Jump to content


Photo

Can Irreducible Complexity Result From Small Changes?

irreducible complexity

  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 January 2018 - 07:36 PM

 

 

Just like my question asking for a PLAUSIBLE Order of 10 Vital organs from Microbe to Microbiologist, We are merely asked to believe that it happened but arent allowed to actually try to analyze it using reason, logic, and critical thinking..

Irreducible complexity was debunked along with Behe's mousetrap a quarter century ago.
Was it? So a mousetrap works just fine if it is missing one of its components? So a human doesnt need all 10 of its vital organs?

Yes, it was.  Behe proposed the mousetrap as a good example of irreducible complexity (IC).

 

No, a MODERN mousetrap doesn't work just fine if it is missing one of its components.  However, I can provide at least two different models showing how the modern mousetrap could have "evolved" to it's present, irreducible, form.

 

MacDonald's model starts with a bent wire which "evolves" by:

1)  Adding turns to the wire making it a spring and increasing force

2)  Adding bait to attract mice.

3)  Stapling the spring to the floor so it can't simply be knocked over.

4)  Attaching the trap to a piece of wood instead of the floor to make it more portable and versatile.

5)  "Evolve" the "hammer" by lengthening the wire and changing it to an L shape then a U shape to improve it's kill probability.

6)  Add a hold down bar to make the trap easier to trigger.

7)  A series of minor changes improving the performance and cost of the trap.

8)  Add a catch to the hold down bar.  This makes the trap more sensitive and allows it to be triggered from multiple directions.

 

A different approach is taken at http://www.fidelibus.com/mousetrap/

 

What is shown is that just because something is irreducible today, it was not necessarily always irreducible.

 

I think the problem with evolutionists BK, is they commit hasty generalisation with this irreducible complexity issue. I can take a stool with four legs and I can reduce it's complexity be removing one leg and re-arranging it to be a three legged stool. The problem is even if some basic arrangements can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean other more complicated structures can be.

The problem is that the premise of IC is flawed.

 

 

The problem is even if some basic arrangements can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean other more complicated structures can be.

Agreed.  But the tendency is for more complicated structures to have redundancy.  Notice, as an irreducibly complex system, the mousetrap lacks redundancy.

 

 

I think the problem is basically that Behe used the mousetrap which is too simplistic. There are systems in place in nature that clearly can't be reduced and if they can where is the argument showing they could be?

Behe seemed to disagree with you.  He felt it was a good example to demonstrate the concept of irreducible complexity. 

 

The problem is that it also can be used to show how that which is IC today was not necessarily always so.

 

I strongly suggest you visit MacDonald's page.

 

 

So to my mind, (and I'm willing to be called wrong on this as this is just my provisional opinion given I haven't read too much about this material on this specific design feature) my opinion is that evolutionists kind of use and abuse the fact that Behe likely just gave an example of something that could be reduced in complexity, because he overlooked the fact someone smart might be able to reduce the complexity of a mousetrap and he perhaps didn't think it all through, so to my mind evolutionists use that to create a conclusion which is this distorted version of the truth; "IC has been refuted, it's known for years the mousetrap can be reduced in complexity."

Again, Behe correctly points out the modern mousetrap is IC.  That is not the issue.

 

The point is that the IC mousetrap is the result of a series of small improvements.  Some of which were IC and some were not. 

 

IC claims an IC object can NOT be the result of a series of small improvements.  That is clearly not true.

 

 

I think it's more accurate to say that in fact "Behe's particular example has shown some simple things can be reduced in complexity" but to say this generally refutes irreducible complexity is a hasty generalisation, because if a mouse trap or a stool can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean that everything can be, so how can one or two examples pertain to all of the unusual features in nature? Some things in nature are a lot more complex.

What it does is demonstrate that SOMETIMES IC can be the result of a series of small changes.  You can't simply look at something and say: "That's IC therefore it is impossible for it be the result of a series of small improvements."

 

 

So to my mind I think Piasan overplays his hand by putting the spin on it that, "it's refuted" as a whole. Is it refuted as a whole? Then put your argument forward and we'll see if you're right.

Refuted as a whole?   No.

 

Is it refuted that a requirement of IC is that the object MUST have originated in its present form?  Absolutely.

 

 

 

It is Piasan's claim that IC is refuted as a whole, I am only saying that it isn't refuted as a whole if you show a trap can be reduced because if a trap or a stool can be reduced in it's complexity and still have function, that won't mean that a sea-anemone eating slug can be reduced in complexity and still eat anemone darts. It would seem all of contingencies being in place in order to eat the darts, is perfectly reasonable given how specialised it is.

What I am saying is that just because something is IC today doesn't necessarily mean it always was IC.



#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2018 - 11:39 AM

Well I think the whole of your argument here Piasan without quibbling over every point which can be tedious, (I hope you understand, collectively since 2003 I have written about 8,000 posts at two main EvC websites so debating things point by point isn't something I have much patience for any more) is that you are basically using the main theme, the main focus, as a mouse trap. It should be noted at no time have I claimed to be Michael Behe, and I myself have not ever stated anything about mouse traps and whether they started out as simpler traps in the past. 

 

So I think a mousetrap "evolving" if we are to use that term very loosely, (because in actuality the evolution of designs isn't the same thing as biological macro evolution) isn't really going to prove that an organism could have a previous stage before it's present form. 

 

That is to say, you may be able to show that a trap can be reduced in complexity, over a series of steps becoming more complex, but does this mean you can show how say a protein and DNA could exist independently, or other examples of chicken-and-egg scenarios in nature?

 

As usual I simply think that miraculous design is a better argument and I don't know why you wouldn't. For just think on it for a moment, what is usually best when you have an extremely sophisticated design such as an organism, that you start with all of the contingencies thought through and in place, or that they happen as a series of steps which are only conjectural because there is no evidence it happened that way, and that viability was, "reached" and that at each simple stage every form was viable? (what a reach, IMHO, and think then, what selection pressure would there be if every previous form was viable? Why believe any successful previous model could make leaps without compromising viability? Are you saying that a quadruped turning into a bat would be a smooth transition? For at some stage the fingers and hand must lose their function, and it is likely that the former stage would be "fitter". This can be said of many such posited intermediates. What for example, if Gould tells us a dorsal fin evolved from scratch in Ichthyosaurs, would have been a viable stage before it had one? So these stages are all hypothetical but in reality is there a test to see if they would be viable?)

 

In other words the design argument doesn't require excessive entities. (Principle of parsimony). It seems to me, highly likely that if you have an eye with a lens, that the placement of the lens and the retina is purposeful, that the types of material an eye is made from, and the various liquids such as the water for the eye washing and the rhodopsin, are the correct liquids and parts and placement, on purpose. Indeed, those parts in the mousetrap therefore, can only "evolve" because those changes can happen on purpose. Both are identical in that sense so it seems to me you might have a case that with an intelligent designer who can figure out the changes necessary to increase complexity, you might be able to go from a less complex arrangement to a more complex one. 

 

So my only opinion really since this is largely a debate between you and BK, is this; why would I believe that a natural process could create an eyeball when everything in that eyeball suggests it was created on purpose to give sight?

 

For me, irreducible complexity isn't a huge issue because it is only one feature/element, of intelligent design. 

 

Also, why should I believe mutations and selection would lead to equivalent steps in organisms? Do we ever see those steps? I know of not one example where we see simple to complex but many that go in the opposite direction such as the loss of wings in beetles on islands, the loss of sight, the loss of this, that and the other. What we never see in the lab is the partial evolution of something increasing in complexity, nor in any lifeforms it seems to me. 

 

So it's the overall power of the design argument which is stronger. What is the best way to get an eye? Through the absurd scenario Darwin offered, or through an incredibly intelligent designer? The answer is easy, all we do is look at the eye and see the ideas, to see whether cleverness solves the problems best. It does, the Muller cells in the eye are an example of a cleverly designed cell, elongated to penetrate the nerve-net and here's the real smart part, the surface area of the retina is covered completely, because there is a funnel-like end which touches the retina, meaning ALL of the light is collected, and taken through the nerve net. By analogy, it is like standing behind a dense forest and needing to see through it, and you create funnels which go between the tree trunks to the other side of the forest, collect everything that can be observed, by touching each others tips the other side of the forest, then transmitting the total image back to you.

 

And I can almost hear God saying it as I write; "I'm LAUGHING at the Darwinian argument". Because this type of sophistication, having the funnel like cells from the start, makes much more sense as a complete design. This design doesn't show any evolutionary modifications, you simply say they existed in the past. The design is an elaborately purposeful system to the point of OVERKILL. To suppose a non-intelligent natural process is the better answer is frankly silly to me, rationally. It is like saying a diecast metal model car base stands a better chance of existing if it came from rocks because metal comes from rocks. Or a chassis. 

 

You're kidding yourself. Piasan, friend, evolution didn't happen mate. Hypothetical imagination isn't proof it did, all you are doing is using intelligence to create evolutionary steps, the very thing evolution doesn't have. You prove a designer would make something evolve much better than not having any intelligence involved. But intelligence is obviously the key factor because observing the anatomy, studying it, shows tremendous intelligence. Please read this for example;

 

If you read the part about the neck, how it moves, and how the spine is created, etc..it shows like with the Muller cells, basically very clever ideas, for example the explanation of the joints and how they are the particularly correct joints in humans, and the elegant, simple, and basically perfect way it is designed, is jaw-dropping. I haven't read all of his writings but very clearly Paley demonstrates the cleverness of how each and every part is arranged on purpose to do the best job;

 

https://books.google... tongue&f=false



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:28 PM

 

 

Piasan: IC claims an IC object can NOT be the result of a series of small improvements.  That is clearly not true.

 

It does? What did Behe claim? If I can show a mousetrao can be the result of a series of improvement, how is it "not true" that organisms can not be? MY claim isn't the same as Behe's because I argue that life is partly IC. I am claiming IC as for organisms isn't refuted, with the nonequivalent example of the trap.

 

So if your argument is a general argument referring to, "objects" then the true question is, what is the means by which the type of objects can take the steps? With a trap, intelligence is the means, with lifeforms, it has not been shown IC is not true, only for the trap it has been shown. 

 

Similarly I could say, "Is it not true that toys can't be used to hammer nails into soft clay because I can use this hard toy brick, look."

 

Would you not agree that logically a more specific statement would be that hard toys have been proven to break the argument, but not soft toys such as flubber? So I think your claim that IC claims "an IC object" can't be the result of small improvements is too vague. Some objects can be, if for example, intelligent agents add things like the cheese. 

 

So I myself wouldn't argue that ALL objects are IC, I would only argue that lifeforms are in some areas, IC, which is a more specific argument.

 

Your counter-argument's true form would be this;

 

A mouse trap can be shown to be reduced in complexity

A mouse trap is an object.

Therefore all objects can be shown to be reduced in complexity and his argument of IC is wrong.

 

EXAMPLE;

 

An ape has hand-like feet.

An ape is a type of animal.

Therefore all animals have hand-like feet.

 

Yes, if Behe claimed all objects are IC he's wrong. Yes if you claim that this is wrong but are using that to make it sound like therefore all objects aren't IC, you are wrong. If you are only saying some objects are not IC, you are correct but it seems you use the term, "object" in a very specific way, so as to mean any object, including an organism. Look again how you word it;

 

 

 

 IC claims an IC object can NOT be the result of a series of small improvements.  That is clearly not true.

 

See the spin? (I'm not saying you done it on purpose but it makes it sound as though you have shown life is not IC, because IC was wrong about the trap. But many lifeforms can still be IC despite this, which I am not sure you are acknowledging.)



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2018 - 01:02 PM

 

 

Piasan: What I am saying is that just because something is IC today doesn't necessarily mean it always was IC.

 

But that's if it was something before it was what it is. It depends if it can be shown that the complexity is reduced. With a mouse trap and with humans, the stage where we are a blastocyst, a round cell in the womb with no heart or brain, means we can physically be as you say, not IC in the past at some stage. But with both the trap and the embryo growth (ontogeny), the means are known. 

 

If you are saying that if presently a form is IC but this isn't relevant to a past state that may have merit but it seems to me there is good evidence there could be no "past state" for some things. For example you have complex wheels nowadays, in the past they may have been simple, but at some stage in the past even at the simple stage there was a stage by which if the complexity was reduced further there would be no point in the wheel. There can for example, not be any wheel which has a non-round shape, that we can reduce further by cutting it in half. In the same way it seems a cell, what it codes for, the things within it (organic chemistry), only exist and have reasons to exist within lifeforms. There are no proteins or chaparone proteins or DNA outside of cells, or kinesin motors/ATP motors. It seems the strongest argument is that they only exist in that particular form, to begin with, with those chicken-and-egg features already in place as a whole. To say a better argument is that they somehow came to exist before the whole, it seems would depend on there being some other use to this proto-cell before the cell came along. It seems more logical, and a more parsimonious argument, to simply say that the massive specified complexity, the obvious purpose and goals, the placement of parts of the correct materials in the correct places with the correct code and apparatus to transcript it, all existed to begin with in their present state, for the reason of doing those very things they have always done.

 

How can you tell yourself otherwise without your shadow shaking it's head? :P



#5 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 January 2018 - 04:29 AM

Just like my question asking for a PLAUSIBLE Order of 10 Vital organs from Microbe to Microbiologist, We are merely asked to believe that it happened but arent allowed to actually try to analyze it using reason, logic, and critical thinking..

Irreducible complexity was debunked along with Behe's mousetrap a quarter century ago.
Was it? So a mousetrap works just fine if it is missing one of its components? So a human doesnt need all 10 of its vital organs?
Yes, it was. Behe proposed the mousetrap as a good example of irreducible complexity (IC).

No, a MODERN mousetrap doesn't work just fine if it is missing one of its components. However, I can provide at least two different models showing how the modern mousetrap could have "evolved" to it's present, irreducible, form.

MacDonald's model starts with a bent wire which "evolves" by:
1) Adding turns to the wire making it a spring and increasing force
2) Adding bait to attract mice.
3) Stapling the spring to the floor so it can't simply be knocked over.
4) Attaching the trap to a piece of wood instead of the floor to make it more portable and versatile.
5) "Evolve" the "hammer" by lengthening the wire and changing it to an L shape then a U shape to improve it's kill probability.
6) Add a hold down bar to make the trap easier to trigger.
7) A series of minor changes improving the performance and cost of the trap.
8) Add a catch to the hold down bar. This makes the trap more sensitive and allows it to be triggered from multiple directions.

A different approach is taken at http://www.fidelibus.com/mousetrap/

What is shown is that just because something is irreducible today, it was not necessarily always irreducible.

I think the problem with evolutionists BK, is they commit hasty generalisation with this irreducible complexity issue. I can take a stool with four legs and I can reduce it's complexity be removing one leg and re-arranging it to be a three legged stool. The problem is even if some basic arrangements can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean other more complicated structures can be.

The problem is that the premise of IC is flawed.


The problem is even if some basic arrangements can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean other more complicated structures can be.

Agreed. But the tendency is for more complicated structures to have redundancy. Notice, as an irreducibly complex system, the mousetrap lacks redundancy.


I think the problem is basically that Behe used the mousetrap which is too simplistic. There are systems in place in nature that clearly can't be reduced and if they can where is the argument showing they could be?

Behe seemed to disagree with you. He felt it was a good example to demonstrate the concept of irreducible complexity.

The problem is that it also can be used to show how that which is IC today was not necessarily always so.

I strongly suggest you visit MacDonald's page.


So to my mind, (and I'm willing to be called wrong on this as this is just my provisional opinion given I haven't read too much about this material on this specific design feature) my opinion is that evolutionists kind of use and abuse the fact that Behe likely just gave an example of something that could be reduced in complexity, because he overlooked the fact someone smart might be able to reduce the complexity of a mousetrap and he perhaps didn't think it all through, so to my mind evolutionists use that to create a conclusion which is this distorted version of the truth; "IC has been refuted, it's known for years the mousetrap can be reduced in complexity."

Again, Behe correctly points out the modern mousetrap is IC. That is not the issue.

The point is that the IC mousetrap is the result of a series of small improvements. Some of which were IC and some were not.

IC claims an IC object can NOT be the result of a series of small improvements. That is clearly not true.


I think it's more accurate to say that in fact "Behe's particular example has shown some simple things can be reduced in complexity" but to say this generally refutes irreducible complexity is a hasty generalisation, because if a mouse trap or a stool can be reduced in complexity this doesn't mean that everything can be, so how can one or two examples pertain to all of the unusual features in nature? Some things in nature are a lot more complex.

What it does is demonstrate that SOMETIMES IC can be the result of a series of small changes. You can't simply look at something and say: "That's IC therefore it is impossible for it be the result of a series of small improvements."


So to my mind I think Piasan overplays his hand by putting the spin on it that, "it's refuted" as a whole. Is it refuted as a whole? Then put your argument forward and we'll see if you're right.

Refuted as a whole? No.

Is it refuted that a requirement of IC is that the object MUST have originated in its present form? Absolutely.



It is Piasan's claim that IC is refuted as a whole, I am only saying that it isn't refuted as a whole if you show a trap can be reduced because if a trap or a stool can be reduced in it's complexity and still have function, that won't mean that a sea-anemone eating slug can be reduced in complexity and still eat anemone darts. It would seem all of contingencies being in place in order to eat the darts, is perfectly reasonable given how specialised it is.

What I am saying is that just because something is IC today doesn't necessarily mean it always was IC.

MacDonald's model starts with a bent wire which "evolves" by:

1) Adding turns to the wire making it a spring and increasing force

WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "TURNING"?

2) Adding bait to attract mice.

WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "ADDING"?

3) Stapling the spring to the floor so it can't simply be knocked over.

"WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE STAPLING"?

4) Attaching the trap to a piece of wood instead of the floor to make it more portable and versatile.

WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "ATTACHING"?

5) "Evolve" the "hammer" by lengthening the wire and changing it to an L shape then a U shape to improve it's kill probability.

"WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "LENGTHENING"?

6) Add a hold down bar to make the trap easier to trigger.

"WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "ADDING"?

7) A series of minor changes improving the performance and cost of the trap.

WHO OR WHAT IS "CAUSING THESE CHANGES"?

8) Add a catch to the hold down bar. This makes the trap more sensitive and allows it to be triggered from multiple directions.

WHO OR WHAT IS "ADDING A CATCH"?


CHECK OUT "BERRA'S BLUNDER" FOR MORE INSIGHT..

The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake."

(Dr. Louis Agassiz, who was a Harvard University professor and the pioneer in glaciation.]
  • mike the wiz likes this

#6 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 08 January 2018 - 02:24 AM

Yes, it was.  Behe proposed the mousetrap as a good example of irreducible complexity (IC).
 
No, a MODERN mousetrap doesn't work just fine if it is missing one of its components.  However, I can provide at least two different models showing how the modern mousetrap could have "evolved" to it's present, irreducible, form.
 
MacDonald's model starts with a bent wire which "evolves" by:
1)  Adding turns to the wire making it a spring and increasing force
2)  Adding bait to attract mice.
3)  Stapling the spring to the floor so it can't simply be knocked over.
4)  Attaching the trap to a piece of wood instead of the floor to make it more portable and versatile.
5)  "Evolve" the "hammer" by lengthening the wire and changing it to an L shape then a U shape to improve it's kill probability.
6)  Add a hold down bar to make the trap easier to trigger.
7)  A series of minor changes improving the performance and cost of the trap.
8)  Add a catch to the hold down bar.  This makes the trap more sensitive and allows it to be triggered from multiple directions.


My question for you Piasan is why you buy into MacDonald's model without seemingly any trace of critical thinking. Is it because you want to believe his arguments, or what is the reason you put so much trust into what MacDonald has written?

Because it's not like Behe is not aware of the type of critique MacDonald's is putting forth. And according to Behe there are some issues with his critique. Or as he puts it "In defense of the mousetrap I will make a number of points, including: McDonald's reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap I showed; intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps; if intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell."

Behe also notes in his conlusions "Why do the McDonald mousetraps look persuasive to some people? Certainly one reason is the way they are drawn. Drawings of four of the five traps are dominated by the image of the large rectangular platform and prominent spring in the center. That makes them all look pretty much the same."

This was written in 2000, so it's not new stuff exactly. You can find Behe's critique of MacDonalds model here
http://www.discovery.org/a/446

Is it possible that you have been fooled to believe MacDonald's reasoning because of your preconceptions Piasan?



#7 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 09 January 2018 - 01:01 PM

ah, those three little words, "i can show . . .".

evolutionists have been "showing" us for years how those little gradually accumulating changes has resulted in todays diversity of life.

how natural selection has forged the complex life structures we see today.

 

what do we really have in regards to evolution?

a bunch of bones arranged in a preconceived order?

the commonality of DNA to all life?

 

it is simply erroneous to think evolution has been solved to everyones satisfaction, and i'm not talking about scientists and creationists.

science is clueless as to the matter of how life got here.

what else can i say?

 

what really gets me though, is just how far some evolutionists are willing to go.

this, in itself, doesn't bode well for evolution.

 

i don't know man, i find the idea of life bootstrapping itself from a pond of goo simply outrageous, laughable actually.

 

i am now suddenly faced with some form of vast intelligence far superior to that of man.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#8 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 January 2018 - 01:51 PM

My question for you Piasan is why you buy into MacDonald's model without seemingly any trace of critical thinking. Is it because you want to believe his arguments, or what is the reason you put so much trust into what MacDonald has written?

Because it's not like Behe is not aware of the type of critique MacDonald's is putting forth. And according to Behe there are some issues with his critique. Or as he puts it "In defense of the mousetrap I will make a number of points, including: McDonald's reduced-component traps are not single-step intermediates in the building of the mousetrap I showed; intelligence was intimately involved in constructing the series of traps; if intelligence is necessary to make something as simple as a mousetrap, we have strong reason to think it is necessary to make the much more complicated machinery of the cell."

Behe also notes in his conlusions "Why do the McDonald mousetraps look persuasive to some people? Certainly one reason is the way they are drawn. Drawings of four of the five traps are dominated by the image of the large rectangular platform and prominent spring in the center. That makes them all look pretty much the same."

This was written in 2000, so it's not new stuff exactly. You can find Behe's critique of MacDonalds model here
http://www.discovery.org/a/446

You can also find it linked in piasan's article, because that article is a direct response to the one you linked. It specifically addresses the critique you quoted above by changing from removing single parts to modifying the parts by small changes.

Is it possible that you have been fooled to believe MacDonald's reasoning because of your preconceptions Piasan?

Given that you don't appear to have read the material in question, is it possible that you have been fooled to believe in Behe's correctness because of your preconceptions?

#9 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 January 2018 - 01:55 PM

WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "TURNING"?
WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "ADDING"?
"WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE STAPLING"?
WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "ATTACHING"?
"WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "LENGTHENING"?
"WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "ADDING"?
WHO OR WHAT IS "CAUSING THESE CHANGES"?
WHO OR WHAT IS "ADDING A CATCH"?

Maybe this part of the article will help answer your question:

Of course, the reduced-complexity mousetraps shown below are intended to point out one of the logical flaws in the intelligent design argument; they're not intended as an analogy of how evolution works.

Obviously mousetraps are not alive and can't reproduce themselves with modification. The point is specifically that they can be modified through small changes in a way that provides a counterexample to the claim of irreducible complexity.
 

CHECK OUT "BERRA'S BLUNDER" FOR MORE INSIGHT..

This is another very good example of creationists not understanding how an analogy works.

#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 15 January 2018 - 03:35 PM

 

 

Popoi: This is another very good example of creationists not understanding how an analogy works. 

 

Hasty generalisation fallacy. "This person doesn't understand an analogy, therefore is an example of how creationists don't understand."

 

Example; "This atheist has just murdered someone, another very good example of atheists being evil."

 

When you jump from one member of the group to the whole, or make the characteristic belong to a certain group of people when in reality all people have the characteristic.

 

So to my mind Popoi, this is just another example of you attempting to play the superiority-card. In my experience, you aren't the best at understanding analogies but tend to boast that it's others that don't because you get hung up on not understanding where the relevance of the comparison is. This can be regarded to my mind, as an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people who are less competent than they realise, think themselves overly competent, or more competent that others but aren't really more competent.

 

You say, "another", as a question-begging-epithet as though the previous times you have proven your case. Not really, it seems to me as someone that understands analogies, that really you do kind of get tangled in them a bit yourself, at times, and conclude my analogies aren't analogous because you yourself haven't understood where their relevance lies.

 

An example of an analogy might be this, that if I were to say that Schumacher is to F1 grandprix as Roger Federer is to tennis. The key to an analogy is finding an equivalent comparison. So then as an example of a conspicuous absence, we just need to find something where it is obvious we would expect to find the thing in dispute.

 

So then if I were to claim that I had just dumped wet cement on your fish tank but you checked every particle of sand and found nothing, no bones at all, an analogy might be that of a criminal asserting he was on CCTV at the time of the scene of the crime, that he was there within shot for a half hour and was filmed thus. Then we check the CCTV footage and he was not on it. 

 

(Note I am not claiming, "you are incompetent Sir" because of the title, I just wonder what your basis of comparison is since it seems many evolutionists very definitely believe they have a superiority I myself have never really saw in them; it's amazing how many times they seek to say that inferior behaviour belongs to the group "creationists". I think if your main approach is character-assasination, then how strong can your position really be? I don't see any creationists doing this much but it seems to be close to the number one propaganda-tactic with many evolutionists. 

 



#11 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 January 2018 - 06:43 PM

So then if I were to claim that I had just dumped wet cement on your fish tank but you checked every particle of sand and found nothing, no bones at all, an analogy might be that of a criminal asserting he was on CCTV at the time of the scene of the crime, that he was there within shot for a half hour and was filmed thus. Then we check the CCTV footage and he was not on it. 

This isn’t the kind of analogy you usually try that I have a problem with. The last time the CCTV analogy came up you were trying to compare it to the fossil record. The problem (as i explained in that thread) being that the reasons someone might not show up on CCTV are not the same kind of reasons a species might not show up in the fossil record, which makes the analogy a flawed one. Your response in that thread was yet another lecture about how your analogies are very good and I must just not understand how analogies work. As usual I’ll leave it to the viewers at home to decide for themselves who they think is right. I guess feel free to post your Sudoku high score again if you want to try to butter them up a little more.

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 January 2018 - 04:41 AM

The sodoku score is an attempt to show that I can deduce since the game depends on deduction. It provides some way of providing evidence rather than just asserting I can deduce well. Isn't it a good thing to provide evidence of a claim?

 

 

 

Popoi: The problem (as i explained in that thread) being that the reasons someone might not show up on CCTV are not the same kind of reasons a species might not show up in the fossil record which makes the analogy a flawed one

 

That doesn't make an analogy flawed. There is an analogy, that a conductor in an orchestra is to an orchestra, what a police officer is to traffic. That is, both people guide. But in those instances a police officer guides in a way different to a conductor but the analogy isn't flawed because the purpose of an analogy is to show an equivalent comparison, not to show that all of the details in both instances are exact matches. (I didn't make up this analogy but got it from an analogy site so you can't accuse me of creating a flawed one)

 

As long as we expect from a history of evolution, which is what the record is supposed to be, an evolution, more than a record of animal kinds, then it is a reasonable and correct prediction to expect evolution to show up in that "evolutionary record", given that is what they alleged happened during those millions and billions of years, that everything that exists today, evolved.

 

And that is what they claim the record is, and that is what they claimed happened in history, meaning from a critical thinking point of view it is a correct request to demand to see it, instead of every single kind you can name, evolution's intermediates, but they are conspicuously absent in the record in the same way a criminal claims the CCTV is a record of his alibi. If his claim is true, we expect to see him on the CCTV. Reasonably if the record recorded things when evolution was supposed to be happening, and we can even nail down when specific things allegedly evolved in X period, then we would reasonably expect to see at least a portion of evolution otherwise the correct logic is to conclude it is a record of what it is actually recording, animal kinds extant/extinct, and a CCTV recording of the criminal's lack of alibi.

 

So then to give reasons why evolution isn't there, from a logical perspective can only be counted as ad-hoc excuses, conjecture created to excuse the fact it isn't there, but Darwin was correct to predict the transitions would be found. 

 

So then the modern day excuses don't really count as those are new excuses that have only arisen once they found out the transitions were not there. Because those excuses are posteriori, we can again compare this to our criminal being shown he was not on the CCTV, so he now creates a story, and shows it is physically feasible that if you can contort your body, jump, skip, duck and hide, you could still have been in the vicinity where the CCTV filmed. In other words, it comes off as highly unconvincing and seems the only reason to argue such a thing is because the facts don't fit. 



#13 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 16 January 2018 - 10:27 AM

The sodoku score is an attempt to show that I can deduce since the game depends on deduction. It provides some way of providing evidence rather than just asserting I can deduce well. Isn't it a good thing to provide evidence of a claim?

That's a very specific kind of deduction. There's not much reason to believe that it will translate in to good arguments.
 

That doesn't make an analogy flawed. There is an analogy, that a conductor in an orchestra is to an orchestra, what a police officer is to traffic. That is, both people guide. But in those instances a police officer guides in a way different to a conductor but the analogy isn't flawed because the purpose of an analogy is to show an equivalent comparison, not to show that all of the details in both instances are exact matches. (I didn't make up this analogy but got it from an analogy site so you can't accuse me of creating a flawed one)

It is if the conlusion you draw only applies to one side of the analogy. "A conductor guides an orchestra like a cop guides traffic, so you should stay on rhythm or you might get shot" is an incorrect conclusion to draw.
 

And that is what they claim the record is, and that is what they claimed happened in history, meaning from a critical thinking point of view it is a correct request to demand to see it, instead of every single kind you can name, evolution's intermediates, but they are conspicuously absent in the record in the same way a criminal claims the CCTV is a record of his alibi. If his claim is true, we expect to see him on the CCTV. Reasonably if the record recorded things when evolution was supposed to be happening, and we can even nail down when specific things allegedly evolved in X period, then we would reasonably expect to see at least a portion of evolution otherwise the correct logic is to conclude it is a record of what it is actually recording, animal kinds extant/extinct, and a CCTV recording of the criminal's lack of alibi.

The only reason we have that expectation is the specific nature of CCTV. This is the problem with your analogy. Conspicuous absence from a CCTV is very easy to establish, because CCTV covers a particular place and time in a way that is very conclusive if it is present at all. If the footage exists of the place you were at time and you were there, you will almost certainly be in it.

Fossils are not such a record. Whether a thing is fossilized depends on a host of factors. It doesn't follow that if we have fossils from X period, we should find examples of another particular species that existed at the same time. Given the sheer number of forms of life around at any given time we'll likely find something, but we can't expect to find a particular thing of interest.

As I pointed out in the other thread, there are other pieces of evidence the police might collect that indicate the presence of certain people in the store around the time in question.

If they have 5 photographs of people at the store and the accused isn't in any of them, is that a conspicuous absence of evidence for the alibi?

If they have shoe impressions taken from fresh concrete that was poured that day, and the accused's shoes aren't among them, is that a conspicuous absence of evidence for the alibi?

All three are potential analogies to the fossil record. If the answer to any of them is that they aren't a conspicuous absence of evidence, why is the CCTV a better analogy than the ones that do not establish a conspicuous absence?
 

So then to give reasons why evolution isn't there, from a logical perspective can only be counted as ad-hoc excuses, conjecture created to excuse the fact it isn't there, but Darwin was correct to predict the transitions would be found.

This Darwin right here?:

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain;
and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

So far I haven't seen much reason to believe Darwin was expecting to find transitions to the extent you want, or considered the fossil record anywhere close to complete.
 

So then the modern day excuses don't really count as those are new excuses that have only arisen once they found out the transitions were not there. Because those excuses are posteriori, we can again compare this to our criminal being shown he was not on the CCTV, so he now creates a story, and shows it is physically feasible that if you can contort your body, jump, skip, duck and hide, you could still have been in the vicinity where the CCTV filmed. In other words, it comes off as highly unconvincing and seems the only reason to argue such a thing is because the facts don't fit.

Again you're appealing to factors that only apply to one side of the analogy. If fossilization only happens in unlikely circumstances, nothing special needs to be done to avoid it. How hard would the accused have to work to avoid being in any of the 5 photographs taken that day?

The only sense in which the facts don't fit seems to be that they don't fit your expectations. The problem continues to be that those expectations don't seem to have much basis.

Given the above section of Darwin pointing out the incompleteness of the fossil record it also seems wildly inaccurate to say such claims are excuses after the fact.

#14 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 January 2018 - 03:19 PM

Blitzking & Mike the Wiz; I popped in to see what's going on. I caught this from our usual antagonist, piasan:

 

Quote:  "Evolve" the "hammer" by lengthening the wire and changing it to an L shape then a U shape to improve it's kill probability."

 

Blitzking's excellent answer: "WHO OR WHAT IS DOING THE "LENGTHENING"?

 

Right. The fact is that mousetraps DON'T evolve....ever. They are engineered by intelligent choices, just like DNA. DNA has NEVER been observed assembling of it's own accord outside of other/existing DNA. 

But piasan doesn't care. He claims to believe in God but since he has rejected the Creator God of scripture then he has no idea as to how to define his 'god'  or know what 'his' capabilties, capacity, intelligence, or differences with nature really are. The real truth is that nature is his 'god' but he only appeals to 'him', 'her', 'it', 'whatever' when all other explanations fail.  

 

He hasn't changed a bit.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users