A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

I'm not really interested in debating with you as you do not debate in good faith.

Then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on my posts.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Isn't a building measured in its design as in the building plans. We would measure an arrow by its specific shape that makes an arrow as opposed to any shape. Though it is a simple shape it is specified in being an arrow that conforms to an arrow shape. The arrow shape is a symbol used by humans (intelligent beings) and has a certain meaning attached to it. It usually means direction towards something that can give us more info. A lookalike arrow shape made by chance can be distinguished by a number of signs. What it is point to, (context) and the shape can be analysed to see if it is made by intelligence. This can all be found in a building except in more detail and complexity.

You haven't told us what you measure or the units you use. All you have done is repeat that we can recognise design because of prior knowledge or indications of human agency.

 

[Larniavc]

what about a car? can a car drive without wheels, chassis etc?.

Say, are you the guy.....?

 

[Larniavc]

What is 'specified complexity'? And how can one measure it?

And what units shall we use?

 

[Speedwell]

Then if not specified how do we measure human design. From what I understand any design from a human perspective which happens to be intelligent needs to be specified. Otherwise it can be mistaken as being random chance. Human design will only occur within a narrow criteria thus is specified.

Here is the definition of design from Wiki. It mentions specification twice and basically says it is specified.
A design is a plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process, or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a prototype, product or process.
Design - Wikipedia
Here is a definition from Quora which is not a religious site.
Generally speaking something is designed if it is meant to serve a specific purpose.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-tell-if-something-is-designed-teleology

So it seems on an everyday commonsense meaning design does mean something that is specified towards a certain meaning.

Yes, if something is produced intentionally it has intention and is therefore intentional. But what you are claiming is a method to measure and quantify that intention in objects not determined by the usual criteria to possess intention. What about it?

 

[Speedwell]

Believe it or not both can happen. I never said natural selection was not capable of allowing living things to survive and reproduce. I was saying that it is not as all powerful as some say. It is also unable to weed out diseases because of various reasons explained which can also spread throughout the population.

And you know this because you observe that some diseases have not been weeded out. Where was your designer then?

 

[stevevw]

You haven't told us what you measure or the units you use. All you have done is repeat that we can recognise design because of prior knowledge or indications of human agency.

But that prior knowledge about something that is designed is based on a criteria that we have set for it to be classed as design. That will depend on what we are looking at. So that is the measurement. This is more about algorithms to determine probabilities. Can a random process account for what we are seeing. Once again referring to the fine tuned argument can a random process produce the many physical conditions that fall within a tiny parameter as opposed to the many possible conditions that could have eventuated. If we roll a set of dice and they come up with a certain number 500 times in a row. The odds become too great to have happened by chance. It is not about measuring specified complexity itself but about showing it could not have happened by random chance and therefore the results are specified and also complex depending on what it is being measured.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, if something is produced intentionally it has intention and is therefore intentional. But what you are claiming is a method to measure and quantify that intention in objects not determined by the usual criteria to possess intention. What about it?

It is determined by the usual measurements as in probability.

 

[stevevw]

And you know this because you observe that some diseases have not been weeded out. Where was your designer then?

What has that got to do with natural selection.

 

[Speedwell]

But that prior knowledge about something that is designed is based on a criteria that we have set for it to be classed as design. That will depend on what we are looking at. So that is the measurement. This is more about probabilities. Can a random process account for what we are seeing. Once again referring to the fine tuned argument can a random process produce the many physical conditions that fall within a tiny parameter as opposed to any possible condition. If we roll a set of dice and they come up with a certain number 500 times in a row. The odds become to great to have happened by chance. It is not about measuring specified complexity but about showing it could not have happened by random chance and therefore is specified and also complex depending on what it is being measured.

Which is the hindsight fallacy again. Getting the same number 500 times in a row is no less probable than getting any other specific sequence of 500 numbers.

 

[Speedwell]

It is determined by the usual measurements as in probability.

But that is not how design is usually detected. As pointed out, design is detected by prior experience and indications of agency, not probability.

 

[Speedwell]

What has that got to do with natural selection.

You claim that evolution is inadequate and postulate that therefore a designer must be involved. You suggest that an example of that inadequacy would the inability of the evolutionary mechanism to weed out many diseases. We observe that a disease (malaria, in this case) has not been weeded out, which supports your claim that evolution alone could not do it. But you only made the claim to justify your assertion that there is a designer as work in addition to evolution because evolution is inadequate. Where was your designer in the case of malaria? On vacation? Taking a nap?

 

[stevevw]

Which is the hindsight fallacy again. Getting the same number 500 times in a row is no less probable than getting any other specific sequence of 500 numbers.

Not if that particular number was the one needed. Like with fine tuning or with proteins the specific criteria has to be a certain set of numbers and not any numbers. So for example the number 12 had to be thrown every time and there were no alternatives.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then perhaps you should refrain from commenting on my posts.

I do as I wish.

 

[stevevw]

You claim that evolution is inadequate and postulate that therefore a designer must be involved. You suggest that an example of that inadequacy would the inability of the evolutionary mechanism to weed out many diseases. We observe that a disease (malaria, in this case) has not been weeded out, which supports your claim that evolution alone could not do it. But you only made the claim to justify your assertion that there is a designer as work in addition to evolution because evolution is inadequate. Where was your designer in the case of malaria? On vacation? Taking a nap?

I think that is reading a lot more into things than I am saying. For one my questioning natural selection is not because a God did it but because there are legitimate non religious reasons for doing so as I have posted earlier. I question some that seem to attribute just about everything to natural selection and look at all change in life in adaptive terms. This is not supported by the evidence.

Secondly I don't deny natural selection is a factor and plays a role I just question its role. Third by linking God this way that is no different to someone saying where was God when the drunk man ran down a child or the hurricane blew a village away. If ID is to be supported by science then invoking that God somehow has to intervene and stop what are natural occurrences defeats the purpose.

 

[stevevw]

I do as I wish.

Fair enough.

 

[Speedwell]

Not if that particular number was the one needed. Like with fine tuning or with proteins the specific criteria has to be a certain set of numbers and not any numbers. So for example the number 12 had to be thrown every time and there were no alternatives.

Which is just what you don't know. You got started on all this because you observed (quite correctly) that the probability of evolution producing exactly the biosphere we have now is vanishingly small. But it really doesn't matter.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But that prior knowledge about something that is designed is based on a criteria that we have set for it to be classed as design. That will depend on what we are looking at. So that is the measurement. This is more about algorithms to determine probabilities. Can a random process account for what we are seeing. Once again referring to the fine tuned argument can a random process produce the many physical conditions that fall within a tiny parameter as opposed to the many possible conditions that could have eventuated. If we roll a set of dice and they come up with a certain number 500 times in a row. The odds become too great to have happened by chance. It is not about measuring specified complexity itself but about showing it could not have happened by random chance and therefore the results are specified and also complex depending on what it is being measured.

You're all over the place. I was responding to your claim that we detect design by measuring specified complexity. When asked to explain how we do that and what units of measurement are used, you now say that we don't measure specified complexity, we perform a post hoc probability calculation.

1. Specified complexity is not a valid concept, but you're argument assumes that it is.
2. You cannot tell us how to measure this non-existent thing.
3. You want to perform post hoc probability calculations about the likelihood of this non-existent thing occurring.

Do you understand what those 3 points mean?

 

[Speedwell]

I question some that seem to attribute just about everything to natural selection...

Plus variation, don't forget--otherwise you're knocking down a straw man.

...and look at all change in life in adaptive terms. This is not supported by the evidence.

Actually it is. What is at issue is the exact nature of the mechanism which produces variation.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think that is reading a lot more into things than I am saying. For one my questioning natural selection is not because a God did it but because there are legitimate non religious reasons for doing so as I have posted earlier. I question some that seem to attribute just about everything to natural selection and look at all change in life in adaptive terms. This is not supported by the evidence.

Secondly I don't deny natural selection is a factor and plays a role I just question its role. Third by linking God this way that is no different to someone saying where was God when the drunk man ran down a child or the hurricane blew a village away. If ID is to be supported by science then invoking that God somehow has to intervene and stop what are natural occurrences defeats the purpose.

You only question the ToE because of your religious belief. You have posted this yourself on this very site.

Dont lie.