Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[gaara4158]

If evolution is true, how do you explain this?

Stimulus generalization. Same reason we cringe and slow down when passing any Crown Vic.

 

[shinbits]

You can't believe in both Irreducible complexity and evolution, or you're using a different definition of irreducible complexity than everyone else is using.

my definition of ID is not from a creationist standpoint.

anyways, irreducible complexity is the idea that there exist organs with multiple parts, where each part independently has no previous independent function, and the that these irreducibly complex organs could not have evolved in stages through natural selection, the idea that they must have been directly designed.

that's part of a fallacy that I addressed in the first post of this thread, which is the notion that ID and evolution contradict each other. there is no reason why a designer couldn't have used evolution as the vehicle to bring about life.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I tried to point out earlier shinbits, your def. of ID is not ID.
I think that you are more along the lines of a deist.
ID is most definitely creationism, and anathema to theory of evolution.
I suggest you stop using the term ID to explain what you beleive, it's confusing for everyone else who understands what ID really is.

 

[shinbits]

Well, they are more complex than the structures they make, and while emergent behavior is interesting, it is something rather different in character than making something.

it is a bit different. but the fact remains that it's something that ants have developed. their system of communication combined with the structures they make, make the totality of what ants have developed much more complex than the ants themselves.

Besides that, I said intentionally. I sincerely doubt that you could demonstrate that ants do anything intentionally.

well, they do seem to be able to make decisions. they attack when necessary, and work to gather food and bring it back to the nest. not everything they do is instinct alone, which can be demonstrated by observing an ant that's been removed from it's natural environment.

Well, I don't think anybody believes that it happened by pure chance. Rather it happened as a result of physical laws, physical laws which can eventually be reduced to a single fundamental statement, something akin to, "all mathematical structures have real existence."

I see what you're saying. But how did the laws themselves come into existence? By pure chance? Furthermore, which physical laws were responsible for the creation of light? Or sound? Which physical law created atoms, protons and elections? Which physical law then determined their relation to each other?

I hope you understand what I'm getting at.

Yes! Exactly! This is how obscenely weak your position is: even purely speculative material shows how false your claims are. Look, all you have going for you is this completely unevidenced gut feeling that randomness cannot produce order. Well, I showed you a mathematical system whereby randomness does produce order. And your response is, "Well, that might not apply to the real world." So what? It doesn't matter! It still demonstrates that your gut feeling that randomness cannot creator order is wrong.

are you seriously using this as an argument? lolz. why don't you go watch Harry Potter to find which of their laws you'll use to "refute" me with.

 

[shinbits]

I tried to point out earlier shinbits, your def. of ID is not ID.
I think that you are more along the lines of a deist.
ID is most definitely creationism, and anathema to theory of evolution.
I suggest you stop using the term ID to explain what you beleive, it's confusing for everyone else who understands what ID really is.

again, I always make clear what my position is. from my observation, there's no logical reason for some of the notions creationists push on ID, such as the anthropic principle, or the fact that ID "must" contradict evolution. since all these things are true, I continue from that point, after snipping everything that's motivated by pure religious agenda.

But I see your point: it can get confusing. But you have to remember, ID uses the teleological argument, which was around centuries before ID was ever conceived.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

again, I always make clear what my position is. from my observation, there's no logical reason for some of the notions creationists push on ID, such as the anthropic principle, or the fact that ID "must" contradict evolution. since all these things are true, I continue from that point, after snipping everything that's motivated by pure religious agenda.

But I see your point: it can get confusing. But you have to remember, ID uses the teleological argument, which was around centuries before ID was ever conceived.

How do you keep missing the fact that without "religious agenda", there is no ID??

 

[shinbits]

But is "where do the laws of nature come from" really not empirical? It's about observable phenomena, after all

and where has it been observed that laws come from?

False dichotomy. "Pure luck" implies that the laws of nature are decided on a random basis. Is there any good reason why that must be the case if they weren't designed? (See the last part of this post for why I think there isn't)

chance is any outcome not affected by willful decision. if you roll dice, unless the dice or the table or some other factors are rigged, the number rolled will be random.

but you'll probably respond by saying akin to "well the laws are the dice, the outcome is the universe." but everyone knows that dice don't appear in casinos by random chance. a designer makes them, and ships them to the casino. and just as it would be silly to assume the dice came into existence by random chance, it's just as silly to assume the laws of the universe also arrived by random chance.

let's throw the ball in your court: if laws were not created intentionally, how did they come into being?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

let's throw the ball in your court: if laws were not created intentionally, how did they come into being?

Wouldn't unintentionally be an option?

 

[shinbits]

How do you keep missing the fact that without "religious agenda", there is no ID??

how do you miss the many times I've pointed out that the teleological argument central to ID, existed many centuries before creationists impossed their agenda on ID?

Also, "pure luck" is not necessarily as bad as you make it sound. Even if the laws of the universe result from a random decision there may be

(1) a limited set of possible outcomes, as in a die throw - so not all combinations of constants and laws would be possible

as mentioned before, the die still has to be created first.

(2) a bias towards a certain kind of outcome, as in loaded dice.

as adressed already, loaded dice are the result of someone's willlful interference, making it ID.

Bottom line: pure chance =/= anything is possible and equally likely.

wrong. they are not the same. this is quite simply because not "anything" is possible. You will never see a sentient Bugs Bunny giving birth to a sentient version of one of the CF's smilies.

so as you can see, they are NOT the same.

 

[gaara4158]

and where has it been observed that laws come from?

We haven't observed them coming from anywhere... we've just discovered them.

if laws were not created intentionally, how did they come into being?

There are countless postulations; we discussed mine a few pages back. The lack of an answer is no reason to invoke and intelligent designer.

 

[shinbits]

Wouldn't unintentionally be an option?

meaning purely by chance?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

meaning purely by chance?

No, meaning unintentional.

 

[shinbits]

There are countless postulations; we discussed mine a few pages back. The lack of an answer is no reason to invoke and intelligent designer.

that alone is not the reason for ID.

 

[shinbits]

No, meaning unintentional.

*sigh*.

anything unintentional is an accident. the result of an accident is a chance event.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Wrong.

 

[TeddyKGB]

chance is any outcome not affected by willful decision. if you roll dice, unless the dice or the table or some other factors are rigged, the number rolled will be random.

Die rolls are not random; they are simply preposterously difficult to predict.

but you'll probably respond by saying akin to "well the laws are the dice, the outcome is the universe." but everyone knows that dice don't appear in casinos by random chance. a designer makes them, and ships them to the casino. and just as it would be silly to assume the dice came into existence by random chance, it's just as silly to assume the laws of the universe also arrived by random chance.

Stop making analogies the alpha and omega of your position. You cannot state that conclusions about die rolls and universal laws are comparable unless you can prove that the systems underlying both are fundamentally identical.

let's throw the ball in your court: if laws were not created intentionally, how did they come into being?

Lee Smolin proposes a "Fecund Universe Theory" that uses Darwinian selection as its basis.

And I swear to Joe Pesci, if you say one thing about it being speculation...

 

[Chalnoth]

it is a bit different. but the fact remains that it's something that ants have developed.

Not really. It's just the interaction of individual behaviors that generates the social structure.

their system of communication combined with the structures they make, make the totality of what ants have developed much more complex than the ants themselves.

That would only be true if you include the complexity of the individual ants in the "totality of what ants have developed". The behavior of an ant society is nowhere near as complex as the behavior of the network of neurons that makes up a single ant's nervous system.

well, they do seem to be able to make decisions. they attack when necessary, and work to gather food and bring it back to the nest.

They certainly didn't decide on the construction of the social or physical structures they build.

not everything they do is instinct alone, which can be demonstrated by observing an ant that's been removed from it's natural environment.

While that may provide insight into what specific stimuli they respond to, it's not going to demonstrate that they don't act almost entirely on instinct.

I see what you're saying. But how did the laws themselves come into existence?

I think you missed the part where I said that they might reduce to a fundamental statement, such as "all mathematical structures have real existence." If that statement were true, then it would necessitate our existence. I have no qualms with the idea that this statement, or something like it, might be true for no reason at all. At least it's simple, unlike a creator god.

are you seriously using this as an argument? lolz. why don't you go watch Harry Potter to find which of their laws you'll use to "refute" me with.

Harry Potter isn't plausible. I posted something that is. Big difference.

 

[juvenissun]

In what way do you operate in that way now? And how, do you claim, does this apply to grant money?

Conclusion first, investigation followed.
How could this get the grant money? You simply read a (any) proposal and you may find it out. They are all the same. In fact, if one did not do that, the proposal would most likely, fail.

 

[MoonLancer]

when doing the actually testing though, its the evidence that leads, not the conclusion., regardless of the proposal. The people with grant money tend to not be scientists, they would not understand.

 

[Ectezus]

Conclusion first, investigation followed.

A real scientist would say: Hypothesis first.
A conclusion is something you make AFTER you've found evidence, whether it's in support of the hypothesis or disproves it. Both are important.