Irreduceable Complexity

[QUOTE] If you can't see the folly of trying to argue that there isn't design evident in nature that strongly argues for God then that's just fine and dandy with me. It just saddens me, that's all.[/B][/QUOTE]Look, it might be evident to you, but where can we all see the actual physical evidence? What does this evidence look like? Doesn't it give you pause to realize that as science has gotten more and more sophisticated, the supposed evidence for ID/God has literally gotten smaller and smaller?For example, it used to be that evidence for the supernatural was in the mystery of childbirth, but now we understand that conception is purely naturalistic. It used to be understood that Apollo pulled the sun across the sky in his chariot, but now we know this isn't the case, and it happens by purely a natural, physical event. It used to be thought that demons visited people in their sleep and paralysed them by sitting on their chests, and now most people think that aliens are doing this...oh, wait, I mean that science knows that hypnogogic hallucinations are the cause of these experiences.Anyway, now the supposed "evidence" for ID has gotten so small that it's molecular!First YOU need to present this POSITIVE evidence, not a God of the Gaps argument or an Argument from Incredulity.Just saying, "Hey, everybody, I think that it's obvious that stuff in nature was designed! I don't have any positive evidence, but I think you are crazy if you don't just believe me coz, well, it's just so obvious!." is not terribly convincing from a scientific standpoint.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]Schraf

​

I don't really think the evidence for ID has grown smaller. Mol Biol has shown us that the cell is made up of thousands of differnet nano-machines. It's not just fairy floss. For every anti-design revelation of modern science there is pretty much a pro-design example.[/QUOTE]

​

You don't think that going from Apollo's chariot pulling the sun across the sky, conception being caused by fetility goddesses, or lightning bolts thrown down from the heavens by Thor to all of these things being understood to be purely natural processes arent cases of "evidence" for ID getting smaller?

​

Every unexplainable event was given a supernatural cause in pre-science times. It seems ridiculous to think that Apollo moves the sun today, but modern ID is exactly the same "God of the Gaps" argument. Because we do not understand how something happened at this time, God must have done it.

​

quote:

---

I understand your frustration but try this one - some of your fustration could also be becasue you (like me) have become so 'sciencefied' that you can hardly see design staring you in the face! that is of course what Scripture tells us. If God is real do you think Rom 1:20 only applies pre-science?

---

​

Since I do not use the Bible as a source of scientific information, I wouldn't refer to it when dealing with scientific matters.

​

It would seem that being "sciencefied" would make it easier, not harder, to see design, if you are claiming that there is scientific evidence for design.

​

If you want to say that you believe in ID from a thological perspective, fine, but that's isn't scientific.

​

[QUOTE]I wont go so far as the ID guys to say that IC is proof etc. It's just obvious to most of us. If you don't buy it - it saddens me, I think you are kidding yourself, but it's your life. So don't drag me too deep into this one becasue I'm not making a claim beyond that.[/b]

---

WHAT is obvious? What evidence for design is there? Can you tell me what it is? Show me a picture?It seems like you are simply asking me to take your word for it without any evidence. Sorry, that's religion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]Peter

​

My trinity analogies go further than you think:

​

Sun, moon and stars are what we all can observe in the heavens. The sun (Father) as source, the moon (Son) as a reflection (daily) & perfect cover (eclipse) and stars as a multiplication (HS).[/QUOTE]

​

Except there are also meteors and comets, too.

​

[QUOTE]Light is 3 in 1: green (emerald throne of Father in Revelations), red (blood of Christ) and blue (water of HS) and white all together.[/B]

---

Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.Aren't all of these colors in the visible spectrum, not just 3?And what about ultraviolet and infrared? These light frequencies exist, but the human eye cannot detect them.Also, white is what all five wavelenths are viewed together. It's not separate.

sorry, double post.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-31-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
I'm sure if you look hard enough, and manipulate the
scenario enough that you can find threes in anything.

​

---

Or fives...Or sevens...Or any other "special" number you want to ascribe meaning to.

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.

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.htmlHere 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."

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Satcomm:
Hi everyone!

​

Schraf:

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

I don't see this as a "classic moving of the goal posts".

​

Your example of speciation was polyploidy. It was a change within a species based on environmental conditions. He (Mozambu) was correct by saying that that was a form of speciation that occurs WITHIN a species. Based on your claim, I conclude that you are saying this is an example of the beginnings of long-term speciation from one species to another.

​

Long-term speciation cannot be proven unless you have a time machine. Since you don't have a time machine, it appears that you are speculating.

​

quote:

---

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.

---

​

speciation

​

"The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones."

​

Source: http://www.dictionary.com

​

Based on this definition, I'd conclude that your example wasn't speciation at all.

​

If I am incorrect, by all means enlighten me.

​

Forgive me for being critical of a "widely-accepted" scientific theory, but I enjoy critical thinking.

​

---

Your definition of "speciation" is not adequate, as most dictionary definitions are not adequate. It does not define what is meant by the various parties when "species" is used.I will be clearer:How do we tell the difference between one species and another?There are several definitions of "species" that scientists use, but a pretty widely-agreed upon definition is that an "offspring" species cannot breed with the "parent" species it came from.How does the goatsbeard example not constitute speciation if the offspring species, while able to reproduce itself (not a hybrid), is not able to reproduce with the parent species?

quote:

---

I was attempting to answer Peter's question with an explanation to my reasoning. I was corrected by Schraf and John about the definitions of speciation. With that correction, and Peter's statement, I realized that I should have worded my first statement differently. Rather than saying that it cannot be proven, I thought it was more accurate to say that it hasn't been proven yet, and may or may not ever be proven. Things are proven true or false based on evidence.

---

I support your willingness to change in the light of better information.Now is the time to say that nothing is actually "proven" true or false in science. Evidence either supports or not, but since we can never, in theory, have all the evidence, nothing is ever completely "proven."Now, how is it that you believe that we don't have very good evidence for long-scale evolution? What kind of evidence do you think is lacking?