Author
|
Topic: Irreduceable Complexity
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 2 of 94 (14135)
07-25-2002 9:20 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Peter 07-25-2002 8:05 AM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Peter: Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of argument from incredulity ? Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined a step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other then that something-or-other must have been designed. A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function. That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring trap design. So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show an evolution of thinking behind the eventual object. And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was designed. So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ? If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.
Actually, you can remove the base of a mousetrap & nail it to the floor, & it still functions as a mousetrap (SLPx pointed this out, I believe). So the mousetrap isn't IC Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by Peter, posted 07-25-2002 8:05 AM | | Peter has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 3 by John, posted 07-25-2002 9:34 AM | | mark24 has not replied | | Message 14 by Peter, posted 07-29-2002 2:52 AM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
quote: Originally posted by Tranquility Base: Some creationists out there might want to force mainstreamers to accept ID for use in schools etc. Instead, I am quite happy to present ID/creation/flood and have you guys tear it to shreds if you want to. If you can't see the folly of trying to argue that there isn't design evident in nature that strongly argues for God then that's just fine and dandy with me. It just saddens me, that's all.
How can you tell naturally occurring objects from supernaturally designed ones? If you can't tell the difference then you have no evidence of design! Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
quote: Originally posted by Tranquility Base: I don't have a problem finding things I am sure God created. Pick any family of animals and I will say categorically God created it. But I'm not going to be so silly as to say I can pick every created kind - I can't deconvolute the effects of hybridisaiton, microeveoltuion and creation for very organisms on earth! Give me the genomes and I'll give you an opinon though. My first paragraph stands. Just becasue God created a world where things can adapt you want to say there is no evidence for design.
That's not what I asked. "How can you tell naturally occurring objects from supernaturally designed ones? If you can't tell the difference then you have no evidence of design!" Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
quote: Originally posted by Tranquility Base: I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that. Also: The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.
TB, Please, "How can you tell naturally occurring objects from supernaturally designed ones? If you can't tell the difference then you have no evidence of design!" Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
quote: Originally posted by Tranquility Base: Of course they can but the stories sound so ridiculous that the've hardly been recorded yet. You show me the paper that tells us step by step how anyparticular biochemical system could have evolved. These papers do not exist. No-one is even trying.
Utterly, utterly irrelevant. How can you tell a naturally occurring from a non-naturally occurring object? If you cannot answer this question, ID is finished. Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 53 of 94 (14671)
08-01-2002 7:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by Quetzal 08-01-2002 11:53 AM
|
|
Quetz, Welcome back! Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 52 by Quetzal, posted 08-01-2002 11:53 AM | | Quetzal has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
TB, Fot the xxth time, How can you tell a naturally occurring from a non-naturally occurring object? Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
Replies to this message: | | Message 55 by John, posted 08-01-2002 8:12 PM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
quote: Originally posted by Tranquility Base: Mark I thought I had answered this - sorry. If the system is IC then my first assumption is that it is designed. Like I said earlier, IC systems could potentially be natural but as IC seems to be a systematic feature of life I lean on the other view (). And, yes, ICness is not digital - something might look fairly IC or extremely IC. I personally believe that all of the cellular systems of life are designed and that natural selction has simply optimzed some of these for altered circumstances via point mutations. This belief is well supported but I can't prove it.
This going to get circular. First you have to KNOW that something is IC. How do you do that with out a god-of-the-gaps-argument-from-incredulity? Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
Replies to this message: | | Message 60 by John, posted 08-02-2002 12:32 PM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 67 of 94 (28415)
01-04-2003 7:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Mozambu 01-04-2003 7:02 PM
|
|
Mozambu, Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure an English speaker is qualified to tackle Brad's posts, let alone a someone who has English as a second language! There was no arrogance in Brads response, but he is hard to read sometimes. Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 66 by Mozambu, posted 01-04-2003 7:02 PM | | Mozambu has not replied |
|