Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[EternalDragon]

Of course they did. The preexistence of genetic material has been looked many times. Sometimes it is found but mostly, if it is, it does not go back very far and usually there is little evidence for this. If someone wishes to propose existence of those genes in the history of the species, then they have to show evidence of that and as far as I know, mostly it is not found.

I would like to ask what you mean by "from the start." though. How far back do we need to go to look for already existing genes that are involved with this?

I don't really understand this. I have seen this proposed many times over the years so if it was found, I seriously doubt that there would be a problem with it. Again, evidence is the key.

Dizredux

It is very common in squid and is also common in many animals in the
deep ocean as well as land animals. Are you telling me each one evolved
this ability independently, in differing environments, and never had the genetic information for that ability before?

Like the scientist said. That would be very highly unlikely even for the two squid, let alone everything else.

 

[Dizredux]

If after a snowstorm you can clearly read the English words "I love you -God" imprinted in the snow we see it design because the it would be complexity on top of a complex storm. Now the odds of that happen is the exact the same as any other specific order which the snow could have fallen. So even though it's possible, especially with multiverses, it could have happen by change who in their right mind would believe that is was?

On the surface a snowstorm looks more complex than a Boeing 777 but that because you leaving out the other complexities required to actually produce the Boeing 777. Thus overall the Boeing 777 is more complex since it requires the complex laws of nature, complex factories, complex mathematics, which involves complex human which have a complex brains . (note Boeing 777 is not the result of a single person)

So I would say Boeing 777 is a lot more complex than a snowstorm since it requires much more than just the laws of nature... It's information all the way through.

It looks like you are using the number of interrelated societal and physical factors that go into the 777 as opposed to the snowstorm.

Not a bad attempt and meshes in with the Wiki article. I really don't have a good answer for this issue and it appears that a number of operational definitions of complexity could be used according to the circumstances.

The problem is that all of them seem to run into problems when you look at fine distinctions.

Wiki has this to say about it

Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways. The study of these complex linkages is the main goal of complex systems theory.

In science, there are at this time a number of approaches to characterizing complexity, many of which are reflected in this article. Neil Johnson admits that "even among scientists, there is no unique definition of complexity - and the scientific notion has traditionally been conveyed using particular examples..."

And even with this Wiki states this caution.

This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards

There are no simple answers to this question which makes it difficult to use the concept of complexity to support design except in a limited number of cases at least in my opinion.


Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Lets look at this. Referring to the single cell organism and the chimp, I suspect you are using the metric of the number of cells to determine which is more complex. This is not a bad starting place although you can run into problems fairly quickly using it.

I am using scientific jargon, as more complex life forms evolve from the more simple. (Although I would agree that even the bacteria cell is very complex).

The universe may be teeming with simple cells like bacteria, but more complex life – including intelligent life – is probably very rare. That is the conclusion of a radical rethink of what it took for complex life to evolve here on Earth.
Why complex life probably evolved only once - life - 21 October 2010 - New Scientist

Again I suspect, but don't know, that you are doing something similar to counting the number of parts involved as your metric.

No, see above.

The thing is that if we are going to discuss something like complexity then we need to know that we are talking about the same thing. This is what operational definitions are for. In this case, if we are using the number of parts then we can both agree that the 777 is more complex than the Wright Bros. plane. Aeronautical engineers might see things a little differently. I don't know if they do but it is certainly possible but I suspect that the first thing they would ask is "What is your meaning of complexity."

Just using the concept of obvious however is not very helpful. To have effective communication, you have to describe why you think it obvious and we are back to operational definitions.

In the case of the Wright plane and the 777 there are more parts for certain but I would say it comes down to the required functions and results that make the complexity most apparent.

But lets examine some that might not be so obvious. An adult dalmatian and an adult human. Which is more complex and what did you use to decide?

Which I said when talking about life which is complex in its very essence it becomes more difficult. I believe that a bacteria is very complex.

A globular galaxy and a a spiral galaxy, which is more complex and what do you use to determine this.

This is where we get into the nitty gritty. Appearance are not always based on what we can actually see with our own vision and not based on our own interpretations. Are we basing this comparison on what we can see or what we know about them?

A human infant and a human adult, which is more complex and how do you determine this. If it is the number of cells then what is the difference in complexity of a short person and tall person?

Ok. So what would you base your conclusions on in the above example?

If complexity is going to be an important part of the discussion on design then we have to know with some degree of accuracy what each of us are talking about so we can be more or less on the same page when it is brought up.

Ok. So what do you feel is an accurate way to determine complexity?

Just to say it is obvious only means that it is obvious in your opinion but others might not see it the same way. That is the purpose of definitions. Once we agree on an operational definition then we can go from there with some common understanding.

So what would yours be?

So to get back to my point, an operational definition of complex is necessary to give a common way of approaching the subject. What do you mean by complex and how do you determine the complexity? That is key.

Ok. So what is yours?

A bit snarky and I could say that this response is a sign that you have not thought through the issue of complexity very well.

Hum. Didn't have any snarky intentions.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (3)"