Regulation - Complexity sidebar
Pages
| Author | Topic: Regulation - Complexity sidebar |
|---|---|
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 08:56
Profile
Homepage
A primitive species of bacteria is sensitive to chemicals. That means it has receptors that detect those chemicals' presence and activates some signalling pathway to promote a response. Now the receptor protein mutates so that it has a light-sensitive domain. Maybe it's now no longer a good chemoreceptor. Maybe it's not able to carry out its previous function at all. Whichever is the case, the bacteria are now responsive to light. Once you have localized light sensitivity on a multicellular organism you can have those first proto-retinas, and then the evolutionary chain to eyes is as I already said. Again, where specifically is the problem? —Alorael, who doesn't think he can go back any farther evolutionarily. Some systems are too basic to be understood because nobody knows how or if life worked before they existed. Sense-response mechanisms are one of them. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 10:24
Profile
quote:Your question to me was “exactly what properties of 'irreducible complexity' [do you mean] to draw logical conclusions from.” I assumed you were asking me this to provide a definition. My answer was “Such systems require multiple components/systems to be in place before functionality.” I said this to show what about these systems makes them irreducibly complex, because there still seemed to be confusion as to the definition. If there is finally general acceptance of this simple truth now, we can drop “1” as it is implied. Don't get funny on me for answering your question though, especially when I had to repeatedly restate this simple definition because of you all's wrangling. Where this property comes into play is again analogy – the heart of both our arguments. This is why I said “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.” quote:No need. I agree as well. Let’s say we’re looking for a planet. We see a neighboring star wobble as it would if there were a Jupiter-like planet in orbit. What would we conclude? Here is how the logic looks: 1) We only observe stars to wobble as Star X if a planet is in orbit. 2) Star X has a planet in orbit. Is that what astronomers do? Absolutely! Is that flawed logic. Yes. Let’s say that someone comes along and points this out. He says, “But wait! There could be a man on Star X with an anti-gravity anti-heat suit heavy enough so that coupled with the star's rotational velocity causes wobble. Prove that there’s not and every other possible theory besides your crazy planet theory before you jump to conclusions.” This man would be laughed out of the room. Why? We know there are planets even though we don’t see the one around Star X. If the astronomers were patient, they might say, “please explain why your Star X man is a better explaination when we don’t know of any such things.” Maybe the man would say, “There are men and they make suits.” Would that be logical? This is what I’m saying: We can observe purpose driven action make irreducibly complex systems. We know for a fact that it does, just as we know planets orbit stars and cause wobble. If we see wobble we go with what we know. If we go with what we know in the case of irreducibly complex systems we come to one conclusion – intelligent purpose driven action. Simply stating that there is change and it can make organisms more fit just doesn’t do it anymore than saying men make suits. We need to be shown how something that is not based on observation happens. So for the zillionth time please give a step-by-step explanation of how mutations and natural selection can create irreducibly complex systems. Use analogy if you have to. Behe used the mousetrap as you all probably know. Use that. Or come up with something different. Get frustrated and quit the discussion and then come back. Your choice. But as I said, you’re living in Bizarro world if you expect me to argue against infinite possibilities when you haven't presented one detailed theoretical or analogous explanation or an example. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 11:24
Profile
quote:OK, let's work with this. As we get answers we'll build on our model. 1) How does a protein that's sensitive to chemicals mutate to become sensitive to light? Is there a likely protien capable of such a mutation? 2) How does a light sensitive protein make the bacteria responsive to light? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 11:27
Profile
Homepage
For your argument to make sense, you accept as a premise, "It is most reasonable to conclude, in general, that things that are observed to happen only in one way did not ever happen in any other way." I think you've acknowledged this and are now trying to defend that premise. Do you acknowledge that this statement is vital to your argument and, if shown false, would invalidate your conclusion? -------------------- 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
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 11:46
Profile
quote:No, my argument is what I said it is, not what you would like it to be. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 12:18
Profile
Homepage
Your 1 is a definition that we may not all agree with still, but it doesn't matter. You never refer to it in your logical argument, so it's irrelevant. Your example of astronomy still isn't logical either. Here's one that is: 1. All stars that wobble have orbiting planets. 2. Star X wobbles. 3. Star X has a planet. Step two is critical or your argument makes no sense. More generally, this is a modus ponens argument: 1. If P, then Q 2. P 3. Therefore Q If P is true, Q must be true unless proposition 1 is false. Thus, your crackpot astronomer. We know that stars must wobble if they have planets, but the crackpot asserts that not all wobbles must come from planets. In other words, he's saying that the standard argument is this: 1. All stars with orbiting planets wobble. (This is not the same as the first proposition above!) 2. Star X wobbles. 3. Therefore Star X has a planet But this has a different form: 1. P implies Q 2. Q 3. Therefore P. That's false. So the question is how we know how to formulate the first proposition so it is true. We know how planets cause wobble. We don't know how anti-gravity could be caused. Evolution is not the same. We know how it can, in theory, happen naturally despite long odds. We do not know, and you have admitted that we do not know, how design could take place. We have no evidence of a designer. Intelligent design is, in this case, the man claiming anti-gravity suits. (As an aside, irreducible complexity is not used as a criterion for judging anything in any field except ID-partisan evolutionary biology. It cannot be evidence for design or a designer because it is itself the conclusion of arguments that use design and designers as premises.) As for photoreceptors, I have no answer to question 1. It's not my area of expertise. Any protein can mutate into any other protein; it's a matter of odds. I don't know which proteins are the best candidates. Question 2 is easy, and I already answered it. Start with a protein that takes a stimulus and responds with a signal. Change the stimulus to light, and you still have the signal. Ultimately, though, I think this is irrelevant. The macroscopic eye is a much better example: it's irreducibly complex, yet I explained how it could evolve. The fact that the photoreceptors from which they evolved are also complicated doesn't change that. As I've said, I think everything is irreducibly complex by your definition; you've picked one system, I've explained it, and you have offered no counter. —Alorael, who will take a crack at stating your argument later if nobody else deciphers it. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 12:21
Profile
Stillness, right now I am just trying to figure out what your logic acually is. As far as I can tell, you have an extra premise that gets you from 2) to 3). The closest you get to articulating this premise is to describe a principle that 'we go with what we know'. I am not at all sure what this means, though. Can you not articulate this more explicitly? Under what principle do you conclude, from the fact that the only interdependent structures whose development we have witnessed have been designed by humans, that all interdependent structures must be products of design? It would be also be nice if you stated plainly how important it is to you whether evolving interdependent structures is in principle difficult, as opposed to merely not being directly observed. At the moment you seem to be arguing only from absence of direct observations, and do not seem to be basing anything logically upon this difficulty proposition; but on the other hand you do seem to suggest that the difficulty exists, and perhaps adds weight to your argument. Since you are only defending a notion of irreducible complexity that has to do with large abrupt changes to a system, whereas evolution is about very gradual changes, I do not see how your kind of irreducible complexity poses any difficulty for evolution. So it would be nice if you either explained why you think your IC is hard to evolve, or stopped mentioning this issue of difficulty. If you read my recent posts you'll see that I have been trying to get you to clear this up for some time now. I can perhaps try to help by analyzing the example you provide, of inferring extrasolar planets from stellar wobbles. As you might imagine from remembering my numerous posts on the topic in the previous thread, Bayesian inference from accurate prediction is once again the key here. Newtonian gravity makes precise, quantitative predictions for the motion of a star perturbed by a large orbiting planet. The planet's mass and orbit parameters are used as free fitting parameters, but Keppler's Laws still provide a very enormous constraint upon a priori arbitrary motion. The orbiting planet theory of stellar wobble is inconsistent with anything but elliptical motion with a particular fixed relationship between radius and velocity. The stellar wobbles that we see obey these constraints, and this provides very strong empirical support for the orbiting planet theory. Astronomers base their inference of planets on this quantitative fulfillment of prediction, not on 'flawed logic' or any vague principle of 'going with what we know'. I don't see that your design theory can claim anything similar here, so I don't see how the astronomical reasoning can provide a parallel to yours. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 12:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:No, it isn't what you've said it is, because you still haven't articulated it! quote:Then you need another premise to get from 2) to 3). State it in your own words, then, but state it explicitly, so that we can know what you're thinking and not have to guess. Your attempted analogy is no substitute for a clear statement of what you actually mean. [ Monday, May 14, 2007 20:38: 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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 13:35
Profile
Stillness - I posted this before but it is more relevant now. How the information goes from the eye to the brain. This site has a refutation of Behe's argument that the pathway from the eye to the brain is too complex to have evolved. Basically it shows that in the simplest organisms that have some type of photorecptor system for light detection the method is simple ion transfer chemistry and not a complex protien system. The current complex protien system that we use is a later evolved system, but we can still tranfer information using a more primitive system. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 14:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:Only if he thinks that having a logically valid argument to support his position is important, which he evidently doesn't. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 22:37
Profile
This is indeed a bit dismaying. The point is not at all that we are demanding that Stillness prove his position is true. He can state any premises he wants, so there is no reason he can't produce a valid argument from those premises to whatever conclusions he wants. That's not proof, because we will probably not all agree that those premises are true. But it will clarify greatly what Stillness is really trying to say. Normally in a discussion one does not bother with quite this level of logical pedantry, but it is very helpful in cases where the two sides are having difficulty establishing common language. Stillness's use of the term 'irreducible complexity' has puzzled and frustrated the rest of us, in that his definitions of the term do not seem to us to jibe with the conclusions he draws from it. Laying out a valid logical argument, with conclusions all following from premises, cuts through communication problems and terminological confusion. There is no need to keep wondering about what exactly a given term might mean, when we can see exactly what it has to mean for the argument in which it is used to be valid. And it's an exercise that is worth going through occasionally, for anyone. It is all too easy to lull oneself into confidence in a conclusion, with rhetoric and friendly audiences. Perhaps if popular science writers did this kind of thing more often, instead of writing so many gee-whiz texts for the choir, we would have fewer smart people wasting their talents on pseudoscience. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, May 14 2007 23:55
Profile
1) Irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency. 2) Living things have irreducibly complex systems. 3) Irreducibly complex systems in living things are a result of purposeful agency. If our discussion on logic is going to continue, my request is that you show me yours since I've shown mine. What would be your argument for common descent as the cause of all variety in life? If we'll stop here with the logic, then don't worry about it. I am intrigued by Randomizer's post. I'd like to discuss that as well as Alo's model as these are challenges to the observed. Be patient if you don't here from me much over the next few days. I'm a bit tied up until tomorow night so probably won't post until Wednesday, but can't promise as this week is busy for me. Since Kel is back on board maybe he will list his examples of specified complexity for my edification, though I'm starting to suspect that he doesn't really have any as he is ignoring my repeated requests to back up his statement. *dissapointed graemlin* (Sorry if I haven't been using smilies Kel. I feel, not just inadequate as a communicator if I have to use them, but somehow unmanly. Don't ask me why). Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, May 15 2007 01:38
Profile
This thread is the complexity sidebar, and the appeal to irreducible complexity is your argument, Stillness. If you want to make another thread about the logic of evolution, go ahead. But let's keep this one about your complexity argument. Not keeping focus until a conclusion is reached is what lets this discussion drag on inconclusively. What you have presented now is indeed a valid syllogism, but what it does is to establish trivial points, given a premise which is itself the entire thing that we asked you to explain logically: Why do you think that anything you class as irreducibly complex can only have resulted from purposeful agency? What we have been pressing you to do for several posts now is to break down your current 1) into a multi-step logical argument, or else admit that you are simply assuming that evolution is false. What you have been doing for several posts now looks like really blatant ducking and stalling, in the face of a very simple and basic question, several times repeated. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 15 2007 04:34
Profile
Homepage
quote:Given that yours is so bad — as SoT has pointed out, 1) is the problem, since you're pretty near to assuming what you're trying to prove — you might want to keep working on your argument before saying that it has reached a definitive form, or else you run the risk of being demolished. quote:He has answered this question, you know. His answer is that it has only been observed to happen this way. Of course, the obvious answer has already been given: the fastest way for it happen is this way, but we have every reason to believe that it can happen via evolution, too, given enough time (and here a few decades and a few thousand generations of fruit flies really won't cut it — we need drastic environmental changes and a few thousand years, together with a little bit of luck). We've asked for reasons why, in principle, incremental changes won't work, and he's given a sort of answer to that, too. His objection to incremental changes has been two-fold and rather poor: first, that the parts all need each other right now to function — but, the counter-argument goes, evolution was not so crude as to develop one part and then another, but to develop all of the parts together, at which he has flailed but never really responded — and second, that he has not seen any explanation of how it could happen that meets his satisfaction — which is an argument from ignorance, no more. I'm not sure that he has ever really given a good answer to the question, why can't all of the parts in these structures develop increasing complexity together? The normal model is not to grow one part and then another (first retina, then lens, then optic nerve) but to grow them all together (primitive nerve, then primitive lens, then more advanced lens, then more advanced nerve, something like that — though perhaps not that exact pathway). Why is this in principle problematic? EDIT: Cut out a bit because it's best not to get distracted here. [ Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:30: 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 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, May 15 2007 10:05
Profile
That is the very question that I asked Stillness somewhere around page 2 of the first, more general incarnation of this thread. He never has answered it in any way I've been able to recognize. Since 'we have only observed X to happen this way' has no implications by itself for whether or not X has ever happened otherwise in the past, I am trying to figure out what additional premises Stillness is using to reach his conclusion. As far as I can see, he admired Behe's irreducible complexity argument, which is understandable. He wished to retreat from Behe's indefensibly extreme irreducibility premise, which was wise. So he declared a premise about a much looser kind of irreducible complexity, which was conveniently easy to defend; but it has turned out not to be strong enough to imply his desired conclusion. It seems to me that if Stillness actually had a clear argument to connect his weak premise and his objective, he would immediately have appreciated the questions we were raising, and brought his clear argument forth to answer them, with all the enthusiasm of a mousetrap inventor asked about mice. From the awkward way in which he is instead shifting to question-begging premises, excusing himself from good logic by alleging bad logic in astronomy, and demanding that we formalize our own arguments on other lines instead of looking too closely at his complexity argument, I infer that Stillness does not have as good an argument as he thought he did when he raised the complexity line, and is having trouble improvising a better argument under pressure. Maybe I'm wrong, and he has a good argument, but our language difficulties have prevented him from appreciating what we have been asking, or presenting his answers in a way we can understand. If so I invite him to try again. If I'm right, though, he should simply confess this and give up the complexity line of argument, reserving the right to raise it again in the future if he later thinks he can get it working properly. Losing a battle isn't losing a war. I know lots of true things, for which I also know some failed arguments. These arguments seem strong at first glance, but when you really dig into them, they fall apart. Nevertheless the conclusions they were trying to establish are true, and are supported well by other arguments. There are, for example, very many invalid proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, many of which looked promising at one time. There is also one valid proof, and that is enough. Even if Stillness eventually he finds himself left with no good arguments for design against evolution, this doesn't mean he has to be come an enthusiastic neo-Darwinist. He could perfectly well say, even in that worst case, that he doesn't like NDT and feels in his heart that it must be wrong, even though at the moment he can't muster a good scientific argument against it. I have some similar attitudes to current cosmology, and I know a recent Nobel laureate in physics whose attitude to quantum mechanics is similar as well. [ Tuesday, May 15, 2007 10:15: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 15 2007 10:24
Profile
Homepage
Yeah. There's a pretty big difference between saying, "I believe that God created all life as-is," and saying, "I believe that the evidence shows that God created all life as-is." EDIT: But if we're being realistic here, I don't think that Stillness realizes just how different his latest 1) is from his previous 2). His current 1) is not one upon which we can all agree, and it requires justification in itself. His previous 2) was a premise that was considerably easier to accept (with perhaps some provisos). If he can get from his old 2) to his new 1) without serious problems, he'd be set, but I don't think he can. [ Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:36: 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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Tuesday, May 15 2007 11:09
Profile
Homepage
I'm still not even convinced that intelligence produces irreducible complexity. Well, okay, it can in what I think is the Stillness sense, but not in the mainstream sense. I'd like an example of a human invention that is irreducibly complex and I'd like to take a crack at reducing it to simple components. Those components are also irreducibly complex, of course, but that's another problem. —Alorael, who may just be suffering from temporary ignorance. On the other hand, what human devices have been created from parts that had no previous use or existence? Progress seems to be parts created to fill needs and then new needs filled by existing parts. New needs getting new parts are exceptionally rare. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 06:18
Profile
Kelandon, it was big of you to point out that I had given answers to the questions that SoT claimed I was ducking, even though you made it clear that my answer is sorry in your eyes. I’m really impressed. That’s the kind of good sportsmanship that makes me want to continue discussing with you all. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 06:22
Profile
I was treating this as the replacement to the original regulation thread. I know that there is an actual replacement, but I prefer this. I don’t have the energy to engage in discussion on multiple threads. I think I have been fairly accommodating to requests and don’t see my request for your argument presented in logical form (as you have requested of me and I have given you) to be unreasonable. Show me please, then we can continue with discussions about logic if you like. What is the logical argument for evolution accounting for all the variety in life? Here’s a recap for those whose memory seems to have disappeared with the original thread. Why an intelligent agent is a better explanation for life than common descent by mutations and natural selection: Information 1) Mutations are overwhelmingly neutral or harmful. Even when they are beneficial they are generally deleterious (i.e. antibiotic resistant bacteria, wingless beetles). This is not the increase in information needed to go from “simple” proto-life to people. 2) Some single-celled organisms have the ability to generate beneficial mutations without loss of information. It is a special ability of these organisms (possibly analogous to hypermutation) and not the kind of mutation needed for common descent, as it is an exclusive ability. 3) Other claimed examples of Darwinian evolution while appearing to be addition of information fall short upon closer examination. Some may be actual increases but these are at best extraordinarily rare and not seen in multicellular organisms (i.e. the literally millions of mutations of fruit flies last century). 4) An amazing quality of all life is that it contains language – arbitrary quatranomial code written in every cell. (see paramecium for the same code with a different convention) It requires an “agreement” on the code convention before it is ever used. Such programming is best understood as originating with an intelligent programmer. Patterns/Fossils 5) The testimony of the fossil record is repeatedly the same: types of organisms appear suddenly with no connection to anything that went before them. This is harmonious with the understanding that living things were made by type with the ability to vary within those types. While not necessarily disproving common descent the fossil record certainly is not supportive of it. 6) Life, in the fossil record and now, corresponds to a nested hierarchy. This pattern is consistent with typology, but again not supportive of common descent. It is actually somewhat problematic as common descent requires gradual stepwise change. Lack of distinction and blurring between divisions would be ideal for common descent. 7) Genetic machinery has self-corrective mechanisms to preserve the kind of organism for which it codes. In the case of d. melanogaster mutants normal flies arose from the mutants in a few generations. Cyanobacteria are the same today after supposed tens of trillions of generations over billions of years. There’s no evidence that any organism has the plasticity to account for all the variety in the biosphere. The evidence is in fact the opposite. 8) Discontinuity in distribution of traits in the biosphere (i.e. vivipary, eye designs, hemoglobin) is easily understood from the perspective of a creator that placed these traits wherever it was seen as desirable. Complexity 9) Life has a quality distinguishing it from other natural phenomena – specified complexity. Living things share this quality with things only know to be made from purposeful action. By analogy we can conclude that living things are also made this way. 10) Living things have irreducibly complex structures. Such structures are only observed to be made by purposeful action. They also place a hurdle before conclusion that stepwise increases in complexity by mutations account for all of the ingenious devices seen nature as such change has never been observed (even in bacteria which can experience hundreds of thousands of generations for every single human generation). I’ll stop at 10 – it’s a nice round number. So when you think to yourself, “Stillness just feels in his heart that God did it with no real reasons why” you may refer to this thread. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 06:25
Profile
Alo, You keep saying that eyes are the irreducible system in question. Are you changing the discussion or misunderstanding me? While eyes may be irreducible, I am speaking about vision (we’ve been saying human, but any vertebrate is fine), which of course includes the eye, but involves other important parts as well. You and the others keep asking me what the problem is with evolution of certain systems. The problem is that simply saying it can happen is not enough. If I’m not mistaken, it was you earlier told me that a copy my truck could spontaneously appear fully formed from nothing. By that reasoning anything is certainly possible. Science losses all meaning though if simply asserting that something is possible and telling just-so stories account for proof. This is especially true when another explanation fits the evidence better. Randomizer’s link is more descriptive but if I’m not mistaken suffers from the same lack of explicitness (unfortunately the page is down at the time of my writing this…I still want to discuss it later when it comes back). I have mentioned two irreducibly complex structures – the car and Behe’s mousetrap. There are tons of them though. The problem with you all is that you amazingly still don’t get the definition of irreducible complexity. I’m truly at a loss as to how to make you understand it. You seem to be making some distinction between the way I’m using it and some other usage. That let’s me know you don’t get it. I’ve actually posted the definition from the man who coined the term and a leader in ID studies and you all are still are missing something. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 06:57
Profile
Homepage
 -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 07:04
Profile
:P Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 07:05
Profile
Randomizer’s site is back up. Here is the conclusion: “Behe is wrong, it is quite possible to evolve the visual system in small, selectable steps. The restoration of visual signals in blind mice, and production of light responses in the nerves of worms, all from the simple addition of a single ancestral rhodopsin show how the visual system can evolve.” Placing a part from a supposed ancestral creature into a more complex one and getting some response would be like me placing the battery from my Focus into my F-150 and getting response. I can’t say my pick-up evolved from cars because the batteries are somewhat interchangeable. Also the worm response doesn’t tell us much. I’d have a lot of questions, starting with: Did the response make the worms more fit? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 07:46
Profile
I want to address the T. Rex chicken issue because I think it so well illustrates what I have been saying from the beginning of this discussion. First of all the similarity based off of the tissue is 58% - hardly anything to get excited about. The real issue that reveals the heart of the problem as the evolutionary bias in biology is the view of the age of these bones. Some scientists don’t believe this is T. Rex tissue. Why? It’s 68 million years old! “Preservation of organic material over such a vast period of time should not be possible.” “The accepted viewpoint is that collagen, like other organic molecules, will degrade relatively rapidly, so that after a maximum of about a hundred thousand years nothing will remain.” “I know of no other research group that has been able to extract—let alone sequence—indigenous proteins from fossils older than a million years.” So what we really have here is two vastly differing accounts of the age of this bone. Is this simple obvious fact acknowledged? Absolutely not! We get the same type of evolutionist stories and reasoning that have no basis in reality. “But when conditions for preservation are just right, she said, ‘degradation rates may differ from predictions.’” "That doesn't mean they are wrong. But if they are right, then we all need to rethink how molecules survive in the geological environment." “Schweitzer and her collaborators, including paleontologist John Horner of Montana State University, agree that their discovery should prompt such a rethinking, which could lead to changes in how fieldwork is conducted.” So why is there no mention that the 68 million year age may be wrong? Because you all require humungous amounts of time for your theory, so that alternative is not even a consideration. Instead we have to rethink how we view soft tissue degradation. If I didn't see it all the time it would be incredible. I know that unless this nonsensical circular reasoning is stopped that we’ll soon start seeing any dissent silenced on this issue and eventually presence of soft tissue will start to be seen as harmonious with long ages. And we will have that much more backward thinking to undo once NDT is exposed. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 23 2007 08:20
Profile
Homepage
The problem, Stillness, is that the argument that you are now making is not the argument that you were making before. You keep changing your argument. Trying to pin down what you are saying is like nailing jello to the wall. Before you say that you've been saying points 1-10 since the beginning, note that you didn't say them when asked exactly what your premises were and exactly what your conclusions were from those premises. You presented a fundamentally different argument. You seem to have given up on answering the question as to what your premises and conclusions are, because the 1-10 that you presented does not by any stretch of the imagination give a argument that is sound in its formal logic. Let's not give up on logic, because it would reveal at least what your argument is, which to this point has been obscure. Can you use the premises you've presented, particularly 9) and 10), to present a logically valid argument that produces your subsidiary conclusion 1) above ("Irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency"), making clear what all your premises, assumptions, and conclusions are? -------------------- 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 |