Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,924 Year: 4,181/9,624 Month: 1,052/974 Week: 11/368 Day: 11/11 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity and TalkOrigins
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 57 of 128 (440358)
12-12-2007 7:09 PM 		Reply to: Message 56 by Suroof
12-12-2007 6:25 PM

Suroof writes:
​
Behe argues that it is these systems, complex at the molecular level [...] which cannot be created by undirected darwinian evolution.
​
I'm curious as to what "direction" is required that Darwinian evolution can't provide. Do certain molecules or functional groups need a "nudge" that they can't get in any natural way? How do you (and/or Behe) know it "cannot" happen?
​
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Suroof, posted 12-12-2007 6:25 PM Suroof has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Suroof, posted 12-12-2007 8:05 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 128 (440384)
12-12-2007 8:47 PM 		Reply to: Message 58 by Suroof
12-12-2007 8:05 PM

Suroof writes:
​
As for the indirect route, Behe concedes it is possible but highly implausible depending on the number of "parts" and the extent of how well-matched the components are....
​
So the only argument for a designer is that the alternative is possible but "implausible"?
​
Direction is required because to create an IC system an "end-point" must be envisaged.
​
But you're assuming that the system is irreducibly complex. If there is no "end-point", if there is no "complete" or "incomplete" system, if there's only molecules - why is direction needed? You might need direction to get from A to B, but what if you just need to get anywhere? Why can't systems be built of "anywheres" instead of specific end-points?
​
Francis Crick quite seriously said aliens came to earth and planted spores to seed the earth.
​
That has nothing to do with the topic. If aliens brought something irreducibly complex here, it still had to form initially somewhere. The aliens would not be the "designer".
​
It's not difficult to imagine how an intelligent designer would direct the genome to create an IC system. Behe offers examples in his book (pg. 199 - 205)
​
Give us some examples, please - specific examples of which functional groups need to be moved where and why it's "implausible" without an intelligent nudger.
​
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Suroof, posted 12-12-2007 8:05 PM Suroof has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 4:59 AM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 64 of 128 (440469)
12-13-2007 10:41 AM 		Reply to: Message 60 by Suroof
12-13-2007 4:59 AM

Suroof writes:
​
You seem to have misunderstood the implications of an IC system.
​
That's why I'm asking the questions, isn't it?
​
Behe quote writes:
​
There is not magic point of IC at which Darwinism is logically impossible. But the hurdles for gradualism become higher and higher as structures are more complex, more interdependent."
​
Again, Behe isn't really talking about "irreducible" complexity at all, is he? He seems to be talking about "improbable" complexity. The height of the hurdles is irrelevant unless he/you can show that they're insurmountable, not just inconvenient.
​
In Message 59, I asked you to
​
quote:
Give us some examples, please - specific examples of which functional groups need to be moved where and why it's "implausible" without an intelligent nudger.
​
Again, in the examples you gave - the cilium and the blood clotting cascade - which functional groups need to be nudged intelligently because they can't find their own way? Hurdles don't count when you're claiming barriers.
​
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 4:59 AM Suroof has not replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 68 of 128 (440494)
12-13-2007 12:38 PM 		Reply to: Message 67 by Suroof
12-13-2007 12:23 PM

Suroof writes:
​
4. since we have no other convincing explanation for the strong appearance of design, Darwinian pretensions notwithstanding, then we are rationally justified in concluding that parts of life were indeed purposely designed by an intelligent agent
​
And that is a classic argument from ignorance - we have no convincing explanation (yet), so there is none. You might as well be saying that we have no convincing explanation for birds flying, so we're "rationally justified" in concluding that it's Intelligent Buoyancy.
​
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 12:23 PM Suroof has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 2:40 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 78 of 128 (440570)
12-13-2007 5:39 PM 		Reply to: Message 70 by Suroof
12-13-2007 2:40 PM

Suroof writes:
​
The argument was: we have no OTHER convincing explanation, and the explanation of an intelligent agent is the best explanation of IC available.
​
Again, you're assuming that there is such a thing as "irreducible" complexity when you're really talking about "improbable" complexity. You're not even calculating what the probability is. You're just saying it's "too improbable".
​
And how can an "intelligent agent" that you can't explain be the best explanation of anything?
​
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 2:40 PM Suroof has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 9:40 PM ringo has replied
  
ringo
Member (Idle past 443 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 88 of 128 (440652)
12-13-2007 11:43 PM 		Reply to: Message 83 by Suroof
12-13-2007 9:40 PM

Suroof writes:
​
For example somebody who views Mt Rushmore for the first time even if he/she doesn't know the designer he/she will immediately correctly assume it was designed (despite the problem of explaining the designer).
​
The topic is irreducible complexity. How does Mt. Rushmore relate to that?
​
The reason most of us would conclude that Mt. Rushmore was intelligently designed is because we can imagine the steps in the process. We've all made stuff out of clay, carved a turkey, played with Tinker Toys. We see design that mimics what we know.
​
When we look at something really complex, like the layers in the Grand Canyon, we ask, "How the heck did that happen?" We don't see design in it.
​
Your example seems to argue against you. The complexity of Mt. Rushmore is reducible.
​
... unless you assume the intelligent designer is natural (aliens).
​
We've already been through that. A natural designer just moves the problem. Natural aliens would supposedly have "irreducibly complex" systems too, wouldn't they?
​
Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Suroof, posted 12-13-2007 9:40 PM Suroof has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024