Does complexity require intelligent design?

On top of that, it isn't even grammatically correct.But, putting that aside - if I may elaborate a bit on your reply, KJ - what this tells us is that Buzsaw thinks that the question he poses is complicated. But it isn't. It's really a very simple question.He also thinks:

• that the answer evolutionists give to this question is that the information is the result of a purely random process;
• that the answer is simple;
• that the answer is wrong.

Well, Buzsaw himself is wrong on all counts.First, evolution, it cannot be stressed enough it seems, is not a purely random process, there is non-random selection at work. I really don't understand why this has to be repeated over and over and over again. When are creationists finally going to get this? Are they selectively deaf? Is it such a difficult concept to grasp? Or are they willfully distorting what evolutionists tell them?Second, though the question is really simple, the answer isn't quite that simple. And it's not that the principle of evolution is difficult - it's quite straightforward actually - but it's the resulting complexity and massive interaction in the biosphere that's rather more difficult to picture, and it's there that we need to look for the build-up of the information.Lastly, Buzsaw is even wrong in thinking the answer is wrong. Well, it's wrong all right, but not for the reasons Buzsaw thinks it is. It's not wrong because it's wrong, but because it isn't the answer at all. The information doesn't come from the random mutations. They're mostly noise. The information is what's left over of those random mutations when selection has done it's job. And selection, I'll repeat once more, is a distinctly non-random process.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

It was just a little joke about the first thing I noticed in Buzsaw's post. I am preoccupied with language, I guess. Maybe I should have used one of those stupid smiley faces, I don't know. I never use them because I think words should speak for themselves. In this case, apparently, they didn't. I apologize for seemingly nitpicking on Buzsaw, it wasn't meant that way.Incidentally, I spent one sentence on it and then brushed it aside to go to the topic at hand. I suggest you two do the same.

True. But that only means that the answer is going to be complicated. The question itself is simple, it only takes nine words to phrase it. And the concept of the question is also simple: there is information in DNA, where does it come from? A child can understand this question. Nor would it happen without selection, but that part is always conveniently left out by creationists. You talk of "the factual and correct answer", but you don't bother to mention 'complete'. Why? It can't be because you have never been told by evolutionists, you've been told time and again. But you creationists always hammer on the word 'random' only. It's time for you to try and refute the argument of random mutation AND selection. If, after you have read this, you still refuse to think about selection, I will take that as dishonesty. You are right, Buz, I should have asked KJ about it. I don't agree with his statement.But you were a little too eager to use his construct in order to misrepresent the central tenet of evolution. I thought it was more important to attack your position than to go into KJ's. {added by edit}CORRECTION! It wasn't KJ, it was DHA. Should have checked that earlier.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 15-Mar-2005 08:58 AM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Then you should know that to mention randomness as an obviously erroneous mechanism for evolution, while leaving out selection (without which randomness would indeed be an erroneous explanation of the process of evolution), is to misrepresent the argument. Doing so while being aware of selection, is dishonest even. If by that you mean that "either random mutation or natural selection" is a correct answer to the question of where the information in DNA comes from, then you're simply wrong. Both are necessay for information to build up. The correctness of the answer depends on its completeness.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

It's not nitpicking, Buz. Every time creationists use the image of a highly improbable sequence of random events as the evolutionist's answer to the question of how evolution works, they are seriously misrepresenting the theory. And that is what you did. I'm not nitpicking, I'm trying to relieve a nit from a pestering elephant, if you get my meaning.If the question had been to name one of the factors leading to the build-up of information in DNA, then saying "random mutations" would have been a correct answer. As "energy" would have been, or any other real factor you'd have cared to mention.But that wasn't the question. It was "Where does the information in DNA come from?" To answer "randomly", meaning "from a random process", implying the above mentioned improbable sequence of events as a sufficient cause, is to seriously misrepresent the case. As is implying it's the evolutionist's answer, and an example of a simple, and therefore supposedly wrong answer.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

But now that you've mentioned those three possibilities, my money is on an as yet unspecified fourth option.On second thought, now that I've mentioned that fourth option, Buz is probably going to go with one of Schraf's three options, just to see me lose the bet. Oh well...This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 17-Mar-2005 03:17 PM

I have two objections to your answer:1. Crashfrog asked you to hypothesize, to perform a gedankenexperiment. You answered with an observation. In itself, there's nothing wrong with that, but apart from the fact that it's not what we actually observe (see objection no.2), it would have been much better if you had really tried to speculate as to what would be the result of the thought experiment, without relying on anything but logic. You could still give it a try, by the way.2. Every creature in nature is living proof of an abundance of beneficial mutations. The fact that they are alive proves that their parents must have been able to cope with the circumstances they found themselves in, and long enough so, to enable them to produce offspring. That's because their species was well-adapted to its environment through a long series of beneficial mutations. "A long series of beneficial mutations" may seem improbable, but it's what you have left in Crashfrog's thought-experiment.Really harmful mutations are relatively rare. Species become extinct not so much because of harmful mutations, but because their environment changes and they consequently are no longer as well-adapted to it as they were. Could I see the medical reports of those people, please? What you're saying is completely unfounded, you're making it up on the spot. Or, more probably, you are regurgitating something you've read somewhere.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

You're not listening. I said "without relying on anything but logic". Just apply that keen mind of yours to Crashfrog's premises and see what you get. Logic please, nothing else. What do you think the word 'harmful' means? If species become extinct because of harmful mutations, what would you say reality is doing? "Eliminating all but the better mutations" perhaps? No one is saying they couldn't. And it does happen. But if that was the only mechanism, then the earth would have become lifeless a long time ago. Since life abounds, apparently there's something else going on. I wonder what it is... Not if you do Crashfrog's thought experiment. Aw, you were so close... and then you spoiled it all by saying something stupid like "your belief". My beliefs have nothing to do with it. Evolution provides all the support we need. Maybe it's time you did, because then you would find out that statistics tell a different story. You are dodging the issue. Please present support for your assertion, any support will do for discussion. But no support is not an option.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 18-Mar-2005 08:30 PM

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

But Crash, he just might be brilliant! Maybe 5001 - 5000 really is zero and he can prove it. Wouldn't you want to know?