It is quite obvious that you are making the error that I suggested. Perakh and Behe are using different definitions of irreducible complexity.
And Behe's claim that irreducibly complex systems defy evolution is simply his opinion - and one he has still not adequately supported. And given the evidence produced to the contrary (see post 1 for an example) it looks like Behe is wrong. And in that case IC is NOT evidence for ID.
I will be reading OUT GP's"Discussing the formation of the supramolecular structures in the living nature some authors often speak about increasing orderliness of the system by evolution in the living nautre due to the accumulation (production) of the "low-entropy product". Meanwhile it was established long ago that...Thus the entropy of the system increases as well. The latter fact testifies to the increasing amount of "high-entropy product" but in no way of the "low-entropy product""and"The apologists...However, if to speak about the classical entropy (S) all above mentioned arguments must be rejected as deprived of the physical sense." to effect of "It follow from the above that the thermodynamic theory leaves no room for creationism, unless, of course, it is only the creation of living beings that is associated with this notion(this sometimes happens)."
I will make more of Gladyshev's work available without my own clinamatic(metic) comments on the metric.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-27-2004]
quote:Behe says IC systems defy the step by tiny step evolutionary process of improvement. He also claims that IC systems evidence ID.
Claims so in the absence of evidence.
quote:My point is that worldview settles the issue, which makes philosophy king.
If worldview decides the accuracy and legitimacy of scientific theories, then I have some snake oil to sell you. Philosophy deals with abstractions that are either out science's reach or the underpinnings thereof (ie methodological naturalism).
Paulk quote: ______________________________________________________________________ It is quite obvious that you are making the error that I suggested. Perakh and Behe are using different definitions of irreducible complexity. ______________________________________________________________________
Nope. Behe and Perakh agree that IC systems exist. Perakh responds to Behe's claims by arguing that these IC systems have already been accounted for in ATP.
I say that this explanation/claim by Perakh to be sidestepping/evading the initial claim by Behe that IC systems defy long standing evolutionary processes of ultra-slow improvement. Perakh completely ignores this claim (Behe's central claim). Perakh just declares IC systems the product of ATP.
All I am saying is that I was disappointed NOT to read in Perakh's book anything about the central claim of Behe. But, I guess, there is nowhere to go in that issue since IC systems could not of slowly evolved. Do you understand the descrepancy I am attempting to address ?
"Mathematics in its widest signification is the development of all types of formal, necessary, deductive reasoning. The reasoning is formal in the sense that the meaning of propositions forms no part of the investigation. The sole concern of mathematics is the inference of proposition from proposition. ... The ideal of mathematics should be to erect a calculus to facilitate reasoning in connection with every providence of thought, or external experience, in which the succession of thoughts, or of events can be definitely ascertained and precisely stated. So that all serious thought which is not philosophy, or inductive reasoning, or imaginative literature, shall be mathematics developed by means of a calculus."
I can only repeat the point that Perakh is using a DIFFERENT DEFINITION of irreducible complexity from Behe.
And has has already been pointed out Behe agrees that it is *possible* for IC systems to evolve by gradual change. His only objection is an unsupported opinion about the probability - an opinion that remains unsupported to this day.
So no, there does not seem to be any discrepency to address.
As soon as possible I will be attempting to present a prediction/calculation (bearing on said probablisms) of "low entropy product" USING Quarternions setting up a low-high equlibrium (process vs system for any probalism (either way)) that summed masks the RELATIVE LOWENTROPY(I will define in the system) (hence "fact" refered to in my post immediately above) which I will at first make out a constraint on heritbility due to contribution cellularly of sub diploid (genetic context) to total DNA content which will retrodict an intersection of development and environment (due to relation of rotations and revolutions or pure inertia etc) such that different individual hierarchies can have larger low-entopy product PROCESS per indistinguishable high-entropy SYSTEMS. A specific notion of TIME will be used but this does not mean that just becuase Behe is not against gradualism in some sense (this would be one of them) that the objection about the multiple universe probabilites is still not in order.
quote:As soon as possible I will be attempting to present a prediction/calculation (bearing on said probablisms) of "low entropy product" USING Quarternions setting up a low-high equlibrium
Brad, you are a sight to behold. Someday I hope to understand the connections that you see between physics, chemistry, and biological evolution. If anyone wants a primer on quaternions look here. I am wondering if you find humor in using imaginary numbers (eg i) when describing evolution and abiogenesis.
Loudmouth quote: ______________________________________________________________________ Cellular systems that should be simple are in fact extremely complex ______________________________________________________________________
What is the source for this belief that cellular systems SHOULD be simple ?
If complexity evidences randomness, how so ?
Loudmouth quote: ______________________________________________________________________ This is what I see when looking at the internal workings of the cell, an overly designed structure that would have been done completely different if under the command of a sane intelligence capable of common sense. ______________________________________________________________________
You are assuming much of how an alleged IDesigner should design. What is the source of this belief that overly designed structures indicates the lack of intelligence ?
You are judging design by a rigged litmus test - rigged to fail, which means no IDer involved.
To me it is evident that "overly designed structures" / IC systems evidence "How great thou art !"
No matter how you slice it you are requiring a Designer to be evidenced exactly opposite of how things are.
Loudmouth writes: ______________________________________________________________________ However, the devil's advocate should also offer conditions under which he/she would withdraw their criticism. IDists have never offered such conditions, as their pseudotheory stands unfalsifiable. Something is designed because . . . they think it's designed ______________________________________________________________________
The devil's advocate should - I agree.
I believe IDists discover evidence contrary to the way the ToE has things. They assume ToE evidences against a Creator, then, to find/evidence otherwise is fair to deduce for a Creator.
Romans says He can be deduced, it also says why some cannot.
I will have to catch up with you next time. Time passed and I was not ready to post to you substatively. The issue of imaginaries pends on for me on Einstein's use of Minkowski but i had wanted to express the retordiction in sharper language before responding I am not ready but I am sure you will remember to ask me about it again at another time. I'll take my laughs as JP took his after some others did too.
Just thought I would comeback and give you a reply, knowing full well that I will not get a response. This post is for clarification more than anything else.
quote:What is the source for this belief that cellular systems SHOULD be simple ?
If complexity evidences randomness, how so ?
Given that ID theorists claim that an Intelligence designed cellular structers, they should have the hallmark of intelligent design, efficiency of design. Cellular structures are not effeciently designed. Instead, they are unnecessarily complicated.
quote:You are assuming much of how an alleged IDesigner should design. What is the source of this belief that overly designed structures indicates the lack of intelligence ?
As IDists claim, humans can detect design. That is their whole premise. I detect a lack of intelligent design because of inefficient and unecessarily complicated design, even within IC systems. Therefore, intelligent design does not exist. Using ID theories own premises, I have shown the lack of intelligent design.
quote:You are judging design by a rigged litmus test - rigged to fail, which means no IDer involved.
And that is the problem with judging design through ID theory, it is arbitrary and subjective. I no more rigged my litmus test than Behe rigged his litmus test of IC systems. Why should IC systems be used as evidence for intelligent design? For no other reason than IC systems exist and it fits the presuppositions that Behe wants to promote. This is why science uses objective evidence instead of design inferrences which are subjective.
quote:No matter how you slice it you are requiring a Designer to be evidenced exactly opposite of how things are.
There is no reason a cell could not be more effeciently designed by an intelligence equal with that of man. The reason we have a medical field is to fix problems with ineffecient design.
quote:I believe IDists discover evidence contrary to the way the ToE has things. They assume ToE evidences against a Creator, then, to find/evidence otherwise is fair to deduce for a Creator.
The whole point of this thread is that the evidence they present is not counter to the ToE, as discussed by the OP. IDists rely on incomplete knowledge, not positive evidence.
quote:Romans says He can be deduced, it also says why some cannot.
And through studying the natural world we have deduced his creative mechanism, evolution. Some deny this and are no longer able to see evolution as God's creative force. At least this is the way I looked at it when I was a believer.
the hallmark of intelligent design, efficiency of design.
well, then i might go so far as to say that my computer was not intelligently designed. it sure isn't that efficent.
although, if the claim is that an ultimate intelligence designed something, well, it better damn well be a good design, yes. biological systems.... just aren't.
Why should IC systems be used as evidence for intelligent design? For no other reason than IC systems exist and it fits the presuppositions that Behe wants to promote.
i don't see the connection either. and the fact that compluters with evolutionary algorithms routinely evolve "irreducibly complex" systems kind of cuts the argument off at its feet. so you remove a part, and the system fails, or serves another purpose. so what?
that, and judging from that article before, behe's argument of complexity fails gloriously. my car is an irreducibly complex system, right? well, if i remove the transmission and the engine, it doesn't go. it does however roll down a hill quite well. the wheels also function fine on their own.
Sure there may be a true "delusion" that is at work. I still have not been able to verify or quantify that nor is it sufficiently clear that I will be able to. What I did FIND was that Hamilton in the search for a relation of geometry and algebra did not loose the materialist message of a denial on going beyond a couple synthesized in PURE TIME for he asserted that PURE KIND is found in PURE SYMBOLISM only. The imaginaries were not funny after all laughing I have done between posts for I can not be certain that the Copernicazation of macrokinetics is not part of Boscovich's particularity philosophy. At any rate I can not understand why the author of Boltzman's Atom did not find the repulsion first and not the soaking up of water in a sponge/washclothe for I am not sure if the multiplication of two imaginaries say iandj are not 0 or -jxi. I may have been wrong about negative entropy but then there would have to be a real psychiatiric delusion here but my ability to name it is against that a priori. It appears that the refusal to understand IC is as much a rejection of the faculty of reason as it might be the manifestation acutally in experiments of biquaternions.
I know this may not sound sound but to my mind I do understand it.