Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise

[Woodznutz]

'Christianity was a Clever Ruse to lure people away from Judaism.'(?)



`

Worked out pretty well, doncha think?

 

[Seymour Flops]

'Christianity was a Clever Ruse to lure people away from Judaism.'(?)

and hate to break this to you...
Butt Seymour Flops, according to himself, rejects 'Christianity.'

`

Ok, abu, well done!

I knew that if I stopped reacting to your cut and paste repetitive nonsense, you would finally post something worth responding to.

Also, I commend how closely you have been following me. I only mentioned that I don't believe in Christianity in one single post, if I remember right. You must print out my posts and study them late at night, to instantly recall that one post.

My statement was "Christianity is false," in response to a moronic poster (not Hollie this time) who thought that saying "if ______ then Christianity is false" would be a trump card.

It is true, that I don't believe in Christianity. Unlike many posters on here, I don't feel the need to ridicule and berate those who do. That kind of behavior indicates a lack of confidence in one's own beliefs.

 

[abu afak]

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence​

​

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - BioLogos

In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.

biologos.org

[.....]​

Why Irreducible Complexity Fails​

Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe popularized the idea that some biological features are irreducibly complex. He defines an irreducibly complex system as one that is “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Darwin’s Black Box, 39).
[......]

Detecting design through irreducible complexity?​

Behe goes further, claiming to have demonstrated that natural processes are insufficient to produce irreducible complexity:

The laws of nature can organize matter…If a biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that it was designed. Throughout this book, however, I have shown why many biochemical systems cannot be built up by natural selection working on mutations: no direct, gradual route exists to these irreducibly complex systems… (203).

If no gradual route exists, so the logic goes, then irreducibly complex systems must have been designed:

For discrete physical systems—If there is not a gradual route to their production—design is evident when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the interacting components (194).

Legions of scientists have rejected this argument. Why?
Is it because they are godless atheists who deny the existence of an intelligent Creator? No.
Some of Behe’s strongest critics are deeply committed Christians.
These Scientists simply see Overwhelming Evidence that irreducibly complex structures and systems have developed Gradually through natural, Evolutionary processes. For the believer, these processes are simply God’s chosen means of providentially ordering the world.

[......]​

`

 

[Woodznutz]

That was supposed to be a secret.

Oops.

 

[Hollie]

Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise​

Oh, gawd, “…. #1.

I suppose we can expect an ID’iot creationer Jihad.

Cut and paste walls of text from Disco’tute charlatans.

 

[Woodznutz]

that some biological features are irreducibly complex. He defines an irreducibly complex system as one that is “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Darwin’s Black Box, 39).
No problem there. Behe simply builds upon Aristotle, who wrote in his famous work Metaphysics, “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” Every scientist accepts this principle.

Detecting design through irreducible complexity?​

Behe goes further, claiming to have demonstrated that natural processes are insufficient to produce irreducible complexity:

If no gradual route exists, so the logic goes, then irreducibly complex systems must have been designed:

Legions of scientists have rejected this argument. Why?
Is it because they are godless atheists who deny the existence of an intelligent Creator? No.
Some of Behe’s strongest critics are deeply committed Christians.
These Scientists simply see Overwhelming Evidence that irreducibly complex structures and systems have developed Gradually through natural, Evolutionary processes. For the believer, these processes are simply God’s chosen means of providentially ordering the world.

[......]​

`

 

[Woodznutz]

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence​

​

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - BioLogos

In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.

biologos.org

[.....]​

Why Irreducible Complexity Fails​

Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe popularized the idea that some biological features are irreducibly complex. He defines an irreducibly complex system as one that is “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Darwin’s Black Box, 39).
No problem there. Behe simply builds upon Aristotle, who wrote in his famous work Metaphysics, “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” Every scientist accepts this principle.

Detecting design through irreducible complexity?​

Behe goes further, claiming to have demonstrated that natural processes are insufficient to produce irreducible complexity:

If no gradual route exists, so the logic goes, then irreducibly complex systems must have been designed:

Legions of scientists have rejected this argument. Why?
Is it because they are godless atheists who deny the existence of an intelligent Creator? No.
Some of Behe’s strongest critics are deeply committed Christians.
These Scientists simply see Overwhelming Evidence that irreducibly complex structures and systems have developed Gradually through natural, Evolutionary processes. For the believer, these processes are simply God’s chosen means of providentially ordering the world.

[......]​

`

'Irreducible' aside, it's the irreconcilable complexity that is the problem with the ToE.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence​

​

Behe and Irreducible Complexity: Failure to Engage the Evidence - BioLogos

In suggesting that scientists have no idea how evolution produced antibodies, Michael Behe has failed to engage the voluminous scientific literature covering exactly that topic.

biologos.org

[.....]​

Why Irreducible Complexity Fails​

Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe popularized the idea that some biological features are irreducibly complex. He defines an irreducibly complex system as one that is “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning” (Darwin’s Black Box, 39).
No problem there. Behe simply builds upon Aristotle, who wrote in his famous work Metaphysics, “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” Every scientist accepts this principle.

Detecting design through irreducible complexity?​

Behe goes further, claiming to have demonstrated that natural processes are insufficient to produce irreducible complexity:

If no gradual route exists, so the logic goes, then irreducibly complex systems must have been designed:

Legions of scientists have rejected this argument. Why?
Is it because they are godless atheists who deny the existence of an intelligent Creator? No.
Some of Behe’s strongest critics are deeply committed Christians.
These Scientists simply see Overwhelming Evidence that irreducibly complex structures and systems have developed Gradually through natural, Evolutionary processes. For the believer, these processes are simply God’s chosen means of providentially ordering the world.

[......]​

`

Nothing in that quote explains why the irreducible complexity argument fails. It says at the top "why irreducible complexity fails," but gives no explanation. It just says that "some of Behe's critics are deeply committed Christians."

That does not impress me. Some snake handlers, faith healers, choir boy diddlers, stigmata believers, and collection plate embezzlers, are deeply committed Christians.

What - in your own words - is the best argument that irreducible complexity is possible in an organism that came about through random mutations?

 

[Hollie]

Ok, abu, well done!

I knew that if I stopped reacting to your cut and paste repetitive nonsense, you would finally post something worth responding to.

Also, I commend how closely you have been following me. I only mentioned that I don't believe in Christianity in one single post, if I remember right. You must print out my posts and study them late at night, to instantly recall that one post.

My statement was "Christianity is false," in response to a moronic poster (not Hollie this time) who thought that saying "if ______ then Christianity is false" would be a trump card.

It is true, that I don't believe in Christianity. Unlike many posters on here, I don't feel the need to ridicule and berate those who do. That kind of behavior indicates a lack of confidence in one's own beliefs. Unlike many posters on here, I don't feel the need to ridicule and berate those who do.

“Unlike many posters on here, I don't feel the need to ridicule and berate those who do. “

“…response to a moronic poster (not Hollie this time),”

Hilarious how you consistently make these pratfalls as you refute your own comments.

You do know that ID creationism is Christian fundamentalism, right?

 

[Seymour Flops]

'Irreducible' aside, it's the irreconcilable complexity that is the problem with the ToE.

Yes, that is a good phrase. That is what I meant by the first part of my post. The complexity of life on earth is irreconcilable with Darwin's theories.

The thing about Darwin is that he just dashed off a book based on some observations on a trip to the Americas. It was seized upon by people who had long been trying to reconcile their desire to not believe in God with the obvious design in life on Earth. As Richard Dawkins said, Darwin allowed atheists to feel more comfortable.

But only by wildly over-stating the importance of Darwin's ideas and their scientific soundness.

 

[Hollie]

Yes, that is a good phrase. That is what I meant by the first part of my post. The complexity of life on earth is irreconcilable with Darwin's theories.

The thing about Darwin is that he just dashed off a book based on some observations on a trip to the Americas. It was seized upon by people who had long been trying to reconcile their desire to not believe in God with the obvious design in life on Earth. As Richard Dawkins said, Darwin allowed atheists to feel more comfortable.

But only by wildly over-stating the importance of Darwin's ideas and their scientific soundness.

I never knew that. Evolutionary theory was a sinister plot “seized upon by people who had long been trying to reconcile their desire to not believe in God with the obvious design in life on Earth”.

Pretty cool though. It vastly expands the number of people involved in the conspiracy theories you float. How nice that people who aren’t a part of the supernatural creationer cabal are just those who had long been trying to deny your gods.

The thing about creationers is they may need counseling and psychoactive medications to address their conspiracy theories.

During Darwin's lifetime, the young and growing scientific community (growing in sophistication and testing methods), did not embrace all of his theory. However, they were convinced by the rigorous detail in "Origin of Species" that the fact of evolution was true. It was only during the decades after his death that his basic theory was combined with the new science of population genetics that convinced biologists that Natural Selection provides the best answers toward explaining the biological diversity on the planet. The principle of the scientific method and process is that such theories are tested and open to peer review. Exceeding what Darwin could have hoped for, the testing that continues even now, and the continued scientific verification of theory, has only strengthened the support for biological evolution.

 

[Hollie]

'Irreducible' aside, it's the irreconcilable complexity that is the problem with the ToE.

What in nature, what in biology is irreconcilably complex?

Example?

Note. Don’t use the eye as an example. That’s a standard creationer example and one that’s been debunked / ridiculed since forever.

 

[Woodznutz]

I never knew that. Evolutionary theory was a sinister plot “seized upon by people who had long been trying to reconcile their desire to not believe in God with the obvious design in life on Earth”.

Pretty cool though. It vastly expands the number of people involved in the conspiracy theories you float. How nice that people who aren’t a part of the supernatural creationer cabal are just those who had long been trying to deny your gods.

The thing about creationers is they may need counseling and psychoactive medications to address their conspiracy theories.

During Darwin's lifetime, the young and growing scientific community (growing in sophistication and testing methods), did not embrace all of his theory. However, they were convinced by the rigorous detail in "Origin of Species" that the fact of evolution was true. It was only during the decades after his death that his basic theory was combined with the new science of population genetics that convinced biologists that Natural Selection provides the best answers toward explaining the biological diversity on the planet. The principle of the scientific method and process is that such theories are tested and open to peer review. Exceeding what Darwin could have hoped for, the testing that continues even now, and the continued scientific verification of theory, has only strengthened the support for biological evolution.

I didn't realize that evolution had actually been observed (the evolution that most believe that is). The theory is built on a series of unimaginably huge quantum leaps is it not?

 

[Woodznutz]

What in nature, what in biology is irreconcilably complex?

Example?

Note. Don’t use the eye as an example. That’s a standard creationer example and one that’s been debunked / ridiculed since forever.

The eye is an excellent example, although any part of the body would do. How does the ToE reconcile the emotions, thoughts, and other reactions to what the eye sees. And how does the eye even 'see' in the first place?

 

[Hollie]

I didn't realize that evolution had actually been observed (the evolution that most believe that is). The theory is built on a series of unimaginably huge quantum leaps is it not?

Of course evolution has been observed. Shocker! A great deal of medical science uses germ theory to understand mutations in genes as a way to produce drugs ( antibiotics for one example), or seasonal flu shots for another example. And no, evolutionary theory is not built on any series of unimaginably huge quantum leaps. I believe I know where you got that notion from but that’s why science cures disease while so-called “creation science” cures, well… nothing at all.

Here’s an example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-taller/94ba4f2d-68f9-49ed-9617-0d3287f41a1f/


And this:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

My expectation is that you dismiss it all but I could go on for pages and pages. What are your countering arguments? Can you show me an example of the gods magical powers? What diseases have the gods cured?

What populations have the gods made taller using supernaturalism?

 

[Woodznutz]

Of course evolution has been observed. Shocker! A great deal of medical science uses germ theory to understand mutations in genes as a way to produce drugs ( antibiotics for one example), or seasonal flu shots for another example. And no, evolutionary theory is not built on any series of unimaginably huge quantum leaps. I believe I know where you got that notion from but that’s why science cures disease while so-called “creation science” cures, well… nothing at all.

Here’s an example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-taller/94ba4f2d-68f9-49ed-9617-0d3287f41a1f/


And this:

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

My expectation is that you dismiss it all but I could go on for pages and pages. What are your countering arguments? Can you show me an example of the gods magical powers? What diseases have the gods cured?

What populations have the gods made taller using supernaturalism?

God prevents more disease than science cures, through the immune system. I don't think mutation and adaptation are actually evolution, as it is commonly understood.

 

[Hollie]

The eye is an excellent example, although any part of the body would do. How does the ToE reconcile the emotions, thoughts, and other reactions to what the eye sees. And how does the eye even 'see' in the first place?

Not such a good example for creationism because we both know that I can produce evidence while the industry of creationer’ism cannot.

Let’s look (<——-see what I did there), at the eye.

Eyes 500 Million Years Old, Australian Scientist Says | Sci.News

Prof Trevor Lamb has published a major scientific review of the origin of the vertebrate eye and vision, summarizing the results of hundreds of studies.

www.sci-news.com

Prof Trevor Lamb of the Australian National University has published a major scientific review of the origin of the vertebrate eye and vision, summarizing the results of hundreds of studies.


The deep origins of ‘sight’ go back more than 700 million years when the earth was inhabited only by single-celled amoeba-like animals, algae, corals and bacteria. At this time the first light-sensitive chemicals, known as opsins, made their appearance and were used in rudimentary ways by some organisms to sense day from night.

Over the following 200 million years those simple light-sensitive cells and their opsins slowly and progressively became better at detecting light until around 500 million years ago they already closely resembled the cone cells of our present day eyes.

There is a great deal more at the link and the review goes on to supply a detailed study.


Now, here’s something interesting.
Charles Darwin had doubts about how the all-seeing, all-knowing eye could have evolved. However, he wrote almost four pages describing what he proposed a plausible series of iintermediate stages by which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872). CB301: Eye complexity

• photosensitive cell
• aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
• an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
• pigment cells forming a small depression
• pigment cells forming a deeper depression
• the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
• muscles allowing the lens to adjust

So, let’s compare the output of science investigation and testing vs. the output of creationer ministries. Let’s narrowly apply that in regard to our understanding of the evolution of the eye. Now, ask yourself a simple question: How do creationer ministries explain the eye?
The gawds did it™.

That answer (or lack thereof) may not shock you but it should because the above is the full extent of ID’iot creationers contribution to science. Nothing.

 

[Hollie]

God prevents more disease than science cures, through the immune system. I don't think mutation and adaptation are actually evolution, as it is commonly understood.

The gods prevent disease? No kidding?

Tell us how. Identify your source for that.

What is the mechanism used by the gods to prevent disease?

Why do the gods prevent disease only on a part time basis? Are they too busy with their administrative duties to care about preventing cancer thus allowing people to die? That doesn’t seem to indicate responsible or competent gods.

 

[Woodznutz]

Not such a good example for creationism because we both know that I can produce evidence while the industry of creationer’ism cannot.

Let’s look (<——-see what I did there), at the eye.

Eyes 500 Million Years Old, Australian Scientist Says | Sci.News

Prof Trevor Lamb has published a major scientific review of the origin of the vertebrate eye and vision, summarizing the results of hundreds of studies.

www.sci-news.com

Prof Trevor Lamb of the Australian National University has published a major scientific review of the origin of the vertebrate eye and vision, summarizing the results of hundreds of studies.


The deep origins of ‘sight’ go back more than 700 million years when the earth was inhabited only by single-celled amoeba-like animals, algae, corals and bacteria. At this time the first light-sensitive chemicals, known as opsins, made their appearance and were used in rudimentary ways by some organisms to sense day from night.

Over the following 200 million years those simple light-sensitive cells and their opsins slowly and progressively became better at detecting light until around 500 million years ago they already closely resembled the cone cells of our present day eyes.

There is a great deal more at the link and the review goes on to supply a detailed study.


Now, here’s something interesting.
Charles Darwin had doubts about how the all-seeing, all-knowing eye could have evolved. However, he wrote almost four pages describing what he proposed a plausible series of iintermediate stages by which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872). CB301: Eye complexity

• photosensitive cell
• aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
• an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
• pigment cells forming a small depression
• pigment cells forming a deeper depression
• the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
• muscles allowing the lens to adjust

So, let’s compare the output of science investigation and testing vs. the output of creationer ministries. Let’s narrowly apply that in regard to our understanding of the evolution of the eye. Now, ask yourself a simple question: How do creationer ministries explain the eye?
The gawds did it™.

That answer (or lack thereof) may not shock you but it should because the above is the full extent of ID’iot creationers contribution to science. Nothing.

There's those quantum leaps I was talking about.

Science has physical evidence from 700 million years ago?

 

[Woodznutz]

The gods prevent disease? No kidding?

Tell us how. Identify your source for that.

What is the mechanism used by the gods to prevent disease?

Why do the gods prevent disease only on a part time basis? Are they too busy with their administrative duties to care about preventing cancer thus allowing people to die? That doesn’t seem to indicate responsible or competent gods.

The bible is the best source for advice about health. It also reveals why people are so sick. Every piece of advice has been supported by medical science. It also reveals man's (average) life span, which is spot on today.