Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreduceable Complexity
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 16 of 94 (14378)
07-29-2002 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 4:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that.
Also:
The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.

TB,
Please,
"How can you tell naturally occurring objects from supernaturally designed ones? If you can't tell the difference then you have no evidence of design!"
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 4:12 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:35 PM mark24 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 94 (14384)
07-29-2002 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 4:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that.
That's a lot of certainty for someone with no evidence. Mark is right, TB. If you cannot distinguish designed from naturally occurring, IC is sunk. So far, you haven't even attempted such a thing.
Then we'll move right along to the other tenants you cannot defend....
quote:
The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.
Behe, mighty slayer of straw men, so very desperately needs a clue.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 4:12 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 18 of 94 (14386)
07-29-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 4:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that.
Also:
The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.

What if you reduce the mass of the hammer, and a compensatory
elastic material to pull the reduced weight down so that we
have similar momentum.
Then increase the 'pull' further by coiling the elastic material
and reduce the hammer weight further.
Is that an incremental change ... if it is does that make a
mousetrap not irreducibly complex ? Or do we just then
say that a hammer on a stick is irreducibly complex ?
It seems that what IC is basically saying is::
'I cannot imagine an incremental process that can lead to
this result.'
That's an argument from incredulity, surley ?
To validate it we would have to imagine every possible way that
something could hace come into being, and if we were certain that
we had expended ALL possibilities then perhaps we are left
with design.
So we come down to 'have we expended all possible incremental
development scenarios or not ?'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 4:12 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 94 (14426)
07-29-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mark24
07-29-2002 6:58 AM


Mark et al
IC suggests non-natural, hence design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 07-29-2002 6:58 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by John, posted 07-29-2002 9:41 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 22 by edge, posted 07-29-2002 9:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 36 by Peter, posted 07-31-2002 11:08 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 94 (14429)
07-29-2002 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 9:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark et al
IC suggests non-natural, hence design.

ummmm..... this is not an answer. This is not evidence. It isn't even an argument, just a definition. I don't think anyone will argue about the definition, but is it an accurate description of the universe? Where is the IC? And how would we know it if we found it?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:43 PM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 94 (14430)
07-29-2002 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by John
07-29-2002 9:41 PM


When we see systems which require a minimum number of components that is IC and that is evidence of design.
It's not proof, there is a miniscule possibility a future explanation ala Kaufmann or bird wings from prey catching will explain it but in the balance IC suggests design.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by John, posted 07-29-2002 9:41 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 07-29-2002 9:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 94 (14431)
07-29-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 9:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
IC suggests non-natural, hence design.
Ok. Then tell us who the designer is and after that, tell us who designed the designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:46 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 94 (14432)
07-29-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by edge
07-29-2002 9:44 PM


^
I'm quite happy to say that the data doens't take us much further unless my arguemtns of the trinity in light (red/green/blue), life (DNA/RNA/proteins), the solar system (sun,moon,stars) and high energy physics (three generations of leptons/quarks) appeals to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 07-29-2002 9:44 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by edge, posted 07-29-2002 9:57 PM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 30 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 4:31 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 94 (14436)
07-29-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 9:46 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm quite happy to say that the data doens't take us much further unless my arguemtns of the trinity in light (red/green/blue), life (DNA/RNA/proteins), the solar system (sun,moon,stars) and high energy physics (three generations of leptons/quarks) appeals to you.[/B][/QUOTE]
Mmm, yes, that clarifies things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:46 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 94 (14437)
07-29-2002 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 9:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
When we see systems which require a minimum number of components that is IC and that is evidence of design.
How do we know that a system requires a minimum number of components? And then, how do we know that the existing system isn't a modification of another system which performed a different task? Creationists seem to ignore that systems can change function-- that lungs can serve as air bladders, that feet can serve as flippers.....
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:43 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 10:48 PM John has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 94 (14445)
07-29-2002 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
07-29-2002 9:59 PM


^ At the moelcular level it is harder to make up such fairy stories. That is why Behe et al think the case is so strong - not even the fairy stories exist there - let alone the evidence for non-IC or alternative use!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 07-29-2002 9:59 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John, posted 07-29-2002 10:56 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 94 (14447)
07-29-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 10:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ At the moelcular level it is harder to make up such fairy stories. That is why Behe et al think the case is so strong - not even the fairy stories exist there - let alone the evidence for non-IC or alternative use!
Molecules cannot have alternative uses?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 10:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 11:16 PM John has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 94 (14452)
07-29-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by John
07-29-2002 10:56 PM


Of course they can but the stories sound so ridiculous that the've hardly been recorded yet. You show me the paper that tells us step by step how anyparticular biochemical system could have evolved. These papers do not exist. No-one is even trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by John, posted 07-29-2002 10:56 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 07-30-2002 4:26 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 07-30-2002 4:51 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 29 of 94 (14476)
07-30-2002 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 11:16 PM


So that means that they cannot exist if someone investigated
it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 11:16 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 30 of 94 (14477)
07-30-2002 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 9:46 PM


I think the trinity in the solar system is pushing it a little,
since there are planets with more than one moon, and there are
loads of stars ... and they aren't the ONLY bodies in the
solar system (comets pass through and there's this big
asteroid belt thingy).
The DNA/RNA/Proteins is a little oversimplified too isn't it?
I guess we could see three's in pretty much anything, after all
isn't 3 (along 7 and I think 11) common 'mystic' numbers
across most mythological writings ... maybe something to do with
them being prime numbers ... or craps in dice

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 9:46 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-31-2002 10:35 PM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024