Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 18937 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1811
  • Darwins +192/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #725 on: October 25, 2013, 06:23:30 PM »
@Jaimelers
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #726 on: October 25, 2013, 06:25:52 PM »
No, you are wrong because you change the definition of IC system.  If a part being removed from a system does not make the system non-functional, by definition of an IC system, it was not part of an IC system because no part can be removed without there being failure. 

I've already pointed out we can lose limbs , we can lose an eye, etc and we won't die in most cases,  but that is because the body as a whole is not an IC system with the function of sustaining life.  But there are parts that if they were removed,  we will die, like the heart, respiratory system, immune system, etc.   People with AIDS have compromised immune systems which leads to various form of fungus and infectious disease that kill them eventually.

You have to be careful to define a system in terms of a function, in that all the parts contribute to that function.  You cannot just define an entire body as IC if not everything in that body is necessary to the function of sustaining life.
So I've not really been all that nit-picky with the whole definition of irreducible complexity.  I think that's a bit of a red herring frankly, primarily because your definition of IC has no bearing on the process of evolution.  It simply does not, and you really aren't getting that.

According to you, irreducible complexity is defined as a system that should one part be removed would cease functioning.  If you use that definition, then the claim that the existence of an irreducibly complex system refutes evolution as an explanation for that system is wrong.  As has been shown to you several trillion times in this monster of a thread, a system such as this can be built up utilizing other existing parts that are later removed.  You, mister mechanical engineer, should damn well understand concepts like scaffolding, redundancy, and stop-gap solutions.  This whole "irreducibly complex systems (using your definition of IC) can't be iteratively built up" is f**king WRONG.  I get that you don't want it to be wrong, but it just clearly f**king is.  Plain as day.

Where you keep getting confused is with this notion of intention.  As if the evolutionary process has some predefined goal of producing an eye or an immune system.  Eyes evolve strictly out of the necessity of survival and reproduction.  That's it.  Evolution isn't this sentience that starts off with a single-celled organism and puts together a Pert chart and project plan for "making an eye".

Organisms reproduce; the offspring of these organisms retain traits of the parent organisms; reproduction is an imperfect process so some traits are slightly modified; these modifications have ramifications on the probability of survival and reproduction of the organisms; the probability of survival and reproduction is dependent upon things like environmental factors, presence or absence of predators/prey, etc.; traits that increase these probabilities will have a tendency to propagate more vs. traits that increase less or decrease these probabilities; these traits can be independent of other traits, work in concert with other traits, or work in conflict with other traits.  Sometimes those traits have multiple potential useful functions, and in some earlier iterations function a is the critical function for the emergent system, but functions b and c are useless but not detrimental.  After many successive iterations and offspring, slight change d comes along that leverages functions b and c, and this new emergent function displaces the original emergent function that was served by function a.  Eventually, after many successive iterations and offspring, slight change e comes along, that leading to yet again new emergent function that not only displaces the emergent function that was served by function a but does it better.  Eventually, after many successive iterations and offspring, emergent function from b/c/d/e simply outperforms emergent function from a/b/c (in terms of survival and reproduction) and, eventually, function a disappears (or becomes vestigial, or is incorporated in some other emergent function).

Should one of those functions be a human eye, so be it.  But the process of evolution had no goal whatsoever in producing that eye.  It's not like evolution needs to "know" that it will need function e at some point in time in order to propagate function b; all that matters is that incorporation of function e in the organism still results in a net positive evaluation of the fitness function of "survive and reproduce".  That's it.

So go ahead and have your arguments of the definition of IC.  It doesn't really matter though, because, if you win your argument, that means that IC has no ramifications for the model of the theory of evolution.  And, ultimately, has no bearing on anything, whatsoever.  Unless you find it useful to have a keyword to express the notion that some systems break when you remove sh*t.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1850
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #727 on: October 25, 2013, 06:27:16 PM »
@Jaimelers

I know that you're sincerely applauding jaimehlers, but using that particular scene from Citizen Kane may not be the best way to express that :)
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6238
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #728 on: October 25, 2013, 06:34:30 PM »
No, you are wrong because you change the definition of IC system.  If a part being removed from a system does not make the system non-functional, by definition of an IC system, it was not part of an IC system because no part can be removed without there being failure. 

I've already pointed out we can lose limbs , we can lose an eye, etc and we won't die in most cases,  but that is because the body as a whole is not an IC system with the function of sustaining life.  But there are parts that if they were removed,  we will die, like the heart, respiratory system, immune system, etc.   People with AIDS have compromised immune systems which leads to various form of fungus and infectious disease that kill them eventually.

You have to be careful to define a system in terms of a function, in that all the parts contribute to that function.  You cannot just define an entire body as IC if not everything in that body is necessary to the function of sustaining life.

Thank you for finally responding. (Maybe you will read the article on eye evolution?)

If you define an IC system in terms of only one distinct function, then I guess you could be right. But a living organism that was so limited would go extinct whenever the environment changed. You are seeing the natural world as if the "designer" was some manufacturer trying to make us buy a new microwave. The door handle breaks and we have to chuck the whole thing.

But luckily, living systems are not like that, with planned obsolescence built in. The fact that life has endured even with all the different environmental changes shows that the systems that make up life are multi-functional and adaptable. One system can adapt to perform many different functions--fins become legs become wings (or fins again). Light and motion detecting cells become a wide variety of different kinds of eyes; sound cells become all kinds of sensitive ears-- or advanced echolocation systems.

Just look at how undifferentiated embryonic stem cells form all the different organs of the body, from the eye to the skin to the fingernail to the bone to the blood and the lung. That is why research there is so promising. We will be able to grow new hearts that match the previous damaged one, grow new eyes so blind people will see, maybe even grow new matching brain cells so dementia patients will be cured.

Also, what about things that "look designed" but clearly are not, like hurricanes, snowflakes and sand dunes? Doesn't that suggest that "looking designed" may not mean what you think? What would something not designed look like?

If you can find a living system that matches your definition of IC, please reveal it to me. I honestly want to learn, because if I write a peer-reviewed paper that overturns 150 years of scientific research, I won't have to teach anymore! And I promise to split the Nobel Prize or Genius Grant money with you. I am serious.

Finally, let's suppose that you are correct in assuming that "looks designed" means "was designed". Marsupials. Was the designer drunk that day, or what? :o
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

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 #729 on: October 25, 2013, 06:38:22 PM »
How about male horses? Are their penis€s supposed to be that huge? My Uncle had a horse whose p€nis was so huge it dragged on the ground. The horse, not my Uncle.

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

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1811
  • Darwins +192/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #730 on: October 25, 2013, 06:38:45 PM »
I know that you're sincerely applauding jaimehlers, but using that particular scene from Citizen Kane may not be the best way to express that :)
If he sees us as evil, it's ok with me. That's all part of the point.  8)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1811
  • Darwins +192/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #731 on: October 25, 2013, 06:46:17 PM »
So it seems like Dr.ToastedNutz' argument boils down to simply this:

"If you can remove stuff and it breaks, then we know evolution didn't happen."

WTF?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6238
  • Darwins +783/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #732 on: October 25, 2013, 06:58:03 PM »
How about male horses? Are their penis€s supposed to be that huge? My Uncle had a horse whose p€nis was so huge it dragged on the ground. The horse, not my Uncle.

-Nam

If horses had gods, their gods would have huge d!cks. Even the females.  :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12017
  • Darwins +622/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #733 on: October 25, 2013, 07:43:07 PM »
You are conflating their personal beliefs on God with the observation of IC in nature,

DrT,

I refuse to call you Tesla.  He was a genius, the likes of which come along less frequently than once a generation.  You, on the other hand, are... not. 

You keep saying "IC".  I've already pointed out that one cannot "observe" IC.  At best, one can only say, "I do not understand", which is an argument from ignorance. I've asked you how to know whether something is irreducibly complex.  You've not responded.  What are we to make of this?  You've already acknowledged a less than high school understanding of science.  You've already displayed a high degree of bias.  What are we to do?

Let me try this.

Once upon a time there were two psychology grad students at Cornell University.  One was named Dunning.  The other had a much cooler name - Kruger.  It rhymes with "Cougar".  Together they had an idea, which they tested out and validated (using science).  Their idea was that people who were incompetent in some subject were unable to recognize competence or even excellence, due to their incompetence.  They tested some people in a variety of areas and asked them to rate their competence in those areas.  As predicted, the people who scored the worst, rated themselves the highest.  They also rated the competent and excellent people low.  They then schooled the imbeciles in those areas where they failed.  After some education, they had a better idea of where they were situated.  Part and parcel of being stupid is the inability to recognize your own stupidity.

This is now called the Dunning-Kruger EffectWiki.

You, my little friend, exemplify it in an almost perfect, text-book way.   

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

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 #734 on: October 25, 2013, 07:59:21 PM »
You are conflating their personal beliefs on God with the observation of IC in nature,

DrT,

I refuse to call you Tesla.  He was a genius, the likes of which come along less frequently than once a generation.  You, on the other hand, are... not. 

You keep saying "IC".  I've already pointed out that one cannot "observe" IC.  At best, one can only say, "I do not understand", which is an argument from ignorance. I've asked you how to know whether something is irreducibly complex.  You've not responded.  What are we to make of this?  You've already acknowledged a less than high school understanding of science.  You've already displayed a high degree of bias.  What are we to do?

Let me try this.

Once upon a time there were two psychology grad students at Cornell University.  One was named Dunning.  The other had a much cooler name - Kruger.  It rhymes with "Cougar".  Together they had an idea, which they tested out and validated (using science).  Their idea was that people who were incompetent in some subject were unable to recognize competence or even excellence, due to their incompetence.  They tested some people in a variety of areas and asked them to rate their competence in those areas.  As predicted, the people who scored the worst, rated themselves the highest.  They also rated the competent and excellent people low.  They then schooled the imbeciles in those areas where they failed.  After some education, they had a better idea of where they were situated.  Part and parcel of being stupid is the inability to recognize your own stupidity.

This is now called the Dunning-Kruger EffectWiki.

You, my little friend, exemplify it in an almost perfect, text-book way.   



I never even graduated HS, and I think I have a better understanding of science than this guy does. I fully admit when it comes to science and math, I'm below average, but I think compared to this guy I MAY BE A GENIUS.

;)

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

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #735 on: October 26, 2013, 04:18:40 AM »
.
.If you define an IC system in terms of only one distinct function, then I guess you could be right. But a living organism that was so limited would go extinct whenever the environment changed. You are seeing the natural world as if the "designer" was some manufacturer trying to make us buy a new microwave. The door handle breaks and we have to chuck the whole thing.


An IC system by definition has one function.  There is no other definition.   Your other comments don't address how Darwin evolution accounts for an IC complexity because there can be no gradual change because there are no functional intermediates to the final system, which is demonstrating by removing just 1 part.   Natural selection needs a function to select.   Thus,  the IC system arrives as a packaged unit all at once with well matched parts that interact with each other in a specific way to fulfill a specific function.   That is design.       If it could not have evolved gradually then it must have been designed, unless you want to argue the improbabliy of freaks of nature assembling a complex system with matching parts that work together to fulfill a specific function. 

Quote
But luckily, living systems are not like that, with planned obsolescence built in. The fact that life has endured even with all the different environmental changes shows that the systems that make up life are multi-functional and adaptable. One system can adapt to perform many different functions--fins become legs become wings (or fins again). Light and motion detecting cells become a wide variety of different kinds of eyes; sound cells become all kinds of sensitive ears-- or advanced echolocation systems.


Ok this is a diversion from what we are talking about.   An IC system fails if one part is removed.  Thus, the entire system essentially had to arrive as a packaged unit.   Given evolution is a theory of gradual change,  clearly a packaged unit of well matched parts that interact with each other to fulfill a specific function  popping up at once is not in agreement with evolution theory.   Also,  your assertions have not been proven, like fins became legs or wings, or whatever.  That is pure conjecture, a "just so" story.    It is a fairy tale, essentially.  But again, none of this has to do with can Darwin evolution lead to an IC system.   I don't think you understand how Darwin evolution works in an applied sense if you cannot grasp my point here.


Quote
Just look at how undifferentiated embryonic stem cells form all the different organs of the body, from the eye to the skin to the fingernail to the bone to the blood and the lung. That is why research there is so promising. We will be able to grow new hearts that match the previous damaged one, grow new eyes so blind people will see, maybe even grow new matching brain cells so dementia patients will be cured.

Ok,  what does this have to do with can Darwin evolution explain a IC system.   What exactly would you grow a heart from?   That doesn't make any sense.



Quote
Also, what about things that "look designed" but clearly are not, like hurricanes, snowflakes and sand dunes? Doesn't that suggest that "looking designed" may not mean what you think? What would something not designed look like?

I don't think hurricanes , snowflakes and sand dunes look designed,  there are no interacting well matched parts arranged in a certain way that fulfill a certain function.    Snowflakes do have a certain pattern to them but it isn't a system of parts. 

Quote
If you can find a living system that matches your definition of IC, please reveal it to me. I honestly want to learn, because if I write a peer-reviewed paper that overturns 150 years of scientific research, I won't have to teach anymore! And I promise to split the Nobel Prize or Genius Grant money with you. I am serious.
Finally, let's suppose that you are correct in assuming that "looks designed" means "was designed". Marsupials. Was the designer drunk that day, or what? :o
[/quote]

You are going to deny IC systems exists.  I can't prove it you nor do I wish to.   I think it is understood by logical people that many systems are going to fail if just one part is removed, similar to a mouse trap, which is a fairly simple mechanism.  Therefore, there are IC systems.   Darwin evolution can not lead to an IC system because there is no function to select along the way.   Thus, they were designed.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 04:20:53 AM 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 William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #736 on: October 26, 2013, 04:31:31 AM »
You are going to deny IC systems exists.  I can't prove it you nor do I wish to.

DtToddlerbrain, faith is not how you advance science.  Evidence please.  Name a biological IC system and its boundaries.
Git mit uns

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #737 on: October 26, 2013, 05:29:12 AM »
An IC system by definition has one function.  There is no other definition.   Your other comments don't address how Darwin evolution accounts for an IC complexity because there can be no gradual change because there are no functional intermediates to the final system, which is demonstrating by removing just 1 part.

As per my earlier simulation, which you still apparently refuse to address, this is simply false.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2442
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #738 on: October 26, 2013, 06:21:37 AM »
This is hardly surprising. IC is a recent idea thought out to hide creationism in a more scientific sounding  name - Intelligent Design. The Dover Trial showed how, in fact, these two are the same thing.

So far, I have not seen anything that remotely resembles IC. Dr T seems to think out finds this out by trying to work backwards so that, say, removing the lens from the eye would stop the eye working. This is the wrong way round, though, and we ought to be seeing how the system builds up from previous structures each of which has a perfectly good function but as they get added to they might form novel and seemingly IC structures.

The flagellum is a case in point. Looking backwards one thinks that the structure would fail but looking from the basic parts used to inject things into others cells one sees that addition of parts completes the flagellum.

When I see a genuine IC structure I will reconsider but until then, when Dr T shows us such a thing, why are we wasting time typing in this ridiculously long thread?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #739 on: October 26, 2013, 07:13:54 AM »
Richard Dawkins said  Darwin evolution made it possible for atheists to be intellectualy fullfilled,  so...

Yes, and to defulfill that, you need to raise the bar higher. The burden of proof is on you lot. If you want to show that God did it, then you have to go back in a time machine, and show how certain IC items appeared in a way that's contrary to sequential evolution.

Evolution fleshes out the general flight path, and various thousands of enzyme pathways are being explained in a patchwork manner, but obviously the fossil evidence is not good enough to confirm or deny Behe's moving goalposts.

That is to say: pissing on evolution is not the way to find God.

Try to find more direct methods, such as a man in the sky saying hello, or healing lost limbs, using a crucifix.


I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #740 on: October 26, 2013, 07:34:28 AM »
DtToddlerbrain, ....

Notice how this amazingly complex term of endearment is utterly reducible :)

The "Dt" is a recycling of "Dr" but with a mutation at "r" resulting in "t".  Notice how the "r" and "t" keys are adjacent on the keyboard.

The "esla" part of "Tesla" was deleted (by smart radiation from faith decay), leaving just the "T".

The "T" had nowhere to go just hanging there but resolved itself as "Toddler" because of irresistible thought forces left over from the "num-nums" spoon-feeding post.

"brain" just arrived accidentally in the thread from a totally different conversation elsewhere, and made complete contextual sense when combined with "Toddler".
Git mit uns

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2554
  • Darwins +206/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I did haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #741 on: October 26, 2013, 08:00:44 AM »
I reckon that's intelligent design, because you admitted that you did it.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #742 on: October 26, 2013, 09:05:40 AM »
DrTesla:  I'm still waiting for you to address the points I raised yesterday.  Specifically, that a human zygote can build the "irreducibly complex" systems that it doesn't initially possess from scratch using only its genome and raw materials (when in fact it should not be able to build them at all if they are irreducibly complex), and the question I asked, if an observation is mistaken or wrong, should you cling to it even if people show you why it's wrong?

This is your chance to help reverse the horribly bad impression you've made on the entire forum through your ham-handed attempts at arguments.  Avoiding answering will simply dig yourself in deeper, and it will be an acknowledgement that you are conceding that you cannot answer them.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1180
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #743 on: October 26, 2013, 09:23:38 AM »
<snip>
The only randomness I see is how much of each you get.

Don't mind Me, but it was always My understanding that the amounts of each depend on how simple its atoms are. For example, hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe because it's so simple (1x proton + 1x electron). Helium is the second most common for the same reason.
EDIT: This is a rough approximation, of course. Stability of the atom also plays a part in how common it will be.

Hi, there is a definite sequence of nuclear fusion in stars. The commonest elements are common because they are part of the sequence. The sequence ends with iron in giant stars. The sequence does not include every type of atom with a low atomic number. Rare elements are produced by supernova explosions.

(Not mentioning here hydrogen and helium which were formed in the early universe, helium also in stars)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 09:30:17 AM by Foxy Freedom »
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 jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4629
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #744 on: October 26, 2013, 09:26:40 AM »
An IC system by definition has one function.  There is no other definition.   Your other comments don't address how Darwin evolution accounts for an IC complexity because there can be no gradual change because there are no functional intermediates to the final system, which is demonstrating by removing just 1 part.   Natural selection needs a function to select.   Thus,  the IC system arrives as a packaged unit all at once with well matched parts that interact with each other in a specific way to fulfill a specific function.   That is design.       If it could not have evolved gradually then it must have been designed, unless you want to argue the improbabliy of freaks of nature assembling a complex system with matching parts that work together to fulfill a specific function.
So now these "irreducibly complex" systems arrived as a "packaged unit" all at once?  I suggest you review the stages of embryonic human development.  It has long since been known that a human zygote puts its various systems together from scratch based on its genome.  It does not start with a circulatory system, or a respiratory system, or an immune system, or even a reproductive system.  It starts as a single cell which only has the genome (the blueprints) to tell it how to grow into a human being.

Quote from: DrTesla
Ok this is a diversion from what we are talking about.   An IC system fails if one part is removed.  Thus, the entire system essentially had to arrive as a packaged unit.   Given evolution is a theory of gradual change,  clearly a packaged unit of well matched parts that interact with each other to fulfill a specific function  popping up at once is not in agreement with evolution theory.   Also,  your assertions have not been proven, like fins became legs or wings, or whatever.  That is pure conjecture, a "just so" story.    It is a fairy tale, essentially.  But again, none of this has to do with can Darwin evolution lead to an IC system.   I don't think you understand how Darwin evolution works in an applied sense if you cannot grasp my point here.
I think by now we can dispense with the fiction that biological organisms have "irreducibly complex" systems that had to arrive as a packaged unit, given that every single organism now alive essentially grows those systems from scratch.  In short, irreducible complexity is just a story made up by Behe, an example of his creationist incredulousness asserting itself.  Your ham-handed attempts to assert otherwise just make the argument that much more obviously ridiculous.  Behe at least is knowledgeable enough about biochemistry to cloak his assertions in scientific jargon.

Quote from: DrTesla
Ok,  what does this have to do with can Darwin evolution explain a IC system.   What exactly would you grow a heart from?   That doesn't make any sense.
Given that every single organism that has a heart does exactly this - grows its own heart from raw materials - I think this question has been answered.  Biological systems are not irreducibly complex, in other words.

Quote from: DrTesla
I don't think hurricanes , snowflakes and sand dunes look designed,  there are no interacting well matched parts arranged in a certain way that fulfill a certain function.    Snowflakes do have a certain pattern to them but it isn't a system of parts.
What this tells me is that you're not actually stupid.  Just horribly blinkered by the falsehoods that Behe spreads in his attempts to discredit evolutionary theory.  I realize that Behe is probably your hero, or something like that, but you have to face facts.  When someone has to resort to spreading falsehoods and cloaking them in scientific jargon, like Behe has, in order to try to discredit an established scientific theory, that person is not worthy even of respect, let alone the devotion you give him.

Quote from: DrTesla
You are going to deny IC systems exists.  I can't prove it you nor do I wish to.   I think it is understood by logical people that many systems are going to fail if just one part is removed, similar to a mouse trap, which is a fairly simple mechanism.  Therefore, there are IC systems.   Darwin evolution can not lead to an IC system because there is no function to select along the way.   Thus, they were designed.
I can certainly admit that some things are irreducibly complex.  A mousetrap, a constructed stone arch, probably plenty of other things.  But biological systems show no sign of design unless you assume from the outset that they have to be irreducibly complex, and the fact that new organisms grow those systems totally from scratch contradicts the idea that they could be irreducibly complex at all.  This has been your baseline assumption all along, DrTesla.  But it is an incorrect assumption, fed by Behe's false 'proofs' of how various biological systems must be irreducibly complex.  Not because they actually are, but because he insists that they could not have evolved naturally.  This is nothing but his attempt to deceive you and others through an argument from incredulity.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1180
  • Darwins +81/-11
  • Gods become obsolete all the time.
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #745 on: October 26, 2013, 09:42:22 AM »
Behe makes the case most Christian scientists agree with Darwin evolution

So it was dishonest of you to say that scientists have a non scientific agenda. You knew it was not true.

The only people with an agenda are a minority of extremist Christians who think they can rope people into their religious beliefs by using pseudo science.

Your colleagues are going to be very disappointed with you that you have shown up their " intelligent design " and "irreducible complexity " as a complete hoax. They also won't be pleased that you are such an obvious spammer. They should choose someone more intelligent for online debates.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 09:45:25 AM by Foxy Freedom »
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 #746 on: October 26, 2013, 09:59:12 AM »
I reckon that's intelligent design, because you admitted that you did it.

Sure, I do admit I did it, but it was a still a mutant brainfart based on something vague I digested before.  A bit like IC really - comes out with the triumphant sound of a trumpet but when you stick around to examine it there's nothing of substance, and it doesn't smell right.
Git mit uns

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #747 on: October 26, 2013, 10:01:19 AM »
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #748 on: October 26, 2013, 10:18:20 AM »
DrTesla:  I'm still waiting for you to address the points I raised yesterday.  Specifically, that a human zygote can build the "irreducibly complex" systems that it doesn't initially possess from scratch using only its genome and raw materials (when in fact it should not be able to build them at all if they are irreducibly complex), and the question I asked, if an observation is mistaken or wrong, should you cling to it even if people show you why it's wrong?

This is your chance to help reverse the horribly bad impression you've made on the entire forum through your ham-handed attempts at arguments.  Avoiding answering will simply dig yourself in deeper, and it will be an acknowledgement that you are conceding that you cannot answer them.

Jaime,

A zygote inherits from its parents the genes that code for the irreducibly complex systems that were previously designed.   In other words, the design of an IC system  only needs to be done once in a species as it will be passed on genetically to future generations. 

What I am talking about is how the IC system can to be in the first place.   

What is it that you think that I've observed incorrectly?    I have an insatiable thirst for truth and I am on a relentless pursuit of truth and I will seek truth in the very heart of darkness if I must,  even if that means embracing the idea that we were designed by an intelligent being, as scary as that might be.

But if you think about it,  if we are designed,  then it should be easier to troubleshoot ourselves when we have problems (various diseases and disorders) once we understand the full genetic code behind our design.   One day,  shortly after a child is born,  his entire genetic code could be essentially scanned for problems in the DNA,  must like you use anti-virus software to locate viruses on your computer,  and then the DNA could be repaired.   Thus we would be about to prevent various disorders.    It would be intelligent repair except in this case we are the intelligent agent not God.

So rather than fearing the idea of design  simply because the idea of God scares you,   we should embrace design because design should mae it easier for us to cure disease/disorders   because their is a logic to it.        If we aren't designed then we are left trying to figure out how all this random mutations lead to disease and there will be no logic to this.
"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 Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #749 on: October 26, 2013, 10:22:01 AM »
So rather than fearing the idea of design  simply because the idea of God scares you,   we should embrace design because design should mae it easier for us to cure disease/disorders   because their is a logic to it.        If we aren't designed then we are left trying to figure out how all this random mutations lead to disease and there will be no logic to this.

Jeese, why haven't the scientists in all their wisdom realized all genetic mutations are somehow linked in a way that would allow all diseases and disorders to be hand-waved away?

Ohh...i don't know...maybe because genetic mutations are random?
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12210
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #750 on: October 26, 2013, 10:27:37 AM »
Design would be getting into some issues that we cannot explain, ie supernatural. ...

Oh good.  You've admitted your religious goal.
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 #751 on: October 26, 2013, 10:31:30 AM »
Behe makes the case most Christian scientists agree with Darwin evolution

So it was dishonest of you to say that scientists have a non scientific agenda. You knew it was not true.

The only people with an agenda are a minority of extremist Christians who think they can rope people into their religious beliefs by using pseudo science.

Your colleagues are going to be very disappointed with you that you have shown up their " intelligent design " and "irreducible complexity " as a complete hoax. They also won't be pleased that you are such an obvious spammer. They should choose someone more intelligent for online debates.

This kind of reminds of Michael Crighton's quip :  "Everybody has an agenda, but me".   

I don't see what is extremist or religious about asking how evolution can lead to an IC system.  That sounds like challenging a scientific theory and science is essentially supposed to be about trying to poke holes in various theories and if it is a valid theory it should stand the test of time and challenges. 

If a religious extremist is somebody talking about IC and the possibliy of design,  that seems preferable to one that is hijacking planes and driving them into buildings and killing thousands of people. 

Your post kind of proves my point about how talking about the origin and development of life  attracts people who are not really interested in science itself but they are interested in the implications :  there is a god or there isn't a god ,  thus it essentially becomes a proxy war between Christians and Darwins  atheists.   

One shouldn't allow their fear of a "God"  prevent them from embracing  the reality that parts of us must have been designed, if not all of us.   We are here regardless of if were were designed or evolved so what is there to fear.    To assume "God"  is evil in s ome way  is probably an irrational fear.   
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 10:35:28 AM 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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #752 on: October 26, 2013, 10:40:31 AM »
So rather than fearing the idea of design  simply because the idea of God scares you,   we should embrace design because design should mae it easier for us to cure disease/disorders   because their is a logic to it.        If we aren't designed then we are left trying to figure out how all this random mutations lead to disease and there will be no logic to this.

Jeese, why haven't the scientists in all their wisdom realized all genetic mutations are somehow linked in a way that would allow all diseases and disorders to be hand-waved away?

Ohh...i don't know...maybe because genetic mutations are random?

Most random mutations are actually detrimental to the organism thus rather then leading to more complexity and evolution to other species, it leads to offspring who are have some problems.   Genes are essentially being broke or blown up in most random mutations, which could possibly lead to some trait that is advantageous, such as the sickle cell in people can prevent people from getting malaria, although sickle cell can also kill people if they inherit it from both parents,  so the net sense this mutation is actually one we don't want.   If random mutations are essentially about genes being broke or blown up , then it follows they are not really increasing complexity and an efficient mechanism for the allow evolution. 
"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: 10604
  • Darwins +266/-34
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #753 on: October 26, 2013, 10:46:44 AM »
DrTesla, are you also a proponent of ID? If so, why?

Still waiting for an answer to this, DrTesla. Gonna start smiting you pretty soon.

Last chance before the smiting starts.

Still waiting. Smiting has started. Note that I am the one who has used the smite function the most of the entire forum, so you know I don't have a problem smiting you every hour, if it comes to that.
Do you acknowledge that an observation can be mistaken?
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.