Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science (2)

[Oncedeceived]

No.

I can design very simple things.
And nature can produce very complex things.

So you admit there are very complex things in nature, but that you can't make a determination on what is complex and what is not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just as rainbows denote the possibility of magical Leprechauns, and lightning denotes the possibility of Thor.

No logical argument I see.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you can't determine which of the following is more complex, you're unable to produce simple thought. Sad really.

That would require following that thought forward to a conclusion they don't wish to have.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, how do you know?

The same way we determine a birds nest wasn't created by the wind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dizredux

Just And again you won't answer the question. Well at least you didn't disappoint.

How do you decide which is more complex and how do you measure it to determine that? Lets see how long you can go not answering.

And you talk about others be evasive just because they say that don't know something.

Dizredux

Are you serious? You don't think there is a way to determine that the 777 is more complex than the first airplane? Do you expect us to believe that you have to have a way to measure that specifically?

 

[Dizredux]

Did they ever stop to think that those genes or information for the
bioluminesence in those squids was programmed in there from the start?

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?

And if they even suggested that I bet that article would never see the light of day and no one would ever listen to anything those scientists said again.

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

 

[justlookinla]

And again you evade answering. It is you that brings in the concept of complexity into the discussion as a way to determine the presence of design, it is your job to define it.

Again the question is "How do you decide which is more complex and how do you measure it to determine that?"

And you have the nerve to accuse others of evading, rather hypocritical don't you think not to mention a tad dishonest.

Dizredux

It's rather revealing that you can't determine which is more complex, the Wright Biplane or a Boeing 777.

Now, evade awayyyyyyy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dizredux responding to Just.
Once I can't, which is the point. Unless someone such as Just or yourself can come up with a definition of complexity involving a way of measuring it so others can determine what has more or less complexity, I really can't say much about the relationship between complexity and design.

It is not my job to do your work for you.


Dizredux

Let me see here, you can't measure the complexity between the first plane and a 777 so we must come up with a definition.

: the quality or state of not being simple : the quality or state of being complex
: a part of something that is complicated or hard to understand


So here is the definition from Merriam and Webster. It seems that they don't quantify what is simple but assume we recognize simple in comparison. Something that is hard to understand. This is rather misleading as some may find it hard to understand while others do not. So it seems we are up a creek without a paddle. We have to rest on our own understanding of what is complex and what is not.



Now as far as you claiming that you have to have some sort of definition prior to determine what complexity determines design; it was Just that felt that complexity denotes design. Not that I disagree with that, I think that the complexity of a cell denotes design. Why? The working mechanisms of the cell are machine like in function and form. However, that is another topic that I don't wish to introduce in this thread.

 

[Dizredux]

Are you serious? You don't think there is a way to determine that the 777 is more complex than the first airplane? Do you expect us to believe that you have to have a way to measure that specifically?

I am very serious. While a huge difference is fairly easy to see, what about the smaller and more subtle issues such as a rock and a hand ax. What about a snow flake and a golf ball?

Whatever system you have is going to have to have a metric to measure complexity before you can make very many statements about it.

Which is more complex; a star, a hurricane or a hermit crab? If you are going to assert that complexity is an indication of design, you have to tell what you mean by complexity. If you are going to look at it scientifically, you need a metric so two individuals can have a way to agree on the amount of complexity involved.

That one "looks" more complex than another is not very satisfactory and really pretty useless in this context.

So as to the issue of the 777 and the original airplane. How do you determine which is more complex?


Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Easy.
Boeing 777 because it has more systems to perform more functions than the biplane.

No evasion on my part.

How about you?

Boeing 777. Snowstorm. Want to actually give a simple answer to which is more complex...and why?

I smell evasion coming down the pike real soon.

Snowstorm. It has more systems to perform and more functions than the Boeing 777.

Which is the product of design? The snowstorm or the Boeing 777?

 

[justlookinla]

That would require following that thought forward to a conclusion they don't wish to have.

Yep.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, not correct.

A rock that falls down a cliff can have edges being smashed off as well. There wouldn't be anything on my "art rock" that couldn't be accomplished by natural means.

Seriously, it's not hard to imagine shaping a rock in a seemingly random way making it look just like any other random rock.

So what this exemplifies is that if a "art rock" could fool the scientists that it was a randomly created rock form they can be fooled by over 20 exquisitely precise values that are required to be almost exactly as they are for life to exist? Do you see a problem with this?

And the opposite is also true...

A rock on mars, not the ruins of a traffic light:

And just for giggles, a naturally shaped rock on earth:

[/quote]

These are all made by sight. They are not scientific measurements tested and peer reviewed that are required for life to exist. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[Dizredux]

It's rather revealing that you can't determine which is more complex, the Wright Biplane or a Boeing 777.

Now, evade awayyyyyyy.

So let us put the question to you. How do you decide which is more complex? ED brought up the number of parts which, although it has problems, is a reasonable starting place. Using that metric the 777 is more complex as it has more parts.

But lets take the example of a hand ax and Rodin's The Thinker. Both have only one part. How would you deal with this?

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

So let us put the question to you. How do you decide which is more complex? ED brought up the number of parts which, although it has problems, is a reasonable starting place. Using that metric the 777 is more complex as it has more parts.

But lets take the example of a hand ax and Rodin's The Thinker. Both have only one part. How would you deal with this?

Dizredux

Let's take the two airplane photos, why don't we. Let's wait for your answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am very serious. While a huge difference is fairly easy to see, what about the smaller and more subtle issues such as a rock and a hand ax. What about a snow flake and a golf ball?

Whatever system you have is going to have to have a metric to measure complexity before you can make very many statements about it.

Which is more complex; a star, a hurricane or a hermit crab? If you are going to assert that complexity is an indication of design, you have to tell what you mean by complexity. If you are going to look at it scientifically, you need a metric so two individuals can have a way to agree on the amount of complexity involved.

That one "looks" more complex than another is not very satisfactory and really pretty useless in this context.

So as to the issue of the 777 and the original airplane. How do you determine which is more complex?


Dizredux

I am not asserting that complexity is an indication of design. I feel in most cases it is. As with anything that is labeled and defined there are those things that are outside of that concept.

Now how do I determine the original plane is less complex than the 777, Just as we can see how a single cell organism is considered less complex than a chimpanzee. It is less obvious in the life forms than it is in an airplane to me. It is completely obvious how much more complex requirements there are in a 777 than was necessary for the first flight and the plane that successfully provided it. To claim otherwise seems dismissive and unreasonable.

 

[Dizredux]

Snowstorm. It has more systems to perform and more functions than the Boeing 777.

Good honest response-thanks. But doesn't it go against your idea that complexity indicates design?

Which is the product of design? The snowstorm or the Boeing 777?

The 777 but I can show metrics that support this. We can see and measure multiple signs of manufacture on the 777. That would allow us to infer design. We cannot find any signs that a snow storm was manufactured so we cannot infer the snowstorm was designed at least by that metric.

This is one set of metrics to look at design. What might you use to infer design?

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Good honest response-thanks. But doesn't it go against your idea that complexity indicates design?

The 777 but I can show metrics that support this. We can see and measure multiple signs of manufacture on the 777. That would allow us to infer design. We cannot find any signs that a snow storm was manufactured so we cannot infer the snowstorm was designed at least by that metric.

This is one set of metrics to look at design. What might you use to infer design?

Dizredux

And I'ma waiting of for an answer.....and waiting.....and waiting......

 

[Smidlee]

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.

 

[Dizredux]

Now how do I determine the original plane is less complex than the 777, Just as we can see how a single cell organism is considered less complex than a chimpanzee.

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.

It is less obvious in the life forms than it is in an airplane to me. It is completely obvious how much more complex requirements there are in a 777 than was necessary for the first flight and the plane that successfully provided it.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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. 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 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.

To claim otherwise seems dismissive and unreasonable.

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.


Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

And I'ma waiting of for an answer.....and waiting.....and waiting......

And you will continue to wait. I feel no need to respond to your goofiness.

Dizredux