Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is complexity an argument against design?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 90 of 142 (475845)
07-19-2008 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Buzsaw
07-18-2008 9:22 PM


Re: No Intelligent Design
Hi, Buzz.
Buzsaw writes:
...the cube has all of the complexities that the randomly shaped rocks have plus the shape indicative of intelligent design...
I think the random shape of the rocks is the complexity that Alasdair was referring to, so the cube, in fact, does not have all the complexities of the randomly-shaped rocks.
Have you ever played the game "MouseTrap"? It's this ridiculously confusing contraption that drops a ball that taps a lever that makes a rubber band loosen and dump another ball, and other stuff like that, culminating in a little bell-shaped trap falling down onto the little mouse tokens.
This is a very bad and impractical design: it has way too many parts, and is, in fact, designed to fail at least occasionally, even when it's put together right, just to make the game more interesting. Some kids' marble tracks are the same way: designed to make the marbles bounce throuhg all kinds of weird obstacles before reaching the bottom. They're a pain in the butt to keep running.
Michael Behe's "irreducibly complex" mousetrap with the spring and hammer is a much better and more practical approach to mouse-catching, and it clearly shows the "intelligent" part of "intelligent design."
The human body (and the bodies of other organisms, too) actually show the first type of construction: a convoluted mess of genes that can be alternatively spliced, and all sorts of problems in the knees, the lower back, the hips, the feet, etc. that can happen to you even if you're taking good care of your body. There are people that make careers out of studying a single set of genes that controls how your entire bodyplan is laid out during embryonic development. One weird fluctuation in hormones, and the left side of your face doesn't form. Sometimes, for obscure reasons, the genes just don't do their job: for instance, the pinna of my left ear didn't develop properly, so I have one big Dumbo ear and one Evander Holifield half-ear.
The more parts you add, the more potential problems you create. Simplicity is intelligent, but complexity is nature.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Buzsaw, posted 07-18-2008 9:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 94 of 142 (475904)
07-19-2008 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by John 10:10
07-19-2008 3:52 PM


Hi, John 10:10.
John 10:10 writes:
This forum is established primarily for the purpose of propagating the speculations of the ToE that is then purported to be true verified science, when in fact it is unlike any other scientific endeavor...
You have already been shown at least twice how evolutionary biology follows the same pattern of learning and progress as any other scientific endeavor, and you were unable or unwilling to respond with anything more than unsupported repetitions of "evolution is speculation" and "evolution from start-to-finish is not verified to the highest degree of accuracy." I don't think it's appropriate for you to start this crap again here.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by John 10:10, posted 07-19-2008 3:52 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2008 6:16 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 108 of 142 (476977)
07-29-2008 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by John 10:10
07-29-2008 8:27 AM


Re: Yes, still a theory, a validated scientific based on evidence theory, but ...
Hi, John 10:10.
Joh 10:10 writes:
Diversity and complexity demands that there be an omnipotent Creator...
I don't really think complexity is necessarily an argument against design. But, diversity and complexity could support either one of at least two different things (design or evolution), and it would take further evidence to rule either one out. And---wouldn't you know it?---the further evidence is strongly leaning towards the evolution side.

Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by John 10:10, posted 07-29-2008 8:27 AM John 10:10 has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 133 of 142 (480929)
09-07-2008 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by andorg
09-02-2008 11:24 AM


Re: Complexity is a relative, not absolute notion
Hi, Andorg.
andorg writes:
The same is for complexity of living organisms. Complexity of an elephant which is clone of an existing elephant is zero. Complexity of an elephant that is born in the Africa elephant population is log of total number of all possible elephants that could be born there. This number can be evaluated....
...So - what is the complexity of a newborn elephant on this island?
Its complexity is ZERO! There is only one possible elephant, so the number of possibilities is one, log (1) = 0. This is a completely simple elephant. But this is the same elephant, that we see in any zoo!
That's an interesting concept.
What I find interesting about your model is that, if it is correct, and if we apply it to a system where mutation is happening and where all the elephants are not clones... than we see that all mutations have equal "complexity," because each represents a random selection from the same number of alternatives.
If, for instance, there are 32,756,888,123,451 possible mutations that could happen, each one has an equal likelihood of happening. So, if it can be shown possible that any mutation can happen, it has also been proven that beneficial mutations also can happen.
So, if we use the "information theory" stuff used by Dembski and the rest of the ID mafia, we see the scientist, locked in the room, trying to make a single combination to unlock the door by randomly selecting each number from a bucket, and, whatever combination he comes up with, it is equally improbable as any other example. But, the shear fact that he is capable of coming up with any combination is proof of the principle.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by andorg, posted 09-02-2008 11:24 AM andorg has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 140 of 142 (481075)
09-08-2008 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by miosim
09-08-2008 10:50 PM


Re: Statistical analyses falsified
Hi, miosim.
miosim writes:
The authors can't claim that irreducibly complex things evolve, because “ . experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved when simpler functions were not rewarded” - but this is exactly what predicted per Irreducible Complexity argument.
Actually, this is not what is predicted by IC. When the author says, "simpler functions were not rewarded," that is the equivalent of, "simpler functions were not favored by natural selection." So, this example shows that natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex systems. This is a clear and direct refutation of irreducible Complexity.
miosim writes:
Irreducible Complexity means that complex system can’t evolve in a single jump from simplicity (because of extreme improbability), but gradually only.
You've got this exactly backwards: IC claims that a system could not evolve one step at a time, because all parts had to be in place at once in order for it to function. If you don't believe me, here is CreationWiki on the subject. But, since the probability of all parts simultaneously "popping" into existence by natural processes is astronomically small, Behe simply dismisses it.
But, as already stated, the author's example shows how such systems can evolve one step at a time, even though it needs all the parts together to perform the function.
miosim writes:
However science didn't explain yet how the gradual changes were rewarded.
Yes, they did: the reward in biological systems is survival and reproduction. And, science has been saying that since 1859.
Edited by Bluejay, : I made a rather important mistake in my very first paragraph.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by miosim, posted 09-08-2008 10:50 PM miosim has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by miosim, posted 09-10-2008 9:20 PM Blue Jay 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