Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreduceable Complexity
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 94 (28385)
01-03-2003 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter
07-25-2002 8:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ?
Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined
a step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other
then that something-or-other must have been designed.
A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function.
That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet
less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring
trap design.
So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show an
evolution of thinking behind the eventual object.
And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was
designed.
So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed
IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ?
If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.

Is the credulity of darwinists any better?
Richard Dawkins, in is book "A River out of Eden" wrote this:
"There will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been. These will be challenges to our ingenuity, but if our ingenuity fails, so much the worse for our ingenuity."
If we cant see it, it doesn't matter because it's still there. Very scientific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Peter, posted 07-25-2002 8:05 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 01-04-2003 1:00 AM Mozambu has replied
 Message 70 by nator, posted 01-05-2003 10:46 AM Mozambu has replied
 Message 71 by Peter, posted 01-06-2003 3:30 AM Mozambu has not replied

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 94 (28414)
01-04-2003 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Brad McFall
01-04-2003 1:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
The only reason that "intermediates" would be hard to "imagine" is only becasue science has taken on the attitute that it must be 'partial differential equations" that model the space etc. Yes if one is a biologist and MUST think this way that is hard. Wolfram had to search billions of images to find his new PDEs but funny, I think me sees a lizard and snake in them such that I can now fancy many herp intermediates prior to WOlfram's search I could not.
The problem is more that Gould was accepted in some circles prima facie but doing the thought/math to TRY to imagine any of these fancified intermediates was not supported by the same community. I do not know Gould's case by rote but my guess is that he talked to the "right" people at the not left time. I do not know how important the Russian connection was but there still is room for correcting that if that is wrong.

I don't understand what you wrote, English is not my native language. But i felt arrogance in your reply. Maybe i'm wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Brad McFall, posted 01-04-2003 1:00 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by mark24, posted 01-04-2003 7:19 PM Mozambu has not replied

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 94 (28429)
01-05-2003 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Brad McFall
01-04-2003 9:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Yes, MOZ welcome. Maybe when we get to ZOMI post #s we will be able to communicate. The web is prone to lead to so-called flame wars which is how it comes that I am begining to explore writing Haptic Mouse JavaScript ...
That was Zarwa for those who didnt know (A trade language I needed at least some numbers in)which I used to buy fish for research purposes in Africa in 86-7. You are correct that I "hold a grudge" with elite taught evolutionary biology but I meant nothing against you. That said I am not sure I know how to think of Irreducible Complexity because this was something in C/E before Wolfram's book came out this year and yet Wolfram speaks of non-reducible complexity in terms of simple programs. Maybe Intelligent Design is slated for another C/E metamorphsis. But as to intermeidates there is a difference between imagining them in any fancy and showing that the classification claimed resultant to such change in prior taxonomy is more objetified than the subjetive confidence of the pheneticist, phlogenist, cladist or baraminologist etc.

I guess your strange form of expression confused me. I bet i'm not the only one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Brad McFall, posted 01-04-2003 9:47 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 94 (28497)
01-06-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by nator
01-05-2003 10:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ?
Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined
a step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other
then that something-or-other must have been designed.
A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function.
That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet
less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring
trap design.
So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show an
evolution of thinking behind the eventual object.
And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was
designed.
So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed
IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ?
If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.

Is the credulity of darwinists any better?
Richard Dawkins, in is book "A River out of Eden" wrote this:
"There will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been. These will be challenges to our ingenuity, but if our ingenuity fails, so much the worse for our ingenuity."
If we cant see it, it doesn't matter because it's still there. Very scientific.

Yeah, kinda like electrons and gravity.
Can't see it, but it's still there.

You can "see" electrons because you see their effects wich can be measured. You can also "see" gravity because you can feel it. But you cant see the gradual process of speciation by natural selection just like you can't see a designer. There are no empirical proof of that. It's more speculation than science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by nator, posted 01-05-2003 10:46 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 01-06-2003 12:29 PM Mozambu has replied
 Message 76 by Peter, posted 01-08-2003 3:41 AM Mozambu has not replied

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 94 (28505)
01-06-2003 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by nator
01-06-2003 12:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
Originally posted by Mozambu:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ?
Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined
a step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other
then that something-or-other must have been designed.
A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function.
That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet
less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring
trap design.
So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show an
evolution of thinking behind the eventual object.
And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was
designed.
So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed
IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ?
If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.

Is the credulity of darwinists any better?
Richard Dawkins, in is book "A River out of Eden" wrote this:
"There will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been. These will be challenges to our ingenuity, but if our ingenuity fails, so much the worse for our ingenuity."
If we cant see it, it doesn't matter because it's still there. Very scientific.

Yeah, kinda like electrons and gravity.
Can't see it, but it's still there.

You can "see" electrons because you see their effects wich can be measured. You can also "see" gravity because you can feel it. But you cant see the gradual process of speciation by natural selection just like you can't see a designer. There are no empirical proof of that. It's more speculation than science.

Sure we can "see" speciation by natural selection. We have been observing speciation, both in the lab and in nature, for a long time.
Wow, I didn't think anybody denied speciation any more. Even most creationists have given that one up.
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Here is one of my favorites:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

The example you gave is "quantum speciation" through polyploidy. It's not a gradual process. A gradual process takes thousands of years. There is not empirical proof of that, just speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nator, posted 01-06-2003 12:29 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-06-2003 12:57 PM Mozambu has not replied
 Message 77 by nator, posted 01-08-2003 8:42 AM Mozambu has replied

  
Mozambu
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 94 (28746)
01-09-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nator
01-08-2003 8:42 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
The example you gave is "quantum speciation" through polyploidy. It's not a gradual process. A gradual process takes thousands of years. There is not empirical proof of that, just speculation.
Ah, classic "moving of the goalposts".
You said we had not observed speciation, I gave an example of observed speciation, and now you say that it doesn't qualify.
Tell me, what is your definition of speciation? I don't think that you have the same definition that most scientists use, but we shall see.
[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-08-2003]

Man, i'm talking about gradualism. There are many observed examples of speciation in Drosophila, for example, through the founder flush effect. But there is no empirical evidence that speciation is the accumulation of microevolutionary change through time. Many scientists say that before speciation there is a period of "stasis" followed by a period of quick speciation. This is what the fossil record shows.
I doubt that evolution is a darwinian process. Doubt is a good thing, right. But if you are satisfied with Darwinism, that's your problem. History demonstrates that a theory is a sure thing to die. Just a step to something better. To believe in a theory, is no different than believing in a particular religion or political ideology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nator, posted 01-08-2003 8:42 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by John, posted 01-09-2003 1:38 PM Mozambu has not replied
 Message 89 by Itzpapalotl, posted 01-14-2003 3:25 PM Mozambu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024