Is this valid?

[NBB]

And it will miss a lot of things which are designed. Terrific.

The bottom line is that functional complexity really has nothing much to do with whether an object is designed or not.

More credit to the design of the human body when it passes the rule even with higher number of parts required better than the best of human inventions that required intelligence and great effort and thousands of years to make.

 

[Tanj]

Scaffolding has about three key components.
Pipes, bolts, and joints.
If all the blts were missing, bad news.
Even with the redundancies, If you showed me
three bolts on the ground, I'd wait for a crane.

Not the point. The point is that once the building is complete all the scaffolding is removed, and if all you ever saw were completed buildings you'd never know scaffolding existed.

 

[Tanj]

No.
But i think we should explain this with a simpler example.
The mouse trap.
Only a few parts, but all parts are essential or 'core'.
If one part fails or misses, mouse trap no worky...

But the broken part can easy be fixxy.

I'm beginning to like my definition more and more.

 

[Hieronymus]

Not the point. The point is that once the building is complete all the scaffolding is removed, and if all you ever saw were completed buildings you'd never know scaffolding existed.

You mean like God creating everything, and once it's all there, you can't see how He did it.

 

[Tanj]

Functionality of the object dependant. The function of the car is to be driveable. This is about purpose of the design to bring some functionality. Not if it is useful to you to buy it, etc. the car still is a mess without engine, if you fix it, you make it driveable, you can buy a computer without cpu, but its functionality (provide computing power) is not existant unless you add a cpu.

But I can add them. Try adding a retina to an eye that doesn't have one.

Yep, my definition works every single time. Yay me. I should probably put it on youtube.

 

[Tanj]

You mean like God creating everything, and once it's all there, you can't see how He did it.

I don't know, did your omniscient deity require scaffolding? If not then no, it's nothing like that at all, it's like the opposite of what I was talking about.

 

[NBB]

But I can add them. Try adding a retina to an eye that doesn't have one.

Yep, my definition works every single time. Yay me. I should probably put it on youtube.

That is not the point, a machine has a function that was designed for, you can repair and add to it so what, if it functions maybe you can add something else, but the core parts are so that if you remove one of them, the functionality of the machine stops.

 

[Hieronymus]

But the broken part can easy be fixxy.

You need a repair system for that.
A human with skills and equipment.
The repair system is not built in the mouse trap.

I'm beginning to like my definition more and more.

O, i guess i missed that. I just jumped in a few posts back.
I'll have a look.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't know, did your omniscient deity require scaffolding?

You think i believe He built houses??

 

[Hieronymus]

Perhaps that's a better definition. Something is designed if you can take out a core bit and replace it with a different core bit.

This is not true for a painting or a sculpture.
But then again, paintings and sculptures don't have an important function, other than lining the pockets of art dealers...
I still don't see how replaceability is a premise per se, for something being designed, though..
For example, if i were to design and build a power bank, and i pot the parts inside the housing with epoxy, it is impossible to replace any parts.
I would have to replace the whole thing.

But okay, we can look at organisms as parts of an eco system, as parts of the Big System we call "Living Nature".
Well, whaddayaknow? The parts replace themselves! How genius is that?
Organism procreates before it dies.
Isn't that neat?
There's reproductive systems in all organisms.
Fascinating stuff.

 

[Tanj]

That is not the point, a machine has a function that was designed for, you can repair and add to it so what, if it functions maybe you can add something else, but the core parts are so that if you remove one of them, the functionality of the machine stops.

Yeah, I get your definition. I'm pointing out it's vague and non useful and replacing it with my definition. Your definition came from some rando on youtube. My definition came from me, an evolutionary biologist with 30 years experience. Who ya gonna believe?

 

[Speedwell]

You mean like God creating everything, and once it's all there, you can't see how He did it.

That's what science is for. How He did it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Yeah, I get your definition. I'm pointing out it's vague and non useful and replacing it with my definition. Your definition came from some rando on youtube. My definition came from me, an evolutionary biologist with 30 years experience. Who ya gonna believe?

It's not vague, it's irreducible complexity.
A system doesn't function when it's incomplete.
This is not from some rando on youtube, it's blunt inescapable logic.

 

[Tanj]

This is not true for a painting or a sculpture.

Well, that would depend on what constitutes a core bit of a painting or sculpture, I guess.

But then again, paintings and sculptures don't have an important function, other than lining the pockets of art dealers

Or indeed any function, beyond some people finding them pleasing. Not sure that counts a s a function eiter.

still don't see how replaceability is a premise per se, for something being designed, though..
For example, if i were to design and build a power bank, and i pot the parts inside the housing with epoxy, it is impossible to replace any parts.
I would have to replace the whole thing.

We both know that's not true. I mean it might take some work, but it's far from impossible. At any rate, the premise that started this trhead is from a youtube video. It's not exactly the Oracle at Delphi.

But okay, we can look at organisms as parts of an eco system, as parts of the Big System we call "Living Nature".
Well, whaddayaknow? The parts replace themselves! How genius is that?
Organism procreates before it dies.
Isn't that neat?

It is, but that's not part replacement.

 

[Tanj]

It's not vague, it's irreducible complexity.

Well, until you can definitively list the irreducibly complex parts of a car, it is the definition of vague.

 

[NBB]

Yeah, I get your definition. I'm pointing out it's vague and non useful and replacing it with my definition. Your definition came from some rando on youtube. My definition came from me, an evolutionary biologist with 30 years experience. Who ya gonna believe?

You use the i have credentials thing? not for this thread but: i know God because he has done things to me, so design makes more sense even. I like scientists but in this topic, knowing God, and they saying that adding random bits to something you can build something meaningful and complex etc. no, thank you.

 

[Speedwell]

You use the i have credentials thing? not for this thread but: i know God because he has done things to me, so design makes more sense even. I like scientists but in this topic, knowing God, and they saying that adding random bits to something you can build something meaningful and complex etc. no, thank you.

So are you doing the theist vs. atheist thing too?

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, that would depend on what constitutes a core bit of a painting or sculpture, I guess.

Doesn't really matter, because it's not replaceable.
or at least, it's not designed and made to be able to replace parts of it.
It can be done though, that would be restoration work.
But the painting or sculpture is basically one thing.
But the painting is made up of parts. (canvas, paint...)

Or indeed any function, beyond some people finding them pleasing. Not sure that counts a s a function eiter.

I'm not an art fan.
Although i like the art you can find in car design, like the beauties from the 50s and 60s.
Or industrial design in general, can be art too.

We both know that's not true. I mean it might take some work, but it's far from impossible.

If the PCB breaks down, i can't get it out without damaging the LiPo cell. The housing will be lost too.
Maybe not impossible.
Depends on the tools i have.

At any rate, the premise that started this trhead is from a youtube video. It's not exactly the Oracle at Delphi.

Then i'll have to go back further in this topic.
...and use my phone to watch Youtube, because my browser has become ancient, and i can't upgrade because i still run Ubuntu 10.4 on this remnant of a 2007 Toshiba laptop... (it can die on me any moment...)

It is, but that's not part replacement.

Why not?
Because they work together without being bolted together?

Okay, probably because the parts are somewhat autonomous you'd call them units or indeed, organisms.

But how about organ transplants then?
Hmmm... Maybe the same as that potted power bank...
Can be done maybe, but it's difficult and not designed to replace parts and has bad effects on the rest of the organism.

But there's still the irreducible complexity argument.
Some claim it has been debunked, but that's baloney.
Every system is irreducibly complex.
Not complete = no worky.
Or rather, not able to do what it's for.

So you say living nature is different.
Replacing parts of living nature is different.
But they HAVE to be replaced because they die (break) and all parts depend on eachother.
Yes, it's probably over built, but you need Oxigen that plants provide, and food that plants provide, and all kinds of things need to be done by organisms in the eco system for it to function and sustain itself.
Living nature needs a planet with water and sunshine.
Never mind what a tiny little cell needs have to function.
And all this is determined by coded DNA.

 

[Tanj]

You use the i have credentials thing?

I do indeed.

not for this thread but: i know God because he has done things to me, so design makes more sense even. I like scientists but in this topic, knowing God, and they saying that adding random bits to something you can build something meaningful and complex etc. no, thank you.

You don't have to like it. I promise the various drugs and therapeutics I help develop will still be available to you and yours even though you deny how they were developed.

Also: "they saying that adding random bits to something you can build something meaningful"

I'd ask who "they" is, but every time I ask people to start naming the theys they change the topic.

I can say with certainty with 30 years of experience in the field that no evolutionist has ever said it ever. I'm guessing you saw some rando on youtube that told you this is something we say?...like I said earlier, less youtube would be a good idea for you.

 

[Tanj]

...and use my phone to watch Youtube, because my browser has become ancient, and i can't upgrade because i still run Ubuntu 10.4 on this remnant of a 2007 Toshiba laptop... (it can die on me any moment...)

Even better...stop watching youtube altogether. Youtube is bad for you, it causes cancer. I know this because I saw it. On youtube.

Because they work together without being bolted together?

Because your kids are not replacements for you.

Okay, probably because the parts are somewhat autonomous you'd call them units or indeed, organisms.

There's quite a few things I'd call them. Replacements is not in the list.

But there's still the irreducible complexity argument.

It's an incredibly poor argument given that I've never seen a single proponent who can tell me which parts of a car are irreducibly complex.

So vague as to be worthless.