Jump to content


Photo

Too Complex To Be From God?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
12 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2012 - 04:48 AM

Here is an interesting argument I heard from one of my lecturers.

She claimed that the systems found within Biology are too complex / convoluted for a designer to rationally make it so. I think her point was that the redundant systems found in a cell means that it cannot have been designed that way.

Personally I found this argument quite interesting since I've never heard it before, and on some level I can see the logic in it, on the basis that in human designs we try to get rid of the redundant parts since they are seen as "dead weight" in most respects.

As you guys know I am an advocate that complexity = design since in order to arive at such complexity a measure of intelligence is required, the same is said for systems that rely on each other for their operation, in that they need to exist as whole systems before a fitness value can be achieved to enable their selection, meaning evolution cannot have brought them about from "small progressive changes over time".

One thing I was tempted to ask, but didn't get around to was whether or not such complexity could be the work of evolution, since you'd think that evolution would select against redundant systems since by being redundant they are not required to bring about an increase in fitness, even when they are utilised the fact they are redundant means they are not required. Whereas with a designer redundant systems could be intergrated as a fail-safe in case one fails or if additional support is required in the case of slowed or modified operation due to enviromental factors, (thus demonstrating foresight of design), also this is based on the assumption that the system is in fact redundant, perhaps there is another use which we do not know about, (such is common in Biochemistry). Additionally with the designer hypothesis we simply cannot rule out anything since we'd be assuming what the designer would and wouldn't do, which in the case of God is impossible to know.


Just wondering on what you guys think.


Note: 2012th post lol

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:43 AM

Here is an interesting argument I heard from one of my lecturers.

She claimed that the systems found within Biology are too complex / convoluted for a designer to rationally make it so. I think her point was that the redundant systems found in a cell means that it cannot have been designed that way.


I lol'd. It is a straw man, a god who is limited by her imagination so she can easily refute him.

Personally I found this argument quite interesting since I've never heard it before, and on some level I can see the logic in it, on the basis that in human designs we try to get rid of the redundant parts since they are seen as "dead weight" in most respects.

As you guys know I am an advocate that complexity = design since in order to arive at such complexity a measure of intelligence is required, the same is said for systems that rely on each other for their operation, in that they need to exist as whole systems before a fitness value can be achieved to enable their selection, meaning evolution cannot have brought them about from "small progressive changes over time".

One thing I was tempted to ask, but didn't get around to was whether or not such complexity could be the work of evolution, since you'd think that evolution would select against redundant systems since by being redundant they are not required to bring about an increase in fitness, even when they are utilised the fact they are redundant means they are not required. Whereas with a designer redundant systems could be intergrated as a fail-safe in case one fails or if additional support is required in the case of slowed or modified operation due to enviromental factors, (thus demonstrating foresight of design), also this is based on the assumption that the system is in fact redundant, perhaps there is another use which we do not know about, (such is common in Biochemistry). Additionally with the designer hypothesis we simply cannot rule out anything since we'd be assuming what the designer would and wouldn't do, which in the case of God is impossible to know.


Just wondering on what you guys think.


Note: 2012th post lol



I'm with you on this one. I remember from a lecture in the Creation Superconference 2011 (and 2012 not available online) by Dr Rob Carter http://web29.streamh...obertcarter.m4v where he describes that the processing power of the cell is streamlined far beyond what we have available in modern computers. We will probably be studying this redundancy in the future to figure out how to make our computers faster. I can only imagine that an Intelligent Creator would find this extremely efficient capability desirable in His creation.

I cannot say that evolutionists would have a problem explaining this, since redundant codes might have a benefit (making a cell more robust/process better) and therefore get selected. No I take issue with far bigger things such as abiogenesis, irreducible complexity of the cell, evolution of different wings and eyes multiple times throughout history, different compatible male and female S@xual reproductive systems evolving in many different species, etc.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 September 2012 - 09:52 AM

I lol'd. It is a straw man, a god who is limited by her imagination so she can easily refute him.




I'm with you on this one. I remember from a lecture in the Creation Superconference 2011 (and 2012 not available online) by Dr Rob Carter http://web29.streamh...obertcarter.m4v where he describes that the processing power of the cell is streamlined far beyond what we have available in modern computers. We will probably be studying this redundancy in the future to figure out how to make our computers faster. I can only imagine that an Intelligent Creator would find this extremely efficient capability desirable in His creation.

I cannot say that evolutionists would have a problem explaining this, since redundant codes might have a benefit (making a cell more robust/process better) and therefore get selected. No I take issue with far bigger things such as abiogenesis, irreducible complexity of the cell, evolution of different wings and eyes multiple times throughout history, different compatible male and female S@xual reproductive systems evolving in many different species, etc.


I agree with your analysis :) Yes there are bigger fish to fry, just wanted to share my experience with this since its a refreshingly new situation :)

#4 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 18 September 2012 - 06:36 PM

She claimed that the systems found within Biology are too complex / convoluted for a designer to rationally make it so.


They bring everything out to support their atheistic faith, especially under the perception that there's already not much being supportive.

Yes, I saw similar arguments recently. And the evolutionists now are attracted to the so-called abductive reasoning, after realizing that their "theory" turns out to be a fairytale. Posted Image

#5 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 18 September 2012 - 08:12 PM

I agree with your analysis Posted Image Yes there are bigger fish to fry, just wanted to share my experience with this since its a refreshingly new situation Posted Image


The more I think about this argument posed by your teacher, the less it makes sense. An all-knowing God would not think to make something really efficient through use of redundant systems within the cell? Really? This might make sense in one of those alternate universes in the alleged multiverse. Honestly, is this the new face of free thinking; when logic fails, expanding your mind beyond the paradigm of logic?

I am hoping she thought that the redundant systems were relatively worthless, in which case evolution would have selected them out, which would not make them more complex but over-complicated by unnecessary components. That would be much like a junk DNA or vestigial organ argument, and we all see where those led...

#6 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:10 AM

Here is an interesting argument I heard from one of my lecturers. She claimed that the systems found within Biology are too complex / convoluted for a designer to rationally make it so. I think her point was that the redundant systems found in a cell means that it cannot have been designed that way. Personally I found this argument quite interesting since I've never heard it before, and on some level I can see the logic in it, on the basis that in human designs we try to get rid of the redundant parts since they are seen as "dead weight" in most respects. As you guys know I am an advocate that complexity = design since in order to arive at such complexity a measure of intelligence is required, ...

Why isn't she coming up with the argument that they are too complex to have been evolved then.

#7 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 19 September 2012 - 09:13 AM

Why isn't she coming up with the argument that they are too complex to have been evolved then.


It's a small leap to us but a gaping chasm to her.

#8 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:10 PM

God created species by no means says that God doesn't allow the nature to further streamline them in a changing environment. That is, ever since the 6 day creation, a lot could have happened to each species. Moreover, just like the case of the "junk dna", they may not be 'junk' at all. May it is just at the moment that humans failed to undertand their functionality. It is possible that in a creation, certain mechanisms are made 'hidden', and their functionality is triggered by a certain condition which humans nowaday may fail to speculate.

When we say that "X is redundant" we assume the following,

1) we understand very much well about what X is
2) we won't make the mistake to say that 'a gun is of no use' just because a gun is only used in a rare and extreme condition.

So 1) we don't understand the genes well enough, and 2) something 'junk' turns to be not junk at all.

#9 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 19 September 2012 - 06:30 PM

God created species by no means says that God doesn't allow the nature to further streamline them in a changing environment. That is, ever since the 6 day creation, a lot could have happened to each species. Moreover, just like the case of the "junk dna", they may not be 'junk' at all. May it is just at the moment that humans failed to undertand their functionality. It is possible that in a creation, certain mechanisms are made 'hidden', and their functionality is triggered by a certain condition which humans nowaday may fail to speculate.

When we say that "X is redundant" we assume the following,

1) we understand very much well about what X is
2) we won't make the mistake to say that 'a gun is of no use' just because a gun is only used in a rare and extreme condition.

So 1) we don't understand the genes well enough, and 2) something 'junk' turns to be not junk at all.


Very recently it has been proven that at LEAST 80% of the genome is functional. We have not looked at 20% of the genome, but it is speculated it will also be functional, and therefore that there will be no junk DNA at all in our genome:

http://blogs.nature....e-and-junk.html
http://www.independe...on-8106777.html

#10 Hawkins

Hawkins

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 156 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Hong Kong

Posted 20 September 2012 - 04:02 PM

Very recently it has been proven that at LEAST 80% of the genome is functional. We have not looked at 20% of the genome, but it is speculated it will also be functional, and therefore that there will be no junk DNA at all in our genome:

http://blogs.nature....e-and-junk.html
http://www.independe...on-8106777.html


Thanks very much Jayshel.

I have a question here. If the theory of junk DNA is gone, what happens to the theory of ERVs (or HERV) now. Because in the past they were considered as "junk".

#11 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 20 September 2012 - 08:36 PM

Thanks very much Jayshel.

I have a question here. If the theory of junk DNA is gone, what happens to the theory of ERVs (or HERV) now. Because in the past they were considered as "junk".


I ran across literature awhile back discussing variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs), which are thought to be algorithms within the genome that allow for semi-rapid adaptation:

1) Genetic elements known as endogenous retroviruses (ERVs)
2) Genetic elements known as long terminal repeats (LTR) retrotransposons
3) Non-LTR retrotransposons (LINEs)
4) Short interspersed elements (SINEs)
5) Repetitive triplet sequences (RTS)
6) Transposons (in plants)
7) IS elements (in bacteria)

http://wikibin.org/a...ic-element.html


In this theory, retroviruses came from ERV mutating and migrating out of the cell, not the other way around. ERV are seen as an algorithm in the genome that God put there to allow for variation and rapid adaptation of organisms to new environments, which could explain rapid variation of kinds after the flood.

The output of (morpho) genetic algorithms present in the baranome can readily be modulated by variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs).
http://creation.com/vige-introduction


See also: http://creation.com/vige-function

...variation-inducing genetic elements (VIGEs) [...] make sure the new variation is heritable. [...] they induce variation in the genetic algorithms and may underlie rapid adaptive radiation from uncommitted pluripotent genomes.


See the ORIGINAL paper on VIGEs by Peter Borger here: http://evoinfo.org/p...ary/borger4.pdf

He mentions that they are not always good now:

Psoriasis is also associated with HERV expression.
It should be clear that deregulated and uncontrolled VIGEs
cause havoc when they integrate with and disrupt functional
parts of genes.



#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 September 2012 - 10:00 PM

The more I think about this argument posed by your teacher, the less it makes sense. An all-knowing God would not think to make something really efficient through use of redundant systems within the cell? Really? This might make sense in one of those alternate universes in the alleged multiverse. Honestly, is this the new face of free thinking; when logic fails, expanding your mind beyond the paradigm of logic?

I am hoping she thought that the redundant systems were relatively worthless, in which case evolution would have selected them out, which would not make them more complex but over-complicated by unnecessary components. That would be much like a junk DNA or vestigial organ argument, and we all see where those led...


I had the same feeling, the more I thought about it the less of an argument it seemed to be.

I went and saw her after the next lecture and basically said that having more systems allows a cell greater control over its activities, (we were told this in 1st year so its basic stuff), which would therefore be useful in a design. When I started with my spill I saw a smile so I guess she might like talking about the philsophy of science, (which is great because many people I meet do not care one iota).

#13 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 02 October 2012 - 08:45 AM

My question is, why is God being discussed in a science class? Science is only the study of the natural world, when you talk about God you are going into a theological/philosophical discussion. Saying that organisms are too complex to be designed is more of a philosophical argument and such statements do not belong in the classroom. Science is not allowed to make such judgments about God.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users