Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does complexity require intelligent design?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 229 (191459)
03-14-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
03-12-2005 11:42 PM


Behe and Rube Goldberg
quote:
IMHO, Simplicity is more likely to require intellegent design. The whole goal of good design is to make sure things are no more complicated than absolutely necessary.
That is something I have been arguing for a while now. Behe, unwittingly, runs into the same problem.
In describing the complexity of his Irreducibly Complex biological systems he talks about the comics created by Rube Goldberg. These comics portray insanely complex machines that do very simple tasks. Another example is the overly complex traps that Foghorn Leghorn constructs to kill the dog. Somehow, Behe doesn't see the irony. These comics are funny because it is not how an intelligent designer would design. The simplest arrangement is always the best. Complex systems for simple tasks are frowned upon, and often labelled ad hoc. However, ad hoc systems are EXACTLY what a process such as evolution would create. I think this point should be brought up more often within ID discussions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 03-12-2005 11:42 PM jar has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 229 (191493)
03-14-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by xevolutionist
03-14-2005 2:02 PM


Re: Clarity
quote:
Mere complexity does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Complexity with purpose and function seems to indicate an intelligent designer. I have never witnessed nature [the natural universe] creating anything. I have witnessed intelligent individuals creating machines, works of art, structures, theories, literature.
Let's compare the purposes found in observed intelligent design and the purpose of complexity in biology.
This gets us back to Paley's Watchmaker analogy. If we found a watch sitting on the ground we would assume that there was a watchmaker. But what is the purpose of the watch? To tell time, something that does not benefit the watch in anyway. Also, the only way for a watch to come about is through human manufacture. We can also observe a watch being made.
None of this is true for biological organisms. What is the purpose of a flagella? To help the survival of the organism. What is the purpose of a clotting cascade? Survival of the organism. None of the IC systems listed by Behe have any outside use like the watch does. All systems have one goal, survival of the organism. Also, biological organisms do not need an outside manufacturing process to create them. Simple biological reproduction does just fine. There is no need for a watchmaker, just reproduction.
Comparing design created through human manufacturing can not be compared to design created through biological reproduction. The two processes create different purposes for design and design arises through different mechanisms. Also, in all cases of design we have a designer that is independently evidenced. If I see a pot shard do I assume that God put it there? No, I assume humans made it since I have independent evidence of humans manufacturing pot shards.
quote:
quote:
now we know that the constellations are just coincidental arrangements of stars. The apparent design of one group of stars, obscures the that fact that the vast majority of stars are arranged in a random pattern.
How do we know this? Is there a mathematical formula that proves this apparent supposition?
How do we tell the difference between a naturally occuring random pattern and a random pattern created by an intelligence? Do humans force the shape of a warrior onto the constellation Orion, or was Orion designed by an unknown intelligence to look like a warrior? Pleas tell me how we can differentiate between the two.
Or, just look at my avatar. The image is of gram stained bacteria. Is it a random pattern that looks like a man, or did someone have to move the bacteria into that arrangment? How can we tell the difference?
quote:
Of course our planet’s life systems are dependant not only on the above mentioned factors, but the presence of the moon to activate the tides and prevent the oceans from stagnating, and the unique quality of water as a solid becoming less dense than the liquid form, thus preserving life in bodies of water by forming an insulating blanket of ice on the surface, rather than the entire body freezing solid. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it's all chance.
We really don't know what is required for life to occur. We are only going on a sample of 1 (ie the earth). Could life arise in a stagnant ocean? Could life arise without an ice blanket? Maybe. We really don't know. Could life arise in liquid hydrocarbons, such as the conditions found on other planets? Possibly. We know too little about how life can form to form any conclusions.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-14-2005 03:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by xevolutionist, posted 03-14-2005 2:02 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by xevolutionist, posted 03-17-2005 1:19 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 229 (197019)
04-05-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by xevolutionist
04-05-2005 1:30 AM


Re: Ok, never say never...
quote:
think testability is optional, because how can you test something that only happened once?
How can you test for paternity when conception only happened once? How can you test for the presence of the suspect at a crime scene if the crime only happened once? Do we have to reanimate a corpse and have it rekilled to find out how the person was murdered in the first place?
When something occurs it leaves evidence. It is this evidence that is tested.
The process of science starts with a few observations. A hypothesis is then formed, an explanation of how something COULD have occured. With this hypothesis one can predict what evidence will be found if the hypothesis is accurate.
For example, let's say that I hypothesize that John murdered Mark. At the crime scene I find two blood types. From this I predict that both John's blood and Mark's blood will be a match to the blood found at the scene. Sure enough, my prediction is born out. The murder only happened once, but I can test the evidence continually.
The same for biology and evolution. Using genetics, I can continually test for common ancestory between species. I can also test for the amount of time since two species shared a common ancestor and see if this estimate matches with the fossil record. The theory of evolution is continually tested with every sequenced genome and every fossil.
quote:
The evidence that DNA is a code conveying specified, complex information vital to each cell in every living thing is undeniable. Regardless of the claims made elsewhere in this thread, when that code is tampered with, the observed results are always deleterious.
If I showed you mutations that have lead to beneficial outcomes, would you agree that life is not designed? If not, then why even make the argument you have just made?
quote:
And I was postulating that His existence fits best with the evidence that we have.
For some, alien intervention for the construction of Stonehenge fits the evidence better. At one time, Zeus throwing down thunderbolts fit the evidence better. Science requires evidence instead of opinion or an unknown force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by xevolutionist, posted 04-05-2005 1:30 AM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by xevolutionist, posted 04-09-2005 1:46 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 229 (197267)
04-06-2005 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by xevolutionist
04-05-2005 10:02 PM


Re: triple jumps in logic
quote:
I should have made myself easier to understand, forgive me. My point was that the complexity of the simplest living cells is far beyond our ability to assemble, even with the technology to create virtually any environment and any combination of chemical compounds, so to assume that chance produced the same incredibly complex, interdependent, life forms, is not logical. Is that silly?
It is not silly, just not well thought out. Why is it impossible for chance and a selective filter to create complex systems? Please provide positive evidence of why this is impossible.
Second, as Crashfrog mentioned, engineers are now using chance and a selective filter to create new designs (they are called genetic algorithms). One exciting filed of research is software that controls electronic gates. This allows random combinations of different electrical components. All you need is a selective filter that picks out the best random designs. Rinse and repeat, voila, new design that works as well as one intelligently designed, or even better. One example is a radio that was evolved through this process (info here). If random chance and a selective filter can create a radio, why can't it create a replicating chemical reaction that improves over time? More importantly, with evidence that chance and selection can create design, how do we tell the difference between an evolved system and an intelligently designed (from scratch) system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by xevolutionist, posted 04-05-2005 10:02 PM xevolutionist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by xevolutionist, posted 04-13-2005 10:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024