Evidence for Design #1 - Complexity, irreducible and otherwise

[Colin norris]

The basic idea of complexity as an argument in favor of design, and against the random mutations required by Darwinism is that random processes do not create complex systems that work together.

Suppose you wrote a thousand basic English words on individual cards. Then you write the conjugations of all the verbs, all the pronoun forms, and say the top two hundred first names, on separate cards. So you would get maybe three thousand cards (a guess).

Randomly pull any two cards and line them up in the order you pulled them and a non-zero percent of the time, you will get a complete sentence that makes sense. "John works." "She smiles." "Cats fight." etc. Mainly you will get unusable sentence fragments "Purple tire," "Happy stripe," "brick bumper," etc.

Make it three cards and the percent of three card sequences that create a sentence will sharply drop. Four, five, six, and so on, the percent approaches zero very rapidly. You'll wear out your arm drawing cards waiting for a sentence to appear.

Darwin's theory consists of confidence that such random process improbabilities have occurred over and over, literally billions of times. It could have happened, sure. It's nearly impossible for one person to win the lotto twice, but some guy in Maryland did it recently.

But "could happen," is a far cry from "did happen," and an even further cry from "Of course it happened, and only a religious fanatic would even dare doubt that it happened FOR SURE!"

It is far more likely that the evolutionary process was guided by design.

Michael Behe wrote about "irreducible complexity," at the molecular level in living organisms. I feel that I can understand his argument, but I'm not sure if I could explain it, particularly to the members of this forum. So I'll quote him and you can judge for yourself.

I defined an irreducibly complex system as: a single system which is necessarily 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 2001)

As an example of an irreducibly complex system from everyday life, I pointed to a mechanical mousetrap such as one finds in a hardware store. Typically such traps have a number of parts: a spring, wooden platform, hammer, and other pieces. If one removes a piece from the trap, it can’t catch mice.

Irreducibly complex systems seem very difficult to fit into a Darwinian framework, for a reason insisted upon by Darwin himself. In the Origin Darwin wrote that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

The question then becomes, are there any irreducibly complex systems in the cell? Are there any irreducibly complex molecular machines? Yes, there are many. In Darwin’s Black Box I discussed several biochemical systems as examples of irreducible complexity: the eukaryotic cilium; the intracellular transport system; and more. Here I will just briefly describe the bacterial flagellum (DeRosier 1998; Shapiro 1995), since its structure makes the difficulty for Darwinian evolution easy to see. (Figure 19.1) The flagellum can be thought of as an outboard motor that bacteria use to swim. It was the first truly rotary structure discovered in nature. It consists of a long filamentous tail that acts as a propeller; when it is spun it pushes against the liquid medium and can propel the bacterium forward. The propeller is attached to the drive shaft indirectly through something called the hook region, which acts as a universal joint. The drive shaft is attached to the motor, which uses a flow of acid or sodium ions from the outside of the cell to the inside to power rotation. Just as an outboard motor has to be kept stationary on a motorboat while the propeller turns, there are proteins which act as a stator structure to keep the flagellum in place. Other proteins act as bushings to permit the drive shaft to pass through the bacterial membrane. Studies have shown that 30-40 proteins are required to produce a functioning flagellum in the cell. About half of the proteins are components of the finished structure, while the others are necessary for the construction of the flagellum.

View attachment 597891

https://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/Faculty/Behe/PDF/Behe_chapter.pdf

You guys a certainly desperate to align yourself with evolution.
YOU are becoming more irrelevant each day.

 

[ding]

You guys a certainly desperate to align yourself with evolution.
YOU are becoming more irrelevant each day.

The truth is always relevant

 

[alang1216]

I read your posts. I know you better than you think I do.

Your arrogance is noted.

I meant monotheists. Monotheists were the first to disassociate the affairs of God and men. Although I suspect you would never be convinced of that.

So Christians have disassociated from God? News to me.

No. I meant God. What you are describing are perceptions of God. It's one of the sillier arguments of atheists.

One God, infinite perceptions? Now that is silly. Does God want human sacrifice? Do we reincarnate based on our karma?

[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

Says otherwise.

This says it is moot.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thanks Matthew but I think you and Seymour Flops have started from a place of faith and have worked backwards from there. You both share the same log, it is called the Bible.

What is the point of debating someone who falsely states my position and then argues against that strawman?

Which posts of mine lead you to say that the Bible is my "log?"

 

[alang1216]

Ummmm... no. I am explaining how finely tuned our universe is for life and intelligence. Within the scientific community this is seen as unusual. I am not the first person to make this argument.

Maybe, but recent studies, detailed in a new report by the Foundational Questions Institute, FQXi, propose that intelligent life could have evolved under drastically different physical conditions

Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

So there was no physical world before a mind came into being? Sorry, can't wrap my tiny brain around such a concept.

 

[alang1216]

No. I can only know what I can observe. I can observe the material world which is exactly what I did to reach my conclusions.

Technically anyone who uses logic and speaks the truth knows what God knows about that specific topic. God is logic. God is truth. I'm not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. It's that whole perception of God thing that you have never given any thought to.

So you can define for yourself what are God's attributes? Where does that place you in the hierarchy?

 

[alang1216]

What is the point of debating someone who falsely states my position and then argues against that strawman?

Which posts of mine lead you to say that the Bible is my "log?"

You believe in creationism so you must believe in a creator and, statistically, your version of a creator likely comes from the Bible. Feel free to correct me if I misspote.

 

[alang1216]

Logic demands a first cause. You think it's logical to keep saying what came before that? It's not.

So was there a first cause for God? You claim God is logic so what caused God?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You believe in creationism so you must believe in a creator and, statistically, your version of a creator likely comes from the Bible. Feel free to correct me if I misspote.

You misspoke.

I don't believe in "creationism," which is an attempt to falsely reconcile the Bible's version of the beginning of the universe and life with what we observe in the real world.

My idea of a designer is not from the bible, nor anywhere else except the apparent and pretty obvious design in life on Earth.

Let me give you an example that may help you get what I mean. I realize that it is hard to accept that I'm not in the same category as others who claim to see proof of God in what is observable.

Suppose two space pilots fly to a distant star with a seemingly inhabitable planet. But when they get there, all of their tests show no life, they observe no life and they even contemplate everything they see, like rocks, soil, and water, asking whether it might be some life form that they had not thought of. But nothing fits the bill. It is an apparently lifeless planet.

Until they top a hill and look down to see a large windmill connected to a generator that is pumping water out of the ground and filling a huge cistern. They search far and wide, re-tracing their steps over the planet looking for life. They find none.

One astronaut says, "well, that settles it. No life on this planet, and no evidence that there ever was."

Her partner says, "wait, something was living here. Something that was intelligent enough to design that windmill/water pump/cistern."

The first astronaut laughs and calls the second a religious nut. "We already proved there is nothing living on this planet. Because we found nothing. Show me this designer, or at least tell me exactly what this designer is like. Give me every detail."

The second say, "I have no idea what the designer was like, but look at that design. There must have been a designer."

Do you agree with the first astronaut or the second?

 

[ding]

Your arrogance is noted.

It's not arrogance. It's reality. You have no perception of God other than fairy tale. You can prove me wrong at any time by telling me your perception of God. You can't find what you don't know you are looking for. And you don't know what you are looking for because you have an unrealistic perception.

So Christians have disassociated from God? News to me.

This goes back to your unrealistic perception of God as a tinkerer of men's live controlling the affairs of men. Christians haven't disassociated from God. They don't expect God to do magic for them like you do. Your perception of God is decidedly anti-intellectual. It's the perception of a twelve year old child.

One God, infinite perceptions? Now that is silly. Does God want human sacrifice? Do we reincarnate based on our karma?

You are being silly. Yes, one God many different perceptions. Apparently you believe uniformity is good. Look around. Uniformity is unhealthy.

This says it is moot.

No, it doesn't.

I love it when people use google to look for something they think backs up their beliefs on the internet without understanding the first thing about it. You just can't understand it. It's a math gimmick to avoid the singularity - which is another thing you probably don't have a correct understanding of what it is. So, no, it dos not say the universe being created from nothing is moot.

There is no material difference in the two cases, it is still based on a universe being created from nothing. It's still multiverse theory.

 

[ding]

Maybe, but recent studies, detailed in a new report by the Foundational Questions Institute, FQXi, propose that intelligent life could have evolved under drastically different physical conditions

Interesting. So you should be able to tell me which fundamental cosmic parameters are finely tuned for life, right? I mean if you are going to argue that the universe isn't finely tuned for life then you ought to be able to show how it isn't, right? Which fundamental parameter do you want to start with? How about the electrical charges of protons and electrons? Or the distance between electrons and the nucleus?

So there was no physical world before a mind came into being? Sorry, can't wrap my tiny brain around such a concept.

What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

 

[ding]

So you can define for yourself what are God's attributes? Where does that place you in the hierarchy?

Logic can. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. Therefore, God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute.

 

[ding]

So was there a first cause for God? You claim God is logic so what caused God?

That was already addressed. The only solution to the first cause conundrum is some "thing" which is eternal. Which means "it" must be unchanging. For if it changes - by definition - it cannot be eternal. Which means it can be no "thing." Because "things" are not unchanging and therefore cannot be eternal.

Mind has always existed as the source or matrix of existence.

 

[ding]

Comedy gold. "Apparent design".

That is among those really, really juvenile attempts using nonsensical scenarios to make false analogies.

Now, if your astronauts had encountered shrubbery that spontaneously burst into flames, that would have been a believable story.


"apparent design". Comedy gold.

Look at you finally getting the courage to respond to a post of mine. My post must have struck a nerve.

 

[Hollie]

You misspoke.

I don't believe in "creationism," which is an attempt to falsely reconcile the Bible's version of the beginning of the universe and life with what we observe in the real world.

My idea of a designer is not from the bible, nor anywhere else except the apparent and pretty obvious design in life on Earth.

Let me give you an example that may help you get what I mean. I realize that it is hard to accept that I'm not in the same category as others who claim to see proof of God in what is observable.

Suppose two space pilots fly to a distant star with a seemingly inhabitable planet. But when they get there, all of their tests show no life, they observe no life and they even contemplate everything they see, like rocks, soil, and water, asking whether it might be some life form that they had not thought of. But nothing fits the bill. It is an apparently lifeless planet.

Until they top a hill and look down to see a large windmill connected to a generator that is pumping water out of the ground and filling a huge cistern. They search far and wide, re-tracing their steps over the planet looking for life. They find none.

One astronaut says, "well, that settles it. No life on this planet, and no evidence that there ever was."

Her partner says, "wait, something was living here. Something that was intelligent enough to design that windmill/water pump/cistern."

The first astronaut laughs and calls the second a religious nut. "We already proved there is nothing living on this planet. Because we found nothing. Show me this designer, or at least tell me exactly what this designer is like. Give me every detail."

The second say, "I have no idea what the designer was like, but look at that design. There must have been a designer."

Do you agree with the first astronaut or the second?

That is among those really, really juvenile attempts using nonsensical scenarios to make false analogies.

Now, if your astronauts had encountered shrubbery that spontaneously burst into flames, that would have been a believable story.


"apparent design". Comedy gold.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is the point of debating someone who falsely states my position and then argues against that strawman?

I.E., you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Look at you finally getting the courage to respond to a post of mine. My post must have struck a nerve.

That stalker . . . sorry . . . poster . . . won't respond to any posts of mine, either. She'll obsessively reply to them, but her replies never address my posts so they are not responses.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That stalker . . . sorry . . . poster . . . won't respond to any posts of mine, either. She'll obsessively reply to them, but her replies never address my posts so they are not responses.

Haha, says the sissy who ran and hid from a video that obliterated his idiot thread.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Haha, says the sissy who ran and hid from a video that obliterated his idiot thread.

I hope you're not talking about that Richard Dawkins as Bill Nye video . . .

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I hope you're not talking about that Richard Dawkins as Bill Nye video . . .

Yes, the one geared towards children and simple people like you, that you ran away from.

So, when do you plan to stop playing with yourself on message boards and publish your research?

Or, I could give you the email of a evolutionary biologist.