Stillness

Show me the logic behind common descent. Then we can discuss the two side-by-side. Otherwise I will ignore your claims as you all have been falsely alleging i do. The real truth is that I have answered your questions. What do you feel my initial argument was and how does it differ from my current argument?

I like the idea of dividing creations according to your characters alignment. Atm I just tell myself that I am so critical to the shapers strategy or so intimidating that no one questions me. I also like the idea of being able to steal creations. It would be awesome of this was a possibility in battle. Especially if it cost AP and required high Leadership, MM, and INT to be effective. Maybe to be more restrictive a fail could cost an additional turn as your mental energy is drained in the attempt.

I want to address the T. Rex chicken issue because I think it so well illustrates what I have been saying from the beginning of this discussion. First of all the similarity based off of the tissue is 58% - hardly anything to get excited about. The real issue that reveals the heart of the problem as the evolutionary bias in biology is the view of the age of these bones. Some scientists don’t believe this is T. Rex tissue. Why? It’s 68 million years old! “Preservation of organic material over such a vast period of time should not be possible.” “The accepted viewpoint is that collagen, like other organic molecules, will degrade relatively rapidly, so that after a maximum of about a hundred thousand years nothing will remain.” “I know of no other research group that has been able to extract—let alone sequence—indigenous proteins from fossils older than a million years.” So what we really have here is two vastly differing accounts of the age of this bone. Is this simple obvious fact acknowledged? Absolutely not! We get the same type of evolutionist stories and reasoning that have no basis in reality. “But when conditions for preservation are just right, she said, ‘degradation rates may differ from predictions.’” "That doesn't mean they are wrong. But if they are right, then we all need to rethink how molecules survive in the geological environment." “Schweitzer and her collaborators, including paleontologist John Horner of Montana State University, agree that their discovery should prompt such a rethinking, which could lead to changes in how fieldwork is conducted.” So why is there no mention that the 68 million year age may be wrong? Because you all require humungous amounts of time for your theory, so that alternative is not even a consideration. Instead we have to rethink how we view soft tissue degradation. If I didn't see it all the time it would be incredible. I know that unless this nonsensical circular reasoning is stopped that we’ll soon start seeing any dissent silenced on this issue and eventually presence of soft tissue will start to be seen as harmonious with long ages. And we will have that much more backward thinking to undo once NDT is exposed.

Randomizer’s site is back up. Here is the conclusion: “Behe is wrong, it is quite possible to evolve the visual system in small, selectable steps. The restoration of visual signals in blind mice, and production of light responses in the nerves of worms, all from the simple addition of a single ancestral rhodopsin show how the visual system can evolve.” Placing a part from a supposed ancestral creature into a more complex one and getting some response would be like me placing the battery from my Focus into my F-150 and getting response. I can’t say my pick-up evolved from cars because the batteries are somewhat interchangeable. Also the worm response doesn’t tell us much. I’d have a lot of questions, starting with: Did the response make the worms more fit?

Alo, You keep saying that eyes are the irreducible system in question. Are you changing the discussion or misunderstanding me? While eyes may be irreducible, I am speaking about vision (we’ve been saying human, but any vertebrate is fine), which of course includes the eye, but involves other important parts as well. You and the others keep asking me what the problem is with evolution of certain systems. The problem is that simply saying it can happen is not enough. If I’m not mistaken, it was you earlier told me that a copy my truck could spontaneously appear fully formed from nothing. By that reasoning anything is certainly possible. Science losses all meaning though if simply asserting that something is possible and telling just-so stories account for proof. This is especially true when another explanation fits the evidence better. Randomizer’s link is more descriptive but if I’m not mistaken suffers from the same lack of explicitness (unfortunately the page is down at the time of my writing this…I still want to discuss it later when it comes back). I have mentioned two irreducibly complex structures – the car and Behe’s mousetrap. There are tons of them though. The problem with you all is that you amazingly still don’t get the definition of irreducible complexity. I’m truly at a loss as to how to make you understand it. You seem to be making some distinction between the way I’m using it and some other usage. That let’s me know you don’t get it. I’ve actually posted the definition from the man who coined the term and a leader in ID studies and you all are still are missing something.

I was treating this as the replacement to the original regulation thread. I know that there is an actual replacement, but I prefer this. I don’t have the energy to engage in discussion on multiple threads. I think I have been fairly accommodating to requests and don’t see my request for your argument presented in logical form (as you have requested of me and I have given you) to be unreasonable. Show me please, then we can continue with discussions about logic if you like. What is the logical argument for evolution accounting for all the variety in life? Here’s a recap for those whose memory seems to have disappeared with the original thread. Why an intelligent agent is a better explanation for life than common descent by mutations and natural selection: Information 1) Mutations are overwhelmingly neutral or harmful. Even when they are beneficial they are generally deleterious (i.e. antibiotic resistant bacteria, wingless beetles). This is not the increase in information needed to go from “simple” proto-life to people. 2) Some single-celled organisms have the ability to generate beneficial mutations without loss of information. It is a special ability of these organisms (possibly analogous to hypermutation) and not the kind of mutation needed for common descent, as it is an exclusive ability. 3) Other claimed examples of Darwinian evolution while appearing to be addition of information fall short upon closer examination. Some may be actual increases but these are at best extraordinarily rare and not seen in multicellular organisms (i.e. the literally millions of mutations of fruit flies last century). 4) An amazing quality of all life is that it contains language – arbitrary quatranomial code written in every cell. (see paramecium for the same code with a different convention) It requires an “agreement” on the code convention before it is ever used. Such programming is best understood as originating with an intelligent programmer. Patterns/Fossils 5) The testimony of the fossil record is repeatedly the same: types of organisms appear suddenly with no connection to anything that went before them. This is harmonious with the understanding that living things were made by type with the ability to vary within those types. While not necessarily disproving common descent the fossil record certainly is not supportive of it. 6) Life, in the fossil record and now, corresponds to a nested hierarchy. This pattern is consistent with typology, but again not supportive of common descent. It is actually somewhat problematic as common descent requires gradual stepwise change. Lack of distinction and blurring between divisions would be ideal for common descent. 7) Genetic machinery has self-corrective mechanisms to preserve the kind of organism for which it codes. In the case of d. melanogaster mutants normal flies arose from the mutants in a few generations. Cyanobacteria are the same today after supposed tens of trillions of generations over billions of years. There’s no evidence that any organism has the plasticity to account for all the variety in the biosphere. The evidence is in fact the opposite. 8) Discontinuity in distribution of traits in the biosphere (i.e. vivipary, eye designs, hemoglobin) is easily understood from the perspective of a creator that placed these traits wherever it was seen as desirable. Complexity 9) Life has a quality distinguishing it from other natural phenomena – specified complexity. Living things share this quality with things only know to be made from purposeful action. By analogy we can conclude that living things are also made this way. 10) Living things have irreducibly complex structures. Such structures are only observed to be made by purposeful action. They also place a hurdle before conclusion that stepwise increases in complexity by mutations account for all of the ingenious devices seen nature as such change has never been observed (even in bacteria which can experience hundreds of thousands of generations for every single human generation). I’ll stop at 10 – it’s a nice round number. So when you think to yourself, “Stillness just feels in his heart that God did it with no real reasons why” you may refer to this thread.

Kelandon, it was big of you to point out that I had given answers to the questions that SoT claimed I was ducking, even though you made it clear that my answer is sorry in your eyes. I’m really impressed. That’s the kind of good sportsmanship that makes me want to continue discussing with you all.

1) Irreducibly complex systems are a result of purposeful agency. 2) Living things have irreducibly complex systems. 3) Irreducibly complex systems in living things are a result of purposeful agency. If our discussion on logic is going to continue, my request is that you show me yours since I've shown mine. What would be your argument for common descent as the cause of all variety in life? If we'll stop here with the logic, then don't worry about it. I am intrigued by Randomizer's post. I'd like to discuss that as well as Alo's model as these are challenges to the observed. Be patient if you don't here from me much over the next few days. I'm a bit tied up until tomorow night so probably won't post until Wednesday, but can't promise as this week is busy for me. Since Kel is back on board maybe he will list his examples of specified complexity for my edification, though I'm starting to suspect that he doesn't really have any as he is ignoring my repeated requests to back up his statement. *dissapointed graemlin* (Sorry if I haven't been using smilies Kel. I feel, not just inadequate as a communicator if I have to use them, but somehow unmanly. Don't ask me why).

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: For your argument to make sense, you accept as a premise, "It is most reasonable to conclude, in general, that things that are observed to happen only in one way did not ever happen in any other way." I think you've acknowledged this and are now trying to defend that premise. Do you acknowledge that this statement is vital to your argument and, if shown false, would invalidate your conclusion? No, my argument is what I said it is, not what you would like it to be.

Quote: Originally written by Perejil: A primitive species of bacteria is sensitive to chemicals. That means it has receptors that detect those chemicals' presence and activates some signalling pathway to promote a response. Now the receptor protein mutates so that it has a light-sensitive domain. Maybe it's now no longer a good chemoreceptor. Maybe it's not able to carry out its previous function at all. Whichever is the case, the bacteria are now responsive to light. OK, let's work with this. As we get answers we'll build on our model. 1) How does a protein that's sensitive to chemicals mutate to become sensitive to light? Is there a likely protien capable of such a mutation? 2) How does a light sensitive protein make the bacteria responsive to light?

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: Your point 1) is not actually used in any of the rest of your logic, so you should not list it. Your question to me was “exactly what properties of 'irreducible complexity' [do you mean] to draw logical conclusions from.” I assumed you were asking me this to provide a definition. My answer was “Such systems require multiple components/systems to be in place before functionality.” I said this to show what about these systems makes them irreducibly complex, because there still seemed to be confusion as to the definition. If there is finally general acceptance of this simple truth now, we can drop “1” as it is implied. Don't get funny on me for answering your question though, especially when I had to repeatedly restate this simple definition because of you all's wrangling. Where this property comes into play is again analogy – the heart of both our arguments. This is why I said “Irreducibly complex systems serve to point to design by way of analogy and to place a hurdle in the way of stepwise advance. If you think unguided nature can jump then explain.” Quote: Your point 3) does not logically follow from your 2). Saying this is not a subjective judgement on my part; it is a simple fact. Consult any logician you like, and they will all agree. No need. I agree as well. Let’s say we’re looking for a planet. We see a neighboring star wobble as it would if there were a Jupiter-like planet in orbit. What would we conclude? Here is how the logic looks: 1) We only observe stars to wobble as Star X if a planet is in orbit. 2) Star X has a planet in orbit. Is that what astronomers do? Absolutely! Is that flawed logic. Yes. Let’s say that someone comes along and points this out. He says, “But wait! There could be a man on Star X with an anti-gravity anti-heat suit heavy enough so that coupled with the star's rotational velocity causes wobble. Prove that there’s not and every other possible theory besides your crazy planet theory before you jump to conclusions.” This man would be laughed out of the room. Why? We know there are planets even though we don’t see the one around Star X. If the astronomers were patient, they might say, “please explain why your Star X man is a better explaination when we don’t know of any such things.” Maybe the man would say, “There are men and they make suits.” Would that be logical? This is what I’m saying: We can observe purpose driven action make irreducibly complex systems. We know for a fact that it does, just as we know planets orbit stars and cause wobble. If we see wobble we go with what we know. If we go with what we know in the case of irreducibly complex systems we come to one conclusion – intelligent purpose driven action. Simply stating that there is change and it can make organisms more fit just doesn’t do it anymore than saying men make suits. We need to be shown how something that is not based on observation happens. So for the zillionth time please give a step-by-step explanation of how mutations and natural selection can create irreducibly complex systems. Use analogy if you have to. Behe used the mousetrap as you all probably know. Use that. Or come up with something different. Get frustrated and quit the discussion and then come back. Your choice. But as I said, you’re living in Bizarro world if you expect me to argue against infinite possibilities when you haven't presented one detailed theoretical or analogous explanation or an example.

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: What Stillness has really said is this: 1) The particular property of his kind of irreducible complexity upon which he intends to argue further is, that it is only observed now to arise through purposeful action. 2) The conclusion he wishes to draw from this premise is that his kind of irreducible complexity can only have arisen at any time, or over any time period however long, through purposeful action. 3) Stillness has not actually said why he thinks 2) follows from 1), but he seems to be implicitly assuming that nothing can happen on very long time scales that is not observed on short time scales today. Stillness needs this assumption, because without it his 2) does not follow at all from his 1). But this assumption is, of course, tantamount to simply assuming that evolution has not occurred. So the only real role played by irreducible complexity in this argument by Stillness is to throw the spoils to design after evolution has been slain by assumption. I love how you guys put words in my mouth. I would have actually placed 2 before 3 in my response, but I followed your questions as you asked them. Switch the positioning and you get my logical development. Your claim of what I said is different. I’ll put mine here in logical order. 1) [irreducibly complex] systems require multiple components/systems to be in place before functionality. 2) Irreducibly complex systems/structures are only observed to be made by purposeful action. a. Mutations are observed to bring beneficial change, but not to create irreducibly complex systems. (This is true even in bacteria which can go through hundreds of thousands of generations for every single human generation). 3) Irreducibly complex systems/structures in living things are a result of purposeful action. I’m not assuming anything about long time scales. You are. My conclusions are based off of observation. If you claim time changes anything you need to show how. Irreducibly complex systems serve to point to design by way of analogy and to place a hurdle in the way of stepwise advance. If you think unguided nature can jump then explain.

Quote: Originally written by Perejil: Quote: Originally written by Stillness: Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: At the moment I have the impression that Stillness is simply confused by his own term, 'irreducible complexity'. The term has a strong definition, including the impossibility of development by gradual advantageous stages. Source? Behe. I'm not going to bother explaining how you've gotten one of the fathers of modern ID wrong, but you did. Your quote isn't everything he has to say on the subject. The issue is my definition, not “everything Behe has to say.” Quote: Are you familiar with formal logic at all? You've just committed egregious question begging. 3 is the same as 2, and neither follow from 1. How about trying again, this time laying out all assumptions, all reasoning that stems from them, and the conclusions you reach? Maybe you don’t think it follows because you didn’t read well. I know you didn’t because you claim 3 is the same as 2 and it’s not. The first sentence is different and there is a second. The idea behind the second in 3 is that one might conclude that because an organism is seen to have one trait change to make it more fit for an environment it can have 10 traits adapt in a stepwise fashion. The same logic does not follow when a trait requires many other well-fitted traits/structures to be in place before any of them add an advantage. This is not to say it’s not impossible in a naturalistic framework, but how? Simply insisting it’s possible isn’t enough. Better yet show us one that we can verify has been created naturally. I think human vision is throwing you off because of the macroscopic parts. The problem is really the same as the one for the microscopic electric-motor-driven bacterial flagellum which requires many proteins organized in the correct way to be in place before it works. (Man, you should look at these things. They have some of the same parts that we use for motors!) Quote: You're moving the goal posts. I've explained how you get from photoreceptors to eyes. Either admit that the problem must lie with photoreceptors or complain now, please. Quote: Originally written by Stillness May 11, 2007 11:19 AM: Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: You do not seem to be thinking through your own arguments, Stillness. Removing a retina from a human eye no doubt renders it useless. Not just the eye, but also the lateral geniculate nucleus and the optic chiasm become useless. That is what makes it part of an irreducibly complex system. Until I see how small stepwise changes can make a system like this from scratch (organism that can’t sense visible light at all to human vision) while at the same time giving advantages that surpass disadvantages I have no reason to think life is different from non-life in that systems with such complexity are made with intelligence. I can’t imagine it and I have never seen a model that explicitly and quantitatively details such changes. Quote: Originally written by Stillness May 4, 2007 (I pulled this Word file from the other thread): You say all kinds of light-reacting systems are advantageous. But why? Because the creature can translate the presence of light into the need for action and has the ability to act. That takes sophisticated programming and machinery. Without that the light sensitive spot has no value. Without the light-sensitive spot the programming to interpret it has no value. So which comes first? So how am I moving any goalposts? The system in question is vision as a whole. It always has been. I have no clue how you got the idea that it’s photoreceptors or the eye by itself. I certainly never said that. Quote: Light sensitivity just means a way to trigger the signal pathway for response based on a light stimulus. All that really takes is one light-sensitive protein. If bacteria can evolve means of metabolizing new sugars, surely they can evolve means of responding to new signals. And you were getting on me about failure in logic. One light sensitive protein doesn’t do anything. How would this “means of responding to new signals” work? Why would the bacteria evolve this protein without the means to use it first? Why would it develop the means to interpret light without the protein to use this means?

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: At the moment I have the impression that Stillness is simply confused by his own term, 'irreducible complexity'. The term has a strong definition, including the impossibility of development by gradual advantageous stages. Source? Quote: 1) exactly what properties of 'irreducible complexity' he means to draw logical conclusions from; 2) what his conclusions from those premises are; and 3) how he thinks those conclusions follow logically from his premises. 1) Such systems require multiple components/systems to be in place before functionality. 2) Irreducibly complex systems/structures in living things are a result of purposeful action. 3) Irreducibly complex systems/structures are only observed to be made by purposeful action. a. Mutations are observed to bring beneficial change, but not to create irreducibly complex systems. (This is true even in bacteria which can go through hundreds of thousands of generations for every single human generation).

Quote: Originally written by There were only six words left.: 1. I have read Behe. You're using only one part of his irreducible complexity argument. It's actually a weaker argument, too, but don't be surprised that we're all defending common descent against Behe and not against you when you adopt his language. Behe’s beliefs are different from mine, just as yours no doubt differ from other Darwinists. Does that mean you can’t use scientific terms that they’ve coined to express yourself? His use of irreducible complexity and mine describe the same thing from what I’ve read from him. I’ve given a quote to show that. Until you show differently, I’ll have to assume you’re wrong. Even if I am wrong (which I doubt), why don’t you simply address my position as I have presented it as opposed to wrangling over semantics and talking about what people who aren’t in our discussion believe? Quote: You start with a photoreceptor. More photoreceptors means more perception, so you get a kind of proto-retina…You've accepted the photoreceptors as a start. Which step doesn't work for you and why? I know we’re all a bit tired of this discussion and have probably decided to leave off from responding multiple times. I think it’s starting to show, because we are getting some serious communication failures. The eye by itself is not the irreducible system in question. All of the photoreceptors in the world won’t make a blind organism see. And I didn’t accept photoreceptors as a start. Where do they come from? I asked how to go from an organism that doesn’t sense light to one that sees like us, describing all the systems involved while accounting for advantage and disadvantage. I know that’s hard to do and I’m not trying to work you. This is what your theory requires though. Quote: is a four-legged table irreducibly complex since it obviously doesn't work if it's missing a leg? It works if you take all four away, because you can still set stuff on the top. An irreducible system functions in such a way that the parts only have value when together. Although your tabletop is not as high you can still set stuff on it (I’m assuming that was the purpose of your table and your system was the 4 legs and the top.) By way of contrast, an eye without the other components necessary for vision doesn’t do anything and is actually a detriment. The same goes for all parts in an irreducible system.

I had a paragraph here addressing the claim that I duck and ignore important points and am a troll or a fool, but decided to ignore it and replace it with this one. Quote: Originally written by Yama: But how does design/agency/whatever deal with those parts? … once that design had been made, what actually happened in the world of physical objects to get from organisms without eyes (or whatever "irreducibly complex" characteristic you prefer) to organisms with eyes? Slarty, this is unknowable unless it was witnessed or explained by the one who put the design into action. That is why I was trying to show the sameness in our two beliefs. They deal in origins before man. I would guess you believe that birds come from reptiles (although I don’t think all Darwinists do). I wouldn’t say your theory is bad because you can’t describe or produce every animal that comes in that sequence. That’s impossible. Even if you’re right and I’m wrong those animals have come and gone without a trace. If I'm right and you're wrong, how would I be able answer your question? Quote: Evolution doesn't explain those mechanisms in perfect detail, but it does attempt to explain them. // IF your answer is "spontaneous creation of eyes" please give the evidence suggesting spontaneous creation happens. You don't contest that evolution happens on a small scale, so you agree there is an analogue for it, although you take issue with the mechanics involved in extending the analogy; fine. I contest spontaneous creation. I say it doesn't happen at all, on any scale. Prove that it happens. It’s incumbent on Darwinists to explain the mechanism and model for common descent because there is analogy for natural change, but not all the change that would be necessary to get what we see. We see changes to existing coding but not creation of the code itself (ignore this if you think the first life had this coding as this would deal with biogenesis). We see changes to structures and systems, but not natural creation of irreducibly complex systems. Unless there is an a priori rejection of something beyond natural causes, why else would we accept this? “Spontaneous creation” of irreducible systems does happen. Mankind does it all the time. That is the analogy for creating irreducibly complex systems like vision. The problem with explaining a mechanism is that the technology to do it is beyond ours. Even if witnessed that doesn’t mean we could reproduce it or describe it. We can clone sheep, go to the moon, and split the atom, but we can’t make a living cell. The analogy is there though.

Quote: Originally written by Tick tock tick tock tick tick.: You're using "irreducibly complex" to mean something that the words don't mean, but that's fine. What isn't fine is that you're using it differently from other IDers, including Michael Behe. If you're going to borrow a term, you can't alter the meaning! I think you’re wrong on both counts. That’s why I quoted Behe to make it clear that I was using the definition from the man who coined the phrase. Irreducibly complex means exactly what it says. If you “reduce” said “complex” system by removing one of the parts it fails. Quote: Everything is irreducibily modular from interdependence. I don’t know your definition of the term you placed upon me, but in this instance I’m going to insist that we use the established term. You all just need to understand it. Everything is not irreducibly complex, but a whole lot of stuff is. Quote: On lack of squid retina: The fact that something is advantageous does not mean it will evolve. It's random, remember? In this case, though, you're simply wrong. Squid do indeed have lenses in their eyes. First it is the nautilus that lacks the lens. You misread. I can accept the point though. My real objection is to the simplistic terms used for something extraordinarily complex. It’s common for Darwinists to minimize complexity. Quote: How is one photoreceptor irreducibly modular in a meaningful sense? It’s not the photoreceptor that irreducibly complex, but the whole system of vision. You can have a being covered with photoreceptors, but unless he has all the hardware and software to interpret it he won’t see. I’ll be offline for a day or two. In the meantime maybe Kelandon can give us the examples of natural objects with specified complexity. I can't wait to see them when I come back on!

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Catch up to the objection that has been made with regard to interdependent parts. I didn’t miss it, I just didn’t see anything that wasn’t addressed in the other posts. It sounds like your argument is semantic - you oppose the word “irreducible” in favor of “interdependent.” This is not like your “mistake” over “error” argument though, because I think there is a difference. I think that interdependent parts of a system can actually accomplish something without some of the parts. If that’s wrong then it doesn’t really matter to me which is used. Call it what you like. The problem is the same. Quote: Evolution doesn't work by evolving one part and then another completely separately; it works by evolving both parts into primitive forms and then more complex forms. Your objection (that you "have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur") isn't really adequate. You have to show, in order to prove your point, that any such model is a worse explanation than design.[/QB] It sounds like you’re pushing the problem back in time. What more primitive forms? This is exactly the problem. These descriptions are always vague. I mentioned earlier that the retina is probably some of the most complex tissue in the human body and afterward the model presented for vision says, “Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye.” I really appreciate at least something being presented. But by no stretch of the imagination does this explain much. This model is not as good as design because right off the bat it doesn’t deal with the parts that actually make vision irreducible. It only deals with one part. And even that is vague. We all know that someone with substantial intelligence can put parts together to make a machine work. We don’t see nature doing it though. Concluding that because you see change nature can build these sorts of structures is like concluding that I can fly because you’ve seen me jump. (that may be a sorry analogy but I’ve gotta go and it was all I could think of, the point is that it’s not good logical progression) Quote: Originally written by Yama: You cut off the first part of my first sentence! That's why it seems like we're getting somewhere! If you put that back in, it's pretty clear that I do not agree with a statement like "They are the same." But if you feel they are the same in terms of observable evidence, why have you been arguing that the evidence better supports ID? I wasn’t cutting it off to misquote. I only ever cut out for economy. I certainly don’t mean they have the same relevance, nor was I implying that you did. I mean they both deal with unseen origins and as such both rely on analogy and causality. In terms of observable evidence purposeful agency is clearly superior! If I didn’t think it was I would have never engaged in this discussion.

Quote: Originally written by Yama: The only problem is that you tend to mention your beliefs in the same breath as your argument, which makes it hard for others to distinguish between them. If I keep insisting that something is my argument based on logic and observation, then that is a strong hint that it is my argument no matter how much others insist it's not. We're human, so in a discussion beliefs will creep in. The question is are these beliefs reasonable and based in reality or simply something we feel because it's what we've been told or it fits our world view better. It's the foundations that are the key. I believe common descent didnt happen not because I don't like it (which I don't). I believe it's a poor explanation compared to purposeful action because it doesn't seem to account well for a lot of things. Quote: how the heck does intelligent design seem more plausible or likely (as you have been arguing) under these criteria? When have we observed intelligent design of species? (Don't say we've observed humans designing things and that's analagous to ID, because we've also observed speciation analogous to common descent.) Where are the witnesses? How can we reproduce it? Excellent! Who said we're not getting anywhere? They are the same. We need to figure which one fits better.

A quote from Behe: " In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term “irreducible complexity” in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems. In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function. The reason that such systems are headaches for Darwinism is that it is a gradualistic theory, wherein improvements can only be made step by tiny step, with no thought for their future utility. I argued that a number of biochemical systems, such as the blood clotting cascade, intracellular transport system, and bacterial flagellum are irreducibly complex and therefore recalcitrant to gradual construction, and so they fit poorly within a Darwinian framework. Instead I argued they are best explained as the products of deliberate intelligent design." [emphasis mine] Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: Looks like we are all responding to an irreducibility argument that Stillness did not intend to make, or that he once advanced but has now withdrawn. This irreducibility argument is that certain complex structures are so complex and interdependent that they cannot possibly be altered even microscopically without total failure. As I said before, I do believe it’s impossible for evolution to make these systems, but my argument is not “it’s impossible.” So if I said, “it can’t happen” that was not intended to be the strength of my position. Whether the system is microscopic (flagellum) or macroscopic (human vision) the problem is the same. There are no models that define it well and we don’t see it. This does not mean it didn’t happen, but simply saying matter-of-factly that it happened does not mean it did. Quote: Stillness does not seem to be claiming, now, that modular interdependence is any harder in principle to evolve than big wide ears, or long necks, or whatever. He is only claiming that, like those other properties, its evolution has not been directly observed. Actually we have seen length and width of features like this evolve and see it all the time. So it’s not the same as having irreducible complex systems evolve. But you have hit on a problem that I have been identifying from the beginning regarding NDT/common descent. It deals with origins and is not operational science. It’s impossible to observe, there are no witnesses (at least none forthcoming), and we can’t reproduce it. As such it has to rely on analogy: We can select for long ears in dogs so nature can select for long ears in elephants. That makes sense. This is why it’s unsatisfactory to simply say “such and such happened.” You need to show how something analogous happened or have a very solid theoretical model. The bad thing about models though is that theoretical organism can do all sorts of magical things on paper that may pose difficulties in real life. I’ll give you an example. Alo’s model states very simply, “Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye” and “only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.” The nautilus has an eye with no lens. Its cousin the squid does have a lens. The nautilus has a retina that would benefit from this “simple” change. It has supposedly been in existence for millions of years, so where is it’s lens (the very next step from the retina in alo's model) if this is such a simple process that only takes a few hundred thousand years? Might this process be a bit more complex than some of us think?

Let’s try this again. When you all see the phrase “irreducible complexity” it seems you are interpreting that to mean “this system can’t develop by means of evolution” or maybe “this system is can only arise by means of intelligent design.” It says nothing of the sort. It means that the parts that make it up work together to perform a function in such a way that if one part is removed the others become useless and the system fails. Stop for a few moments before proceeding to digest this… OK, here is the relevance to our discussion. We all know about beneficial mutations. We can see them occur. If a fish gets into a cave it loses its eyes. Now it can survive better. A bacteria gets into an environment with a substrance it can’t process well and mutates to survive off of it. No one can deny these sorts of things happen. What we don’t see evolution doing is creating irreducibly complex structures. We know that intelligent agents can though. So from observation it is reasonable to conclude that these structures were created purposefully. If you want to get around observable reality you need a strong theory as to why we should. Quote: Originally written by Kirby had never eaten toes before.: Originally written by Stillness: Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much. Quote: A copied and pasted answer: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin … Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch…At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed… Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina…Over time a lens formed… It could have arisen ... What do you think Alo, is this an explicit detailed description or does it gloss over details? And notice how it starts with a “simple” light sensitive patch simple, when it is nothing of the sort. That is a major leap forward from no light perception. Do you all remember the description I pasted before of a light sensitive spot? It is far from simple. It’s probably irreducible as well. And this only details changes in the receptor. The model would also have to account for concurrent changes in neural pathways and the brain. How do chance mutations write the software in the brain to makes use of the “depression?” Let’s say the creature can see. How does that give it an advantage? It has to be able to translate attenuation in photon intensity to “this is my prey” to “I should move towards it” and be able to act on this. Quote: Actually, every change has to confer no disadvantage strong enough to cause the mutation to breed out before some advantage accrues. Are you aware that this works the other way? Let’s say your creature can see half as well as us. Now let’s say an offspring in the next generation gets 50.5% vision. Is it realistic to think such an advantage is enough to overcome the tendency for genetic drift to eliminate even beneficial mutations? Quote: In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. What species are these? Eyes can’t simply descend from other eyes. To have any weight at all the species would have to line up according to this model in the supposed parent-daughter lines. Quote: according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. At that rate we should be able to get enough bacteria generations to see irreducible systems as complex as an eye spring up in a few years.

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: You seem to have missed the point. Yes, there are several large modules in the visual system, and abruptly removing any one of them makes it all useless. But this is absolutely not irreducibility in any sense relevant to evolution, because evolution is about changes far more gradual than anything as gross as abruptly removing an entire module. Finally somebody seems to understand that irreducibilty has nothing to do with evolution! Now if you can understand that it doesn't have anything to do with impossibility you will have truly outshone your peers. It seems that you're still unsure about that. I'll give you time to work it out. The issue with irreducibly complex systems is the lack of models or the lack of detail in the models that show how they can arise in a Darwinian framework. Of course you think they can evolve - you think anything can evolve. Can you show how though?

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: As Slarty has already objected, you're going from "I can't imagine it and haven't seen it" to "It can't exist." Irreducibly complexity says that such a model can't exist, not that it doesn't exist right now. You and slarty are wrong. I'm not going to spend anymore time trying to explain this. I honestly don't know how to make it clearer. You don't know the definition of irreducible complexity and apparently don't want to know. Edit: By the way, I'm still waiting with baited breath for your examples of things that have specified complexity. You claimed you had some.

Thuryl, I believe everything I’ve said on this forum. I’m not trolling. Unless 20+ pages of discussion can be considered trolling.