logically from some premise other than itself. This you have not yet done, so at present your 3) stands as a pure assumption on your part. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 \| Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Monday, May 14 2007 08:34 Profile Homepage #74 quote: Originally written by Stillness: Switch the positioning and you get my logical development. Your claim of what I said is different. Logically speaking, this is untrue. In formal argumentation, order does not matter at all; the distinction between premises, assumptions, and conclusions matters. As long as you plainly state which is which and account for everything that you need to, order doesn't matter at all. quote: I’m not assuming anything about long time scales. You are. My conclusions are based off of observation. Strictly speaking, what you need in order for 3) to follow from 2) is something like this: "Things that are observed to happen only in one way cannot ever have happened in any other way." This is the assumption to which I've been objecting for a couple of pages now. [ Monday, May 14, 2007 08:38: 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