Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What IS evidence of design? (CLOSING STATEMENTS ONLY)
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 136 of 377 (608119)
03-08-2011 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:13 PM


slevesque writes:
all IC systems of which we know the origin were designed, therefore, all IC systems are designed.
The piece of driftwood on my coffee table would seem to be irreducibly complex because if you take one piece away - i.e. all of it - it ceases to perform its function. The same is true of the rock that I use as a doorstop.
On the other hand, the dam that I designed would not seem to be irreducibly complex because taking away a piece or two won't effect its performance at all.
So I'm not seeing the correlation between irreducible complexity and design.
Edited by ringo, : Fixed punc. tuation.

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:13 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:49 PM ringo has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 137 of 377 (608120)
03-08-2011 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:32 PM


Now suppose I hid a swan in a box, and asked you what color it was. Wouldn't you be justified to inductively conclude that it was white?
If I challenged your conclusion wouldn't you need to show that it was white? Or do you simply not have to demonstrate it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:32 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:45 PM Taq has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 138 of 377 (608123)
03-08-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Taq
03-08-2011 6:37 PM


If I challenged your conclusion wouldn't you need to show that it was white? Or do you simply not have to demonstrate it?
It's all probalistic. It depends on the strength of the induction. You are never obliged to accept an inductive conclusion, however, there comes a point where it is unreasonable to reject it, as you be right a very small percentage of the time.
Just as no one is obliged to accept a scientific theory as true, but they will rarely be right in doing so depending on the strength of the theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 6:37 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 7:09 PM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 139 of 377 (608124)
03-08-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
03-08-2011 6:36 PM


The piece of driftwood on my coffee table would seem to be irreducibly complex because if you take one piece away - i.e. all of it - it ceases to perform its function. The same is true of the rock that I use as a doorstop.
These are not irreducibly complex systems, since they only have one piece.
On the other hand, the dam that I designed would not seem to be irreducibly complex because taking away a piece or two won't effect its performance at all.
So I'm not seeing the correlation between irreducible complexity and design.
You are comitting the same fallacy as Frako, ie denying the antecedent. The reasoning is not that if a system is not IC, then it is not designed but rather that if it is IC, then it is designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 6:36 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:56 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 7:07 PM slevesque has replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 140 of 377 (608125)
03-08-2011 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by frako
03-08-2011 6:27 PM


Ok then name and IC designed system and il show you how removing a part never removes the functionality at best it changes its functionality ergo there are no ireducibly complex systems
a mousetrap ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:27 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:58 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 146 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 7:11 PM slevesque has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 141 of 377 (608126)
03-08-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:49 PM


ok is a car engine irreducibly complex then ?
Sure looks like it but it is not not. By the definition of IC, why well i can remove lots of parts, and it still would serve its primary function, and it would always have a function there is no such thing as IC system.
lets try the cars engine can i remove a piston? Yes i can the engine will run on fewer pistons, unless its a one piston engine, in that case it would serve as a grate paper weight. It would always has a function so there is no such thing as IC.
Edited by frako, : edited for slaveques pleasure

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:49 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 7:00 PM frako has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 142 of 377 (608127)
03-08-2011 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:51 PM


lol ok mouse trap lets remove the metal thingy that holds the snaping thingy cocked whitout that the former mouse trap functions grate as a tie clip so it still has functionality not IC and nothing is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:51 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 143 of 377 (608129)
03-08-2011 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by frako
03-08-2011 6:56 PM


Try making complete, or at least sensible, sentences and not skip words, etc.
Because this is clearly incoherent, and even though I think I know what you are trying to say it does give the impression that you are retarded (no offense)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by frako, posted 03-08-2011 6:56 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 8:25 AM slevesque has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 144 of 377 (608130)
03-08-2011 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:49 PM


slevesque writes:
These are not irreducibly complex systems, since they only have one piece.
Well, that's part of what makes "irreducible complexity" a fairly useless concept. You need a definition that's tailor-made for your desired conclusion.
slevesque writes:
You are comitting the same fallacy as Frako, ie denying the antecedent. The reasoning is not that if a system is not IC, then it is not designed but rather that if it is IC, then it is designed.
That's circular reasoning. It has to fit your definition of irreducible complexity to be designed and it has to fit your definition of design to be irreducibly complex.
What we're looking for in this thread, I think, is some way of detecting one without depending on the other.

You can have brevity and clarify, or you can have accuracy and detail, but you can't easily have both. --Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:49 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:04 AM ringo has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 145 of 377 (608132)
03-08-2011 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:45 PM


It's all probalistic. It depends on the strength of the induction. You are never obliged to accept an inductive conclusion, however, there comes a point where it is unreasonable to reject it, as you be right a very small percentage of the time.
Fair enough. The problems I see with this inductive argument is that the IC systems of unknown origin dwarf the IC systems of known origins. If you had catalogued 5 million white swans and there was an estimated 5.1 million swans world wide your induction would hold weight.
Even worse, your induction is incomplete. All known intelligences capable of producing IC systems are humans. Therefore, we would have to conclude that humans designed the flagellum and all other IC systems found in biology. This can't be true given human history.
We also have examples of IC systems coming about through stepwise change, such as the mammalian middle ear. We know that the current mammalian middle ear does not work without two of the bones, and yet we can see a series of fossils where the middle ear started with just a single bone and then incorporated two other bones through time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:39 AM Taq has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 146 of 377 (608133)
03-08-2011 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:51 PM


a mousetrap ?
A tie clip?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:51 PM slevesque has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 147 of 377 (608134)
03-08-2011 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by slevesque
03-08-2011 6:02 PM


slevesque writes:
What about the IC systems that we do not know the origin of? How does IC evidence design in these instances?
You can inductively conclude design in those instances.
HUH?
How?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by slevesque, posted 03-08-2011 6:02 PM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 148 of 377 (608144)
03-09-2011 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ringo
03-08-2011 7:07 PM


That's circular reasoning. It has to fit your definition of irreducible complexity to be designed and it has to fit your definition of design to be irreducibly complex.
I have no idea where you got this idea. The definition of Irreducible complexity is given in Message 127. I honestly do not know where you got the impression of any circular reasoning, irreducible complexity is certainly defined appart from any reference to design.
In fact, the very quote you take from me contradicts what you are saying here. I explicitly say IC ==) ID, not IC (==) ID. SO it goes only one way, irreducible complexity implies intelligent design. Furthermore, I have also explained that this does not come from the definitions, but from inductive reasoning linking the two.
What we're looking for in this thread, I think, is some way of detecting one without depending on the other.
We need to ask ourselves what ability does an intelligent mind have that a natural process does not. My contention is that at least one ability is the capacity to project into the future. An intelligent mind can imagine possible future outcomes and strive toward desired. Natural processes cannot, it deals only with the present and cannot 'plan ahead'.
Now, what type of systems demand such capacity ? Behe's claims that an irreducible complez system doesm because all the pieces must be in place all at once in order for the desired property to emerge. (Seen this way, irreducible complexity joins unto the ''emergent property'' criterion I spoke of earlier)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ringo, posted 03-08-2011 7:07 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 03-09-2011 4:17 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 03-09-2011 10:24 AM slevesque has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 149 of 377 (608147)
03-09-2011 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Taq
03-08-2011 7:09 PM


Fair enough. The problems I see with this inductive argument is that the IC systems of unknown origin dwarf the IC systems of known origins. If you had catalogued 5 million white swans and there was an estimated 5.1 million swans world wide your induction would hold weight.
We have a boatload of IC systems that we know were designed in many different spheres of technology. The only IC systems that we do not know the origin are biological systems.
Even worse, your induction is incomplete. All known intelligences capable of producing IC systems are humans. Therefore, we would have to conclude that humans designed the flagellum and all other IC systems found in biology. This can't be true given human history.
The induction is not incomplete, in fact you yourself give the answer.
Suppose we replace the first premise.
All IC systems are designed by humans
System A is IC
Therefore system A was designed by humans
Someone could claim premise 1 is proven inductively, however it can be proven false by the following modus tollents (denying the consequent)
If all IC systems are designed by humans, then biological IC systems were designed by humans
biological IC systems are not designed by humans,
Therefore not all IC systems are designed by humans
First premise is a conditional statement. Second premise is proven by observation (biological IC systems were there before humans), and the conclusion follows.
We also have examples of IC systems coming about through stepwise change, such as the mammalian middle ear. We know that the current mammalian middle ear does not work without two of the bones, and yet we can see a series of fossils where the middle ear started with just a single bone and then incorporated two other bones through time.
Let's try to clear up all the logical steps leading to IC maybe being a candidate for identifying designed systems before going into counter-examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Taq, posted 03-08-2011 7:09 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by NoNukes, posted 03-09-2011 8:14 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 164 by Taq, posted 03-09-2011 10:57 AM slevesque has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 150 of 377 (608155)
03-09-2011 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by slevesque
03-09-2011 2:04 AM


slevesque writes:
An intelligent mind can imagine possible future outcomes and strive toward desired. Natural processes cannot, it deals only with the present and cannot 'plan ahead'.
This seems a significant observation to me. Intelligence is forward looking, can anticipate, can plan for the future. Evolution is backward looking, can only respond to changes that have already occurred, cannot perceive impending change. It does seem reasonable to accept that any indications we find of forward looking change in the history of life could be evidence of intelligent involvement.
The problems for irreducible complexity are that none of the proposed examples holds up, the connection to design is asserted rather than demonstrated, and it hasn't proven to be something that can be studied and researched if judged by the number of researchers studying and researching it, which is 0, Michael Behe included.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 2:04 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by slevesque, posted 03-09-2011 5:00 PM Percy has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024