How does Complexity demonstrate Design

quote:

---

MrHambre writes: And it could just be that people are seeing what they want to see. Usually, when someone talks about seeing the 'handiwork of an intelligent designer,' we notice that they're only looking at the things that confirm their claim.

​

DarkStar responds: This is very true. The exact same thing can be said of those who see only random chance and/or natural processes at work. They see what they want to see.

---

But randomness can be measured. It is not an interpretation of the data, but rather what the data tells us. Ever heard of a normal bell curve? This is exactly how non-random events are detected, but their non-adherence to a bell curve. You might also want to read up on Hardy-Weinberg equilibriums. They show how natural selection causes non-random distribution of alleles in response to natural selection. That is, how beneficial mutations are detected by their non-uniform distribution within a population. Scientsts are not looking for randomness, they measure it. Can you say the same thing for design by an intelligent designer?

quote:

---

One can hypothesize what the earth may look like, but one can never state matter-of-factly exactly what the earth must look like.
  —DarkStar

---

This is exactly what the ID and AP theorists do. They claim that life MUST be designed. They claim that the Earth MUST have certain characteristics to house humans. They state matter-of-factly that natural artifacts that we see around us must have certain characteristics, be they products of design or designed to benefit/intrigue mankind.

quote:

---

Define for me, if you would, your understanding of natural selection, its absolutistic function, and how the absense of same would affect any environmental entity
  —Darkstar

---

Natural selection is caused by limited resources. Whenever there are limited resources (ie food), those organisms that are able to get the most of the resource will tend to have more offspring. If the ability to better take advantage of those limited resources is a heritable trait, then subsequent generations will also have this advantage. Over time, those variants will become a majority within the population.Will every beneficial trait spread through the population? Nope. Will every bad trait be breed out of the population? Nope.
However, natural selection does cause these things, but not in an absolute way. Just like any process, there are exceptions but the overall trend is very apparent.

quote:

---

I have to admit to being slightly embarrassed whenever I point out the irony that evidently eluded Behe: no intelligent designer whatsoever would design the sort of circuitous, redundantly complex structure to perform a simple task the way Goldberg's designs do.

---

I made the same point in another discussion as well. What Behe seems to ignore is that intelligent designs are SIMPLE and EFFECIENT. Biological systems that show too much complexity argue against intelligent design. Could the blood clotting cascade be simplified to two or three proteins? Probably. Could DNA be compressed into a more effecient design, requiring less energy to create and less complexity? Probably.And also, complexity is also created by random events. Take fractal patterns for example, or the shape of a snow flake. Look at the distribution of trees on the side of a mountain. It looks quite complex, but each tree wasn't planted by a designer. I know I am preaching to the choir, but just felt to need to tack on a few points.

quote:

---

There are also natural rock formations that look complex to the point of appearing life-like. Is this type of complexity is mistaken for design as well?

---

It can be if the IDist's theories are taken to their extreme. What is the chance that the layers of sedimentary rock found in the Grand Canyon would be in that exact order, that exact thickness, and with those precise fossils? I would think that the odds would be quite high. Richard Dawkins in his book "Climbing Mt. Improbable" tackles this difference too, the difference between what he calls designs and "designoids" (I only read about 20 pages of the book, so don't quiz me on it). There are coconuts, for example, that resemble female genitalia (coco-de-mer's): Now, are the coco-de-mer's designed to look like female genitalia, or is it simply the product of the human imagination looking for designs similar to those found within the human world? Do we see design because we want to see design, or are we actually see design? The coco-de-mer's seem to argue against the "I see design, therefore there is a designer" philosophy. Is the coco-de-mer complex? Yeah. Does it looked designed? A sculpter would be envious. Did a sculptor make every coco-de-mer? Nope, it is due to natural mechanisms, the natural growth of the coconut. Is the Face on Mars done by ET's? According to IDer's, yes since sculptures of faces are made by intelligences. Is complexity only due to an intelligence? Of course not, there are natural mechanisms that produce complexity in biological systems through chemistry, physics, and the mechanisms of evolution.

quote:

---

Such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes.

---

Even Behe admits that indirect evolutionary pathways and multiple mutations that are not initially put under selective pressure can ultimately create irreducible complexity. Of course, he hand waves away these pathways by claiming that they are improbable without showing how to arrive at that conclusion, or even worse using faulty logic in order to ingore possible falsifications. The argument for IC rests on Behe's personal incredulity and nothing else.

quote:

---

This is my problem with Irreducible Complexity's curious double-life: the IDC folks are allowed to use an existing system's attributes to make blanket statements about how it could not have originated, but the rest of us aren't allowed to use similar existing systems to speculate on possible developmental pathways.

---

Agree with you completely. In a separate thread I used the development of the middle ear ossicles in fossil mammals as an example of building IC systems step by step. Not only that, but it required the changing of another IC systems, the reptillian lower jaw. What I was told by ID proponents is that the system is to "gross" to shed light on micro-scale cellular systems. However, a pathway is a pathway and I failed to see how cellular systems could not follow the same pathways and gross morphology. I have yet to understand this equivocation, especially since Behe often uses larger objects (eg mousetrap, eye) to illustrate his points.My other objection is the burden of proof that IDer's only seem to require of evolutionists. Behe claims that such systems as the BacFlag could only have come about in "one fell swoop", or in very few steps. He then requires evolutionists to show a step by step progression of how the system could have come about, and he wants the real pathways, not proposed or possible pathways. However, when asked for evidence of the "one fell swoop" leading to the BacFlag he relies on the inference from design and feels it isn't necessary to show actual evidence of this saltation-like mechanism.ID through IC is full of hypocrisy. It is not that evolution is limited to creating simple structures. Instead, it seems that evolution is limited by Behe's imagination and uneven use of required evidence.

quote:

---

but for me, no matter how convinced I may become of evolution actually happening, there would always remain a percentage of doubt, even if it was only a minute percentage, because nothing has been proven to the point of becoming an absolute.

---

Bingo!!! Your first steps in becoming a true scientist. Nothing is ever truly accepted as an absolute within science. The question is in how you try to disprove the current paradigm. Do you use miracles to prove physical realities wrong? Or do you let reality prove your point for you by using objective, empirical evidence? I would shoot for the latter.

quote:

---

Hypothetical creationist: Continued observation of a specific species, hypothesizing that the species will reproduce itself but will not evolve into a different form of life. Microevolutionary changes may occur, and even reverse themselves again, but macroevolution will not happen.

---

But yet the observations within the fossil record show large changes in morphology over time. By limiting your observations to a limited time (say last 100 years) you are not going to see the major changes that you are looking for, which is strange since many creationists rely on super-evolution to explain species diversity given a crowded ark. 10 million terrestrial species are kind of tough to fit on an ark afterall.How about this.Hypothetical creationist: I believe that skyscrapers are built by God. Sure, humans can make small changes to the building, but God does the majority of the building. Observation: I stood by a construction site for 10 minutes and they weren't able to build even a fraction of one floor. Therefore, God must have built all skyscrapers across the world.You are demanding evidence that even evolutionists don't expect to observe over 10 lifetimes. I might as well claim that there isn't a God because he hasn't appeared in the last 30 seconds.So what are we left with. We are left with two things, fossils and DNA. According to the theory of evolution, mutations build up over time. Also, the more time that passes since a speciation event the more time there is for mutations to build up. Within the fossil record we can approximate when a speciation event happened, and therefore evolutionary theory should be able to predict which organisms should have similar DNA and which should have dissimilar DNA. Guess what? It works. The predictions born out of the fossil record, an observation independent of DNA, is able to predict comparisons in DNA between living organisms. If evolution was wrong, that is common ancestory and mutation over time are incorrect, then this prediction should not have been born out. Sorry pal, observation and evidence support macroevolution over extended periods of time, spans of time much longer than humans have been observing the changing morphology of living organisms.

quote:

---

Creation of life - first one is not atom, first one is not bacteria, first one is not a cell... first one is and always will be program -> information. Understand?? Information is at the beginning of universe, but information is at the beginning of life as well.

---

If information was there at the beginning of the universe, then life is possible through the reconstruction of that information. So, once the universe is in place, then life is possible through natural means. Since evolution nor abiogenesis deals with the Big Bang, then evolution and abiogenesis need not explain where the already existant information came from. Understand??Let's shift the focus. Do you accept the laws of gravity (eg inverse square law)?Can anyone explain where gravity came from?If not, then why do you explain your acceptance of the laws of gravity? The laws of gravity require information, do they not? Unless you can explain where that information came from, then you should not accept that gravity exists.

quote:

---

So your argument is Evolution is science-based -> Then show me evidence FOR your premise, mark. I'll be happy to read it

---

Are you denying that evolution is based on measurable, objective evidence?Let's move to an analogy. Let's pretend that you are going to build a car. Now, do you have to know where the iron came from in order to build the car? Or, does the origination of the iron not matter, only the process of making the car? Why does it matter where the information came from? All that matters is that the informatin, in the form of atomic laws, was there to begin with. Everything after is the process of abiogenesis and evolution.

quote:

---

I think you have already read mentioned replies and now you know you have a problem

---

No I don't. Since evolution and abiogenesis work equally whether the initial information was created or accidental it is not a problem.

quote:

---

Yes, I accept the laws of gravity. And as already prooved many many times... the only explanation how they were created is that Somebody (existing intelligence) had to say they will be as they are. I think it's clear for you now.

---

No, you haven't proven anything, you have only asserted that information requires an intelligent creator. You have yet to supply any evidence that supports your view.

quote:

---

OK, read answers in replies mentioned at the top of this message.

---

No, I want an answer here. You don't need to know where the iron comes from to build a car. For the same reason, evolution nor abiogenesis need to explain where the first information came from. Also, just like gravity, these areas can be studied without ever knowing where matter or the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of gravity came from. Instead, evolution and abiogenesis are an explanation of natural forces that we can test today.

quote:

---

Yes sure, creation of DNA is surely (must be) a part of evolution itself.

---

No, the REPLICATION of DNA is part of evolution. How the first DNA came about is not a part of evolution. Once you have an imperfect replicating system and differential reproductive success, then you have evolution.

quote:

---

So if my proof isn't a proof for you LETS PLAY ! ....you can start to explain how the information arised - eg DNA code... go on!

---

A bacteria acquires an enzyme that is able to digest nylong through the process of random mutation: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htman entire population of flavobacterium were then made up of this one mutant since it is able to take advantage of an environment filled with nylon derivatives at a nylong plant. Therefore, we see one beneficial mutation that is an accident that then becomes part of an entire population through the effects of selection. Hence, evolution is able to increase information (new enzyme) in a population through accidents (random mutation). The environment was able to give the mutation meaning in the absence of an intelligent designer.

quote:

---

I could answer you quite easily but I'm talking about sponteaneous generation, not about 'evolution' of bacteria. Is it a proof against spontaneous generation or not?

---

We are talking about:1. generation of information within the genome through mutation and natural selection (nylon bug).2. the fallacy of comparing spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. Pasteur's experiment falsified spontaneous generation but it didn't falsify abiogenesis. Until this is understood your posts are nothing but demagogy.

quote:

---

PS: What's the reason you don't what to prove a creation of the initial information anymore (you tried hard before)? Let me guess what....

---

I already proved it. The Casimir effect proves spontaneous generation of information through quantum fluctuations. All information found in nature is found at the atomic level. The first living system was a result of the information stored in the spontaneously generated matter from a quantum fluctuation. QED