David Bailey
Member
I think this video puts the case for Intelligent Design (or at least the case that Darwin's theory doesn't cut it) very clearly.
Discuss!
David
Discuss!
David
I dislike the term ID because it suggests Superman, someone like ourselves but much smarter, mind at large that's settled for engineering programmes as a specialist discipline.
Agreed, and I don't really imagine Yaweh as a biochemical nerd! I think the intelligence would be more like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields, which as far as I can see, have to be intelligent!I dislike the term ID because it suggests Superman, someone like ourselves but much smarter, mind at large that's settled for engineering programmes as a specialist discipline. I think God is more subtle than the geek ID suggests, but can see why irreducible complexity gets the right people's pants on fire.
That just isn't true. The crucial point is that irreducibly complex systems, are systems that can't really do anything useful with parts missing. This is the crucial point - evolution by natural selection needs to work one step at a time, and for each step to provide an advantage.There are a lot of assumptions in ID, the major one that evolution had a predetermined end-point in mind.
I think the point is that the other side in this debate simply claimed that a small part of the flagellum was used for something else. However,I have no idea whether the graphics and voiceover authentically reflect the revolution that's implied, but I know for certain the responses to it are not driven by a studied unpicking of the theory, but a desire to lash out at the implications with any tool at hand.
I gave the film my full attention, my concern was the graphics made the bacterium look like a machine and labelled the parts stator, propeller and so on. I've no reason to doubt the validity of the comparison, and I got that a system can be sophisticated and indivisible. It's the design aspect that's coy, with the earnestness the term implies. I prefer created and not just because it makes some people self ignite.Agreed, and I don't really imagine Yaweh as a biochemical nerd! I think the intelligence would be more like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields, which as far as I can see, have to be intelligent!
I haven't studied this, but what struck me about the video is the irreducible complexity argument.Before we go looking for design in evolution, should we not first be looking for evolution in design?
https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www....cterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/amp/I haven't studied this, but what struck me about the video is the irreducible complexity argument.
I would much prefer to analyze the supposed problem this presents for evolution via random mutation/natural selection first.
Let's leave God, religion, dogma, bias, out of it. Is there a sufficient scientific explanation for the flagella through Darwinian evolution? If not, what is the implication?
Which, i believe is plausibly shown to be soI think the point is that the other side in this debate simply claimed that a small part of the flagellum was used for something else. However,
1) Every part would need to be useful in some way in order to get created by NS.
From wiki:2) Apparently the simpler device that could be made from some parts of the flagellum, came on the scene after the flagellum, not before.
Dembski has argued that phylogenetically, the TTSS is found in a narrow range of bacteria which makes it seem to him to be a late innovation, whereas flagella are widespread throughout many bacterial groups, and he argues that it was an early innovation.[83][84] Against Dembski's argument, different flagella use completely different mechanisms, and publications show a plausible path in which bacterial flagella could have evolved from a secretion system.[85]
The argument suggests we wouldn't know how to distinguish design from non-design. If that's true, we wouldn't be able to recognise anything, and certainly would not be able to attribute something to natural selection. If you adopt the same approach to language there should be millions of variation of not only spoken language, but sonic and written variation. Human language isn't that diverse. If you adopt the same approach to Darwinism, memes might get as far a primitive jelly fish as a genetic constant, but why they should leave the sea, light fire and write poetry?I haven't studied this, but what struck me about the video is the irreducible complexity argument.
I would much prefer to analyze the supposed problem this presents for evolution via random mutation/natural selection first.
Let's leave God, religion, dogma, bias, out of it. Is there a sufficient scientific explanation for the flagella through Darwinian evolution? If not, what is the implication?
What problem? every form of complexity is reducible to it's parts. What can be missing, is the explanation for how we got to these parts.I haven't studied this, but what struck me about the video is the irreducible complexity argument.
I would much prefer to analyze the supposed problem this presents for evolution via random mutation/natural selection first.
That horse has bolted, the video is a product of the Discovery Institute, a dogmatic, religious, very biased organization that has literally vowed to replace science with religion.Let's leave God, religion, dogma, bias, out of it.
Yes, but that is the wrong question, the burden of evidence is on those who claim something like irreducible complexity is actually possible.Is there a sufficient scientific explanation for the flagella through Darwinian evolution?
While testifying during the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[111]
Yes - I think this is key to the modern ID argument .I mean, if you went to the moon and came across a cache of components for making an alien spacecraft, you would obviously know that these had been made and collected by an intelligent being, or perhaps some sort of robot which had itself been designed by an intelligent being.I haven't studied this, but what struck me about the video is the irreducible complexity argument.
I would much prefer to analyze the supposed problem this presents for evolution via random mutation/natural selection first.
Which, i believe is plausibly shown to be so
From wiki:
......publications show a plausible path in which bacterial flagella could have evolved from a secretion system.[85]
Besides that, to me the concept of irreducible complexity has a fatal logical/philosophical problem, it is based on a lack of knowledge, and therefore becomes an argument from ignorance, or a "design of the gaps" argument.
If we take the flagellum, we seem to be able to give a reasonable explanation for every step in it's evolution, and the functions these intermediate steps fulfilled, despite what the Discoverites may say.
But we do not, and can not, know everything. So it is conceivable that at some time, someone will find a molecular biological process that is both complex, and not fully explained with current knowledge.
Does irreducible complexity then suddenly become viable again?, what if we find a possible explanation for half of the process? Is irreducible complexity then suddenly half possible?
A bit later we find another part of the puzzle, irreducible complexity is only 25% of a concept?
So if the viability of this concept lives in the gaps of our scientific understanding, it can only get even less viable as science progresses.
Nbtruthman,
Given what you have written, do you think there is any possibility of finding a materialist explanation for evolution, as the group known as "The Third Way" seem to think:
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
It seems to me that arguments regarding irreducible complexity are very general, and therefore very interesting.
David
[Besides that, to me the concept of irreducible complexity has a fatal logical/philosophical problem, it is based on a lack of knowledge, and therefore becomes an argument from ignorance, or a "design of the gaps" argument./QUOTE]
The irony evolution, big band are arguments from ignorance and "designs of the gaps"
This is my feeling too - the extra complexity makes combinatorial arguments a lot less easy to make, but there is no reason to expect the result to provide a shortcut to fitness. It may just supply endless fuel for hand waiving!At this point, I don't think so. It seems to me the "Third Way" credo merely expands the number of reductive materialist ways that genetic variation can occur; they are all mechanisms that still result in genetic changes that are mostly random with respect to fitness. Suggestions that the intracellular machinery incorporates mechanisms that "purposefully" modify parts of the genome in just the right ways needed in response to particular stresses, etc. just push the problem down the road a little. Then it has to be explained how such what must be intricate mechanisms originally came about, and so on.
Does he explain, even in outline, how those choices could be made? I mean, given that changes in the structure of DNA often result in different folding of the resulting protein, I doubt if the best protein chemists would do well at this job!"However, if the pool of variations that need to be selected contains a much higher percentage of potentially successful variations, then the selection process can succeed in a far shorter time than what’s needed for purely random variations. This concentration of potentially successful variations can be achieved only if such variations are due to choices based on the understanding, or self-knowing, achieved by the co-evolving consciousness. Only in this way is it possible to climb the probability mountain to the hugely improbable peaks that we observe in nature, within a time frame commensurate with the time scale of environmental changes that require adaptation."
Does he explain, even in outline, how those choices could be made? I mean, given that changes in the structure of DNA often result in different folding of the resulting protein, I doubt if the best protein chemists would do well at this job!
David
Besides that, to me the concept of irreducible complexity has a fatal logical/philosophical problem, it is based on a lack of knowledge, and therefore becomes an argument from ignorance, or a "design of the gaps" argument./QUOTE]
The irony evolution, big band are arguments from ignorance and "designs of the gaps"