Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 19077 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #551 on: October 24, 2013, 03:48:57 PM »
So, you're the "asshole", not me. I've only smited 108 times.

;)

Believe what you will. I only smite if I deem the smitee worthy. Same with +1's. In this case, smiting seems to be the only way I can get an answer out of DrTesla

-Nam

-One

I do the same thing but it's more excessive berating on my part.

;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #552 on: October 24, 2013, 03:49:13 PM »

Can't you read?  I asked you to tell me which system you are talking about.  Fucking name one! And the boundaries of that system - within which you claim that it is IC.  Give me something to demolish for you.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #553 on: October 24, 2013, 03:52:57 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.   It was non-essential aka dead weight aka most government workers.   LOL
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10619
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #554 on: October 24, 2013, 03:54:01 PM »
I do the same thing but it's more excessive berating on my part.

;)

Not sure if you're referring to the method by which you get DrTesla to reply to you or why you smite people.

-Nam

-One

@median: You should check your PM's. I sent you one like a month ago, and you haven't replied yet.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #555 on: October 24, 2013, 04:04:10 PM »
A system is still irreducibly complex even if there are non-essential parts that can be removed.

Absolutely not.

I am a degreed mechanical engineer.  I am fascinated by machines.  I view the human body as an amazingly complicated machine that no human could ever design.

So what? We have computers today that no human could ever design. Today, they're designed by teams of humans, with the indispensable assistance of... other computers.

Quote
Yet we are to pretend that nature resulted in a a far more complex structure of lifeforms which is actually thousands of complex stuctures/systems  combined and all these systems/structures interface with other systems/structures within the lifeform.   In terms of probablity we have to reject this as impossible.

No we don't.

Quote
One must consider most random mutations lead to something that actually hurts the lifeform, and the others are neutral meaning they don't help or hurt enough to be selected.    yet some how nature can do what man cannot,  with no intelligence at all.

What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god! The beauty of the world! The paragon of animals! And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no, nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seem to say so. -- Hamlet, Act II, Scene II

Man has achieved quite a lot, and much of it in the past 400 years or so.

But don't get too conceited about Man's achievements or overawed by its vaunted intelligence. And don't get too dogmatic about what nature can do. You see, nature has two things on its side that Man does not: time (a lot of it) and an array of environmental factors that conspire ensure that those with deleterious disadvantages are much less likely to survive to maturity and produce offspring. If they're slower, weaker, if they can't stand the temperature or humidity of their environment, if they suffer worse from the local bugs and toxins produced by the local flora and fauna, if they have trouble obtaining food or if they're not attractive prospects as mates, they're going to be in trouble. Those with beneficial traits, on the other hand, those who are faster, stronger, hardier, disease- and toxin-resistant, attractive, good providers - they'll be the ones who successfully pass their genes onto the next generation.

Random mutations that lead to something that hurts the lifeform are not as uncommon as you might think. Did you know that roughly 75% of all human conceptions are miscarried? Some due to implantation failure, others due to rejection or failure of the organism shortly after implantation. Sometimes, even if an implantation has been successful, those pesky random mutations result in a mix of genes that simply can't grow to become an independent living thing. Anyone who has been through the ordeal of the 12- and 20-week scans[1] and was sufficiently well-informed to know what they're about know precisely just how many deleterious traits can turn that moment of joy into an agony of uncertainty and occasionally a tragedy.

Life's harsh like that.
 1. In the UK. YMMV in other parts of the World.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 04:15:39 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #556 on: October 24, 2013, 04:09:43 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.   It was non-essential aka dead weight aka most government workers.   LOL


I've asked you before (and others have to), have you even attempted to research the responses to this claim you are making?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4636
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #557 on: October 24, 2013, 04:10:35 PM »
Actually, Jag, I'm not surprised that he's bought so much into the intelligent design/irreducible complexity argument.  Engineers in general are predisposed towards design just as a matter of course - they design things for a living.  So him thinking of the body as a machine makes sense.  And him insisting that there has to be a designer because the body is so much more complicated and intricate than any machine ever made by humans also makes sense.

The thing is (and I hope you're reading this, DrTesla), just because something makes sense, doesn't mean it's correct.  He does not appear knowledgeable about biology or evolution, and that leads him to make mistakes through lack of knowledge.  Not only that, but he's probably got training and experience as an engineer, which means his natural response is going to be as an engineer.  Which is great, if he's dealing with something in engineering.  Not so great, if he's dealing with something in some other field, like biology.

This is a lesson I had to learn.  I work with computers, both hardware and software.  I have that tendency towards thinking in terms of design too.  The difference is, I learned early on that my expertise in computer science doesn't translate to some other field.  What works with computers isn't likely to work with biology, or chemistry, or physics, or even engineering (though it's at least closer to that than to the others).

DrTesla, you have to learn to treat other fields of science on their own terms, not try to make them fit into your experience as an engineer.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #558 on: October 24, 2013, 04:11:31 PM »
I do the same thing but it's more excessive berating on my part.

;)

Not sure if you're referring to the method by which you get DrTesla to reply to you or why you smite people.

-Nam

-One

@median: You should check your PM's. I sent you one like a month ago, and you haven't replied yet.

Former, and for everyone.

;)

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #559 on: October 24, 2013, 04:14:16 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #560 on: October 24, 2013, 04:17:22 PM »
There are so many fallacies and ignorance based assumptions with this ID/IC thing it's comedy. The credulous desperately need to satisfy their fears.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #561 on: October 24, 2013, 04:17:36 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?

No, you are artificially adding parts to the IC system to make the case that by they can be removed and the system does not fail.  But when we talk about a system,  the system has a certain function. Thus anything that doesn't participate in that function isn't part of the system.   

You also seem to be assuming system just means anything in the general area of something else but a system consists of parts that interact with each other.   If a part is sitting there and not interacting it by definition isn't part of a system with a function. 


« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 04:21:11 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #562 on: October 24, 2013, 04:20:14 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?

No, you are artificially adding parts to the IC system to make the case that by they can be removed and the system does not fail.  But when we talk about a system,  the system has a certain function. Thus anything that doesn't participate in that function isn't part of the system.   

You also seem to be assuming system just means anything in the general area of something else but a system consists of parts that interact with each other.   If a part is sitting there and not interacting it by definition isn't part of a system with a function.

And again you are attempting to draw a False Analogy (a logical fallacy) from living systems to non-living systems.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 04:21:53 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #563 on: October 24, 2013, 04:22:44 PM »
DrTesla, do you also reject plate tectonic theory?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #564 on: October 24, 2013, 04:22:52 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?

No, you are artificially adding parts to the IC system to make the case that by they can be removed and the system does not fail.  But when we talk about a system,  the system has a certain function. Thus anything that doesn't participate in that function isn't part of the system.   

You also seem to be assuming system just means anything in the general area of something else but a system consists of parts that interact with each other.   If a part is sitting there and not interacting it by definition isn't part of a system with a function.


And again you are attempting to draw a False Analogy (a logical fallacy) from living systems to non-living systems.

No, a system is a system regardless if it is biological or not.   A system performs a function and obviously a human body has numerous systems that perform a function.   Obviously each system has parts that it cannot do without or there is failure.       
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #565 on: October 24, 2013, 04:26:32 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?

No, you are artificially adding parts to the IC system to make the case that by they can be removed and the system does not fail.  But when we talk about a system,  the system has a certain function. Thus anything that doesn't participate in that function isn't part of the system.

Oh, really? So vestigial organs aren't part of the body?
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4636
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #566 on: October 24, 2013, 04:30:22 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.   It was non-essential aka dead weight aka most government workers.   LOL
Biology isn't engineering no matter what it might look like to you.  You aren't dealing with a television, or a computer, or something else that has parts that simply must be in place before it's put into use, otherwise it won't work.  Biology doesn't work that way.  It doesn't construct things the way humans do - it grows them from the ground up.  They pass through stages of development which are self-regulated, which is why you have some organisms which have distinctly different body forms at certain points in their life.  For example, a caterpillar turns into a butterfly if it lives long enough.

The point is, there is no part of a biological organism that is irreducibly complex, for the simple reason that the organism grew every part of itself based on its genome.  Things that people make can be irreducibly complex, because those things don't have to reproduce themselves.  That's the key.  For something to be able to reproduce itself, it must be able to do so without outside assistance, and something that is irreducibly complex inevitably must require outside assistance in order to reproduce itself, because it can't put itself together due to the irreducible complexity.

I'm quite serious here.  Your point is that if you have irreducible complexity, you must have a designer.  Well, you must also have a builder too, someone who can put it together, because it certainly can't put itself together - it's irreducibly complex.  It needs help from the outside.

Yet we don't ever see this in biology.  Not once.  Every single organism that has ever lived ultimately grows itself from what amounts to raw materials.  It could not do so if it were truly irreducibly complex.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #567 on: October 24, 2013, 04:34:26 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?

No, you are artificially adding parts to the IC system to make the case that by they can be removed and the system does not fail.  But when we talk about a system,  the system has a certain function. Thus anything that doesn't participate in that function isn't part of the system.

Oh, really? So vestigial organs aren't part of the body?

A vestigial organ by definition isn't part of an irreducible complex system as the system it should be associated with does not need it in that the system won't fail without it.    Your premise is everything in the body must be part of an IC system or there is no such thing as IC system which is obviousy a circular logic and nonsensical. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #568 on: October 24, 2013, 04:35:46 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.   It was non-essential aka dead weight aka most government workers.   LOL
Biology isn't engineering no matter what it might look like to you.  You aren't dealing with a television, or a computer, or something else that has parts that simply must be in place before it's put into use, otherwise it won't work.  Biology doesn't work that way.  It doesn't construct things the way humans do - it grows them from the ground up.  They pass through stages of development which are self-regulated, which is why you have some organisms which have distinctly different body forms at certain points in their life.  For example, a caterpillar turns into a butterfly if it lives long enough.

The point is, there is no part of a biological organism that is irreducibly complex, for the simple reason that the organism grew every part of itself based on its genome.  Things that people make can be irreducibly complex, because those things don't have to reproduce themselves.  That's the key.  For something to be able to reproduce itself, it must be able to do so without outside assistance, and something that is irreducibly complex inevitably must require outside assistance in order to reproduce itself, because it can't put itself together due to the irreducible complexity.

I'm quite serious here.  Your point is that if you have irreducible complexity, you must have a designer.  Well, you must also have a builder too, someone who can put it together, because it certainly can't put itself together - it's irreducibly complex.  It needs help from the outside.

Yet we don't ever see this in biology.  Not once.  Every single organism that has ever lived ultimately grows itself from what amounts to raw materials.  It could not do so if it were truly irreducibly complex.

You're speaking to thin air[1].

-Nam
 1. wall would give back something
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #569 on: October 24, 2013, 04:37:18 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?

No, you are artificially adding parts to the IC system to make the case that by they can be removed and the system does not fail.  But when we talk about a system,  the system has a certain function. Thus anything that doesn't participate in that function isn't part of the system.

Oh, really? So vestigial organs aren't part of the body?

A vestigial organ by definition isn't part of an irreducible complex system as the system it should be associated with does not need it in that the system won't fail without it.    Your premise is everything in the body must be part of an IC system or there is no such thing as IC system which is obviousy a circular logic and nonsensical.

How so? If we're talking about biology, then the units - the systems - we're dealing with are organisms. If you're arguing about something else, then you're not really arguing against biology, but something else you just made up.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 04:41:40 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #570 on: October 24, 2013, 04:40:29 PM »
If an IC system is one in which even one of its parts is removed causes the system to fail,  then it follows that if a part is removed from a system and that system does not fail,  that part was not part of the IC system.

But if you have to artificially remove parts in order to make it IC, then it's an irrelevance, because you're not dealing with an entity that anyone postulates to have arrived via entirely natural processes anyway. So what is your point?

No, you are artificially adding parts to the IC system to make the case that by they can be removed and the system does not fail.  But when we talk about a system,  the system has a certain function. Thus anything that doesn't participate in that function isn't part of the system.

Oh, really? So vestigial organs aren't part of the body?

A vestigial organ by definition isn't part of an irreducible complex system as the system it should be associated with does not need it in that the system won't fail without it.    Your premise is everything in the body must be part of an IC system or there is no such thing as IC system which is obviousy a circular logic and nonsensical.

How so? If we're talking about biology, then the units - the systems - we're dealing with are organisms. If you're arguing about something else, then you're not really arguing against biology, but something else you just made up.

Not every system is IC.  Not every item is part of a system.  I don't think anybody has said the entire body is an IC system b/c you can obviously survive as a blind person or a deaf person and without various limbs and so on and so forth.   IC  System = collection of parts that interact with other and provide a certain function and without just one of these parts the entire system fails.   

If we wanted to look at a IC system in which the function is to sustain life and without one the body was die obviously you have to include the cardiovascular system, the respiratory system, the immune system, etc.  You would not include toes, reproductive system, etc.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 04:44:35 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1185
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #571 on: October 24, 2013, 04:44:18 PM »
Actually, Jag, I'm not surprised that he's bought so much into the intelligent design/irreducible complexity argument.  Engineers in general are predisposed towards design just as a matter of course - they design things for a living.  So him thinking of the body as a machine makes sense.  And him insisting that there has to be a designer because the body is so much more complicated and intricate than any machine ever made by humans also makes sense.

The thing is (and I hope you're reading this, DrTesla), just because something makes sense, doesn't mean it's correct.  He does not appear knowledgeable about biology or evolution, and that leads him to make mistakes through lack of knowledge.  Not only that, but he's probably got training and experience as an engineer, which means his natural response is going to be as an engineer.  Which is great, if he's dealing with something in engineering.  Not so great, if he's dealing with something in some other field, like biology.

This is a lesson I had to learn.  I work with computers, both hardware and software.  I have that tendency towards thinking in terms of design too.  The difference is, I learned early on that my expertise in computer science doesn't translate to some other field.  What works with computers isn't likely to work with biology, or chemistry, or physics, or even engineering (though it's at least closer to that than to the others).

DrTesla, you have to learn to treat other fields of science on their own terms, not try to make them fit into your experience as an engineer.

I am not convinced by this that he is not a fake. My reasons are that he has been contradicting himself and his motives too much and second that he changes direction just to string people along. Third that Occasionally he says he knows nothing and says he wants to learn something then he purposely ignores other posts. Fourth that when he said what he had learned from this site, he gave a nonsense answer. Fifth that when he said he was a qualified engineer the tone of the sentences changed, and he appeared to know more than he was pretending. Sixth that a student of science would have study skills and would have followed some of the links or read some books.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #572 on: October 24, 2013, 04:57:07 PM »
Not every system is IC.  Not every item is part of a system.  I don't think anybody has said the entire body is an IC system b/c you can obviously survive as a blind person or a deaf person and without various limbs and so on and so forth.   IC  System = collection of parts that interact with other and provide a certain function and without just one of these parts the entire system fails.

DrTesla, would you say, from your understanding, that roughly 99.9% of the biological systems that we know of are not irreducibly complex? I ask that because you've only mentioned a certain type of bacteria's flagella, the human eye and coagulation and there are BILLIONS of complex systems. What's more probable:

1) that these few systems really are irreducibly complex and a *designer* designed them in such a way, despite having the knowledge to create systems that aren't irreducibly complex, or...
2) that human beings haven't quite figured out how some biological systems' mechanisms have evolved?

Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #573 on: October 24, 2013, 04:57:11 PM »


No, a system is a system regardless if it is biological or not.   A system performs a function and obviously a human body has numerous systems that perform a function.   Obviously each system has parts that it cannot do without or there is failure.     

You are looking at this backwards and still missing the point completely (and you're still ignoring the false analogy you keep making). You simply CANNOT compare living systems to non-living systems (b/c non-living systems do not have the capacity to reproduce or pass on genetic material/chemicals). It doesn't matter that they are "systems". They are completely different and you are question begging to act like b/c we see humans design things...therefore biochemical mechanisms must also be designed. Again, more logically fallacious arguments don't get you there. Again, it simply doesn't matter (even if we agree for the sake of argument) that "each system has parts it cannot do without". So what! This doesn't speak to anything regarding evolution (because those structures can have precursors, as Miller and many others have shown).

See the following video where Behe says, "I think the evidence for common descent is very very good." HA!




« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 05:11:04 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4636
  • Darwins +512/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #574 on: October 24, 2013, 04:58:28 PM »
I am not convinced by this that he is not a fake. My reasons are that he has been contradicting himself and his motives too much and second that he changes direction just to string people along. Third that Occasionally he says he knows nothing and says he wants to learn something then he purposely ignores other posts. Fourth that when he said what he had learned from this site, he gave a nonsense answer. Fifth that when he said he was a qualified engineer the tone of the sentences changed, and he appeared to know more than he was pretending. Sixth that a student of science would have study skills and would have followed some of the links or read some books.
http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/stupidity/

The Fourth Basic Law of Stupidity:  Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals.

They also underestimate the degree to which a person might be stupid.  This is very simply expressed by the old maxim, "don't look to malice where stupidity will suffice".

My point is, don't assume that he's a fake just because he seems to be too stupid to be believable.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11680
  • Darwins +290/-80
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #575 on: October 24, 2013, 05:01:33 PM »
Hey! If this guy says Mr. Data isn't just a TV character--who are we to argue?

-Nam
This is my signature "Nam", don't I have nice typing skills?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #576 on: October 24, 2013, 05:10:42 PM »
Not every system is IC.

It's possible that in biology, no systems are IC in the sense that Behe postulates - in other words, that they cannot have been arrived at via natural processes.

Quote
Not every item is part of a system.

I'll grant that, but you can't shift the goalposts and define every system as an IC system purely on the basis that if a part can be removed and the system doesn't fail, it obviously wasn't part of the system to begin with. "It doesn't fail" isn't the same as "that part served no purpose and never did".

Let's see if I can use an illustrative example, which I'll hope I don't screw up, though given the lateness of the hour I can't make promises.

Imagine a simulation with six possible components - A, B, C, A', B' and C'.

In this simulated environment, for a system to be functional, C requires A, and A' and C' require B', and at least one of each letter must be present in any system of three or more parts. Further, no system of fewer than three parts may have a "dashed" letter.

Let's say you have a system of three parts, A, B and C. (Which, according to the simulation, can be arrived at via simple addition of the parts in the sequence shown.)

Later there's a mutation that alters B to B'. Now we have A, B' and C. By the rules above, our system is functional.

Later on there's an additive mutation that introduces part A'. Now we have A, A', B' and C. Still functional.

Finally, there's a mutation that alters C to C'. The alteration to C' renders A redundant: C requires A, but nothing else does. We still have a functional system.

Note, this doesn't necessarily mean A serves no purpose; only that it is not necessary for the system to function. Note also that we've arrived here entirely via the simplistic rules of the simulation laid down at the beginning of the exercise.

By your argument, what you now see is an IC system A' B' C', and an extraneous part A that "isn't a part of the IC system". You would dyke out part A, look at A' B' C' and declare that it's IC. Am I right?

Further - and in response to your earlier confusion about substraction - let's remove A and look at the system A' B' C', which - by your reasoning - is IC. By your (and Behe's) argument, A' B' C' could not possibly be arrived at via natural processes - because removing any single part would render the system non-functional.

By excluding A from consideration (even though it's there), and ignoring all the rules by which we could have arrived at A' B' C' via successive "mutations" of A B C, you've basically excluded even from consideration the means by which, in this case, A' B' C' was actually arrived at.

Can you see the problem with the concept of IC yet?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 05:17:22 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1815
  • Darwins +193/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #577 on: October 24, 2013, 05:49:41 PM »
Contrary to what you are still claiming Dr.Tesla, your argument still boils down to a logical fallacy. "I can't see how it evolved naturally. Therefore it must have been designed." That is a classic demonstration of the Argument from Ignorance.

EDIT: And even if I granted, for the sake of argument, that IC (by your definition) was the case it wouldn't say anything about an organisms past state precursors - only about it's current state. This is another reason why you cannot rightly compare living organisms with non-living ones. You are assuming the very thing you need to prove (i.e. - that it couldn't happen naturally and it had to have an ID). Btw, in 1918 Dr. Hermann Muller already predicted IC as it pertains to the evolution of biological structures (with no ID needed or inferred b/c none was necessary). Structures evolve whether arriving at IC (by your definition) or not. Now, if you attempt to argue that IC structures (whether they exist or not) could not have evolved then you are making an ad hoc assertion (i.e. an arbitrary one), which would then bring us back to the beginning of the discussion. You simply don't know what is impossible and should not pretend to.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 06:27:29 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1185
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #578 on: October 24, 2013, 06:07:31 PM »
I am not convinced by this that he is not a fake. My reasons are that he has been contradicting himself and his motives too much and second that he changes direction just to string people along. Third that Occasionally he says he knows nothing and says he wants to learn something then he purposely ignores other posts. Fourth that when he said what he had learned from this site, he gave a nonsense answer. Fifth that when he said he was a qualified engineer the tone of the sentences changed, and he appeared to know more than he was pretending. Sixth that a student of science would have study skills and would have followed some of the links or read some books.
http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/stupidity/

The Fourth Basic Law of Stupidity:  Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals.

They also underestimate the degree to which a person might be stupid.  This is very simply expressed by the old maxim, "don't look to malice where stupidity will suffice".

My point is, don't assume that he's a fake just because he seems to be too stupid to be believable.

He also wrote this which made me wonder who the WE are. If he is being instructed to post information about irreducible complexity, his colleagues are going to be very disappointed with the damage he is doing to their cause.

What we are saying is the structure needs all its parts to work.

Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #579 on: October 24, 2013, 06:27:04 PM »
If he is being instructed to post information about irreducible complexity, his colleagues are going to be very disappointed with the damage he is doing to their cause.

That could explain why he keeps coming back to try repair the damage.  Trying random mutations of the same arguments ....
Git mit uns