[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's right as I understand it in context of what he deems "specified complexity".

Well on that count, he simply doesn't understand evolution (actually I think he understands it perfectly but he is being deceitful and taking advantage of his followers who don't understand it). He is using ID's concept of "function" and applying it to evolution's (different) concept of "function." To ID, the function is what we humans think it is, cannot be anything else, and always has been that function. To evolution, it is less strict, it simply is any function that provides the organism with any utility. For example, if I start using a fire extinguisher and an office chair as propulsion, Behe would say that this is irreducibly complex, because I could not effectively locomote using just the chair or just the fire extinguisher. But evolution says that each component has had it's own independent use, and only by random recombination did the two combine to start acting as locomotion. If the new chair/jet propulsion evolves to become more advantageous than leg propulsion (or the cell's former cilia or pseudopodia), and because of this I stop using legs for locomotion (and start using them for something else, say a hammer to catch fleeing prey), then the future Behe would declare my legs irreducibly complex too, because their components are necessary for the new hammer function, even though they aren't irreducible for the old function of locomotion.

The only way that Behe's version of the test would work is if he assumes one of his conclusions, the conclusion that the function of a structure is determined before the structure is completed. This assumption is necessary for him to say that the components of the system must have been derived for the same purpose they ended up being used for in the end. Without that restriction, it's nothing.

One of Behe's counterparts; Dembski reiterates what Behe is referring to with IC; "To this let me add: A system is irreducibly complex in Behe's sense if all its parts are indispensable to preserving the system's basic function."

A heart has one singular purpose as a pump. We're not talking about the evolution of humans comprised of thousands of parts. We're talking about one specific part with one specific purpose. In this case the flagellum- a rotary propulsion machine.

How does the heart not qualify as "indispensable to preserving the [person's] basic function?"

[olePigeon]

You have way more patience than I do, Uncle Skeleton. I like your analogy better than the mouse trap.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Thanks!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well on that count, he simply doesn't understand evolution (actually I think he understands it perfectly but he is being deceitful and taking advantage of his followers who don't understand it). He is using ID's concept of "function" and applying it to evolution's (different) concept of "function." To ID, the function is what we humans think it is, cannot be anything else, and always has been that function. To evolution, it is less strict, it simply is any function that provides the organism with any utility. For example, if I start using a fire extinguisher and an office chair as propulsion, Behe would say that this is irreducibly complex, because I could not effectively locomote using just the chair or just the fire extinguisher. But evolution says that each component has had it's own independent use, and only by random recombination did the two combine to start acting as locomotion. If the new chair/jet propulsion evolves to become more advantageous than leg propulsion (or the cell's former cilia or pseudopodia), and because of this I stop using legs for locomotion (and start using them for something else, say a hammer to catch fleeing prey), then the future Behe would declare my legs irreducibly complex too, because their components are necessary for the new hammer function, even though they aren't irreducible for the old function of locomotion.

The problem here is your contraption would be missing several critical components for effective locomotion. You have no steering and your source of energy is expendable to name two. Your fire extinguisher would exhaust itself in a matter of minutes leaving the chair spinning erratically into walls or worse... out the window to certain death. In other words, it would be rendered useless not unlike many of the early attempts at flight. In order for your novel contraption to be effective for locomotion, the chair component would already have to be fitted with an otherwise unnecessary steering apparatus. The fire extinguisher would be outfitted with an otherwise unnecessary nosel and fan-assembly that could propel its contents at greater pressures than is necessary thus giving your novel contraption greater distances using less energy. All of course possible as long as natural selection acts in the interest of future function which of course it does not. Proteins fulfill specific function not only in Behe's lab, but in evolution's lab as well.

All Behe is doing is trying to identify those things that might address Darwin's means of falsifying evolution; If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

The question is, is this possible? Can evolution be falsified? How does one define "could not possibly have been formed"? In other words, if one were to identify such an organism, would they be said to lack proper imagination or would we challenge what is commonly referred to as falsification? I like this excerpt from Talk Origins; It is often argued, by philosophers and creationists alike, that Darwinism is not falsifiable, and so is not science. This rests on the opinion that something is only science if it can be falsified, i.e., proven wrong, at least in principle. This view, which is due to Popper, is not at all universally accepted, and some history of philosophy is in order to make sense of it and the criticisms made of it.

They seem to be giving the concept of falsifiability short shrift. You give it a great deal of weight with regard to ID, but do you give it the same degree of importance with regard to evolution?

The only way that Behe's version of the test would work is if he assumes one of his conclusions, the conclusion that the function of a structure is determined before the structure is completed. This assumption is necessary for him to say that the components of the system must have been derived for the same purpose they ended up being used for in the end. Without that restriction, it's nothing.

With regard to proteins, Behe would have a wealth of empirical evidence from which to make this assumption. Are you saying that natural selection can select for what might be advantageous in the future?

How does the heart not qualify as "indispensable to preserving the [person's] basic function?"

It certainly does, but the heart is, but one component of the human body comprised of thousands of parts said to have evolved. Behe appears not to be challenging the evolution of mankind [people], but challenging the evolutionary mechanisms for molecular machinery.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem here is your contraption would be missing several critical components for effective locomotion. You have no steering and your source of energy is expendable to name two. Your fire extinguisher would exhaust itself in a matter of minutes leaving the chair spinning erratically into walls or worse... out the window to certain death. In other words, it would be rendered useless not unlike many of the early attempts at flight. In order for your novel contraption to be effective for locomotion, the chair component would already have to be fitted with an otherwise unnecessary steering apparatus. The fire extinguisher would be outfitted with an otherwise unnecessary nosel and fan-assembly that could propel its contents at greater pressures than is necessary thus giving your novel contraption greater distances using less energy. All of course possible as long as natural selection acts in the interest of future function which of course it does not. Proteins fulfill specific function not only in Behe's lab, but in evolution's lab as well.

The example disproves "irreducible complexity" in what you called "Behe's sense," in which all the parts are necessary for the current function disregarding past functions (the inflexible function premise); you did not dispute this. I specifically chose an example orthogonal to evolution, and congruent with design (obviously the chair and fire extinguisher were both designed, and arguably the combination was as well), to illustrate the universality of how wrong this "sense" of IC is. Because if I show an example from evolution, you could accuse me of the same thing I accused you of, building my argument from my conclusion. My argument disproves your argument even when built from your conclusion.

But if you want an example of something that mimics the way proteins evolve through mutation, please see the reducibly complex mousetrap.

All Behe is doing is trying to identify those things that might address Darwin's means of falsifying evolution; If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Darwin didn't acknowledge Behe's inflexible function premise, and even if he had it is ok (encouraged, even) for a scientific theory to adjust itself to account for new evidence and new epiphanies, such as (and I know you're going to hate this) punctuated equilibrium. Just as I said earlier, if Behe originally gives a bad method of falsifying IC, it later gets falsified, and Behe goes on to amend his theory and provide a new falsification, that is perfectly fine. His new improved theory, and test of it, should stand on its own merits (assuming Behe has acted in good faith; science is not forgiving of deceit).

I like this excerpt from Talk Origins; It is often argued, by philosophers and creationists alike, that Darwinism is not falsifiable, and so is not science. This rests on the opinion that something is only science if it can be falsified, i.e., proven wrong, at least in principle. This view, which is due to Popper, is not at all universally accepted, and some history of philosophy is in order to make sense of it and the criticisms made of it.

I don't stand behind anything from Talk Origins. I find them overzealous, willing to bend the truth to win the argument (I think this is an example of such). IMO they are a useful starting point to find references, but that's it. From what I know of the counterpart TrueOrigin and of you, I expect you feel the same about them.

However, while I would say that it is indeed "universally accepted" that falsifiability is the expectation, exceptions are made, if the theory offers something else substantial instead. For example, if a theory makes predictions that come true, if it provides a usable product or medical application, or if it simply has no competition as an explanation for past evidence, then it would not be discarded solely for a lack of proper falsifiability. Perhaps this is what Talk Origins was alluding to. What does ID offer in lieu of falsifiability?

It certainly does, but the heart is, but one component of the human body comprised of thousands of parts said to have evolved. Behe appears not to be challenging the evolution of mankind [people], but challenging the evolutionary mechanisms for molecular machinery.

If that's true, then it breaks your definition of IC. If you can't define IC without excluding things that are clearly not irreducibly complex, then you can't define it at all. What I'm saying is the definition you gave (which is broken) is what Behe builds his argument about the flagella on. That's why that argument is also broken.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The example disproves "irreducible complexity" in what you called "Behe's sense," in which all the parts are necessary for the current function disregarding past functions (the inflexible function premise); you did not dispute this.

You challenged Behe's notion of function as if different than evolution's. I responded with; "Proteins fulfill specific function not only in Behe's lab, but in evolution's lab as well." I was really more interested in your example than anything else.

I specifically chose an example orthogonal to evolution, and congruent with design (obviously the chair and fire extinguisher were both designed, and arguably the combination was as well), to illustrate the universality of how wrong this "sense" of IC is. Because if I show an example from evolution, you could accuse me of the same thing I accused you of, building my argument from my conclusion. My argument disproves your argument even when built from your conclusion.

Much if not all of science is having the conclusion (evidence) and building an argument from it. Behe's argument is that no sufficient evolutionary pathway has been demonstrated to account for a structure like flagellum. I'm guessing this is why one of the more popular complaints you'll read about folks like Behe is their lack of imagination. You've engineered an ideal to illustrate how two useful components could be combined to serve a novel function, but the new contraption is something you and I both know would not work. Rather than demonstrate the universality of Behe's folly, you've reaffirmed his argument with another example. What you've shown is that it takes quite an active imagination and an almost endless supply of optimism to account for loco-chair. In short, your flagellum don't swim and while we can certainly pretend it does, this requires a degree of confidence in the impossible... which is defined by one's imagination apparently.

The below example does an even better job of illustrating this degree of confidence in the impossible.

But if you want an example of something that mimics the way proteins evolve through mutation, please see the reducibly complex mousetrap.

Does one really have to imagine that a singular strand of bent metal, propped up just-so against a wall outside a mouse hole would work for catching even one mouse that it would be advantageous enough to be selected for and evolve into a more effective trap? The author of course admits this is an ineffective mousetrap, but claims it's better than no mousetrap. I disagree. You'd die of optimism and naivete waiting on this trap. This, plus the platform maneuvering itself under the trap and a catch appearing from nowhere, one has a fanciful illustration of exactly how much imagination is required rendering the notion of a god almost more pragmatic. Notwithstanding the exponentially more sophisticated flagellum. Of course if anything is possible, you have a bullet-proof theory.

Darwin didn't acknowledge Behe's inflexible function premise, and even if he had it is ok (encouraged, even) for a scientific theory to adjust itself to account for new evidence and new epiphanies, such as (and I know you're going to hate this) punctuated equilibrium. Just as I said earlier, if Behe originally gives a bad method of falsifying IC, it later gets falsified, and Behe goes on to amend his theory and provide a new falsification, that is perfectly fine. His new improved theory, and test of it, should stand on its own merits (assuming Behe has acted in good faith; science is not forgiving of deceit).

With regard to the uniqueness and specified functionality of proteins founded from a wealth of empirical evidence, I don't see how Behe's premise is mistakenly inflexible. I'm fine with punctuated equilibrium. Just because evolution is the best theory for the origin of species doesn't mean it's as strong for origins; contingent of course on one's level of imagination and hindsight optimism. It's the best we've got today and I'm fine with that. I'm just not as in favor of pushing others away from the table yet, that's all.

I don't stand behind anything from Talk Origins. I find them overzealous, willing to bend the truth to win the argument (I think this is an example of such). IMO they are a useful starting point to find references, but that's it. From what I know of the counterpart TrueOrigin and of you, I expect you feel the same about them.

Unfortunately, you'll never get anywhere without hype of some kind or another. They're just appealing to what people need to be enthused. I thought this was a glimpse into wavering standards that might pose problems for folks on either side of this issue.

However, while I would say that it is indeed "universally accepted" that falsifiability is the expectation, exceptions are made, if the theory offers something else substantial instead. For example, if a theory makes predictions that come true, if it provides a usable product or medical application, or if it simply has no competition as an explanation for past evidence, then it would not be discarded solely for a lack of proper falsifiability. Perhaps this is what Talk Origins was alluding to. What does ID offer in lieu of falsifiability?

I'll go one step further, if all ID proponents accomplished was motivating those on the other side of the issue to identify organisms with greater specificity or identify purpose for that which was thought to be vestigial based on its own predictions for example, it would have merit. How does one falsify the unlimited flexibility function premise? In other words, if any product of our imagination becomes possible and we fashion a theory from this premise, how does one falsify it? Worse, if the first premise were falsified, couldn't we simply create another possibility to address it?

If that's true, then it breaks your definition of IC. If you can't define IC without excluding things that are clearly not irreducibly complex, then you can't define it at all. What I'm saying is the definition you gave (which is broken) is what Behe builds his argument about the flagella on. That's why that argument is also broken.

Behe has suggested there is room for his account with regard to molecular structures. So... are you saying no sufficient evolutionary pathway has been demonstrated to account for humans?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You challenged Behe's notion of function as if different than evolution's. I responded with; "Proteins fulfill specific function not only in Behe's lab, but in evolution's lab as well."

That's not true BTW. Many proteins exhibit multiple functions. I would be comfortable even saying most do, but there's no way for me to prove "most."

Much if not all of science is having the conclusion (evidence) and building an argument from it. Behe's argument is that no sufficient evolutionary pathway has been demonstrated to account for a structure like flagellum.

What constitutes "sufficient?" I smell another god of the gaps.

but the new contraption is something you and I both know would not work.
...
Does one really have to imagine that a singular strand of bent metal, propped up just-so against a wall outside a mouse hole would work for catching even one mouse that it would be advantageous enough to be selected for and evolve into a more effective trap?

Even in the context of design, that standard is too strict. The first bicycle designs didn't have pedals, or brakes, or seats, some had those giant front wheels; you and I both know a bicycle like those would not work today, these would not be advantageous enough to be selected for over the competition today. But before it had competition from the very things that developed from it, it did work.

I'm just not as in favor of pushing others away from the table yet, that's all.

Previously you've said that a place at the table should be earned. Looking for evidence is not enough, you have to actually find some. Practicing reverse psychology or playing devil's advocate to those at the table shouldn't be enough either.

How does one falsify the unlimited flexibility function premise?

Nice absolutism. I'm reminded of that Dilbert cartoon that Kevin used to have on speed-dial.
It's not "unlimited flexibilty," it's "limited flexibility." Even if we don't know the limits of flexibility, at least we can prove that they are greater than zero, by demonstrating at least one protein or structure that has more than one function (which has of course been done thousands of times). Conservatively speaking, the flexibility is "limited" to what homologous structures we actually observe, limited by the evidence gathered, just as any other field of science.

Behe has suggested there is room for his account with regard to molecular structures. So... are you saying no sufficient evolutionary pathway has been demonstrated to account for humans?

I don't know what you're referring to. My best guess is to this: "Behe's argument is that no sufficient evolutionary pathway has been demonstrated to account for a structure like flagellum". I'm talking about the claim that IC is when removing a part breaks the whole. This criteria is too broad, it would cover almost anything. If you remove the baking soda from a cake, it breaks the cake; is the cake irreducibly complex?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's not true BTW. Many proteins exhibit multiple functions. I would be comfortable even saying most do, but there's no way for me to prove "most."

The general rule is that each protein has a unique, genetically defined amino acid sequence which determines its specific shape and function. There are exceptions of course, but in context we're talking about the "chair" or "fire extinguisher" in your example, the singular bent bar in the other example, or a flagellum protein in Behe's example that must confer some advantageous trait that can be selected for.

What constitutes "sufficient?" I smell another god of the gaps.

Conversely, what constitutes "possible"? If it's simply one's imagination, you've already found a god of the gaps without Behe's help. BTW, what are these gaps that one's imagination should be regulated to singular ideals anyway?

Even in the context of design, that standard is too strict. The first bicycle designs didn't have pedals, or brakes, or seats, some had those giant front wheels; you and I both know a bicycle like those would not work today, these would not be advantageous enough to be selected for over the competition today. But before it had competition from the very things that developed from it, it did work.

A bicycle has pedals and a seat by definition. A bicycle like that would indeed work just as well today as it did in the 1800's. In fact, cruisers for example are just as crude as these earliest counterparts and are being selected for, over the competition in increasing numbers today.

Previously you've said that a place at the table should be earned. Looking for evidence is not enough, you have to actually find some. Practicing reverse psychology or playing devil's advocate to those at the table shouldn't be enough either.

What if the evidence already considered [found] can be interpreted in more than one way?

I don't know what you're referring to. My best guess is to this: "Behe's argument is that no sufficient evolutionary pathway has been demonstrated to account for a structure like flagellum". I'm talking about the claim that IC is when removing a part breaks the whole. This criteria is too broad, it would cover almost anything. If you remove the baking soda from a cake, it breaks the cake; is the cake irreducibly complex?

Cake, mousetrap, people... it's all the same. Afterall, with an unlimited degree of imagination and optimism, one could fashion a cake from sprockets, lug nuts, and sand.

At the risk of perpetuating our problem of talking past one another, an evolutionary pathway has already been established for the origin of species, we're talking about the origins/evolutionary mechanisms or pathways of the component systems that comprise the evolved species.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The general rule is that each protein has a unique, genetically defined amino acid sequence which determines its specific shape and function. There are exceptions of course, but in context we're talking about the "chair" or "fire extinguisher" in your example

No, that's wrong. The general rule is that amino acids are interchangeable, with a few critical points being the exceptions. For example a chair or a fire extinguisher can have thousands of different small modifications made to them (like dents, dings, bends, discolorations, field repairs or debris added) that don't inhibit their function, before the rare exception which does. The claim that most specifications of the object are critical to its function is way off, regardless of design or natural selection.

Conversely, what constitutes "possible"? If it's simply one's imagination, you've already found a god of the gaps without Behe's help. BTW, what are these gaps that one's imagination should be regulated to singular ideals anyway?

"Observed" constitutes "possible." Simple as that. Once something is observed, we consider it possible. Adaptation has been observed. Creation hasn't. Adaptation isn't a "god of the gaps" for this reason. "God" is based on faith alone, adaptation is based on evidence and experiment. Prior to this evidence and experiment, you would have had a good point.

A bicycle has pedals and a seat by definition. A bicycle like that would indeed work just as well today as it did in the 1800's.

'Fraid not, ebuddy.

1817 the first bicycle (termed "running machine")
1818 first "saddle"
1865 pedals added
1888 air-filled tires
1905 brakes
Wikipedia

You can try to claim that these would thrive in the modern commercial ecosystem, competing with their descendants, but you would look quite foolish doing so, since anyone can see they don't. You can try to claim that they are called something else, but that is pure semantics since they are obviously the direct predecessors of modern bicycles.

The fact is, predecessors are going to be objectively inferior to the modern form. That is obvious, and again that is independent of design vs natural selection. You continue to scoff at primitive forms that are worse than the modern ones, but whether in evolution or creation that is the only way it can be.

What if the evidence already considered [found] can be interpreted in more than one way?

But it can't. Because design, at best, can explain everything except the chromosomal fusion evidence, while evolution can explain everything including the chromosomal fusion evidence (which by the way it also predicted).

Cake, mousetrap, people... it's all the same. Afterall, with an unlimited degree of imagination and optimism, one could fashion a cake from sprockets, lug nuts, and sand.

You continue to duck the question. The question is, regardless of evolution or design, the concept of irreducible complexity as you maintain it, is fundamentally broken. Your repeated evasion of accounting for this failure is increasingly telling.

an evolutionary pathway has already been established for the origin of species, we're talking about the origins/evolutionary mechanisms or pathways of the component systems that comprise the evolved species.

If you mean what led to the first cell, it's irrelevant. I will happily concede it is unknown. If you mean how one cell's components evolve along with the species, then you're just moving the goalposts. Because the changes in proteins are how the changes in species happened. They are one in the same.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, that's wrong. The general rule is that amino acids are interchangeable, with a few critical points being the exceptions. For example a chair or a fire extinguisher can have thousands of different small modifications made to them (like dents, dings, bends, discolorations, field repairs or debris added) that don't inhibit their function, before the rare exception which does. The claim that most specifications of the object are critical to its function is way off, regardless of design or natural selection.

We're not talking about the interchangeability of amino acids nor small modifications that don't inhibit function. We're talking about small modifications that provide a selective advantage and that what we generally find are uniquely-shaped proteins providing specific function. This is not "way off" of anything.

"Observed" constitutes "possible." Simple as that.

I disagree. It's actually a great deal more complex than that. You're taking an observation and stretching it to apply to all things somewhat optimistically.

Once something is observed, we consider it possible. Adaptation has been observed. Creation hasn't. Adaptation isn't a "god of the gaps" for this reason. "God" is based on faith alone, adaptation is based on evidence and experiment. Prior to this evidence and experiment, you would have had a good point.

It depends on how you define creation. If I've observed creation, can I simply apply it to all things as you have done with adaptation? God is based on faith alone and that is why science does not regard it. Design itself is detectable however and can employ methodology found in several fields of science. There is no need to define "Who" or "Why" any more than adaptation or evolution science must explain origins.

'Fraid not, ebuddy.

1817 the first bicycle (termed "running machine")
1818 first "saddle"
1865 pedals added
1888 air-filled tires
1905 brakes

You can try to claim that these would thrive in the modern commercial ecosystem, competing with their descendants, but you would look quite foolish doing so, since anyone can see they don't. You can try to claim that they are called something else, but that is pure semantics since they are obviously the direct predecessors of modern bicycles.

The fact is, predecessors are going to be objectively inferior to the modern form. That is obvious, and again that is independent of design vs natural selection. You continue to scoff at primitive forms that are worse than the modern ones, but whether in evolution or creation that is the only way it can be.

Necessity can be both the mother of invention and the vehicle of natural selection, but if the necessity in your loco-chair example is propulsion, it fails. If the necessity is catching mice, your single bent-bar mousetrap fails.

I had the first bicycle in the late 1800s with pedals and seat along with a definition of bicycle as "a vehicle with two wheels in tandem propelled by pedals and having a saddle-like seat". I concede the evolution of the bicycle. Still... the "running machine"- to - bicycle evolution scenario seems much more plausible from a design perspective than the single, bent bar mousetrap - to - spring and catch assembly mousetrap from the natural selection perspective. Notwithstanding the fact that it's generally mistaken to regard evolution as progress. If there were a goal or target, purpose or direction would be implied which I'm certain you'd maintain it is not. This is why your loco-chair and single-bar mousetrap are lame examples. (not a personal dig, but in terms of lacking function) The notion that a neutral modification conferring no selective advantage would be selected for and evolved to an improved state while enjoying its status as the strongest theory available; is not as strong as it is imaginative and optimistic IMO.

But it can't. Because design, at best, can explain everything except the chromosomal fusion evidence, while evolution can explain everything including the chromosomal fusion evidence (which by the way it also predicted).

I don't see how two different species with similar DNA from common design, one having incurred a mutation, one not is a knock against ID. In fact, this may offer a prediction that we will find evidence of the first humans much earlier than once thought. Either way, AFAIK, theistic evolutionists such as Behe have no problem with this.

Evolution can explain everything? I've not heard even the most ardent proponents of evolution make this claim including our most zealous of NN posters.

You continue to duck the question. The question is, regardless of evolution or design, the concept of irreducible complexity as you maintain it, is fundamentally broken. Your repeated evasion of accounting for this failure is increasingly telling.

There's no question in the above at all, it is a statement of opinion delivered as fact. There's no reason I have to accept your premise anyway. For example, If the "heartless human" were the gotcha you're implying, Darwin's challenge of falsification would have already been met and his theory rendered to the trash-heap of pseudoscience.

If you mean what led to the first cell, it's irrelevant.

The good news is that ID similarly, does not have to identify the god, alien, intelligent agency, etc... as others have suggested is necessary.

[besson3c]

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We're not talking about the interchangeability of amino acids nor small modifications that don't inhibit function. We're talking about small modifications that provide a selective advantage and that what we generally find are uniquely-shaped proteins providing specific function.

ebuddy, I've only been talking about "specified complexity" this whole time, not evolution. If you want to change the subject away from "specified complexity," I can't blame you because I wouldn't want the job of polishing that turd either. But that leaves you with no claim to falsifiability, since that is the reason you brought it up in the first place.

I disagree. It's actually a great deal more complex than that. You're taking an observation and stretching it to apply to all things somewhat optimistically.

You just described the whole concept of empirical science. We look for explanations among the set of previously observed phenomena, make predictions based on those explanations, and then test those predictions. If the test passes, we therefore tentatively conclude that the explanation holds. The label "optimism" would apply to any such use of the scientific method. We "optimistically" proceed as if the underlying laws of nature are consistent. Do you doubt gravity and eclipse forecasts just because physicists take observations from earth and "stretch" them to apply to the stars, or just because they take observations from the past and "stretch" them to apply to the future?

It depends on how you define creation. If I've observed creation, can I simply apply it to all things as you have done with adaptation?

Yes, you can. Next you test your application by making other independent predictions based on it, and seeing if they are upheld by experimentation. That's when you earn your seat at the table.

Design itself is detectable however and can employ methodology found in several fields of science.

Granted, however "can be" is far from "has done."

There is no need to define "Who" or "Why" any more than adaptation or evolution science must explain origins.

Actually, I agree with that. But you have to actually do something. Determining the "who" or "why" would qualify as something. So far, no one has done anything WRT to intelligent design, scientifically.

Necessity can be both the mother of invention and the vehicle of natural selection, but if the necessity in your loco-chair example is propulsion, it fails.

On the contrary, the great strength of the genomic algorithm is in the simple concept of duplication. First, this is observed (since that's been a highlight of this thread). Not only are genes and other genomic segments frequently duplicated by mutation, but the entire genome is duplicated be default in the diploid genome (a copy from each parent). In the vast majority of genes, one working copy is sufficient. The other copy (or copies) can safely wander and experiment with sub-par loco-chairs or wherever their random walk takes them, without compromising any existing functionality the organism possesses. If there are advantages to both methods, the organism can use the best from both.

If the necessity is catching mice, your single bent-bar mousetrap fails.

Ditto above, nothing is stopping the pre-mousetrap era hausfrau from using the bent-bar trap simultaneously with the traditional method (the bent-bar might even have been found there by accident, its mouse-trapping ability having been discovered afterwards, not because someone stopped catching mice to put it there intentionally ). Both paths to pest control nirvana can proceed in parallel.

I had the first bicycle in the late 1800s with pedals and seat along with a definition of bicycle as "a vehicle with two wheels in tandem propelled by pedals and having a saddle-like seat". I concede the evolution of the bicycle. Still... the "running machine"- to - bicycle evolution scenario seems much more plausible from a design perspective than the single, bent bar mousetrap - to - spring and catch assembly mousetrap from the natural selection perspective.

Regardless, either is sufficient to disprove your concept of "specified complexity." This leaves intelligent design without a way to call itself falsifiable.

Notwithstanding the fact that it's generally mistaken to regard evolution as progress. If there were a goal or target, purpose or direction would be implied which I'm certain you'd maintain it is not. This is why your loco-chair and single-bar mousetrap are lame examples.

... of evolution. They are prime counter-examples disproving "specified complexity," which is what I used them for.

I don't see how two different species with similar DNA from common design, one having incurred a mutation, one not is a knock against ID.

One can't knock down a thing that was not standing in the first place

-----------------

Originally Posted by besson3c 

eh, good work besson3c. Keep f---ing that chicken.

http://warmingglow.uproxx.com/2009/09/jon-stewart-is-with-me-on-chicken-fcking

[stupendousman]

Does any of this really have anything to do with current standards for repression of religious exercise, which has little to nothing to do with anything that the majority of our founders intended for our country?

The fact is, it hurts nothing (and in fact should be constitutionally required) to explain to school children that there are various theories as to the origin of our species, including ones based on evolution, intelligent design, and others. Omitting theories which could support religious belief primarily because it supports religious belief is surely just as Constitutionally bogus as forcing kids to learn about Adam and Eve in science class, though I'm pretty sure our Founders actually wouldn't have had a problem with the latter.

As I explained before, to suggest that our founders ever intended for the government to force children into accepting the notion that their religious beliefs are bunk as per science, in order to achieve passing grades is insane. There is a middle ground which would be both reasonable, and Constitutional, and it's that middle ground that the "progressive" atheists who really care very little about the intent of the Constitution continue to push away from. Not due to any principle that has been accepted as a whole by their fellow countrymen, but rather due to the fear and insecurity they themselves have of their own beliefs.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

ebuddy, I've only been talking about "specified complexity" this whole time, not evolution. If you want to change the subject away from "specified complexity," I can't blame you because I wouldn't want the job of polishing that turd either. But that leaves you with no claim to falsifiability, since that is the reason you brought it up in the first place.

The problem is that both enter the discussion by necessity. In order for an ID proponent to maintain "specified complexity" for example, he/she would have to demonstrate why the mechanism facilitating variant species cannot be applied to origins (that is, falsify - Darwin's challenge taken to the molecular level) and how evidence may suggest a different mechanism; design. There are many aspects of nature that exhibit the same characteristics as that which we know of designed things, but it seems the single biggest problem Behe has is falsifying evolution. I maintain that anyone, with any competing theory would be damned to the same plight not necessarily due to the strength of evolution theory as much as the lack of a means to falsify it.

You just described the whole concept of empirical science. We look for explanations among the set of previously observed phenomena, make predictions based on those explanations, and then test those predictions. If the test passes, we therefore tentatively conclude that the explanation holds. The label "optimism" would apply to any such use of the scientific method. We "optimistically" proceed as if the underlying laws of nature are consistent. Do you doubt gravity and eclipse forecasts just because physicists take observations from earth and "stretch" them to apply to the stars, or just because they take observations from the past and "stretch" them to apply to the future?

This is why I carefully used the term "somewhat" with regard to optimism. I think you also have to accept when the "stretch" doesn't work or be prepared to answer to instances where it doesn't appear to fit.

Yes, you can. Next you test your application by making other independent predictions based on it, and seeing if they are upheld by experimentation. That's when you earn your seat at the table.

So a theistic evolutionist may continue to find important function and purpose for that which was previously thought "junk", or identify organisms with greater specificity, or drive other disciplines toward answering instances where current theory does not fit as elegantly... all of which are beneficial to the scientific process.

Actually, I agree with that. But you have to actually do something. Determining the "who" or "why" would qualify as something. So far, no one has done anything WRT to intelligent design, scientifically.

They may not be acting under the guise of the Intelligent Design movement while still relying on an ID premise.

On the contrary, the great strength of the genomic algorithm is in the simple concept of duplication. First, this is observed (since that's been a highlight of this thread). Not only are genes and other genomic segments frequently duplicated by mutation, but the entire genome is duplicated be default in the diploid genome (a copy from each parent). In the vast majority of genes, one working copy is sufficient. The other copy (or copies) can safely wander and experiment with sub-par loco-chairs or wherever their random walk takes them, without compromising any existing functionality the organism possesses. If there are advantages to both methods, the organism can use the best from both.

Natural selection is acting upon mutations (crudely) for its niche-meeting characteristics. If the niche is transport, you need motility at some point. If the only point he has motility is at the finished product, he may conclude that organism is irreducibly complex. The problem for Behe is that he must falsify one theory to allow for another. He has to establish that the singular bent-bar for example does not confer a selectable, trapping advantage that it would undergo the riggers of improvement to arrive at the much more complex mousetrap. He can prove the mousetrap is incredibly complex. It can be demonstrated how the coding and function of the organism shows implementation and design. It can even be demonstrated (to some degree) how mathematically difficult it would be for something that confers no selective advantage to be selected and evolve, but what he can't do is falsify one to allow for his.

Ditto above, nothing is stopping the pre-mousetrap era hausfrau from using the bent-bar trap simultaneously with the traditional method (the bent-bar might even have been found there by accident, its mouse-trapping ability having been discovered afterwards, not because someone stopped catching mice to put it there intentionally ). Both paths to pest control nirvana can proceed in parallel.

So what you're saying in essence is... it always was?

Regardless, either is sufficient to disprove your concept of "specified complexity." This leaves intelligent design without a way to call itself falsifiable.

Which seems to be more or less important contingent upon the theory in question.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem is that both enter the discussion by necessity. In order for an ID proponent to maintain "specified complexity" for example, he/she would have to demonstrate why the mechanism facilitating variant species cannot be applied to origins (that is, falsify - Darwin's challenge taken to the molecular level) and how evidence may suggest a different mechanism; design.

No. I've completely taken evolution out of the picture, by applying "specified complexity" only to design. Even in design, even if evolution never existed (theory nor origins), the requirement for specified complexity is false. Designers constantly repurpose complex designs to suddenly fill different niches than before. Look at off-label drug use. Look at computers becoming phones. Look at governments becoming insurance companies . Things need not remain specified to any one niche, and that has nothing to do with natural selection.

This is why I carefully used the term "somewhat" with regard to optimism. I think you also have to accept when the "stretch" doesn't work or be prepared to answer to instances where it doesn't appear to fit.

As always, the "stretch" of competing theories is compared. The one with the shorter "stretch" wins. Occam's razor, don't look for zebras, etc. A "theory" with no evidence at all, I suppose it would have infinitely long "stretch." Which seems to be more or less important to you contingent upon the theory in question

identify organisms with greater specificity, or drive other disciplines toward answering instances where current theory does not fit as elegantly

I don't know what you mean by this.

Natural selection is acting upon mutations (crudely) for its niche-meeting characteristics. If the niche is transport, you need motility at some point. If the only point he has motility is at the finished product, he may conclude that organism is irreducibly complex.

You completely ignore the one-word summary of the part you just quoted. "Duplication." Or "redundancy" for the effect instead of the method. So if a new mechanism for transport arises alongside an older one, the new one does NOT need motility before it is "finished." Let's ignore evolution and look at design again, look at hybrid cars. The electric drive train is not evolved enough to fill the niche of transport, it lacks sufficient power and range. But it is augmented by the more primitive form that hasn't gone away yet, internal combustion. In this way, the newer form is free to take baby-steps while still receiving real-world testing, and while not obstructing the need for motility in any way. The future superior electric car would not be "irreducibly complex" just because it lacked sufficient motility before the "finished" product. Duplication invalidates that claim.

The problem for Behe is that he must falsify one theory to allow for another.

Not hardly. He could show evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial designers, or another form of life independent of DNA, either of those would elevate ID without falsifying evolution. No designer we know of restricts themselves to a single medium. But I suspect the biggest problem for Behe is that the underlying truth of the matter is that he's simply incorrect.

So what you're saying in essence is... it always was?

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at that. If you find a length of wire on the floor of your house, is your first thought that it was there forever?

Which seems to be more or less important contingent upon the theory in question.

Oh please. Darwin gave 6 methods for falsification, and you focus on only 1 of them. With that 1, you dream up an additional stipulation out of thin air (specified complexity, the inflexible function premise), and I've already showed you that even completely outside of evolution that stipulation is unnecessary.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

To suggest that our founders ever intended for the government to force children into accepting the notion that their religious beliefs are bunk as per science, in order to achieve passing grades is insane.

Pope John Paul was cool with evolution. There's no reason evolution has to conflict with a core tenet of your religion. If your religion decides it wants to conflict with reality, maybe it's your fault and not reality's fault. We can't just stop teaching math if someone decides their religion wants to conflict with it...

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Pope John Paul was cool with evolution.

As the impetus for the origin of our species?

No one's suggesting you can't explain how plants or animals can make small changes over time in response to it's environment. The question is whether or not you can accumulate enough of these small changes over billions of years to go from single celled organisms to those who design and drive automobiles. That theory may very well have the best testable evidence to support it. That doesn't mean that theory has been proven, or that some other means may have been involved.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As I explained before, to suggest that our founders ever intended for the government to force children into accepting the notion that their religious beliefs are bunk as per science, in order to achieve passing grades is insane.

I'm pretty sure most of the founders, born of the "Age of Enlightenment," had enough respect for science to expect that students in science classes would have to provide correct answers to earn good marks. To suggest otherwise is insane.

See what I did there? Your attribution of your own personal motives to the founders is getting a little out of hand.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As the impetus for the origin of our species?

In body yes, but not in soul. The addition of the soul is what makes the otherwise mundane body become the likeness of God, according to him.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Does any of this really have anything to do with current standards for repression of religious exercise, which has little to nothing to do with anything that the majority of our founders intended for our country?

So we should teach that c^2 = a^2 + b^2, not because we can demonstrate this through a logical proof, but because an invisible pink unicorn simply decreed it to be true.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The fact is, it hurts nothing (and in fact should be constitutionally required) to explain to school children that there are various theories as to the origin of our species, including ones based on evolution, intelligent design, and others.

Yes, if it were a scientific theory, but it isn't. It's not even wrong.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Omitting theories which could support religious belief primarily because it supports religious belief is surely just as Constitutionally bogus as forcing kids to learn about Adam and Eve in science class, though I'm pretty sure our Founders actually wouldn't have had a problem with the latter.

Great idea. Following your logic, I think people should learn quantum physics in a foreign language class. In fact, it should be constitutionally mandated. If you want to learn Spanish or French as a second language, you have to demonstrate mathematically the interactions of two iron atoms as they pass each other: one accelerated close to the speed of light, and one just past the threshold of the event horizon of a singularity. Make sure to take into account ambient radiation spacial manipulation from the singularity. You'll also be tested on grammar and spelling.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As I explained before, to suggest that our founders ever intended for the government to force children into accepting the notion that their religious beliefs are bunk as per science, in order to achieve passing grades is insane.

I've explained this before. So, again, for who knows how many times now, I'll explain it again. Not that it'll matter because it didn't sink in the first eleventy billion times I explained: science is not about teling you what is right or wrong, it's about learning through the process of discovery. Your religious beliefs are completely beside the point.

1+1=2, whether or not you think Bigfoot or chupacabras invented math. Your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating why 1+1=2, for the same reason your beliefs have nothing to do with demonstrating how evolution works, or why our planet is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

Did leprechauns create people? What relevance does it have on demonstrating how people evolved? If you think leprechauns created the planet, fine. The only job of the science teacher is to show you how to discover a reasonable conclusion via scientific method. Right or wrong doesn't matter, you learn from the experience, and you can reliably demonstrate how you came to that conclusion. Leprechauns have nothing to do with that process.

[andi*pandi]

They do make delicious cereal.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm pretty sure most of the founders, born of the "Age of Enlightenment," had enough respect for science to expect that students in science classes would have to provide correct answers to earn good marks. To suggest otherwise is insane.

The debate is on what the "right answers" are.

As I stated, there's a middle ground. There is no "right answer" as to how we got here. There are a number of theories, some with more (possibly circumstantial) testable support, but we really aren't able to prove a "right answer" in this case.

See what I did there? Your attribution of your own personal motives to the founders is getting a little out of hand.

It's not personal. Most of the founders made it pretty clear where they stood.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The debate is on what the "right answers" are.

There really isn't. You just keep changing and misunderstanding the question. There is no scientific debate about evolution via natural selection as the best explanation for speciation. None. End of story. What you are debating here is not a scientific question, as has been explained to you ad nauseum.

It's not personal. Most of the founders made it pretty clear where they stood.

You have regularly selectively quoted or (or misquoted, such as the case earlier in this thread) certain "founders" and ignored or trivialized others (such as your bizarre insistence that Thomas Jefferson's opinions in some way don't count), all the while blithly referring to this group of people as "the founders" as if they had a grand consensus on all of these questions that just so happens to agree with your opinion. So yes, I'm pretty sure it's personal for you.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So we should teach that c^2 = a^2 + b^2, not because we can demonstrate this through a logical proof, but because an invisible pink unicorn simply decreed it to be true.

We aren't dealing with something in this case where it can be demonstrably proven to be true or even factually correct. I believe that we've already went over that. Otherwise, please show for me the test for evolution as the origin of the species.

Great idea. Following your logic, I think people should learn quantum physics in a foreign language class.

Not at all. That is absurd. If the subject is the origin of our species, then pointing out some of the different theories is reasonable. Using your logic, since the origin of our species could have happened supernaturally, or via intelligent design, it shouldn't be discussed in science class at all.

I've explained this before. So, again, for who knows how many times now, I'll explain it again. Not that it'll matter because it didn't sink in the first eleventy billion times I explained: science is not about teling you what is right or wrong, it's about learning through the process of discovery. Your religious beliefs are completely beside the point.

...and what we choose to try to discover isn't limited to just that which we currently can readily see and measure. You are artificially limiting the parameters as to what can be discovered, just because you personally (and others like you) don't think that there is anything there to discover.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We aren't dealing with something in this case where it can be demonstrably proven to be true or even factually correct. I believe that we've already went over that. Otherwise, please show for me the test for evolution as the origin of the species.

Evolution does not cover the origin of species. It describes a method of speciation. And yes, evolution can (and has) be demonstrated and tested to be a working model for speciation. The same principles we use to scrutinize and analyze mathematical proofs are applied to evaluate evolution. They were applied to evaluate intelligent design, and intelligent design does not meet the those fundamental principles of testing, and evolution does.

There are plenty of competing theories in regards to origins of life, everything from amino acids combining with proteins to create RNA and even DNA (which can be demonstrated), to panspermia, whereby already more advanced organisms being introduced to the planet via meteors and comets (which can also be demonstrated.)

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not at all. That is absurd.

How is that absurd? You want to teach religion in a science classroom. They're two completely different subjects. If you want to teach religion in the science classroom, I want quantum physics taught in the foreign language class.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If the subject is the origin of our species...

It isn't.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...then pointing out some of the different theories is reasonable.

Yes. Pointing out alternative scientific theories is not only reasonable, it's encouraged.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Using your logic, since the origin of our species could have happened supernaturally, or via intelligent design, it shouldn't be discussed in science class at all.

Right, because it isn't science. For the exact same reason you don't teach quantum physics in a foreign language class. You could, presumably, include intelligent design and the supernatural in the curriculum if only to demonstrate why it isn't science and why it won't be discussed outside of that demonstration. You could then encourage kids to use scientific principles and test their own theories.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and what we choose to try to discover isn't limited to just that which we currently can readily see and measure.

That's what a philosophy class is for.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You are artificially limiting the parameters as to what can be discovered, just because you personally (and others like you) don't think that there is anything there to discover.

No, I'm maintaining that scientific principles should be taught in a science class, and not religion. If you want to learn about religion, learn it in a religious studies or philosophy class. Or better yet, go to church. I hear they're experts on telling people what they have to know and do.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

There really isn't. You just keep changing and misunderstanding the question. There is no scientific debate about evolution via natural selection as the best explanation for speciation. None. End of story. What you are debating here is not a scientific question, as has been explained to you ad nauseum.

"As the best". So far, yeah, what I said.

Just as we heard that there was no debate in regards to the coming man-made global warming meltdown.

We've heard you.... We've heard you.....

You have regularly selectively quoted or (or misquoted, such as the case earlier in this thread) certain "founders" and ignored or trivialized others (such as your bizarre insistence that Thomas Jefferson's opinions in some way don't count)....

Never my insistence. Talk about mischaracterizing someone! I said that his opinion don't count more than all the other opinions which don't seem to mesh with his.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Evolution does not cover the origin of species.

I wish you would find a less ambiguous way to say this

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"As the best". So far, yeah, what I said.

Just as we heard that there was no debate in regards to the coming man-made global warming meltdown.

We've heard you.... We've heard you.....

What alternate model for speciation is being proposed?

Never my insistence. Talk about mischaracterizing someone! I said that his opinion don't count more than all the other opinions which don't seem to mesh with his.

I agree that his opinions do not necessarily count more than any others of his generation. What I find bizarre is that in an effort to overstate the amount of consensus among "the founders," you seem to count those opinions more than his. Works both ways.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. I've completely taken evolution out of the picture, by applying "specified complexity" only to design. Even in design, even if evolution never existed (theory nor origins), the requirement for specified complexity is false. Designers constantly repurpose complex designs to suddenly fill different niches than before. Look at off-label drug use. Look at computers becoming phones. Look at governments becoming insurance companies . Things need not remain specified to any one niche, and that has nothing to do with natural selection.

Wouldn't a designer also be efficiently minimalist? Are there unnecessary, extraneous parts in the flagellum for example? Behe seems to suggest not, that if any one part were missing the whole would not function and adds that the mechanism of natural selection does not act in the interest of future functionality. (the singular, bent bar manipulated as a 'trip' and propping itself upright over a mousehole that it might catch even one mouse to be selected-for and developed) You said there is an undefined limit to flexibility and I maintain that this limitation may be arbitrary (undefined) enough to rely on one's degree of imagination.

As always, the "stretch" of competing theories is compared. The one with the shorter "stretch" wins. Occam's razor, don't look for zebras, etc. A "theory" with no evidence at all, I suppose it would have infinitely long "stretch." Which seems to be more or less important to you contingent upon the theory in question

It follows of course; if I'm telling you that natural selection at times is a "stretch" while enjoying the status as the strongest theory available for speciation that ID would be an even greater stretch. Although, I'm not sure why "new" evidence is required as long as the evidence already considered is useful and can be considered in more than one manner. When I take up these arguments, I'm generally arguing against the antagonist notions of the alleged "purists" (not directed at you) who insist on standards they themselves are not meeting quite to the degree they seem to think.

I don't know what you mean by this.

"identify the organism with greater specificity" meaning, a greater or more granular understanding of the organism in question.

You completely ignore the one-word summary of the part you just quoted. "Duplication." Or "redundancy" for the effect instead of the method. So if a new mechanism for transport arises alongside an older one, the new one does NOT need motility before it is "finished." Let's ignore evolution and look at design again, look at hybrid cars. The electric drive train is not evolved enough to fill the niche of transport, it lacks sufficient power and range. But it is augmented by the more primitive form that hasn't gone away yet, internal combustion. In this way, the newer form is free to take baby-steps while still receiving real-world testing, and while not obstructing the need for motility in any way. The future superior electric car would not be "irreducibly complex" just because it lacked sufficient motility before the "finished" product. Duplication invalidates that claim.

You're taking baby steps from traditional motility to a new form of motility. I'm talking about something with zero motility (a box) to the complex electric "finished" vehicle. In other words, you'll need at least one wheel at some point. If the only point at which you have a wheel is at the "finished" electric car, you may conclude that a wheel was necessary for the function of the whole of the vehicle. If you cannot establish the wheel at any point before the end-product as you have done with the "running machine"-to-bicycle scenario, you might conclude that it appears to have started as it ended, that it is irreducibly complex.

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at that. If you find a length of wire on the floor of your house, is your first thought that it was there forever?

Of course not. Occam's razor... I wouldn't even suggest the wire was a human construct. I'd have to conclude that at one point the wire was a copper ladle with an errant strand of spaghetti attached that needed to transport amperage to any one of the important appliances in its environment; it evolved alongside the spatula over the course of a thousand years. The problem is, the house was built in 1924 so I'll have to adjust my thinking a bit to suggest perhaps the house was really built much earlier. If that's not possible, the house is older than that... and so forth. Now prove me wrong.

Oh please. Darwin gave 6 methods for falsification, and you focus on only 1 of them. With that 1, you dream up an additional stipulation out of thin air (specified complexity, the inflexible function premise), and I've already showed you that even completely outside of evolution that stipulation is unnecessary.

I didn't dream any of this up Uncle. A scientist with a much more active imagination than mine did.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wouldn't a designer also be efficiently minimalist? Are there unnecessary, extraneous parts in the flagellum for example?

I see you wasted no time in changing the subject away from "specified complexity" again. Can I take that to mean you concede that "specified complexity" is meritless?

To answer your question, not as efficiently minimalist as the trial-and-error basis of evolutionary algorithms. Really, of all the various challenges for evolution, deleting unnecessary parts is the easiest. How can there be a more thorough method of deletion than trial-and-error?

Although, I'm not sure why "new" evidence is required as long as the evidence already considered is useful and can be considered in more than one manner.

Prediction is why. Just like Becquerel's solar energy hypothesis for those radioactive ores, the first step is to make a prediction and test it. (and the prediction should be one that can differentiate between the conventional model and your hypothesis). You can't go on your merry way assuming that the ores are powered by sunlight until you gather that *new* evidence you mentioned so scornfully.

"identify the organism with greater specificity" meaning, a greater or more granular understanding of the organism in question.

Can you give an example? I don't see what good attaching a "made by God" label to the organism does us, in and of itself. I'm hoping you're referring to something more interesting.

You're taking baby steps from traditional motility to a new form of motility. I'm talking about something with zero motility (a box) to the complex electric "finished" vehicle.

Haha, so the conventional car battery doesn't count as "a box with zero motility?"

In other words, you'll need at least one wheel at some point. If the only point at which you have a wheel is at the "finished" electric car, you may conclude that a wheel was necessary for the function of the whole of the vehicle. If you cannot establish the wheel at any point before the end-product as you have done with the "running machine"-to-bicycle scenario, you might conclude that it appears to have started as it ended, that it is irreducibly complex.

No you're still not grasping the concept of duplication. If you have another mode of mobility as well, you don't need the product to be "finished" from the start. If you have cilia you can develop a flagellum without being stranded. If you have a horse to ride you can develop a chariot without being stranded. This whole "duplication" strategy might seem like a "stretch," except for the fact that some organisms still have both

Kind of like some cars still have a horse attached

Of course not. Occam's razor... I wouldn't even suggest the wire was a human construct. I'd have to conclude that at one point the wire was a copper ladle with an errant strand of spaghetti attached that needed to transport amperage to any one of the important appliances in its environment; it evolved alongside the spatula over the course of a thousand years. The problem is, the house was built in 1924 so I'll have to adjust my thinking a bit to suggest perhaps the house was really built much earlier. If that's not possible, the house is older than that... and so forth. Now prove me wrong.

Funny. But the placement of the wire, you know the part that makes it catch mice, could easily be an accident.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I wish you would find a less ambiguous way to say this

Yeah, so then kids aren't taught that the way we got here was that we evolved from lower life forms? If evolution doesn't cover the origin of the species, and there is no way to test for the origin of our species, then it would seem that by the standards set up specifically to try and limit ideas like ID from the classroom, that you'd have to do the same for any discussion of evolution as the impetus of the origin of human life as we know it today.

And as far as "speciation" goes, I believe that's a loaded term. While you can show that a type of bird might adapt by having it's beak shorted or lengthened in areas where food sources are different, or other types of small adaptations can occur, that's not the same as proving that a lizard can turn into a bird. There's no real test for this, and suggesting it can happen is just a theory much like ID.

I agree that his opinions do not necessarily count more than any others of his generation. What I find bizarre is that in an effort to overstate the amount of consensus among "the founders," you seem to count those opinions more than his. Works both ways.

In governmental framework where we vote, and there is a "majority rules" system, I do believe that the expressions of the many outweigh the wishes of one or even a small handful. Our founders wanted a system where the people decided, not just wealthy, influential land owner/politicians like Jefferson. It's again looking back at the intent of the founders and the people who they represented and understanding that the current way things are being done would be seen as an abomination of their original intent and not because the majority of the people these days voted to make these changes.

They included a way to change the laws so that it could represent what Jefferson wanted if the people chose. They never did. Unelected leftist judges did, and they really had no power to do so.

We really need to put all the debate about the origins of life in it's own thread though. It's kind of a distraction from the point that it's now clear that the hoohah generated by O'Donnell's comments was based on the brainwashing that's been done by the left into thinking that the current "rules" we go by regarding religion and government were as it was intended to be and not just an invention of the courts. There is no, and has never been a Constitutional limitation from discussing religion in schools or in allowing religious expression in government as long as there were no attempts to punish or limit those who chose to abstain. Based on all the evidence, including the words of the majority of our founders and the practices that were in place at the time of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, it's insane to argue otherwise. O'Donnell was right.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

In governmental framework where we vote, and there is a "majority rules" system, I do believe that the expressions of the many outweigh the wishes of one or even a small handful. Our founders wanted a system where the people decided, not just wealthy, influential land owner/politicians like Jefferson. It's again looking back at the intent of the founders and the people who they represented and understanding that the current way things are being done would be seen as an abomination of their original intent and not because the majority of the people these days voted to make these changes.

And my point is, you haven't demonstrated any kind of other majority on these questions. You've alluded to it, but you haven't demonstrated it. You've simply quoted (or misquoted) one or two specific individuals. Put up or shut up.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And as far as "speciation" goes, I believe that's a loaded term. While you can show that a type of bird might adapt by having it's beak shorted or lengthened in areas where food sources are different, or other types of small adaptations can occur, that's not the same as proving that a lizard can turn into a bird. There's no real test for this, and suggesting it can happen is just a theory much like ID.

You continue to demonstrate a misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is supposed to do ("just a theory"). No one suggests that lizards turn into birds. The theory is that small changes lead to divergence -- speciation -- over time. It's a model based on the understanding of how some of the smaller changes work. Because the model fits much of the evidence, it becomes the accepted theory until new evidence emerges. As stated in Wikipedia: "Theories are constructed to explain, predict, and master phenomena (e.g., inanimate things, events, or behavior of animals). A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality, and its statements as axioms of some axiomatic system."

Why, based on evidence, does ID better address the question (model reality) of how (not why) new species emerge? (Hint: it doesn't address this question at all)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I see you wasted no time in changing the subject away from "specified complexity" again. Can I take that to mean you concede that "specified complexity" is meritless?

No. Proponents of the "specified complexity" argument cite statistical improbability for the step-by-step Darwinian account, but more than mathematical unlikelihood (complexity), they cite that it must be conditionally independent (specified). The letter 'A' is specified, but not complex. A salt crystal for example follows well-defined laws, but is not complex. A long sequence of random letters is complex, but not specified. An essay on the other hand, is both specified and complex. This is their point of contention; that our current scientific laws are not sufficient to explain the origin of life. I would cite your Tierra model as exhibit A of this problem. While I wouldn't put the weight of my family on these ideals, I don't believe they are meritless. I welcome any work they're willing to put forth to bolster their argument and to drive an understanding that at present, is obviously in its infancy anyway.

Why? Simply put, we'd conclude in any other application of reason that a highly complex nano-machine comprised of the ordered expression of numerous parts delivered with astonishing precision exhibits the properties of a designed thing. From the most fundamental perspective of observation our current theories to address these phenomena are almost counterintuitive. The good news is that it is not ultimately up to me whether or not the concepts are meritless.

To answer your question, not as efficiently minimalist as the trial-and-error basis of evolutionary algorithms. Really, of all the various challenges for evolution, deleting unnecessary parts is the easiest. How can there be a more thorough method of deletion than trial-and-error?

But in spite of this mechanism, unnecessary or unsuccessful parts have evolved to complex nano-machinery. If it's the easiest aspect of evolution, it would also be the most inconsistent apparently. You're also a little optimistic about the success of this program's evolutionary model IMO. The author of the article you cited continuously repeats that ID is unnecessary and that complex behavior and elaborate structures don't require a designer, but an ice crystal is a complex behavior yet no one invokes an intelligent agent. The "elaborate structures" (note that he differentiates between "behavior" and "structure" here for what I'd call obvious, 'honest' reasons) are subject to a great deal of disagreement anyway. According to Thomas S. Ray, this model may allow for more "open-ended" evolution, in which the dynamics of the feedback between evolutionary and ecological processes can itself change over time, but this has not been realized. Like other simulated evolution systems, they come to a point where novelty ceases to be created, and the system begins either looping or ceases to 'evolve'. Mark Bedau and Norman Packard who applied a statistical method of classifying evolutionary systems to a program they developed called Evita for example, found that Tierra-like systems do not exhibit the open-ended evolutionary signatures of naturally evolving systems. Russell K. Standish has measured the informational complexity of Tierran 'organisms', and has similarly found limited complexity growth in Tierran evolution.

Prediction is why. Just like Becquerel's solar energy hypothesis for those radioactive ores, the first step is to make a prediction and test it. (and the prediction should be one that can differentiate between the conventional model and your hypothesis). You can't go on your merry way assuming that the ores are powered by sunlight until you gather that *new* evidence you mentioned so scornfully.

Of course if new evidence is necessary to bolster a theory, by all means it should be forthcoming. All I meant is that a hypothesis is generally comprised of evidence already on the table and the predictions made from the interpretations of that evidence. Yes, there should be evidence to bolster their argument and I look forward to seeing some. I see no reason to get too excitable about computer programs that do not comprise new evidence for origins theory either however.

Can you give an example? I don't see what good attaching a "made by God" label to the organism does us, in and of itself. I'm hoping you're referring to something more interesting.

Vestigial organs for one. If one were working from the premise that a designer would not include a whole bunch of unnecessary parts, they may conclude the seemingly unimportant parts are necessary and examine them with greater care. They may find purpose and in fact the number of organs once thought vestigial may have to be revised. No 'made by God' label needed as tempting as this indictment must be. In short, I'm not going to tie someone to a seat with a floodlight in their face to ask what their worldview is as a litmus prior to accepting their work. You wouldn't want this either of course.

Haha, so the conventional car battery doesn't count as "a box with zero motility?"

Of course it does. The good news is you can store conventional car batteries in a box and you'll never have to worry about them running away or joining thousands of other parts arbitrarily to form a vehicle and drive away. At best, you might be able to throw a battery down a hill for a couple of tumbles. Otherwise, it will need a host of parts in tandem or the cruel environment of a cluttered garage would render the battery to a recycling facility or the trash. After all, this is the easiest challenge for evolution and for cleaning out the garage.

No you're still not grasping the concept of duplication. If you have another mode of mobility as well, you don't need the product to be "finished" from the start. If you have cilia you can develop a flagellum without being stranded.

"without being stranded"... Cute. I still think this marginalizes the feat of comprising a flagellum. Cilia and flagellum are two entirely different organisms. You either have cilia failing its niche, hanging out useless from now to perpetuity, or useful in some other manner; a manner that would land a sequence in any number of things other than another form of motility. Which BTW is problematic for genetic or evolutionary algorithms as well.

Funny. But the placement of the wire, you know the part that makes it catch mice, could easily be an accident.

I disagree. Both the arbitrarily-convenient placement of the wire and the notion that it would catch mice are far-fetched and very imaginative.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

An essay on the other hand, is both specified and complex.

What if it changed a few words to suddenly have the opposite meaning, or just a different unrelated meaning, would you still consider it to be complex?

From the most fundamental perspective of observation our current theories to address these phenomena are almost counterintuitive.

So was heliocentrism. If we let the weight of actual evidence be overcome by mere intuition, we'll never get anywhere.

You're also a little optimistic about the success of this program's evolutionary model IMO.

No. The tierra link answers a specific question that you asked, it shows that design has no monopoly on minimalist efficiency.

Of course if new evidence is necessary to bolster a theory, by all means it should be forthcoming. All I meant is that a hypothesis is generally comprised of evidence already on the table and the predictions made from the interpretations of that evidence. Yes, there should be evidence to bolster their argument and I look forward to seeing some.

How long are you willing to wait for it? How many unfruitful attempts to prove it true are you willing to sit through before you can admit it's false? This is why falsifiability is important. You can't just wait around forever hoping for the hypothesis to be proven true, it also needs a way to possibly be proven false.

Cilia and flagellum are two entirely different organisms. You either have cilia failing its niche, hanging out useless from now to perpetuity, or useful in some other manner;

Internal combustion and electric motors are two entirely different designs. You either have internal combustion failing its niche, hanging out useless from now to perpetuity, or useful in some other manner; oh wait that logic doesn't make sense at all because duplicate mechanisms working cooperatively is a selective advantage

Hey it even works with total accidents... Archimedes was using the bathtub for it's specified function, in want of a way to measure something's volume. And suddenly, by accident, he up and measured his own volume. Eureka! The bathtub now as a new duplicate "specified" function. Isn't duplication grand?

...a manner that would land a sequence in any number of things other than another form of motility.

You mean like oh I don't know, some sort of type III secretory system?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What if it changed a few words to suddenly have the opposite meaning, or just a different unrelated meaning, would you still consider it to be complex?

What if we observe that it generally cannot? What if what we find by rearranging the words and sentences is complete gibberish? I would not consider that to be complex.

So was heliocentrism. If we let the weight of actual evidence be overcome by mere intuition, we'll never get anywhere.

Ironically, neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is technically correct as the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun. What history shows us is that the establishment of science is always under challenges of varying degrees of strength. Answers come with evidence and a great deal of time. There's no question in my mind that more time will see more challenges to conventional wisdom. Contrarian views should not be deemed heretical.

No. The tierra link answers a specific question that you asked, it shows that design has no monopoly on minimalist efficiency.

What I'm telling you is that the tierra link answered absolutely nothing definitively; least of which the questions that remain of evolution and its minimalist efficiency.

How long are you willing to wait for it? How many unfruitful attempts to prove it true are you willing to sit through before you can admit it's false? This is why falsifiability is important. You can't just wait around forever hoping for the hypothesis to be proven true, it also needs a way to possibly be proven false.

First of all there has been little offered that would be deemed fruitless or fruitful at this point. Second of all, the answers to some of the more profound questions that remain will likely be more adequately addressed long after our lifetimes. How long am I willing to wait? I guess the more appropriate question is; what's the hurry?

Internal combustion and electric motors are two entirely different designs. You either have internal combustion failing its niche, hanging out useless from now to perpetuity, or useful in some other manner; oh wait that logic doesn't make sense at all because duplicate mechanisms working cooperatively is a selective advantage

Again... the differences in scope here are cavernous. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Hey it even works with total accidents... Archimedes was using the bathtub for it's specified function, in want of a way to measure something's volume. And suddenly, by accident, he up and measured his own volume. Eureka! The bathtub now as a new duplicate "specified" function. Isn't duplication grand?

So it evolved as a submersion chamber of things to a submersion chamber of people? Again... scope... cavernous.

You mean like oh I don't know, some sort of type III secretory system?

Excellent point. What is the accepted mechanism for the evolution of the type III secretory system? I mean, while we're laughing and all.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if we observe that it generally cannot? What if what we find by rearranging the words and sentences is complete gibberish? I would not consider that to be complex.

"What if we observe that it generally can? What if what we find by rearranging the words and sentences is not complete gibberish? I would consider that to be complex."

Wow look at that. With only a very small mutation, the specificity of your post was turned in the other direction. Are you telling me that your post was "complex" but my mutation of it wasn't?

Ironically, neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is technically correct as the Solar System’s center of gravity is not the exact center of the Sun.

Yeah, still counterintuitive.

Contrarian views should not be deemed heretical.

It wouldn't be if people weren't continually crying wolf over it.

What I'm telling you is that the tierra link answered absolutely nothing definitively; least of which the questions that remain of evolution and its minimalist efficiency.

If an example of random algorithms generating smaller more efficient models than their own designer is capable of doing won't convince you that design is not the only source of smallness and efficiency, I submit that you are unwilling to see reason.

First of all there has been little offered that would be deemed fruitless or fruitful at this point. Second of all, the answers to some of the more profound questions that remain will likely be more adequately addressed long after our lifetimes. How long am I willing to wait? I guess the more appropriate question is; what's the hurry?

A ringing endorsement of pushing this gem into classrooms

Again... the differences in scope here are cavernous. We'll have to agree to disagree.

IMO, evolution would not work at all without the concept of duplication. I don't blame you for being obstinate about duplication if your mind is already made up about nay-saying evolution.

So it evolved as a submersion chamber of things to a submersion chamber of people? Again... scope... cavernous.

Gadz ebuddy, don't hurt yourself bending over backwards to ignore the purpose of these devices to focus on the shape. I can do that too, the flagellum evolved as a long thin protrusion sticking into the surroundings, and became a long thin protrusion sticking into other cells. OMG they're practically the same!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"What if we observe that it generally can? What if what we find by rearranging the words and sentences is not complete gibberish? I would consider that to be complex."

Wow look at that. With only a very small mutation, the specificity of your post was turned in the other direction. Are you telling me that your post was "complex" but my mutation of it wasn't?

Occam's razor. What you're telling me is that it is much more expedient and easy for an intelligent agent to accomplish this feat than to leave the issue to the odds of mere chance.

Yeah, still counterintuitive.

Right... counterintuitive enough that in 20 years we may find our current understanding rather archaic.

If an example of random algorithms generating smaller more efficient models than their own designer is capable of doing won't convince you that design is not the only source of smallness and efficiency, I submit that you are unwilling to see reason.

If you're as optimistic about these algorithms as you appear, perhaps reason wouldn't matter either way.

IMO, evolution would not work at all without the concept of duplication. I don't blame you for being obstinate about duplication if your mind is already made up about nay-saying evolution.

If it's any consolation to you, my mind fluctuates between "made-up" and curious about God Himself. I think rigidity of any kind is more illustrative of presuppositions and dogma than it is an openness to evidence and the integrity of science or its related query.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Occam's razor. What you're telling me is that it is much more expedient and easy for an intelligent agent to accomplish this feat than to leave the issue to the odds of mere chance.

Heh! Yes, according to Occam's Razor, if an intelligent agent exists, the simplest explanation is that the feat was accomplished by said intelligent agent. However, in the case of the origin of life, explaining *where* that intelligent agent came from isn't as simple.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Occam's razor. What you're telling me is that it is much more expedient and easy for an intelligent agent to accomplish this feat than to leave the issue to the odds of mere chance.

Doesn't matter who or what did it, it still disproves the inflexible function premise.

Right... counterintuitive enough that in 20 years we may find our current understanding rather archaic.

If this happens, you can be sure it will be based on evidence, not intuition, which is exactly what I said in the first place.

If you're as optimistic about these algorithms as you appear, perhaps reason wouldn't matter either way.

This was an actual observed occurrence, no optimism is needed.

If it's any consolation to you, my mind fluctuates between "made-up" and curious about God Himself. I think rigidity of any kind is more illustrative of presuppositions and dogma than it is an openness to evidence and the integrity of science or its related query.

I agree. Get back to me when that evidence shows up.