Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 52 (9184 total)
 3 online now: Newest Member: paulwilliam Post Volume: Total: 918,447 Year: 5,704/9,624 Month: 110/619 Week: 43/56 Day: 18/11 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Intelligent Design

# Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design

Author Topic:   Biological Evidence Against Intelligent Design
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009

 Message 181 of 264 (546106) 02-08-2010 1:38 PM Reply to: Message 180 by Straggler02-08-2010 4:30 AM

Re: Complexity
Straggler writes:
Modulous writes:
I agree that if you rely on the terms 'simple' and 'complex' to communicate something then you have to at some point explain what you mean by the terms. I suspect that it may end up being circular: A complex thing being defined as being many simple things interacting with one another.
And that was my problem. The more I thought about this in terms of simple and complex the more it seemed I was applying circular reasoning.
I offer this definition of complexity, C:
C = log( sizeof( compress( D ) ) ),
where
log() is the logarithm,
sizeof() is the number of bytes of,
compress() is the current best known compression algorithm acted upon a file, D,
and D is the complete description of the population under consideration, all the way down to the genetic level, possibly even specifying the shape of probability curves of each type of variation in the population, in a manner sufficient to secure identification of any individual of the population to that population (which may be a subset of the species or the whole species or the whole genus, or any population grouping you want), written in a manner as to be compressed to the smallest size.
C can rise and fall over time, unlike system entropy, S. There is no thermodynamic analogy applicable here, at all.
To insist so would be vulgar....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

 This message is a reply to: Message 180 by Straggler, posted 02-08-2010 4:30 AM Straggler has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 182 by Percy, posted 02-08-2010 2:17 PM xongsmith has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22745
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 182 of 264 (546109) 02-08-2010 2:17 PM Reply to: Message 181 by xongsmith02-08-2010 1:38 PM

Re: Complexity
I think your equation is more representative of the amount of information rather than the complexity.
Which means it is precisely analogous to thermodynamic considerations.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Add a second comment.

 This message is a reply to: Message 181 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2010 1:38 PM xongsmith has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 183 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2010 8:16 PM Percy has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009

 Message 183 of 264 (546145) 02-08-2010 8:16 PM Reply to: Message 182 by Percy02-08-2010 2:17 PM

Re: Complexity
Percy writes:
I think your equation is more representative of the amount of information rather than the complexity.
Which means it is precisely analogous to thermodynamic considerations.
Well, I haven't bought into that information/thermodynamic. For one, I think a closed system can lose information. However, I'm willing to let that slide for the moment.
How would you define "complexity" in biology?
My guy is not measuring just the amount of information - it's the information needed to describe the population's characteristics and variation and specific details. Over time the description may become simpler if a sub-population goes extinct and no longer contributes to the variation. Or take the walking sticks losing wings - it's possible their description got easier to compress.
But then I am only trying to establish something that we can use for complexity. The way "complexity" gets used around here by some of the contributors, it can be as vague as "kinds".

- xongsmith, 5.7d

 This message is a reply to: Message 182 by Percy, posted 02-08-2010 2:17 PM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 184 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2010 11:30 PM xongsmith has not replied Message 185 by Percy, posted 02-09-2010 8:49 AM xongsmith has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

 Message 184 of 264 (546161) 02-08-2010 11:30 PM Reply to: Message 183 by xongsmith02-08-2010 8:16 PM

Side issue on Complexity
Hi xongsmith,
How would you define "complexity" in biology?
What is the difference between a single cell organism and a multicellular organism?
The number of parts you need to make the whole, including
- the number of different parts
- the number of repetitions of similar parts
Some parts could fall into nested hierarchies to make components, depending on how complex the multicellular life is.
My guy is not measuring just the amount of information - it's the information needed to describe the population's characteristics and variation and specific details.
ie is information ∝ complexity?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

 This message is a reply to: Message 183 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2010 8:16 PM xongsmith has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 200 by Straggler, posted 02-09-2010 7:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22745
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 185 of 264 (546189) 02-09-2010 8:49 AM Reply to: Message 183 by xongsmith02-08-2010 8:16 PM

Re: Complexity
xongsmith writes:
How would you define "complexity" in biology?
I don't know how I would define complexity in biology, but you're defining it as something that's equivalent to the amount of information, as if lots of information means complexity. I'm pretty sure complexity is not just a synonym for lots of information.
What you seem to have in mind is Kolmogorov Complexity, and I don't think it's about the kind of complexity you have in mind. It's closer to a measure of the amount of information in a string after you've removed the redundancy. By this approach the amoeba genome is more complex than the human genome.
If you check out the Wikipedia article on Kolmogorov Complexity you'll see in the section on Compression that most strings are complex. I think Kolmogorov complexity is similar to information theory in that some of the terms it uses have precise mathematical meanings that aren't the same as their everyday layperson meaning.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 183 by xongsmith, posted 02-08-2010 8:16 PM xongsmith has not replied

Member (Idle past 5294 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009

 Message 186 of 264 (546205) 02-09-2010 10:37 AM Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD01-22-2010 4:12 PM

Of course this results in a process that is indistinguishable from non-design using the same process, so the question reverts to whether the process is natural or designed.
I don't think it is either / or. I think it is a mixture of both. It is a type of chaos.

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2010 4:12 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Member (Idle past 5294 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009

 Message 187 of 264 (546207) 02-09-2010 10:47 AM Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK01-23-2010 8:16 AM

Re: Let's Argue Against a Real Theory of Intelligent Design
(e.g. traderdrew's confusion over the concept of CSI)
Please direct me to a thread, link, or information where you can clear up the confusion you think you see in my posts.

 This message is a reply to: Message 22 by PaulK, posted 01-23-2010 8:16 AM PaulK has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 188 by PaulK, posted 02-09-2010 10:55 AM traderdrew has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17864
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6

 Message 188 of 264 (546211) 02-09-2010 10:55 AM Reply to: Message 187 by traderdrew02-09-2010 10:47 AM

Re: Let's Argue Against a Real Theory of Intelligent Design
I have already tried to clear it up multiple times, and been accused of blindness and even dishonesty for my pains.
You've made it quite clear that you aren't interested in listening.

 This message is a reply to: Message 187 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 10:47 AM traderdrew has not replied

Member (Idle past 5294 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009

 Message 189 of 264 (546214) 02-09-2010 11:34 AM Reply to: Message 39 by Blue Jay01-25-2010 9:46 AM

Re: perhaps missing the point?
You can't force IDists to have a falsifiable theory, and, if they don't have one, then we just can't use an empirical, scientific approach to disprove it.
Of course ID is falsifiable. Why would some of the evolutionists on this forum (who apparently dispise ID by the way) try so hard to falsify it??? Oh the irony and they don't even see it. In order to falsify any ID position, all you have to do is find an unambiguous natural explanation that explains away the ID hypothesis.
Oh and I think a designer could use Darwinian evolution ONLY if the designer had strong foresight as to see what occurs ahead of the pathways of chaos.
My guess is a designer could or would have had the foresight to see the biological designs were subject to various types of forces within chaos and instead of attempting to continuously correct and/or intervene in the process, may rather chosen to use it as an advantage.
Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 39 by Blue Jay, posted 01-25-2010 9:46 AM Blue Jay has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 11:47 AM traderdrew has replied Message 193 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 1:18 PM traderdrew has replied Message 194 by Taq, posted 02-09-2010 1:27 PM traderdrew has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 190 of 264 (546216) 02-09-2010 11:47 AM Reply to: Message 189 by traderdrew02-09-2010 11:34 AM

Re: perhaps missing the point?
In order to falsify any ID position, all you have to do is find an unambiguous natural explanation that explains away the ID hypothesis.
Can you give an example of something from the ID hypothesis that does NOT have an unambiguous natural explanation?

 This message is a reply to: Message 189 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 11:34 AM traderdrew has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 191 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 12:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Member (Idle past 5294 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009

 Message 191 of 264 (546224) 02-09-2010 12:11 PM Reply to: Message 190 by New Cat's Eye02-09-2010 11:47 AM

Re: perhaps missing the point?
Can you give an example of something from the ID hypothesis that does NOT have an unambiguous natural explanation?
I will go ahead and edit PaulK's post for you.
I have already tried multiple times, and been accused of being a Creationist for my pains.
You've made it quite clear that you aren't interested in listening. Ya'all trippin.
Of course, I question PaulK's sincerity because he constantly posts and he always has to have the last word. He likes the pain if it really does pain him.

 This message is a reply to: Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 192 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2010 12:25 PM traderdrew has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

 Message 192 of 264 (546228) 02-09-2010 12:25 PM Reply to: Message 191 by traderdrew02-09-2010 12:11 PM

I didn't think you could.

 This message is a reply to: Message 191 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 12:11 PM traderdrew has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2837 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008

 Message 193 of 264 (546240) 02-09-2010 1:18 PM Reply to: Message 189 by traderdrew02-09-2010 11:34 AM

Re: perhaps missing the point?
Of course ID is falsifiable. Why would some of the evolutionists on this forum (who apparently despise ID by the way) try so hard to falsify it???
Is there a name for this fallacy? Argument from the existence of enemies, maybe?
Now something is scientific because somebody tries to prove it wrong?
-----
Oh and I think a designer could use Darwinian evolution ONLY if the designer had strong foresight as to see what occurs ahead of the pathways of chaos.
A designer? Or, The Designer?
I've done my best to defend the concept of things being designed from what I perceive to be an illegitimate attack strategy, but you've undermined my entire argument in one post! Clearly, when I say the word "ID," you’re not thinking of the generalized concept RAZD and I are defending, but of a specific Designer with a specific purpose and personality.
Why would a Designer need to see ahead of the "pathways of chaos"?
What's to stop a Designer from designing something, and then just letting it go on its own, as in RAZD’s deist beliefs?
Surely you’ve noticed that the existence of a designer (assuming there is one) hasn’t made the world an orderly place, right?
How can you argue that anything that designed this universe is foreseeing and accounting for the chaos?
My arguments on this thread can only defend the general concept of intelligent design, and probably cannot defend the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God you’re thinking of.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

 This message is a reply to: Message 189 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 11:34 AM traderdrew has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 195 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 4:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10209
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1

 Message 194 of 264 (546243) 02-09-2010 1:27 PM Reply to: Message 189 by traderdrew02-09-2010 11:34 AM

Re: perhaps missing the point?
In order to falsify any ID position, all you have to do is find an unambiguous natural explanation that explains away the ID hypothesis.
How does this rule out an intelligent designer? Couldn't a designer produce a design that completely mimics a natural phenomenon?

 This message is a reply to: Message 189 by traderdrew, posted 02-09-2010 11:34 AM traderdrew has not replied

Member (Idle past 5294 days)
Posts: 379
From: Palm Beach, Florida
Joined: 04-27-2009

 Message 195 of 264 (546267) 02-09-2010 4:18 PM Reply to: Message 193 by Blue Jay02-09-2010 1:18 PM

Re: perhaps missing the point?
Is there a name for this fallacy? Argument from the existence of enemies, maybe?
I think their thinking (those here I have debated) is flawed. I think they don't have an imagination and they are poor philosophers. Granny Magda thinks I am being sanctimonious for saying that. I checked my thinking on the net to see if anyone in history agreed with me. Albert Einstein also beleived scientists are poor philosophers. How about it Granny Magda? Was Einstein being sanctimonious?
Now something is scientific because somebody tries to prove it wrong?
No, I wouldn't say ID is scientific because of that reason alone.
I've done my best to defend the concept of things being designed from what I perceive to be an illegitimate attack strategy, but you've undermined my entire argument in one post!
Hey, you are entitled to explore these views. How does what I write make your view of ID any worse?
Why would a Designer need to see ahead of the "pathways of chaos"?
You know as well as I do intelligent designers have a certain amount of foresight. It could be that the one who designed life had a hell of a lot more than any of us.
What's to stop a Designer from designing something, and then just letting it go on its own, as in RAZD’s deist beliefs?
This is probably more or less what happened. Hox genes were around 50 million years before the Cambrian explosion. So the idea hox genes were forming during the Cambrian has been blown out of the water.
There were approximately 30 to 40 new phyla that came into existence during the Cambrian. Each of these new phyla needed their own gene regulatory network or "kernel". Any attempt to tamper with a kernel will destroy it. A human made schematic of a kernel looks superficially like a complex diagram of a circuit board. They are another example of something that is irreducibly complex.
I don't buy phyla were just different species during that time as someone stated around here a long time ago. That would be just forum conjecture.
Surely you’ve noticed that the existence of a designer (assuming there is one) hasn’t made the world an orderly place, right?
An orderly place according to whose perspective??? Think about that... Are tectonic plates not driven by radioactive isotopes? Are there not tidal forces such as the Gulf Stream that help regulate temperatures? Is the earth not fine-tuned? Are you going to blame the designer for the actions of people? If that is what you think then, I would say that is a form of geocentrism where you would judge the apparance on a very small area compared to the entire universe and beyond it.
Speaking of geocentrism, it is something else that has explained the solar system very well but either way, (not trying to pick a fight with Smooth Operator) one of the two explanations that attempt to explain the solar system is very, very wrong. Much like what could be the case for Darwinian evolution and naturalism. They both can explain the evidence well but they are way off target overall.
How can you argue that anything that designed this universe is foreseeing and accounting for the chaos?
I don't see a problem with an all powerful designer accounting for different types of forces and finding a way to deal with all of them.

 This message is a reply to: Message 193 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 1:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 196 by Granny Magda, posted 02-09-2010 5:19 PM traderdrew has not replied Message 197 by Blue Jay, posted 02-09-2010 6:09 PM traderdrew has replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)