If the ToE does not attempt to state/prove it is the cause of intracately complex existance, then what does the ToE hang its hat on?
Leaving aside the strawman nature of this question and the ignorance of evolution that it shows (and the fact that this calls into question all of your argument against evolution) ... let's explore the ramifications of this statement.
Evolution is the change in species over time. This is observed. We see this in the genetics and we see this in the fossil record, as well as observing it first hand in the real world we live in.
Change in species over time. So if a species, or part of a species, even just one sequence of DNA for a species changes, evolution has occurred.
Is that {change} more or less complex? The evolution answer is yes - and then it moves on to other changes in species over time. It does not
need to explain "complexity" - just change in species over time.
Whether it is either more or less complex, by what ever means you use to measure complexity, means that you must have a ways and means to measure "complexity" and a way of testing the level of "complexity" of every element of every organism, and that measurement needs to tell you something -- you need to answer these questions:
(1) What is "complexity"?
(2) How is it measured?
(3) What does that tell us?
For instance I can measure the "blueness" of the sky, first defining blueness to the nearness to a given wavelength of light - say
475 nm for good measure - and then I can measure the level of "blueness" from sunrise to sunset every day for a whole year and tabulate it and correlate it and run all kinds of statistical analysis of the data, but in the end the question is what does the "
Degree of Blueness" (DoB) tell us. I can also measure it the following year and get different results. What does this tell us?
At best what this tell us is that the DoB changes from time to time, that some changes are greater than others, that some may be seasonal on an average (if the study is carried out for enough years), and that there is a (poor) correlation between poor "blueness" and bad weather. It also tells us that poor "blueness" is not a predictor of bad weather (being a result and not a cause).
What does it measure that is useful? To have scientific value it has to measure something useful, something that can then be used to make predictions ("a higher than average DoB this spring indicates that there will be more and stronger hurricanes this summer") and that can be tested .
The DoB measurement does not tell us why
the sky is blue (or not), and certainly not that part of the equation is the perception of color by human eyes (and that other species with more color receptors may well perceive the sky to be violet).
The DoB measurement does not tell us how polluted the air is, as some pollutants make it more "blue" and some make it less "blue" and because the data can change with the time of day, AND because we already have other measurements that already tell us the levels of pollution directly (no correlation needed, no correction for time of day needed).
Now lets assume - for the sake of argument - that we have a measurement of the "
Degree of Complexity" (DoC) and can apply this to organisms in a consistent and repeatable manner (different people get the same results, within limits of statistical errors and making allowances for the differences in individual organisms within each species population even those bred specifically for scientific testing to be as similar as possible).
We are
assuming that (1) and (2) are done:
(1) What is "complexity"?
(2) How is it measured?
(3) What does that tell us?
And we come to question (3): what does that tell us?
We measure the DoC of many organisms, even ones from the same parents, and we see that there is a difference in DoC between various organisms: what does that tell us?
At a bare minimum it tells us that there is a change in species over time - that there is evolution.
Let's assume we have a long term study done of all the individuals in a population over several generations, generating a mass of data: what does that tell us?
Even assuming a linear trend of decreasing (or increasing) DoC over generations, all this tells us is that there is more change in the species the more time is involved - that there is evolution.
It does not tell us
why such a trend exists nor what it means. Nor does it tell us whether the same trend exists in other species - it could be just the elimination of extraneous "complexity" in a (controlled) population (or an accumulation of extraneous "complexity" with no natural selection in the (controlled) population).
If there were no apparent trend, that the DoC moved up and down around an average value, then the accumulation of absolute value of the changes would still show more change in species the more time is involved - that there is evolution.
If there were no trend at all - if the DoC remained at the same value for the individuals, but what contributed to the DoC values of the individuals were different, then this still shows change in species over time - that there is evolution.
We can also see that there is a (poor) correlation between DoC measurements and changes in species over time. It also tells us that DoC changes are not always predictors of change in a species over time, because like "blueness" it is a
result that is related to numerous causes, some with contradictory results.
To be useful scientifically there has to be something of value for the DoC measurements, something it tells us that is specific, and that increases information.
Telling us that evolution happens does not increase specific information -- we already have that information from other sources, sources that not only tell us that change has happened but what those changes are, and often
why they happened.
What the "complexity" argument usually comes down to is:
(a) Gosh, "X" is an extremely complex structure
(b) Such a level of complexity just
cannot have happened by natural processes
(c) Therefore something else was involved
(d) Therefore my God!
But (a) is not defined nor measured, therefore the DoC is assumed, and the argument is from ignorance, (b) is not demonstrated (it is more likely a failure of logical imagination to consider how it could have happened), so it is assumed as well, and is an argument from personal incredulity, (c) is a conclusion based on assumptions that are logical fallacies, rather than fact, and (d) is a totally unfounded assertion that is logically corrupt even without the fallacies in the precepts.
The argument relies on the absence of information. In fact the whole concept of "Intelligent Design" relies on a continued absence of information:
(i) if we knew how and why everything happened then there would be no need to
assume an outside agent because
(ii) we would
know, and
(iii) further, if there were
any instance where we
knew an outside agent was involved, then
(iv) we would know, but
(v) we can only know that for certain when we have no other explanations, so
(vi) the assumption of an outside agent only works in a vacuum of information.
Perhaps you can tell me what science is based on undefined concepts where no effort is made to measure the data values?
This isn't science, for the science is notably absent. Personally I fail to see how an absence of explanation is a better explanation of
any "folly" ...
It's notable in it's ab-science.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*01*2006 11:39 AM
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2