|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Is complexity an argument against design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
miosim Member (Idle past 5698 days) Posts: 57 From: NH, USA Joined: |
The Nature article is not kind to the hypothesis of irreducible complexity, as it shows how organisms can develop "irreducibly complex" features through a multi-step process.
As I pointed in my previous post, The Nature article didn’t show how "irreducibly complex" features are developed. Authors even didn’t mention “Irreducible complexity” (try to search the article’s content for word “Irreducible”). This article avoids discussing not Irreducible Complexity only, but any analysis of complexity at all. The authors, who pretende to explain the emergence of complexity, avoid defining, which of the dozens different and often mutually exclusive definitions of complexity authors have in mind. This is very unusual, especially for scientists from Department of Computer Science and Department of Philosophy where scientific concept of Complexity is the “bread and butter. However in Discovery magazine (new link)No webpage found at provided URL: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/cover/article_view?searchterm=Avida&b_start:int=0the authors, don’t expecting much scrutiny claims that “ . What we show is that there are irreducibly complex things and they can evolve, says Adami“. I believe that all, or almost all, of Behe's examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex and that his hypothesis is now being disregarded by all but creationists.
I would agree that Behe’s examples aren’t exactl science, but it would not be difficult to translate it to the more vigorous scientific language, but sooner or later it happens and than Science will accept it as legitemal scientific argument. I don’t why it could be a problem. At least ID supporters wouldn’t accuse and ridicule Science in ignorance. Now it will be ID turn to explain this phenomenon using vigorous scientific method. Good lock to them.I think that Irreducible Complexity phenomenon is nothing to do with God, but with our fundamentally incomplete knowledge about Nature. And honest scientific contest with ID scientists (some of them, in my opinion, are pretty bright) would accelerate solving this puzzle. You probably still disagree with my views and I probably couldn’t add much more to this discussion. Regards, Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The relevant section from the Discover article is as follows:
When the Avida team published their first results on the evolution of complexity in 2003, they were inundated with e-mails from creationists. Their work hit a nerve in the antievolution movement and hit it hard. A popular claim of creationists is that life shows signs of intelligent design, especially in its complexity. They argue that complex things could have never evolved, because they don’t work unless all their parts are in place. But as Adami points out, if creationists were right, then Avida wouldn’t be able to produce complex digital organisms. A digital organism may use 19 or more simple routines in order to carry out the equals operation. If you delete any of the routines, it can’t do the job. “What we show is that there are irreducibly complex things and they can evolve,” says Adami. This does not seen to offer much encouragement to the IC hypothesis. In fact, I see this as just one more instance in which it is falsified. So far, pretty much all of the claims that a particular features is irreducible complex have been falsified by someone showing how the constituent parts could have evolved. This mathematical model does the same thing. IC is one of the primary legs upon which ID has attempted to stand. So far, there is no reason to think that either IC or ID have been supported by the scientific testing of their ideas. By the way, this does not necessarily make either ID or IC scientific; so far it just makes them wrong. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
miosim Member (Idle past 5698 days) Posts: 57 From: NH, USA Joined: |
When you read articles in Discovery and Nature you trust their content, but I have reason to believe that they are deceiving and therefore I read these articles in between lines. The authors can't claim that irreducibly complex things evolve, because “ . experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved when simpler functions were not rewarded” - but this is exactly what predicted per Irreducible Complexity argument. Irreducible Complexity means that complex system can’t evolve in a single jump from simplicity (because of extreme improbability), but gradually only. However science didn't explain yet how the gradual changes were rewarded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Re: Statistical analyses falsified When you read articles in Discovery and Nature you trust their content, but I have reason to believe that they are deceiving and therefore I read these articles in between lines. The authors can't claim that irreducibly complex things evolve, because “ . experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved when simpler functions were not rewarded” - but this is exactly what predicted per Irreducible Complexity argument. Irreducible Complexity means that complex system can’t evolve in a single jump from simplicity (because of extreme improbability), but gradually only. However science didn't explain yet how the gradual changes were rewarded. OK, you stick to creation "science" and believe what you want. I'll stick with real science that follows the evidence. To me the evidence is pretty clear. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2718 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, miosim.
miosim writes: The authors can't claim that irreducibly complex things evolve, because “ . experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved when simpler functions were not rewarded” - but this is exactly what predicted per Irreducible Complexity argument. Actually, this is not what is predicted by IC. When the author says, "simpler functions were not rewarded," that is the equivalent of, "simpler functions were not favored by natural selection." So, this example shows that natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex systems. This is a clear and direct refutation of irreducible Complexity.
miosim writes: Irreducible Complexity means that complex system can’t evolve in a single jump from simplicity (because of extreme improbability), but gradually only. You've got this exactly backwards: IC claims that a system could not evolve one step at a time, because all parts had to be in place at once in order for it to function. If you don't believe me, here is CreationWiki on the subject. But, since the probability of all parts simultaneously "popping" into existence by natural processes is astronomically small, Behe simply dismisses it. But, as already stated, the author's example shows how such systems can evolve one step at a time, even though it needs all the parts together to perform the function.
miosim writes: However science didn't explain yet how the gradual changes were rewarded. Yes, they did: the reward in biological systems is survival and reproduction. And, science has been saying that since 1859. Edited by Bluejay, : I made a rather important mistake in my very first paragraph. -Bluejay Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
miosim writes: However science didn't explain yet how the gradual changes were rewarded. It's important to remember that basing I.D. arguments on what science hasn't yet explained at any particular time can never be anything more than an intelligent designer/god of the gaps argument. No-one knew what the sun really was in the nineteenth century, so it was common for even scientists to attribute its apparent magic to God, but with twentieth century advances, God's help was no longer required in that area. Also it's not true that science at this point in time cannot explain some apparently "irreducibly complex" features in biology by gradual changes. Some have been well explained, and other "gaps" that people like Behe hold such high hopes for are fast closing. Like this one for example. Here's a biologist having fun with the general idea. Edited by bluegenes, : technical correction!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
miosim Member (Idle past 5698 days) Posts: 57 From: NH, USA Joined: |
Bluejay writes: Actually, this is not what is predicted by IC. When the author says, "simpler functions were not rewarded," that is the equivalent of, "simpler functions were not favored by natural selection . That's right, and experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved.Than you continue: Bluejay writes: So, this example shows that natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex systems. This is a clear and direct refutation of irreducible Complexity. Is it? I thought that this example shows, that if a simpler function (intermediate forms) isn’t recognized by environment, as adaptive, a complex system never evolve. I don’t understand your conlusion about “clear and direct refutation of irreducible Complexity”.
miosim writes:
Irreducible Complexity means that complex system can’t evolve in a single jump from simplicity (because of extreme improbability), but gradually only.Bluejay writes: You've got this exactly backwards: IC claims that a system could not evolve one step at a time, because all parts had to be in place at once in order for it to function. If you don't believe me, here is CreationWiki on the subject. But, since the probability of all parts simultaneously "popping" into existence by natural processes is astronomically small, Behe simply dismisses it. . My statement is about what IC means. It means, that Creationists will be refuted if science can demonstrate that environmental conditions could favor even smallest changes (so the probability of them would be realistic) and this way support small gradual changes, like Dawking attempted to demonstrate, or if science can demonstrate that complex function can indeed evolve in a jump as Avida program intended to shows. But let me remind you, that Dawking argument is just a scientific speculation and “Avida” article in Nature didn’t openly addtess IC argument (not even mentioned it). Therefore IC argument isn’t refuted yet.
Bluegene writes: It's important to remember that basing I.D. arguments on what science hasn't yet explained at any particular time can never be anything more than an intelligent designer/god of the gaps argument. Sure.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024