tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post2598511838665312864..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: A Torley Defense of Irreducible ComplexityLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70582197661731956522014-12-17T20:22:06.084-05:002014-12-17T20:22:06.084-05:00A distortion of the Design argument which is based...A distortion of the Design argument which is based on the primacy of Reason in any cogent interpretation of reality. To reduce it to natural processes is self-destructive. Complex thought does not entail a multitude of thinkers! One is quite enough and satisfies the principle of parsimony incomparably more than millions of molecules...trhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12824950138443068189noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16183931601216647992012-01-13T02:13:13.031-05:002012-01-13T02:13:13.031-05:00Just thought I'd add this very relevant descri...Just thought I'd add this very relevant description of an ecosystem:<br /><br />Ecosystems are composed of a variety of abiotic and biotic components that function in an interrelated way.[39]<br />The structure and composition is determined by various environmental factors that are interrelated. Variations of these factors will initiate dynamic modifications to the ecosystem. Some of the more important components are: soil, atmosphere, radiation from the sun, water, and living organisms.<br /><br />Central to the ecosystem concept is the idea that living organisms interact with every other element in their local environment.<br /><br />Eugene Odum, a founder of ecology, stated: "Any unit that includes all of the organisms (ie: the "community") in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles (i.e.: exchange of materials between living and nonliving parts) within the system is an ecosystem."[40] Within the ecosystem, species are connected and dependent upon one another in the food chain, and exchange energy and matter between themselves as well as with their environment.[41]<br /><br />The human ecosystem concept is grounded in the deconstruction of the human/nature dichotomy<br />and the premise that all species are ecologically integrated with each<br />other, as well as with the abiotic constituents of their biotope.<br /><br />A smaller unit of size is called a microecosystem. For example, a microsystem can be a stone and all the life under it. A macroecosystem might involve a whole ecoregion, with its drainage basin.[42]<br /><br />From here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatureThe whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39623355197418427822012-01-04T02:11:09.269-05:002012-01-04T02:11:09.269-05:00Mr Torley,
Just to clear up the ID perspective, ...Mr Torley, <br /><br />Just to clear up the ID perspective, my paraphrasing is;<br /><br />"life is too complex, so something far more complex spontaneously exists in order to build these less-complex organisms".<br /><br />or am I missing something?<br /><br />And if not, are you serious? You can't see why this is not a well respected argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63065154894956997872012-01-03T17:19:09.008-05:002012-01-03T17:19:09.008-05:00Vincent Torley,
The second thing, Arhur C clarke ...Vincent Torley,<br /><br />The second thing, Arhur C clarke forgot this other principle: any sufficiently misunderstood natural process is undistinguishable from magic. We have lots of examples. For one, when volcanoes were misunderstood, they were gods themselves at times, god-produced at other times. That did not work that well, did it?<br /><br />So I insist, show me the evidence for this designer's presence first. Assuming the designer to begin with is, well, silly. You assume a designer fine-tuned the universe, well, that leaves you with no way of proving that there is a designer. Why? because you can't prove that the universe required a designer from the way it works. Then, from our understanding of how it works it is easy to conclude that we are the products of this universe as it is and as it works. Thus, no need for a designer. That designer is something you put on top for no other reason than your religious beliefs (which I guess to be old-earth creationism, who knows if linked to Christianity or not).<br /><br />Best and 10:4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6543889548284338372012-01-03T17:12:05.491-05:002012-01-03T17:12:05.491-05:00Vincent Torley,
I think I am just intervening in ...Vincent Torley,<br /><br />I think I am just intervening in the conversation you were having with both TWT, and Jud, both of whom have given you penty of good answers that you happily misread or read only halfway, as I think you read my comments.<br /><br />So, I will try to answer what you told me and not add to anything you are exchanging with others to avoid confusion.<br /><br />Your link goes to something about "silly atheistic arguments against fine-tuning.=," which does not answer what I asked. It seems to me that you assume that I got those objections from somebody, while what I did is give you my two cents. Anyway, what's wrong with your linked answers:<br /><br />1. The objections by atheists were not silly unless your answers were obvious. They are not obvious, thus the "atheistic" objections are not silly. It is quite reasonable to doubt that anything is fine-tuned ("for life" I assume as that's what your link mentions) if a lot of it does not have what it is supposed to be fine-tuned for.<br /><br />2. My objections were not those, my point was that there is nothing demonstrating such fine-tuning, that from whichever point you look at it, it does not look fine-tuned for life (mostly no life around), nor for us (where there's life, it seems like the planet would be "fine-tuned" for microbes). SInce you linked to "atheistic" objections, I take that you prefer the planet to be fine-tuned for us, which it is obviously not.<br /><br />3. Your non-obvious answers are non-answers. All you say for those two atheistic objections summarizes as: "the universe is this big and this old because that's the way it works." That does not need a god anywhere, let alone an omni-anything god (remember it is you who used the word "atheist," don';t blame me for adding a god to the soup).<br /><br />4. To clarify the above:<br /><br />a) The universe is big because otherwise there would be no way of making the building blocks for life. Well, for one this is wrong. Enough material for us would be available with our galaxy alone (probably with much less). For another, we must have a very different definition for fine-tuning, because it would seem like you assume fine-tuning out of a universe that, in order to have us, has to go through a lot for this tiny result. That does not look as if the universe is fine-tuned for life, but, again, as if we are just one little possibility among the many other things that could happen.<br /><br />b) the universe is old because this age is required for it to be this big and have us here. Well, this translates into: because of the properties of the universe, it had to be this old in order for us to be here. Which means we come after, not as a forethought, but after what the universe is, we are the ones who are "fine-tuned" to what the universe is, not the universe so that we would be here. Thus, we might as well save the idea of a god and start with the universe. Is this clear?<br /><br />Your problem my friend, is that you hold to rhetoric, rather than to reason.<br /><br />10:4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87687584773325290242012-01-03T12:36:29.242-05:002012-01-03T12:36:29.242-05:00Part two.
Of course you like The Privileged Plane...Part two.<br /><br />Of course you like The Privileged Planet. It supports your belief that the Earth is specially created and so are you!<br /><br />So, you're "quite happy to agree (with Gonzalez) that many of the Earth's sub-systems are designed" when it comes to plate tectonics, but you already said that you don't believe that the island eco-system I used as an example would be designed. Obviously you aren't aware of the fact that volcanic islands are produced by interaction, interrelatedness, and interconnectedness with plate tectonics (to use the words you IDiots use). Oh, and the island itself is just one part, but an essential part, of the "core". <br /><br />You asked:<br /><br />"What are your scientific qualifications?"<br /><br />My scientific qualifications are not important for the purposes of this debate. Unlike you IDiots, I don't feel the need to bring my qualifications as some sort of an 'authority' into a debate. I'll let my words speak for me. <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"You write that you could teach me "lengthy lesson in biology, geology, meteorology..."<br /><br />I didn't actually say that. I said it would turn out to be a lesson, etc., etc., but now that you mention it I could try to teach you but I doubt that it would stick. Your mind is obviously made up about your chosen designer/creator god. <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"You write: "show me the tools, the processes, the methods, everything that comes with a designer, and I might start to consider ID.""<br /><br />I don't recall saying those words in quotes. I'll gladly admit that I did if you show where I said them. And whether I said them or not they're not an unreasonable request. If you're so concerned with what is "scientific" you should realize that it takes more than your religious beliefs to present a scientific argument/inference/hypothesis. <br /><br />The rest of what you wrote isn't worth responding to. You're obviously just looking for anything that you think will support your beliefs. <br /><br />Ya know, Vincent, I can't help but think that you have doubts about your religious beliefs. Otherwise, why would you care about what science does or says? In some ways you seem like a sharp guy and a nice guy but you're hindered by the ball and chain of religious dogma. Just think what you could accomplish if you cut off that ball and chain. It's not too late.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8017530471175712862012-01-03T12:34:36.336-05:002012-01-03T12:34:36.336-05:00Vincent, I have to admit that when I read your res...Vincent, I have to admit that when I read your response I laughed until tears ran down my cheeks. <br /><br />I did quote Behe and Dembski, and ALL of you ID pushers speak as though you're the only "reputable authorities" on anything and everything. That's one of your biggest flaws. You're a bunch of egotistical and narcissistic authoritarians who think that everyone else should swallow and obey your every word without question. <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"Also, if you're going to cite people, it pays to interpret their writings charitably. It's easy to tear down an argument by citing an isolated passage from someone you want to discredit; lawyers do that all the time. It's much harder to try and present your opponent's case in the best possible light and then refute it."<br /><br />That is absolutely hilarious coming from you. Charitably? Don't you mean that I and others should just take your word for everything? <br /><br />I'm as charitable as I possibly can be but being charitable isn't what matters, especially when your arguments (and those of your fellows) are based on non-evidential, non-scientific religious fairy tales, and a dishonest religious and political agenda that is trying to ruin or replace science. <br /><br />And where's your charity and "best possible light" when it comes to the ToE, and my example of the stochastic island eco-system? When it comes to trying to "tear down an argument by citing an isolated passage from someone you want to discredit" you ID pushers are unsurpassed. You really should have a talk with kairosfocus, joe g, bornagain77, uprightbiped, barry arrington, o'leary, luskin, and all the rest of the IDiots about quote mining and misrepresenting what scientists say. <br /><br />You "don't like" my example? This may come as a shock to you but what you like or "don't like" is irrelevant. My island eco-system example crushes your design is required IC assertions. And many other people have crushed the IC and ID assertions over and over too. <br /><br />You also said:<br /><br />"The fact that the parts have functions isn't enough; they have to inter-connect."<br /><br />Ah, first it was that the island itself and the fresh water have no function, but now it's "the land and sea don't inter-lock closely enough with the organisms" and that they don't "inter-connect". Can you say 'moving the goalposts'? And the other IDiots say "interacting" or "interrelated". <br /><br />Besides, all the parts interconnect, interrelate, and/or interact closely. You apparently think that those terms mean that absolutely everything must be successful and survive and thrive in order to meet your definition of those terms. <br /><br />If you were completely engulfed in fire, you and the fire would be interconnected, interrelated, and interacting, but I doubt that you'd survive and thrive. There would be a lot of other things interrelating, interconnecting, and interacting in that fire too. <br /> <br />And anyone with a clue knows that any organism that does survive and thrive in the island eco-system would have to interconnect, interrelate, and/or interact (take your pick) in a successful and adaptive way. Otherwise they wouldn't survive and thrive. No matter how many words I read that are spewed by you ID pushers, I am still amazed at how ridiculous your arguments can be. <br /><br />See part two.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6901012540352602752012-01-03T12:05:46.324-05:002012-01-03T12:05:46.324-05:00Vincent Torley wrote:
The Creator is not bound by...Vincent Torley wrote:<br /><br /><i>The Creator is not bound by the laws that apply to creatures, unless we're talking about the laws of logic.</i><br /><br />Oh, and here I thought we were discussing science. If you are talking about supernatural phenomena, then of course laws pertaining to natural phenomena, e.g., quantum mechanics, do not currently take supernatural intervention into account, as no observation has ever indicated the slightest need to do so. (Don't know why supernatural beings/phenomena should be restricted by logic, either, but hey, it's your vision of a supernatural Creator, so I won't <i>disputandum</i> your <i>gustibus</i>.)<br /><br />There would be an overwhelmingly high requirement for evidence of the existence of such a being or beings, if one wishes to overthrow all existing science in Its/His/Their name(s). So far, no evidence at all exists, let alone the overwhelming amount required. When and if it does, I will of course be ready to change my view that science has proved pretty good at explaining things so far.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52754067556136249882012-01-03T07:06:58.556-05:002012-01-03T07:06:58.556-05:00Jud:
Thank you for your post. You really do need ...Jud:<br /><br />Thank you for your post. You really do need to be a bit more critical when reading quantum physics papers. If a researcher claims to have proved something, it's best to with-hold judgment until other scientists have had time to critically evaluate it. I haven't seen anyone making waves about this paper. That's why I didn't cite it. Look at the date: August 2011. <br /><br />But let's suppose the authors are right. What Colbert and Renner they claim to show? "we have ... excluded the possibility that any extension of quantum theory ... can help predict the outcomes of any measurement on any quantum state." Can help whom? Observers like ourselves, who are inside space-time. What about beings in a universe outside our own? What about beings outside space and time altogether? We don't know, and if you believe that Colbeck and Renner have proved that even these beings can't possibly know about quantum states in any other way than the way we do, then you're more gullible than I thought. But hey, why don't you ask them? TheCreator is not bound by the laws that apply to creatures, unless we're talking about the laws of logic.<br /><br />The Whole Truth<br /><br />Thank you for your post. If you're going to cite definitions of irreducible complexity, kindly cite reputable authorities. I'm not one. Nor is Joe G. Dembski is. Behe is. Also, if you're going to cite people, it pays to interpret their writings charitably. It's easy to tear down an argument by citing an isolated passage from someone you want to discredit; lawyers do that all the time. It's much harder to try and present your opponent's case in the best possible light and <i>then</i> refute it. I've already explained that I don't like your island eco-system example because the land and sea don't inter-lock closely enough with the organisms. The fact that the parts have functions isn't enough; they have to inter-connect. And I'm aware that there are many species on an island eco-system, but you can't nominate one that would be essential.<br /><br />However, Guillermo Gonzalez has written a book called <i>The Privileged Planet</i> in which he argues that several natural cycles that occur on Earth <i>are</i> in fact the product of intelligent design. I like these examples better, because the components can indeed be said to be "well-matched." Plate tectonics is one example they talk about at length in their book. So I'm quite happy to agree that many of the Earth's sub-systems are designed.<br /><br />By the way, I do believe the Designer conserves everything in being.<br /><br />You write that you could teach me "lengthy lesson in biology, geology, meteorology..." What are your scientific qualifications? Can you define a phylum, and can you tell me which one has the most species? Can you recite the geological timetable backwards, as I can (dates and all)? Can you offer an educated opinion on Dr. Roy Spencer's views on global warming? Just asking.<br /><br />Negative Entropy<br /><br />For an answer to your questions about why most of the universe is hostile to life, please see my post at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-universe-is-too-big-too-old-and-too-cruel-three-silly-objections-to-cosmological-fine-tuning-part-two/<br /><br />You write: "show me the tools, the processes, the methods, everything that comes with a designer, and I might start to consider ID." My answer is Arthur C. Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If you found a 1 x 4 x 9 monolith on a faraway planet you'd say it was designed, and never mind the tools or processes. The designer's M.O. is always the last thing you find out - you'd need to be nearly as smart as the designer to grasp that.<br /><br />Happy New Year to you all. This will be my last post.Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85030411871492702122012-01-02T09:07:49.159-05:002012-01-02T09:07:49.159-05:00Part two.
The island eco-system I've describe...Part two.<br /><br />The island eco-system I've described easily meets the definition of a multi-part system, even when describing it only basically, and it should be apparent to anyone that such a system would become more complex (at least biologically) as time goes on from its first appearance above the surface of the sea (unless it were destroyed or made lifeless by further volcanic actions). <br /><br />Every living thing that resides on the island would not be there if it weren't for the island itself, and if other 'core parts' were removed, like weather, atmospheric gases, fresh or other water, sunlight, etc., there would be no eco-system. Even gravity is necessary for the eco-system system to 'function'. <br /><br />Idiots love to say that the analogies non-IDiots use are irrelevant or not biological or whatever, but if you look at the analogies IDiots use to support their IC and ID assertions, like machines, computers, airplanes, engines/motors, wiring diagrams, and a ton of other irrelevant, man-made stuff, they have no room to complain about analogies non-IDiots use. <br /><br />An island eco-system is biological (biotic), geological, and meteorological, and a long list of other more specific '...ologicals' or similar terms could be legitimately applied. <br /><br />When it comes to 'parts', and whether they interact, are interrelated, complex, configured, irreducible, etc., the island eco-system could be described and analyzed at many scales, including right down to atoms and their parts. <br /><br />The island eco-system would come about by non-designed processes/causes/events. It would have sub-systems or whatever other basic requirements IDiots say are necessary to be a complex system with an irreducible core, and depending on the scale at which the eco-system is looked at, it could be described as having 'multi' (or many) cores that could be described as irreducible when it comes to 'function'. <br /><br />Hey joe g and vjtorley and the rest of you IDiots: designed IC, and ID, are hereby refuted. :) <br /><br />Oh, and keep in mind that this entire planet is an island and it's a system within a system within other systems, and it (Earth) has sub-systems galore and many irreducible 'cores'. <br /><br />If you think you have a good argument against my points, let's see it.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-39289719606700190302012-01-02T07:55:19.151-05:002012-01-02T07:55:19.151-05:00Okay, so let's take a look at 'the refutat...Okay, so let's take a look at 'the refutation of ID'. <br /><br />Idiots say:<br /><br />Behe: "If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity."<br /><br />joe g: "Pathetic- If you don’t like the design inference just start producing evidence that stochastic processes can design irreducibly complex configurations."<br /><br />joe g: "Two parts can count as IC- one part can."<br /><br />joe g: "The argument from IC involves our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. That is every time we have observed IC (or CSI) and knew the cause it has ALWAYS been via agency involvement- always, 100% of teh time.<br /><br />Therefor when we observe IC (or CSI) and did not directly observe it arising we can safely infer agency involvement was required.<br /><br />That is until someone comes along and demostrates that stochastic processes can produce it. Then Newton’s First Rule applies and the design inference is refuted."<br /><br />joe g: "Tell you what dmullenix, to refute the design inference all YOU have to do is actually step up and produce positive evidence for YOUR position. Then Newton’s First Rule applies and ID is refuted."<br /><br />----------------<br />Newton’s first rule: We ought to admit no more causes of natural phenomena than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearance.<br />-----------------<br /><br />vjtorley: "A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function. I refer to this multipart subsystem as the system’s irreducible core."<br /><br />vjtorley: "Recall the definition of irreducible complexity: “a set of two or more interrelated parts that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function.”"<br /><br />vjtorley: "Do I think an island eco-system would need to be intelligently designed? No."<br /><br />Behe: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe 1996, 39)" <br /><br />Dembski: "A functional system is irreducibly complex if it contains a multipart subsystem (i.e., a set of two or more interrelated parts) that cannot be simplified without destroying the system’s basic function."<br /><br />gpuccio: "The argument from IC applies specifically to all non intelligently designed systems."<br /><br />gpuccio: "I have a lot of examples of systems that are not designed: the configuration of sand in a beach, the form of mountains, weather, the signals from a pulsar, radioactive decay, and so on."<br /><br />And that's just a few examples. <br /><br />See part two.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42076908638419898142012-01-01T17:52:13.590-05:002012-01-01T17:52:13.590-05:00Vincent Torley writes:
I didn't come down in ...Vincent Torley writes:<br /><br /><i>I didn't come down in the last shower, you know. Kindly have a look here...</i><br /><br /><i>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Non-local_hidden-variable_theory</i><br /><br />Ah. Well since you were around prior to the last shower, perhaps you had time to read all the way to the end of the article?<br /><br /><i>In August 2011, Roger Colbeck and Renato Renner published a proof that <b>any extension of quantum mechanical theory, whether using hidden variables or otherwise, cannot provide a more accurate description of outcomes</b>, assuming that observers have free will.</i><br /><br />"Observers" and "free will" have special meanings in that sentence, shown by the quote from the journal article in the footnote: <br /><br /><i>"In the present work, we have ... excluded the possibility that any extension of quantum theory (not necessarily in the form of local hidden variables) can help predict the outcomes of any measurement on any quantum state. In this sense, we show the following: under the assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely, quantum theory really is complete."</i><br /><br />So observers are those who measure, and free will is the ability to make an honest measurement. Under those circumstances, regardless of which interpretation/extension of quantum theory you choose, there is no ability to improve predictions of future outcomes - no "clockwork [or in your case billiard ball] universe." Thus the close predictive ability on which your picture of a Creator's method depends doesn't exist according to the best-confirmed scientific theory of the current era. (If such predictive ability did exist, it would completely obviate the need for the "tweaking" that is also part of your picture, which as I pointed out a few comments ago is only one of several self-contradictions in your model.)<br /><br />Thank you for helping to show that the model of ID and the creation of irreducibly complex systems you espouse contradicts quantum physics, to say nothing of modern evolutionary biology.Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15154167342773491662012-01-01T04:46:45.637-05:002012-01-01T04:46:45.637-05:00oleg said to joe g:
"Two, you forgot to deny...oleg said to joe g:<br /><br />"Two, you forgot to deny that you are not ID Guy. His name is Jim, remember? LOL"<br /><br />And joe is John Paul (Go figure):<br /><br />http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=9431<br /><br />Use the search feature there to find all of his messages.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73470283678393026212012-01-01T03:50:53.929-05:002012-01-01T03:50:53.929-05:00Part four.
You said:
"Configuration is unim...Part four.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"Configuration is unimportant." <br /><br />Are you sure you want to say that? I thought it was you IDiots who say that configuration is extremely important?<br /><br />Proper, suitable, necessary, perfect, lousy (take your pick) "configuration" in nature is also a matter of opinion from our human point of view, and nature does a good job at coming to a 'working' configuration. Working meaning that it works for some living things (or parts of living things) and not for others. Nature doesn't care whether everything works or whether everything survives and it isn't 'fine tuned' for a particular goal (like producing embodied moral agents). What works survives and reproduces. What doesn't work or reproduce is gone. Morality has nothing to do with it. If fine tuning were real, nothing would ever die or go extinct, and every living thing could easily live anywhere and everywhere. <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"...he (Collins) invokes theism in order to explain is "the existence of a material spatiotemporal reality that can support embodied moral agents." He doesn't say "human beings," and he doesn't say we are alone in the cosmos. If you think theism is a bad explanation for fine-tuning, then my question for you is the one Huxley used to pose to his critics: "What is your alternative?"<br /><br />You've got to be joking. You know damn well that Collins is referring to humans and that you think that way too. You godbots obviously believe that humans are the pinnacle of your chosen god's creations. By the way, have you ever considered the fact that the Earth and the non-human life on it would get along just fine without humans but life on Earth (including humans) would have a REAL HARD time (to put it mildly) getting along without bacteria? Hmm, maybe bacteria is the pinnacle of your chosen god's creations. LOL<br /><br />My alternative? Well, I would say that living things adapt to the their environment and that the ones that don't adapt are eliminated. The "fine-tuning" crap is absurd. <br /><br />Think about this:<br /><br />Is the new island I mentioned fine tuned for whatever living things happen to get there or do the living things that happen to get there have to adapt to the island in order to survive? And later on, after many living things reside on the island, is that many part eco-system then fine tuned for whatever other living things happen to get there or do those new arrivals (and the ones already there) have to adapt in order to survive? <br /><br />If you happened to get to that island, and all you had is the shirt on your back, do you think that the island would be fine tuned for you or would you have to adapt to the island (including all the parts of the eco-system) in order to survive? <br /><br /><br />That's all I can stand to type right now. My patience, what there was of it, has run out.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6464553097028235442012-01-01T03:50:40.364-05:002012-01-01T03:50:40.364-05:00... Huxley used to pose to his critics: "What...<i>... Huxley used to pose to his critics: "What is your alternative?"</i><br /><br />Could someone please give me a citation for this?<br /><br />TomSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90452509130895778312012-01-01T03:49:53.730-05:002012-01-01T03:49:53.730-05:00Part three.
You said:
"...the island and th...Part three.<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"...the island and the water - aren't even parts of something alive."<br /><br />Wow. And I do mean WOW. They are CERTAINLY parts of the system and they are absolutely necessary for the system to 'function'. <br /><br />You also said:<br /><br />"...no particular species is absolutely essential to the functioning of the eco-system, except for the last one you happen to remove..."<br /><br />So, you're saying that just one species is needed for it to be a functioning eco-system, yet you say that the two other parts I mentioned (land and fresh water) are irrelevant to the functioning of the eco-system and that three parts is too small and, well, what the fuck are you saying?? <br /><br />Besides, the effect of the removal of any species is very debatable, especially when considering a well established eco-system, and when considering the keystone species. Since we're talking about IC, it should be kept in mind that partial or complete removal of any species, and especially keystone species, can or will affect the 'function' of the system and could cause catastrophic effects to the "core" or otherwise. And of course, that's just the biotic part of the system. <br /><br />I think that your "aren't well-matched" argument is lame. A healthy, long term eco-system is "well-matched" and it could be said that even a new island is a good match for some living things. If it weren't a good match no living thing would ever survive or thrive on the island and no long term island eco-system would come about. And no, that doesn't mean that the new island is fine tuned. It just means that some species are able to survive on a new island (e.g. some autotrophs, and birds that can nest on it but feed from the surrounding sea). <br /><br />'Well-matched' is also a matter of opinion and there are many things (parts) within living things and in natural eco-systems that don't appear (to humans) to be "well-matched". Should your chosen designer/creator god get credit for those things too, or is credit reserved only for the things that ID pushers describe as "well matched"? <br /><br />Is the mammalian recurrent laryngeal nerve "well-matched"? Is it 'configured' well? It works, doesn't it? <br /><br />See part four.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6603975255489846782012-01-01T03:48:23.974-05:002012-01-01T03:48:23.974-05:00Part two.
Since you think that land and fresh wat...Part two.<br /><br />Since you think that land and fresh water don't have a function, maybe you could tell me what this island Earth would be like if there were no land and/or fresh water? Do you still want to say that land and fresh water have no function? <br /><br />And why don't you want to give your chosen designer/creator god credit for designing and creating the atoms that land and fresh water are made of? I thought "God" is alleged to have designed and created, well, everything. <br /><br />I see that you're relying on the presence of a single species in your description of an eco-system. That's very odd coming from someone who says that an island eco-system has to have "multi" parts to be an eco-system and that the only parts that are required for it to be an eco-system are the biological ones. It's also odd coming from someone who would argue that the more parts there are the more a system (and "complex") it is. And maybe the most odd thing of all is that you're ignoring (or deliberately and conveniently excluding?) the other abiotic parts of the island eco-system in your "three-part" claim. <br /><br />And I hope you don't think that an island "eco-system" would have only one species (for long anyway)? <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"By themselves, water and an island do nothing. You need living things."<br /><br />Yeah, an "eco-system" needs living things, and for the sake of discussion I'm content with "living things" as meaning two or more species. <br /><br />For your perusal:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic<br /><br />You might notice that there's more to an eco-system than just the "living things", such as land (bedrock, soil, etc.), water (fresh or otherwise), atmospheric gases, temperature, sunlight, chemicals, etc. They're all 'parts' of the system and they certainly are "multi". You should also notice that the abiotic parts are critical to the existence and function of the system, and it could be easily argued that any one of the "core" abiotic parts is more critical than any one of the biotic parts or even most of the biotic parts put together, in regard to an 'irreducibly complex core'. For example, without an island (land, an abiotic part), there would be no island eco-system at all, no matter how many "multi", biotic parts there are. <br /><br />You also seem to be unaware of the fact that living things contain and depend on internal water, which of course is obtained from external sources. Do you also think that internal water has no function? <br /><br />And speaking of 'internal', you apparently think that "living things" are not affected by, dependent on, or connected to the 'external' environment. Can you point out any 'living thing' or any part of any 'living thing' that is absolutely impervious to and not dependent on its environment? <br /><br />See part three.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-32736381496572761822012-01-01T03:46:54.268-05:002012-01-01T03:46:54.268-05:00Torley said:
"Re your proposed core of the i...Torley said:<br /><br />"Re your proposed core of the island eco-system (1. the fresh water, plus 2. the island itself): I'm afraid your proposed core is too small. It doesn't have a function. By themselves, water and an island do nothing. <br /><br />You need living things. But if you add living things, the problem is that no particular species is absolutely essential to the functioning of the eco-system, except for the last one you happen to remove (by definition, if it is taken away, the eco-system ceases to be)." <br /><br />----------------------<br /><br />First of all, I have to say that I was hoping for a better argument from you, and a more honest one. It is very frustrating trying to deal with someone who is so determined to not face facts and to re-define words to suit their extremely biased agenda. For instance, "multi" means more than one, and three is more than one. <br /><br />And your lack of knowledge about nature is obvious. I kept things simple thinking that you might be able to envision what would be involved in an island eco-system, at least when pertaining to the ID argument about IC. You try to sound as though you see the vast complexity in nature but when your assertions and beliefs are challenged you sound as though you can't see past the end of your nose. I have many things in mind to refute your ignorant assertions and I could type them all out but it would essentially turn out to be a very lengthy lesson in biology, geology, meteorology, and a lot of other '...ologys', and I don't have the time or patience for that. So, I'll just point out some things, and suggest that you get a clue. <br /><br />Now, I proposed the removal of the land or the fresh water as examples of the 'irreducible core' of the eco-system, but I didn't say that they're the only examples. <br /><br />I can't imagine how you can think and say that neither of them have a "function". Without fresh water and/or land there wouldn't be an island eco-system. <br /><br />You ID pushers love to argue that every teeny tiny part of something has to be there for the entire thing to be 'functional', but somehow you also think that an island eco-system can and will function without an island.<br /><br />You also love to argue that every teeny tiny part of something (e.g. a "system") is critical as to determining whether it could evolve by natural, stochastic processes/causes/events, but ignoring or removing the island from an island eco-system isn't important to you. I would think that you would be the one arguing that the land or fresh water, for example, are absolutely critical parts of the "core" of the island eco-system! Of course you would be arguing that IF you thought you could get away with crediting your chosen designer/creator god with designing and creating the land and fresh water of the island eco-system. <br /><br />See part two.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58835848580133829532011-12-31T20:17:44.700-05:002011-12-31T20:17:44.700-05:00Vincent T,
If you think theism is a bad explanati...Vincent T,<br /><br /><i>If you think theism is a bad explanation for fine-tuning, then my question for you is the one Huxley used to pose to his critics: "What is your alternative?</i><br /><br />I would have a few observations:<br /><br />Fine-tuning? First demonstrate such a thing is there, and what such fine-tuning is for. Because if you start with us, then the universe, it does not seem as if the whole universe is filled by us. Not even the whole solar system is filled by us. Thus, if there is fine-tuning, it is not for us. For what is this fine-tuned then?<br /><br />If you are going to claim that our planet is fine-tuned for us, then, again, there is plenty of places where we can't survive. Maybe it is fine-tuned for microbes instead.<br /><br />Theism is a bad explanations for anything. First show that gods are there, then we talk about theism explaining something. As of me, if it failed to explain thunder, volcanoes, long et cetera, I don't expect it to explain anything. Imaginary beings are not explanations, but wishful thinking.<br /><br />Alternative? Again, first show that there is such a thing and start with what this this fine-tuning would be for.<br /><br />Other than that, why this universe is the way it is? Well, because it is the way it is. That's why.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66947165661639282332011-12-31T19:20:22.185-05:002011-12-31T19:20:22.185-05:00Vincent Torley,
I am sorry to bring these news to...Vincent Torley,<br /><br />I am sorry to bring these news to you, but quoting physicists on their opinions about souls and consciousness does not help anybody. When we talk about their discoveries in physics there is something beyond the scientists we hold to. That's their results, be it equations solved, experiments performed,long et cetera. When it comes to such esoteric shit so far out of their experimental and mathematical work, all I can say is that whatever they thought about such stuff is bullshit. That if we were able to discard the possibility that they were just quote-mined. In neither case (they really said it, versus they were quote-mined), the quotes are useless.<br /><br />Actually, look deeper than that and notice that everything IDiots do is quote. They seem to be unable to actually look at data even when they quote something said by some scientist in an article.<br /><br />As for this piece of yours:<br /><br /><i>Prove that a bacterial flagellum can be generated by simple physical processes that require no foresight, and you've falsified ID.</i><br /><br />Actually no. Prove that there could have been a designer when the flagellum first came to be, show me the tools, the processes, the methods, everything that comes with a designer, and I might start to consider ID. It is not enough to convince yourself that nature alone would not do. You have to show how and what would do.<br /><br />As of me. I have seen some pretty amazing stuff done by random mutation, selection, reproduction, recombination. Both by experiment and in computer simulations. Even designs made by such processes. I have also seen lots of evidence for the evolution of quite a lot of systems and biological "machines." Thus, I have no problem being convinced that flagella are the products of evolution. Results Vincent. That's what counts. A few random results here and there, well, I could doubt evolution by "just" natural processes. But the way things are today, doubting this is both ignorance and mere god-of-the-gaps fallacy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75490541857668824292011-12-30T12:33:32.274-05:002011-12-30T12:33:32.274-05:00The whole truth:
I'd like to apologize for no...The whole truth:<br /><br />I'd like to apologize for not getting back to you earlier. This thread is getting rather long, and I somehow missed your reply. Re your proposed core of the island eco-system (1. the fresh water, plus 2. the island itself): I'm afraid your proposed core is too small. It doesn't have a function. By themselves, water and an island do nothing. You need living things. But if you add living things, the problem is that no <i>particular</i> species is absolutely essential to the functioning of the eco-system, except for the last one you happen to remove (by definition, if it is taken away, the eco-system ceases to be). <br /><br />However, let's suppose that one particular species (e.g. some alga, or perhaps some plant), is indeed essential to island eco-systems. You've still only got three parts - island, water and organism - so you might just as well say that a plant growing alone in the soil is an irreducibly complex system.<br /><br />There's another reason why the system described above isn't irreducibly complex: the parts are not "well-matched", as required by Michael Behe's 1996 definition: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several <i>well-matched</i>, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Behe, "Darwin's Black Box," 1996, p. 39). The sea and the island are hardly "well-matched." They don't fit together like hand and glove. Configuration is unimportant. Ditto for the living thing and the island it inhabits.<br /><br />Do I think an island eco-system would need to be intelligently designed? No. First, the argument only works for multi-part systems. Three is hardly "multi." Second, the parts aren't well-matched. Finally, the eco-system is a bad parallel to Behe's flagellum case: in the latter case, all the components were parts of a <i>living thing</i>, which made it difficult to envisage how that system could have evolved naturally, and therefore made intelligent design a plausible explanation. In the case of the three-part eco-system, two of the parts - the island and the water - aren't even parts of something alive. They're just there at the beginning, so that means only one part (the essential species) has to appear on the scene, after being carried there by sea. <br /><br />Re Collins' article: Collins does not argue that "humans are the pinnacle of special creation," since the key fact he invokes theism in order to explain is "the existence of a material spatiotemporal reality that can support embodied moral agents." He doesn't say "human beings," and he doesn't say we are alone in the cosmos. If you think theism is a bad explanation for fine-tuning, then my question for you is the one Huxley used to pose to his critics: "What is your alternative?"Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15688318135191523922011-12-30T09:59:04.059-05:002011-12-30T09:59:04.059-05:00Jud:
I didn't come down in the last shower, ...Jud: <br /><br />I didn't come down in the last shower, you know. Kindly have a look here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory#Non-local_hidden-variable_theory<br /><br />The article points out that <i>local</i> hidden variable theories make predictions that are at odds with quantum mechanics. That's no skin off my nose, as the Creator of space-time is not confined to one location.<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/#3.2<br /><br />This article is even more cautious about what Bell's theorem shows.<br /><br />"Bell's theorem is often characterized as showing that quantum theory is nonlocal. However, since several other assumptions are needed in any derivation of the Bell inequalities ..., one should be cautious about singling out locality as necessarily in conflict with the quantum theory.... Even though the Bell theorem does not rule out locality conclusively, it should certainly make one wary of assuming it."<br /><br />and finally, see here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison<br /><br />The table shows 14 possible interpretations of quantum mechanics. The article comments:<br /><br />"No experimental evidence exists that distinguishes among these interpretations."<br /><br />I think your dogmatism about true randomness is a little premature, to say the least.<br /><br />You mentioned Heisenberg. You <i>do</i> realize that he favored a Thomistic account of the soul, don't you?<br /><br />http://sententiaedeo.blogspot.com/2010/12/heisenberg-concept-of-soul-more-natural.html<br /><br />Max Planck, you say? When he was asked by <i>The Observer</i>, "Do you think that consciousness can be explained in terms of matter?", Max Planck replied:<br /><br />"No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."<br />(Planck, as cited in de Purucker, Gottfried. 1940. <i>The Esoteric Tradition.</i> California: Theosophical University Press, ch. 13).Vincent Torleyhttp://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/index.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88751579344648282842011-12-30T07:14:44.768-05:002011-12-30T07:14:44.768-05:00Vincent Torley writes:
Another thing I'd like...Vincent Torley writes:<br /><br /><i>Another thing I'd like to make clear is that I don't believe in true randomness. If the Designer is the Creator of the cosmos, then the only kind of randomness He could generate would be pseudo-randomness. Hence mutations are not truly random; they're simply unbiased, like the roll of a die. Ditto for quantum effects. We can't spot a pattern, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.</i><br /><br /><i>Thus when you argue that "a mutating, evolving system necessarily removes the ability to limit one's future work," you're simply mistaken. Until the arrival of beings possessing libertarian freedom (i.e. moral agents like us), the Designer could have predicted the evolution of the cosmos down to the finest detail. However, as anyone who's played billiards will realize, you'd need pinpoint accuracy to guarantee the production of a desired effect in the distant future. In other words, you'd need to specify your initial conditions to N decimal places, where N is very large.</i><br /><br />Sorry, but you are quite clearly and demonstrably incorrect. As you might imagine, the strangeness of some of the predictions of quantum physics over the past century or so has engendered thousands of quite sensitive experiments designed to test exactly the proposition you speak of - are things really fundamentally random, or are we just not seeing the pattern? (Yes, there are experiments that can test this precise question. The designs of many of them are tremendously clever.) The answer, verified in *every single case*, has been that yes, randomness is fundamental.<br /><br />Moreover, randomness (uncertainty, if you prefer) is just one aspect of quantum physics; it is mathematically and as a matter of physical law interdependent with other aspects that have also been exhaustively tested (quantum physics has been called the best tested theory in the history of science) and shown to be true, all of which would have to be simply thrown out if what you say were actually the case. <br /><br />For example, the problem that essentially started quantum theory 110 years ago is the "blackbody radiation problem." If classical physics is correct (your "billiard ball" concept), there is no way to limit blackbody radiation - it would be infinite. We know the laws of thermodynamics don't behave this way in real life. Quantum physics is the reason why.<br /><br />Now of course there's a chance that you're smarter than Max Planck (the fellow who solved the blackbody radiation problem) or Werner Heisenberg (who formulated the uncertainty principle). If you can provide me a classical-physics solution to the blackbody radiation problem, that will go a long way toward convincing me you could be right. Of course if you can't, then all your talk about no true randomness is utterly worthless unscientific blather, isn't it?<br /><br />I'll just wait here for your classical solution, then, shall I? (Tap, tap, tap....)<br /><br />(Oh, by the way, if you want to quote-mine Einstein about God not playing dice with the Universe, try looking up "Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen," a/k/a "EPR," some time. The EPR conceptual criticism of the uncertainty principle was experimentally tested and uncertainty was shown to be correct. Uncertainty in the EPR situation is in fact so fundamental that it paradoxically appears to facilitate faster-than-light communication, a situation called "quantum entanglement.")Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-83912142534144094382011-12-30T06:35:08.074-05:002011-12-30T06:35:08.074-05:00Vince arrogantly asserted (along with a lot of oth...Vince arrogantly asserted (along with a lot of other ridiculous crap):<br /><br />"I've been defending ID for a few years now, so I think I know a little more about it than you."<br /><br />Well then, you should have NO problem with scientifically explaining every aspect of it in minute detail (including the actual design process), and with identifying the alleged designer, and with showing all the scientifically testable evidence that verifies ID and your identification of the alleged designer. <br /><br />Oh, and why are you avoiding my points and questions about the island eco-system?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4757250603788016282011-12-30T03:30:11.922-05:002011-12-30T03:30:11.922-05:00Vincent Torley,
You write that the furthest back ...Vincent Torley,<br /><br /><i>You write that the furthest back we can go in time is to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). But according to Wikipedia, LUCA lived 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.</i><br /><br />I'd be unwilling to pin too hard a date on it. But there is a 'horizon' there that renders deeper probing pretty speculative. <br /><br /><i> The earliest life cannot have lived much earlier than that: probably it only goes back to 4 billion years ago.</i><br /><br />True, but it's worth pointing out mind that even the 300 million year uncertainty between the quoted LUCA dates is a looooong time! <br /><br /><i>I maintain that if we can go back to LUCA, we'll probably one day figure out what the very first living thing looked like.</i><br /><br />I think you're probably wrong on that. The DNA-RNA-protein system derived from LUCA is highly unlikely to date back to the earliest forms. <br /><br /><i>When I said the first living thing was optimal, I was thinking of the genetic code.</i><br /><br />The criteria by which Freland & Hurst and others measure optimality relate to codon misread tolerance (the same or a chemically similar acid) and transition/transversion bias (misreading one purine or pyrimidine as the other is more frequent than reading a purine as a pyrimidine or vice versa). However, both of these properties can be derived neutrally, from expansion of a fewer-than-20-acid code with strong selection <i>against</i> disruptive substitutions. This code can only expand by codon reuse. The least disruptive codon reuses will be those that introduce chemically similar acids, with the result that future misreads will appear as if designed to have chemically similar 'neighbourhoods'. Transition/transversion bias protection, meanwhile, arises from the lack of triplet specificity in the aaRSs that mediate the code. The codon binding site in a fourfold degenerate assignment is blind to one base. To split this into two twofold degenerate sites requires only that purines and pyrimidines be distinguished from each other at that formerly 'blind' position. It does not need to distinguish all 3 positions specifically. Since there is a greater incidence of failure to distinguish purines from each other than from pyrimidines (transition-transversion bias), more misreads keep the same acid - again, an apparently designed feature falls out from the mechanics of the system. <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/hl82264664k17513/" rel="nofollow">see here</a> Note that the author was able to 'beat' the natural code a significant number of times with one model. <br /><br />(Yes, I know someone designed the models :0). But they were built to explore constraints, not to optimise the resultant codes)Allan Millernoreply@blogger.com