Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?

Your trying to obscure "specified complexity".

No I am not: this is why I did not mention "specified complexity" in any way.

This thread is about natural selection possibly leading to specified complexity, saying that something is simply "specific" won't suffice ...

It's what you said in the post I was replying to. I quote:

True, but, it is because these mechanism are specific that it points to an intelligent agent. Systems created by an intelligent agent tend to be very specific.

If you wish to deny that the specificity (and, indeed, complexity) of a measles antibody is an example of whatever you guys mean by "specified complexity", fine. But I was answering what you posted.

your argument is a straw man. ie an antibody protects against a specific virus (measles), therefore specified complexity can be produced without an intelligent agent.....

Perhaps you should find out what "straw man" means, especially as you managed to produce one in the very same paragraph in which you used the phrase.

A straw man is a misrepresentation of your opponents argument; as, for example, when you pretend that I said anything about specified complexity.

Another straw man. ie A specific antibody confers immunity against specific viruses. The specific mechanisms that create these antibodies are not specific at all because they can produce antibodies for other specific viruses as well. Therefore specified complexity is disproven

That is indeed "another straw man"; once more you have misrepresented my argument with a dishonesty that will prove to be as ineffective as it is shameless.

The underlying principle is that antibodies are used to counter act viruses and other foreign bodies, the mechanisms used to produce these antibodies could also be found within other organisms of the same specie. Many interconnected parts are used to create the immune system which leads to the production of different antibodies. For these reasons we have "specified complexity," not simply because antibodies are created, but because an immense system of interconnected parts are needed to create these antibodies & these systems are not found in simply one organism, but many, because the mechanistic processes are carried on to new off spring.

And the antibodies are not produced by an intelligent agent, are they?

Not surprising as you have cloudy judgment.

Because I am not you, it is not my judgment, cloudy or otherwise, that makes your points obscure.

By a coincidence, the fact that I am not you is also the reason why the arguments that you have made up in your head and attributed to me are not mine.

The problem with ID supporters isn't natural selection, but the way by which it is used by evolutionists. e.g (1) a group of reptiles ran up ramps flapping their arms while running from predators, those that were able to sprout wings over millions of years were naturally selected, they became birds. e.g (2) a mammal decided to catch fish in the ocean because there was no food on land. Over millions of years it was able to grow flippers, develop sonar capabilities & grow a blow hole to the top of it's head, these features were all naturally selected for.

Note that these are not actual quotations from evolutionists, but stuff that you've made up in your head.

And then you have the cheek to use the phrase "straw man"; a piece of impudence which is hardly mitigated by the fact that apparently you don't know the meaning of the phrase.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

True, but, it is because these mechanism are specific that it points to an intelligent agent. Systems created by an intelligent agent tend to be very specific.

Well as I said, the mechanisms aren't specific some of the resulting adaptational outcomes are however. So you may be right that systems created by an intelligent agent tend to be specific, but if so then we have considerable evidence that the results of mutation and selection are exceptions to this overall trend.

Fair enough, though, I'll like to point out that your contradicting the first point you made here: "the exact adaptations that confer fitness in a given context can be quite specific."

Not a contradiction at all, the adaptive mutations that confer fitness may be specific but the mechanisms by which they arise, principally random mutation, are non-specific. It is the environment with which the various genomes interact that imposes apparent specificity on the varieties that thrive, after they have arisen, through differential reproductive success.

So multiple entirely maladaptive or non-adaptive variants are being produced at the same time as adaptive variants, but the particular pattern in which they are retained in the gene pool is heavily influenced by the specific environment in which they exist.

Your not making sense here...

What I'm saying is that most of the people who talk about specified complexity are IDists, it isn't a widely used concept in evolutionary biology. And the reason they do is to use the term specification to insert a requirement for an intelligent agency, exactly the same argument you are trying to make. They use similar approaches talking about genetic information, Werner Gitt has a definition of information which explicitly requires it to have a mental origin, thoroughly stacking the deck in favour of intelligent agency again.

(1) The same mechanisms can found in many other organisms (namely ones of the same taxonomic group).

How on earth is that specific? The same mechanisms can usually be found outside of that taxonomic group as well, unless you are basing you taxonomy solely on such mechanisms.

It would help if you yourself were more specific, after all a taxonomic 'group' could be anything from a subspecies to a kingdom or even a domain.

(2) Altering one of more of these mechanisms (DNA for example) can lead to the organisms death or can leave them at a major disadvantage to the environment (a deformed leg for example).

Well it can but most of the evidence suggests that in general it doesn't. We can change an organisms DNA significantly and see no obvious effects on its viability while on the other hand there are some single nucleotide mutations which are lethal at very early stages of embryonic development.

So again it is hard to see where this suggests any particular specificity in the mechanisms giving rise to the mutations.

(3) These mechanisms are connected to other intricate components, these components must also be connected in a certain sequence. Without this sequence of interconnected parts the organism may die or it may not function properly.

Again some evidence and some speciicity on your part would be good. I'm not even sure what 'mechanisms' you are talking about now, you seem to be using the term interchangeably for both the systems originating the mutations and the systems resulting from mutation and selection.

TTFN,

WK

Your post seems very unclear about the concept of specified complexity.

Under Dembski's definition "specified" means that the thing in question has a more "interesting" description than a simple listing of parts and relationships. e.g. A list of the lottery numbers is not specified in itself. You winning the lottery would be and if the last five winners of the lottery were friends with a director of the company running the lottery, that would definitelybe interesting.

Any system that performs a useful function qualifies as specified under this definition, because performing that function is a suitable description.

Complexity is a bit different in that Dembski's definition is odd. To Dembski, a thing is "complex" if and only if it is incredibly unlikely that anything other than intentional design could produce it. Naturally, that includes evolution (i.e. you can't show that something actually is complex by Dembski's definition unless you can show that it could not have evolved - which is the wrong way round for the argument you want to make)

I hope that the ordinary definition of "complex" is well understood enough that it needs no discussion.

Is all that clear ? Can you explain the definition that you are using ?

Hi SavageD,

In Message 85 you claimed that the underlying mechanisms responsible for adaptation themselves contained specified complexity:

SavageD in Message 85 writes: It is not simply the selection process that allows organisms to adapt & survive, but the underlying processes & mechanisms inside the organism....which just happens to be very "specific".

Now in this message you're claiming that these mechanisms do not contain specified complexity:

SavageD writes: Another straw man. ie A specific antibody confers immunity against specific viruses. The specific mechanisms that create these antibodies are not specific at all because they can produce antibodies for other specific viruses as well. Therefore specified complexity is disproven.

Maybe it would help if you provided a clear and unambiguous statement of the definition of specified complexity you're using.

To the extent that there are specific processes inside the cell responsible for producing adaptation, they are as much a product of random mutation and natural selection as all the rest of life.

The difference between our two positions concerns the source of specified complexity, where you believe it is a never-observed intelligent designer, while anyone, even IDists, can easily observe the processes of random mutation and natural selection.

Another difference in our position is that we believe the term specified complexity is made up and has no real workable definition. We're using the term specified complexity in this thread simply for the sake of discussion, not because we believe it has any reality. But when IDists point to structures they claim contain specified complexity and therefore could only be created by an intelligent designer, we can point to the mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection as more than sufficient for the job.

--Percy

PaulK writes: Your post seems very unclear about the concept of specified complexity. Under Dembski's definition "specified" means that the thing in question has a more "interesting" description than a simple listing of parts and relationships. e.g. A list of the lottery numbers is not specified in itself. You winning the lottery would be and if the last five winners of the lottery were friends with a director of the company running the lottery, that would definitelybe interesting. Any system that performs a useful function qualifies as specified under this definition, because performing that function is a suitable description. Complexity is a bit different in that Dembski's definition is odd. To Dembski, a thing is "complex" if and only if it is incredibly unlikely that anything other than intentional design could produce it. Naturally, that includes evolution (i.e. you can't show that something actually is complex by Dembski's definition unless you can show that it could not have evolved - which is the wrong way round for the argument you want to make) I hope that the ordinary definition of "complex" is well understood enough that it needs no discussion. Is all that clear ? Can you explain the definition that you are using ?

Well to be honest I'm using a twist on dembski's definition. I was actually working on my own model regarding intelligent design, though, it isn't completed. There's still a lot more info that I have not added to my model and definition....You could see my model here. Basically I define an object of design as:

Any object which entails an intricate and ordered system of functionality(ies), consists of many different and inter-connected parts & contains structural integrity both on it's physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) (if any). These objects may also contain components unique to the natural environment (eg metal).

As for specified complexity I would say that it is:

Any object which exhibits an intricate and ordered system of functionality(ies) (or sequential functionality), consisting of many different and inter-connected parts, which may also be comprised of materials unique to the natural environment (eg metal). This specified complexity must also be shown to exist in many other objects of the same type/kind.

Take the mazda rx8 car for example:

It is comprised of many different interconnected & intricate parts. These parts must operate in a certain sequence for the vehicle to function properly. It consists of material unique to our natural environment (metal). There's also many other copies of the rx8 out there which contains the same series of interconnected & intricate components. In this way the rx8 exhibits "specified complexity" or rather it exhibits a specified system of complexity.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Edited by SavageD, : No reason given.

Basically I define an object of design as: Any object which entails an intricate and ordered system of functionality(ies), consists of many different and inter-connected parts & contains structural integrity both on it's physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) (if any). These objects may also contain components unique to the natural environment (eg metal).

So by this definition an object of design is not necessarily an object which has been designed by anyone.

In which case the name is somewhat misleading.

As for specified complexity I would say that it is: Any object which exhibits an intricate and ordered system of functionality(ies) (or sequential functionality), consisting of many different and inter-connected parts, which may also be comprised of materials unique to the natural environment (eg metal). This specified complexity must also be shown to exist in many other objects of the same type/kind.

So by this definition an object can possess specified complexity without its complexity having been specified by anyone.

In which case the name is somewhat misleading.

comprised of materials unique to the natural environment

What does this mean? Can you clarify? What would be an example of a material which is not "unique to the natural environment"?

This specified complexity must also be shown to exist in many other objects of the same type/kind.

How many? For example, it seems that when the first pendulum clock was made, it did not possess specified complexity, since it was the only one of its kind. When the second was made, there still weren't many of them. But after a certain point, after a certain number of them had been manufactured, suddenly they all acquired this property, including the first one if it was still extant.

Similarly it would seem that the aardvarks on Noah's Ark would have lacked specified complexity, being the only two of their kind; but their descendants would have acquired it after the aardvark kind had bred sufficiently; which would be a clear instance of specified complexity being produced by an unintelligent process.

SavageD writes: I was actually working on my own model regarding intelligent design...

We've already got Gitt information, Dembski specified complexity, Behe irreducible complexity, and soon we're to have the SavageD intelligent design model.

Intelligent design is a nifty and intriguing hypothesis, that the results of the efforts of intelligence are recognizable and quantifiable. I think if IDists provided an analytical technique for measuring the effects of intelligent effort that the entire scientific world would be tremendously excited, but all they do is claim a technique, they never provide one. After the initial claim it's all mumbo-jumbo. There's no body of technical literature describing how they developed and refined the technique through years of research, experimentation and analysis. Behe's, Gitt's and Dembski's popular press books spring fully formed from their own minds and not from a foundation of research efforts. Here's hoping that SavageD and his team are hard at work performing the necessary research before publishing their results in Nature and Science while jaws drop in stunned amazement 'round the globe.

The scientific world is prepared to accept results for which there is evidence. No one ever expected that the expansion rate of the universe was accelerating, but that's what the evidence said, so that's what the scientific world accepted. Science follows the evidence where it leads.

The biological world does not expect that there's an intelligent designer behind life and evolution, but if that's what the evidence says then like the accelerating expansion of cosmology, biology will accept it. Like the rest of science biology will follow the evidence where it leads. It would be a stunning and exciting development. It would revolutionize biology. It would probably lead to new research avenues in all fields of science. Fantabulously successful careers and Nobels would be in the works for scientists at the vanguard of the new field of intelligent design research. Opportunities for fame and fortune would abound. There is no lack of motivation for scientists to build reputations by blazing the path in a new field.

But to most biologists intelligent design looks like a dead end, a neat idea but with no evidence that might encourage anyone serous about biology (as opposed to religion) to pursue it. The only people interested in intelligent design are those interested in advancing religion (their own religion, in fact), not science.

Yes, the chemistry of life is extremely complex. Yes, it appears designed. And yes, it appears that imperfect reproduction combined with selection and time produces this effect.

Humans see patterns in everything, both meaningful like shared characteristics between species, and unmeaningful like dogs in clouds and Jesus in a slice of pizza. If we researched cloud shapes we'd discover that there really is no meaning in shapes that resemble something familiar. When we research shared characteristics between species we discover the tree of life.

So when we research the appearance of design in nature, what do we find? This question is what intelligent design is presumably researching, except that they don't appear to be actually doing any research. And in the meantime, the effects of random mutation and natural selection that we observe happening before our very eyes today appear to be precisely what accumulates over time to produce the appearance of design. Environment is a harsh task master, and using chemistry driven by the energy of the sun it compels and guides matter into forms of increasingly amazing complexity.

--Percy

Dr Adequate writes: So by this definition an object of design is not necessarily an object which has been designed by anyone. In which case the name is somewhat misleading.

how so? please clarify

So by this definition an object can possess specified complexity without its complexity having been specified by anyone. In which case the name is somewhat misleading.

how so? please clarify

What does this mean? Can you clarify? What would be an example of a material which is not "unique to the natural environment"?

I'm referring to synthetic materials, materials that are not naturally found within a given environment, these materials are usually man made. Spiders create silk for example, it is unlikely that you would find silk randomly in our given environment, they require prior intelligence to be made (eg the spider)....It is unlikely that you would find a river of dna (Deoxyribonucleic acid) for example, such things aren't exactly found in our natural environment. In this way the materials are unique to the environment.

How many? For example, it seems that when the first pendulum clock was made, it did not possess specified complexity, since it was the only one of its kind. When the second was made, there still weren't many of them. But after a certain point, after a certain number of them had been manufactured, suddenly they all acquired this property, including the first one if it was still extant. Similarly it would seem that the aardvarks on Noah's Ark would have lacked specified complexity, being the only two of their kind; but their descendants would have acquired it after the aardvark kind had bred sufficiently; which would be a clear instance of specified complexity being produced by an unintelligent process.

Finding the 'specified complexity' in 2 objects is good, finding it in 3 objects even better, finding it in 4 objects even better....by now you should catch my drift.

.....I do not believe in noahs ark, I'm agnostic....

---

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. (lol!) The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

SavageD writes: It is unlikely that you would find a river of dna (Deoxyribonucleic acid) for example, such things aren't exactly found in our natural environment.

I thought I would point out that plants have DNA so, although you wouldn't find a river of DNA, you would find a forest of DNA.

Percy writes: Intelligent design is a nifty and intriguing hypothesis, that the results of the efforts of intelligence are recognizable and quantifiable. I think if IDists provided an analytical technique for measuring the effects of intelligent effort that the entire scientific world would be tremendously excited, but all they do is claim a technique, they never provide one. After the initial claim it's all mumbo-jumbo. There's no body of technical literature describing how they developed and refined the technique through years of research, experimentation and analysis. Behe's, Gitt's and Dembski's popular press books spring fully formed from their own minds and not from a foundation of research efforts. Here's hoping that SavageD and his team are hard at work performing the necessary research before publishing their results in Nature and Science while jaws drop in stunned amazement 'round the globe. The scientific world is prepared to accept results for which there is evidence. No one ever expected that the expansion rate of the universe was accelerating, but that's what the evidence said, so that's what the scientific world accepted. Science follows the evidence where it leads. The biological world does not expect that there's an intelligent designer behind life and evolution, but if that's what the evidence says then like the accelerating expansion of cosmology, biology will accept it. Like the rest of science biology will follow the evidence where it leads. It would be a stunning and exciting development. It would revolutionize biology. It would probably lead to new research avenues in all fields of science. Fantabulously successful careers and Nobels would be in the works for scientists at the vanguard of the new field of intelligent design research. Opportunities for fame and fortune would abound. There is no lack of motivation for scientists to build reputations by blazing the path in a new field. But to most biologists intelligent design looks like a dead end, a neat idea but with no evidence that might encourage anyone serous about biology (as opposed to religion) to pursue it. The only people interested in intelligent design are those interested in advancing religion (their own religion, in fact), not science. Yes, the chemistry of life is extremely complex. Yes, it appears designed. And yes, it appears that imperfect reproduction combined with selection and time produces this effect. Humans see patterns in everything, both meaningful like shared characteristics between species, and unmeaningful like dogs in clouds and Jesus in a slice of pizza. If we researched cloud shapes we'd discover that there really is no meaning in shapes that resemble something familiar. When we research shared characteristics between species we discover the tree of life. So when we research the appearance of design in nature, what do we find? This question is what intelligent design is presumably researching, except that they don't appear to be actually doing any research. And in the meantime, the effects of random mutation and natural selection that we observe happening before our very eyes today appear to be precisely what accumulates over time to produce the appearance of design. Environment is a harsh task master, and using chemistry driven by the energy of the sun it compels and guides matter into forms of increasingly amazing complexity. --Percy

O Good, I should give up all hope in defining intelligent designs because no other scientist is willing to look into that area....your my hero good sir

Panda writes: SavageD writes: It is unlikely that you would find a river of dna (Deoxyribonucleic acid) for example, such things aren't exactly found in our natural environment. I thought I would point out that plants have DNA so, although you wouldn't find a river of DNA, you would find a forest of DNA.

True your gonna find within plants, however your not exactly gonna find it within the natural environment laying about on the ground somewhere in great abundance now would you. I said that an intelligent design is:

An object which entails an intricate and ordered system of functionality(ies), consists of many different and inter-connected parts & contains structural integrity both on it's physically observable level(s) & sub-system level(s) (if any). These objects may also contain components unique to the natural environment (eg metal).

This includes the plant.

Edited by SavageD, : needed to clarify

So basically you are just talking about complex, functional systems. Well that's OK, but you still need more than that to establish design.

One thing to consider. Iterative change is pretty good at producing complexity - in fact a designer using that approach has to work hard to avoid unnecessary complexity. So, it seems to me that a process of iterative change unguided by intelligent design would be more prone to producing complexity than a designer using iterative change - while a designer starting from scratch each time would produce even simpler designs.

SavageD writes: Panda writes: SavageD writes: It is unlikely that you would find a river of dna (Deoxyribonucleic acid) for example, such things aren't exactly found in our natural environment. I thought I would point out that plants have DNA so, although you wouldn't find a river of DNA, you would find a forest of DNA. True your gonna find within plants, however your not exactly gonna find it within the natural environment laying about on the ground somewhere in great abundance now would you.

Sorry.
I thought that plants were part of the natural environment.
I must be mistaken.

So...are plants not natural or are they not part of the environment? (Or both?)

PaulK writes: So basically you are just talking about complex, functional systems. Well that's OK, but you still need more than that to establish design. One thing to consider. Iterative change is pretty good at producing complexity - in fact a designer using that approach has to work hard to avoid unnecessary complexity. So, it seems to me that a process of iterative change unguided by intelligent design would be more prone to producing complexity than a designer using iterative change - while a designer starting from scratch each time would produce even simpler designs.

The thing is I'm not merely speaking about complexity, the term complexity itself is too broad a term, I've even left it out of my new definition. So...I can't really see what your talking about, none the less I would look into iterative change as I've never really heard of it.

You may not have explicitly used the word but it is pretty clearly what you mean.

Iterative change is simply a process of continually adding changes. It's normal with software sold as a product. Think of all the changes Windows has gone through - the same for Internet Explorer or Firefox, or whichever browser you use. But it's also the way evolution works. Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker is pretty good on this point.