Regulation - Complexity sidebar
Pages
| Author | Topic: Regulation - Complexity sidebar |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 10:50
Profile
It's taken you a long time to understand the definition of irreducible complexity too. I defined it in a bunch of different ways. I quoted from the guy that coined it. You could even go to wikipedia and it would give the exact same definition. You all still don't seem to get it. I don't think it's me not being clear. I said from the beginning that I recognize that things change (evolve) but that that doesn't account for all the variety we see. It's not my fault if you don't get it. I'm not saying you're slow, because it's human. Someone here used the phrase "mental inertia" to descibe the difficulty we all have when absorbing new ideas. This is part of the reason we don’t get very far because I have to define terms a kazillion times and state, then restate things before you get them. The truth is that I said when I first brought it up why irreducible complexity has meaning for this discussion. I repeated it on the first page of this thread (even though it's not an argument in "1, 2, 3" form, or extremely explicit). The real problem is that you don't agree so you're having a hard time grasping it. quote:then on the next page quote:and more on why we don’t see nature make these sorts of systems and they are indicative of planned action quote:and quote:By the way, your reason for not presenting your argument is poor. You say that you don’t have an argument, but then say that you really do. I refuse to discuss more until I see it. I’m not publishing scientific theorems for humanity like Koepler. I’m having a conversation with you. I do what you ask, but you’re not doing the same for me. If you think your position is not strong, say so and we can continue without it. I won’t belittle you. That’s not what I’m about. I’ll address all your questions and try my best to present my position clearly. Be honest and reasonable with me though. I will reciprocate. I actually want to discuss it, because along with the fossil record and the genetic code it's what I feel is one of the stronger parts of my case for an intelligent creator and against evolution-only explanations. I just want to know I'm not wasting my time writing this stuff. Until I see that, maybe Ash would like to wrangle with you over his argument (because for a demonstration argument it's not bad ;) ), but I don’t. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 13:26
Profile
Homepage
quote:Stop there. You're apparently ignoring me, because I have said multiple times that your irreducible complexity is not the same as Behe's. It matches a few quotes taken out of context, but it's not the same concept. Defining it multiple different ways really is exactly what we don't need. For the record, I think we've all got it now (roughly), but you made it as difficult as possible by adopting an existing term but giving it a new meaning. quote:This is absurd. You're not answering the questions we want answered, and Kel has explained exactly why the common descent argument has no bearing on yours. It's been presented piecemeal. We find it compelling; you don't. Fine! Now we'd really like to understand exactly how your hypothesis works regardless of ours. —Alorael, who finds it amusing that after being told for pages and pages that you're dodging arguments that you dodge the argument by claiming that others aren't doing what you want. Maybe this would work better if structured as a real debate. Set a deadline and have both sides submit essays explaining their positions. Then have another deadline for rebuttals. It could keep going forever, but the key there is completeness and coherency in the first step. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 15:52
Profile
I defined it the same using different words and illustrations to make it clearer, Alo. The definition I gave is the definition. Maybe you need to tell us what your definition is, and then we can compare yours and mine to Behe’s. I’ll tell you up front that you’ve already lost that battle because I practically quoted directly from Behe. “A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". (Darwin's Black Box p9)’” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity me from page 1: "An irreducibly complex system has several well matched parts to function such that if any are removed it fails." And I’m not dodging as has been claimed. That to me implies sly avoidance of issues that one finds difficult. One might do that by pointing fingers at someone else or by claiming that a question is irrelevant. I’ve never done that on these two threads, regardless of what you all think. I acknowledge your question. I acknowledge it’s relevant. I’m saying that I’m not willing to discuss anymore with Kel and SoT or anyone until I see some reasonableness. That would be indicated to me by answering my simple question, which Kelandon claims to have an answer to (and actually all of you should if your position is well thought out). Please show your logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems. I’m not saying it has bearing on my argument for irreducible complexity. The answer is relevant to complexity though. And it is absolutely relevant to the larger issue, which is even broader than this Neo-Darwinism v. Creationism debate: How much credence should we give to the word of scientists? That was the initial issue, if anyone here even remembers. The title is “Regulation,” referring to regulation of science. My claim is that scientists are too highly regarded and they have done society a disservice by abusing trust. So now I’m calling on you all after almost 30 pages to respond to my request and show how the so-called “backbone of biology” is resting on solid ground. You all requested something good of me – to present my argument logically. I appreciate it because it’s edifying to logically explore ones beliefs. You’re not satisfied with my first premise and that’s fair. We should explore it. Let’s at the same time explore yours, though. If you’re not willing to do what I am, then I don’t really want to discuss this with you anymore. Either that or admit truthfully that you don’t have solid basis for what you believe. As SoT said, that doesn’t mean your wrong. On of the funniest stories to me is the heliocentric v geocentric debate in which the geocentric guys were such good debaters and orators that the only recourse the heliocentric guys had was to run them off the stage and out of town. I wish I could remember all the details. On second thought they may have been flat-earthers. I’m gonna look for it. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, May 25 2007 23:21
Profile
Homepage
What part of "I'm willing to say that I don't have any reason to believe common descent if that will allow you to answer this very simple question" did you not understand? -------------------- 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 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 26 2007 00:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:That was the initial issue of the original topic. This is not the original topic; this is the sidebar. The sidebar was made as a place for discussing a specific question. If you don't like it, go back to posting in the original topic. quote:I find the fact that you honestly find it plausible that there has ever been a historically significant "flat-earther" movement very telling as regards your knowledge of the history of science. This is the reason it's so difficult to hold a conversation with you: you've quite obviously spent your entire life learning about religion instead of about the real world, to the extent that gaining the knowledge you'd need to even understand many of our arguments would require years of education. I may as well hold a debate with my pet cat for all the good it'd do. [ Saturday, May 26, 2007 00:08: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Saturday, May 26 2007 00:43
Profile
For me this has gone on long enough. Lots more could be said about fossil evidence and all the questions Stillness wants to talk about, but there is no point in discussing it with Stillness. Meaningful discussion of anything requires being able, at some point, to fill in logical steps. We have pressed Stillness point-blank to do so for his own pet argument, for pages and pages. Ash flashed him a clear example of the kind of thing he was being asked for. Stillness just ducks and stalls, ducks and stalls, ducks and stalls. Either he's being dishonest, and is deliberately and cynically avoiding a point that gives him trouble; or he is laboring under the very unfortunate mental handicap of really not getting what reason is all about. Lack of education can be overcome. The fact that he really doesn't seem to understand what reason is, that's too big an obstacle for me. His key argument about complexity is like a sentence that's missing the verb, and he doesn't seem to know what he's missing, after having it pointed out again and again and again. He seems to think we're all just using some annoying debating tactic against him, or are all very dim. His arguments on any of the other interesting points of this thread are likely to be similar. And his appreciation of any of our arguments will be just as atrocious. I give up. Thanks to everyone who has played along in my experiment on focus. I've found it interesting. It was successful in one thing at least, in that it exposed Stillness's basic logic deficit. While it is always tempting to suspect one's opponent of such a thing, a discussion that ranges over many points makes it hard to be sure. I don't mean to declare the debate over, just that I am leaving it. I feel I owe Thuryl a beer. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 26 2007 00:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:I've spent most of the last two threads poorly resisting my natural urge to be a jerk to people who disagree with me, even though that same urge was my primary motivation to post at all. I've done little to make this debate more productive, but then I didn't honestly expect it to produce anything in the first place. You don't owe me anything, and I'm pleasantly surprised that you're not seriously annoyed at me by now. :P [ Saturday, May 26, 2007 00:58: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Saturday, May 26 2007 06:10
Profile
Homepage
Well, Stillness has acknowledged that there is a problem with his argument. He's just decided not to address it until we've met some arbitrary condition of his devising, which, I'm starting to realize, he has done several times in this discussion. That's why this discussion has been so fruitless. If he had figured out something that the rest of us don't know, if he'd really stumbled on scientific truth that was well-grounded in facts and evidence, he'd be eager to answer all our questions about it to show how neat and interesting and true it is. (That's what scientists are like when they discover something. They tell everyone and his dog.) His deliberate evasiveness ("I'm not going to answer that question until you answer mine! Neener neener!") is very strong evidence that he hasn't figured out anything at all. [ Saturday, May 26, 2007 06:18: 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
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 06:58
Profile
In the last thread I asked a question something along the lines of, “What would convince you that an intelligent agent is the cause for the complexity in living things?” I was pleasantly surprised when Kelandon and Student of Trinity actually responded to me very frankly. They basically said that it would be impossible to convince them of that. This is why I was pushing hard for a response to the request for them to show their logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems. I was hoping to help them see that their logic includes a priori reasoning. It’s unfortunate if they are really so unreasonable as to even consider my request valid when it deals with complexity and that is the very thing we're talking about. I doubt that this is the case, at least for SoT because by his own words in his last post Meaningful discussion of anything requires being able, at some point, to fill in logical steps. I agree. That's why I immediately begin to answer questions about my logical basis when they first requested it of me. I assume that he wasn't excluding himself when made that statement. A better guess is that they did attempt to piece together a logical argument and it began to look something like this: 1) Although not seen, it is theoretically possible for natural selection to make increases in complexity. 2) We can’t allow an intelligent agent to be the cause. 3) Natural selection is responsible for all complexity. Of course it may have had more fluff and may have been less obviously bad – maybe including similarities in living things – but flawed nonetheless. I would suppose that recognizing this they refused to present anything and pride prevented admitting lack of logical basis. Kelandon: “ If he had figured out something that the rest of us don't know, if he'd really stumbled on scientific truth that was well-grounded in facts and evidence, he'd be eager to answer all our questions about it to show how neat and interesting and true it is… His deliberate evasiveness … is very strong evidence that he hasn't figured out anything at all.” What if we apply his own statement to his failure to answer my request to show me "how neat and interesting and true" his logic is? Unfortunate indeed. But it is a satisfying revelation. Hopefully they can see it even if they don't acknowledge it and attack me for pointing it out. In my case, the reason for me holding out was as I said, a desire to get them to reason on their position for their own benefit. As it appears that’s not likely this will occur, so for the sake of any lurkers or anyone stumbling upon this thread I present the argument I've been withholding that shows how the premises that I’ve already given support my conclusion logically. 1) Living organisms have irreducibly complex structures and systems. 2) Irreducibly complex structures and systems are only observed to be made by a purposeful agency. 3) The alternative to purposeful agency is that which occurs in populations of living organisms gradually by means of recombination, mutations, and natural selection. 4) Organisms observed over millions of generations (e.g. bacteria) do not develop irreducibly complex systems. 5) The fossil record does not indicate introduction of irreducibly complex structures by gradual change. 6) Natural processes have not made the irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms. 7) Irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms are a result of purposeful agency. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 08:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:You're fortunate that the topic no longer exists, or else you'd be exposed for the liar that you are. I said nothing even resembling that. I don't think SoT did, either. Stareye answered your question (which was not actually what you've written here), but his answer was not what you've said. I told you why I didn't want to bring up the logic for evolution. You've simply ignored me, though, and now you're making things up because you refuse to believe the real reasons. quote:You're still missing things! 4) and 5) as stated do not lead to 6). In order to get from 4) and 5), as stated, to 6), you need 5.5) If millions of generations of bacteria don't produce irreducibly complex systems and if the fossil record does not indicate gradual development of irreducibly complex structures, then natural processes did not make the irreducibly complex structures. I take issue with 5), because it is misleading, but I take much more issue with your assumption, 5.5), because it simply assumes the point that SoT has been asking about. Why on earth should 5.5) be true, or more generally, why on earth should 4) and 5) lead to 6)? [ Tuesday, May 29, 2007 08:20: 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
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 08:48
Profile
I'm not lying even if I'm wrong, in which case I apologize. Two people did in fact answer me though, and I'm pretty sure it was you and SoT. The answers were along the lines of what I said. I think it's another case of amnesia. Did you recently fall and hit your head? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 08:51
Profile
Homepage
It's astonishing how there's really only one vital issue, and you refuse to address it. You'll talk about anything except that one thing. Did you recently develop a blind spot? -------------------- 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 Tuesday, May 29 2007 09:23
Profile
I am near-sighted. Your claim that I'm not addressing issues is old, weak, and now exposed for what it is using your own words. I think my logic is clear enough for anyone who wants to see. My offer still stands if you wish to discuss it. Admit to not having strong basis or present your argument (of course with your superior vulcan-like logic) as I have. I'd be shocked if you are capable of doing either, and until you or someone else does I'm done with this discussion. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 09:37
Profile
Homepage
quote: -------------------- 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 Tuesday, May 29 2007 10:07
Profile
quote:Is this a misquote or is it accurate? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 10:14
Profile
Homepage
If that's what you need me to say in order to be able to talk about this without dodging anything, consider it said. -------------------- 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 |
|
Board Administrator
Member # 1
|
written Tuesday, May 29 2007 11:46
Profile
Homepage
I suppose there exists a forum somewhere where people can argue about whether evolution is the best theory we have for the origin of life. That forum can also be used to discuss whether people have actually walked on the moon, whether quantum mechanics is true or not, whether we can believe the thermometers that say the earth is getting warmer, and whether we really can believe it's not butter. That forum is not here. Enough. - Jeff Vogel [ Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:47: Message edited by: Spidweb ] -------------------- Official Board Admin spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com Posts: 960 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |