Intelligent Design (pure)

WookieeB · Jan 28, 2015

Teax said:
you cannot just transfer statements you make about (taking parts away) to (building stuff) unless you add some additional assumptions..... and you did:
finally you revealed the assumption that you used to connect the cyan and green points from above:

a step is the adding of a part

Wow!...just wow! I'm surprised you just got that. I have been saying that from the beginning of this IC discussion, though perhaps not spelled out in exactly the same words.

So for a review for you and for the new initiates, let me spell it out as it relates to NS.

An IC system needs all its parts in place in order to perform its high-level function. You cannot build an IC system one part at a time and have it function. It has to be built up until you get the last part in place and only then it functions. Each part has a sub-function, that when combined with other parts contributes to the whole high-level function of the IC system.

NS only works when it can select for small, incremental changes (mutations) to something (like a pre-existing, already existing system) and that something continues to function, or it can opportunely stumble upon something newly created (through very unlikley processes) that exhibits a new function and select it.

But NS has a problem in building a multi-part system. Creating each individual part in a system is at the least equivalent to a mutation happening somewhere. NS would not select just one part at a time, because one part by itself has no selectable function in itself. All parts have to be together for the selectable function. Please understand that a part sub-function is in no way directly related to the high-level system function. So for a two part system, NS all at once would have to 'find' the correct part #1 (with it's sub-function) AND 'find' the correct part #2 (with it's sub-function) AND 'find' the proper instructions to combine the parts. So, at it's most basic, NS has to come across 3 particular (specified) mutations in order to build a two-part system.

As more than one part is required in a system, the difficulty for NS to come across something to select ramps up correspondingly.

That's all NS can do? Just like LEGO! No wonder you were asking me where the instruction manual came from

Despite your obvious humor at the idea, LEGO is actually a fair analogy.

The motor to evolutionary change is random-mutation(RM), not coming-up-with-parts. Evolution never claimed to do the thing that IC tries to refute

For evolution and a multi-part system, random-mutation(RM) = coming-up-with-parts. Part of the question that evolution has to answer is where do the parts come from.

(reverse of IC) ≠ (evolution)

which is the exact same thing as

(IC) ≠ (reverse of evolution)

Regardless of whatever rhetorical terms you want to create and use, you are still dodging the question. To put it into your 'chart' terms.

evolution: ? -> ? -> working IC system

Please fill in the "?"'s

I noticed in your breakdown of evolution, you don't address how to get an IC system, when that has been the core question from the beginning. Frankly, all your explanations start with a "working system" of some sort. I cannot see any difference between "working system" and "working non-IC system", because they seem to be the same thing and you havent addressed getting to an IC system.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
[b]evolution[/b]:    │ working system     -> add parts     -> working non-IC system. │
              └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I would love for you to give an example of what a "working system" or "working non-IC system" is in this scenario.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
[b]evolution[/b]:    │ work non-IC system -> remove parts  -> working system.        │
              └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

So neither of these is an IC system, obviously, since removing parts from an IC system is not a working system.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
[b]evolution[/b]:    │ working system     -> modify system -> working system.        │
              └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

This one I completely agree with. This is about the only thing that NS does well. But I would point out that the resulting "working system" basically still has the starting function, only it now does it better and/or it works in a new environment.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
[b]evolution[/b]:    │ working system     -> combo move    -> working system.        │
              └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Again, this is possible and does occur, but it is limited in how big a "combo" is being referred to. It's been empirically shown that if you are talking more than 2 maladaptive mutations, or more than 6 neutral mutations, before providing an advantage, it could not arise within the entire history of the earth.

because evolution is building a system (going forward in time) and IC is talking about removing parts (going backwards in time).

Evolution building a system <---- That is what I am talking about. How does evolution BUILD....anything?

No, IC is not talking about going backwards in time. Reference your 'revelation' above to show that.

reverse-IC is talking about inability building an irreducible sytem by adding a part.

Evolution, even if it decides to add a part, it would build a reducible system.

You've already admitted that the premise of IC is true, and linked it to a system like the eye. So are you now changing the story and trying to deny that IC exists?

So if you are rejecting what you call "reverse-IC", I ask that you please provide an explanation for making (not reversing) an IC system. Or do you no longer agree that there is such a thing as IC?

Evolution, if it decides to add a part, it would build a reducible system. OK, I agree in principle, though I would want to know what you consider a reducible system. But this is irrelevant (as you so like to use the term). We are not talking about building a "reducible" system. How do you build an irreducible system?

Or are you somehow trying to imply that an irreducible system is really a reducible system?

Therefore independent of whether evolution actually allows for CSI to emerge naturally, IC is a peacefully unrelated property of systems.

Hardly! You have not demonstrated this at all. You've gone off the rails with this statement

"Whether evolution actually allows for CSI to emerge naturally" is a portion of the central question. That is basically another way of asking 'whether NS can build an IC system". It is not independent, it is critical. All you have done is try to try to deflect the actual question under consideration and misdirect with other irrelevant info.

After this whole long discussion and your charts above, how can you say: "IC is a peacefully unrelated property of systems"?

Teax · Jan 28, 2015

Wow!...just wow! I'm surprised you just got that. I have been saying that from the beginning of this IC discussion, though perhaps not spelled out in exactly the same words.

I needed you to spell it out.

to me it's such a completelly irrational assumption... the words "You believe NS can only add parts" would have been uttered by me only as a joking insult to your logical abilities.... nvm it turns out that was exactly what you believed.....

Regardless of whatever rhetorical terms you want to create and use

what is rhetorical about reversing? <-- click on it.

No, IC is not talking about going backwards in time. Reference your 'revelation' above to show that.

Your revelation confirms that IC is going backwards in time when it talks about removing a part, and there is no other way to interpret it. do you understand what going backwards in time means? do you understand/agree with this sentence: "adding a part is the reverse of removing a part".

Do you understand what "reverse" means?

Code:

   broken                                   working
 ┌─────────┐ adding a part(reverseIC)───► ┌─────────┐
 │ 5 parts ├──────────────────────────────┤ 6 parts │
 └─────────┘    ◄─── removing a part(IC)  └─────────┘

    ◄─── backwards in time    forwards in time ───►
time ────────────────────────────────────────────────►

LEGO is actually a fair analogy.

in lego you cannot remove parts from somewhere inside the struture or modify portions of the system to obtain different systems. Additionally in lego you have a goal, a "target system that needs to be built at the end of the day" which creates the need for an instruction manual.

evolution is the opposite in each of those aspects.

An IC system needs all its parts in place in order to perform its high-level function. You cannot build an IC system one part at a time and have it function. It has to be built up until you get the last part in place and only then it functions.

now you're saying part, and I agree, if you restrict yourself to step=part then what you say makes sence. It has nothing to do with evolution though, so neither do any of your conclusions.

You have a habit to jump from one assertion to the other like a jackrabbit without any sence of what's related or not. What you said is true but evolution is not limited to adding parts. You might want to get into the habit of exposing and questioning your own assumptions. Since you obviously like to ponder

reverse-IC is talking about inability building an irreducible sytem by adding a part.

Evolution, even if it decides to add a part, it would build a reducible system.

Click to expand...

You've already admitted that the premise of IC is true, and linked it to a system like the eye. So are you now changing the story and trying to deny that IC exists? no

So if you are rejecting what you call "reverse-IC"I don't, I ask that you please provide an explanation for making (not reversing) an IC system. Or do you no longer agree that there is such a thing as IC? there still is

Evolution, if it decides to add a part, it would build a reducible system. OK, I agree in principle, though I would want to know what you consider a reducible system. But this is irrelevant (as you so like to use the term). We are not talking about building a "reducible" system. How do you build an irreducible system? see below

Or are you somehow trying to imply that an irreducible system is really a reducible system? no

A reducible system is the exact logical opposite of IC: a part exists that can be removed and the system still works to some extent.

some replies are inside the quote.

you build IC anyway you want, as long as the last step is not a pure-adding-of-a-part-step.

you are still dodging the question. To put it into your 'chart' terms.

evolution: ? -> ? -> working IC system

Please fill in the "?"'s

I noticed in your breakdown of evolution, you don't address how to get an IC system

everytime I omitted the IC/non-IC, it means you can have whatever you want. here's the table again:

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
              │[color=Gray] start with         -> action        -> result                 [/color]│
┌─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│[b]IC[/b]:          │ working IC system  -> remove parts  -> broken system.         │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│[b][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function]reverse[/url] of IC[/b]│ broken system      -> add parts     -> working IC system.     │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│[b]evolution[/b]:   │ work IC/nIC system -> add parts     -> work non-IC system.    │
│             │ work non-IC system -> remove parts  -> work IC/nIC system.    │
│             │ work IC/nIC system -> modify system -> work IC/nIC system.    │
│             │ work IC/nIC system -> combo move    -> work IC/nIC system.    │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
evolution:    │ work non-IC system -> remove parts  -> working system.        │
              └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

So neither of these is an IC system, obviously, since removing parts from an IC system is not a working system.

obviously? Where did you just remove parts from? jack(rabbit), read the table again. we're not removing parts from an IC system. It's a reducable system.

Code:
Code:

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ evolution: │ working system -> modify system -> working system. │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

This one I completely agree with. This is about the only thing that NS does well. But I would point out that the resulting "working system" basically still has the starting function, only it now does it better and/or it works in a new environment.

You only agree with me because you misread me. I didn't say "modify part", I said "modify system". Functions are not necessarily preserved.

your preemptive objection to this, from #90:

changes (random mutations) to one part would probably have to be coordinated with changes in all the other parts, which affects your probability of success to a exponential degree

The interaction of any part with its neighbours is always local, so the modification required for a local improvement of a system are independent of the size of the system. exponential degree is just nonsence.

also, NS does not care about preserving interaction. Improving a system structure is by definition breaking the previous one. In such a case, the new system is new, it could be IC or not IC, because IC has nothing to do with any of this.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
evolution:    │ working system     -> combo move    -> working system.        │
              └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Again, this is possible and does occur, but it is limited in how big a "combo" is being referred to.

true but I'm not talking about chaining. to be precise every RM is potentially a combo. RM does not have any notion of what exactly is "adding/removing a part" and such. there's always some modification in the mix.

Therefore independent of whether evolution actually allows for CSI to emerge naturally, IC is a peacefully unrelated property of systems.

Click to expand...

Hardly! You have not demonstrated this at all. You've gone off the rails with this statement

"Whether evolution actually allows for CSI to emerge naturally" is a portion of the central question. That is basically another way of asking 'whether NS can build an IC system". It is not independent, it is critical. All you have done is try to try to deflect the actual question under consideration and misdirect with other irrelevant info.

After this whole long discussion and your charts above, how can you say: "IC is a peacefully unrelated property of systems"?

because IC is a property that prevents you from removing a part. If you however modify the system, or add a part, IC does not say anything about the system anymore. Anything can happen.

IC is a property that has only any effect if a certain set of restrictions are presumed, which we cannot have. I'm talking about your assumption about NS, where you claimed step=part.

It's like saying "how can a painter possibly draw circles.... he can draw squares, triangles, but circles are round!!!" it sounds ridiculous to you because you don't believe that "a painter can only draw straight lines". Drawing and straight are 2 unrelated properties. They both exist, and some lines are indeed straight, but that is unrelated to their property of being drawn.

IC is a defence against a tsunami, but is hit by a meteor, even if the defence was perfect, it was protecting against the wrong thing.

I would love for you to give an example

sure... how about this building-like-thingy. all blocks are not-connected, i mean not-glued-together. do you consider this to be an IC system? afterall, if you take away any part, the whole thing collapses:

if yes, I want you first to give it a try, do you really see no way to build this step-by-step? each step can only be one of these:

1 part added
1 part removed
1 part modified = grab and move it somewhere else.

If you give up, I will show two possible solutions with pictures in my next post.

Or maybe someone else who's reading this thread comes up with a solution first

I wonder how many essentially different solutions there actually are...

WookieeB · Jan 29, 2015

Teax said:
I needed you to say it.

to me it's such a completelly irrational assumption... the words "You believe NS can only add parts" would have been uttered by me only as a joking insult to your logical abilities.... nvm it turns out that was exactly what you believed.....

I never said “NS can only add parts”. Of course NS can take away parts, it breaks and deletes stuff all the time for a beneficial result. That’s about all it can really do.

But NS cannot effectively build anything. And that is what I keep asking you to show. How can NS build?

You do not seem to understand what IC is. For the record...again, IC is not taking away any parts. IC in fact says you CANNOT take away parts and retain function. So I am not sure why you keep thinking that IC means taking away parts. I never said it did. You really need to move on from this, because you are arguing against a position I have not taken.

what is rhetorical about reversing? <-- click on it.

Because only you are the one insisting on reversing. The only reference I have made to “reversing” is to say you cannot do it to an IC system. The fact that you cannot “reverse” something in an IC system is evidence that it needs to be whole from the beginning.

Your revelation confirms that IC is going backwards in time when it talks about removing a part, and there is no other way to interpret it.

Where have I talked about going back in time? I haven’t. I have always talked about the forward progress. Even when saying “if you take away a part, an IC system fails” I am referring to forward moving time. Take an IC system, go forward in time and delete/break a part, and continuing forward time shows that the IC system loses function. This is what scientists do in the lab.

Even the phrase that you are having a fit over: “a step is the adding of a part”, is not going backwards.

Do you understand what "reverse" means?

Of course I do. But “reverse” is not what I have been saying. I have been talking about building a system. IC says you need all the parts brought together and arranged before you get function, which is supported by the fact that you cannot (in the future) take away a part from the system and have it still function. How does RM+NS, starting at 0 parts and moving forward, get to (in your example) 6 parts?

What I am saying is:

Code:

   working                                   not
   system                                   working
 ┌─────────┐    removing a part(IC)  ───► ┌─────────┐
 │ 6 parts ├──────────────────────────────┤ 5 parts │
 └─────────┘                              └─────────┘ 
              forwards in time ───►
time ────────────────────────────────────────────────►

So how do you get 6 working parts to begin with?

time ────────────────────────────────────────────────►
How NS would need to build -

    not                                      not 
  working                                   working
 ┌─────────┐       adding a part   ───►   ┌─────────┐
 │ 0 part  ├──────────────────────────────┤ 1 part  │
 └─────────┘                              └─────────┘ 

  no function, so no reason to keep 1 part,
  ... but lets say part 1 stuck around and was neutral

  still not                                 still not 
  working                                   working
 ┌─────────┐       adding a part*  ───►   ┌─────────┐
 │ 1 part  ├──────────────────────────────┤ 2 parts │
 └─────────┘                              └─────────┘

 no function, so no reason to keep 2 parts,
 ... but lets say part 1 and 2 stuck around, neutral

....(repeat 3 more times)....

  still not                                 Finally 
  working                                   Working!
 ┌─────────┐       adding a part*  ───►   ┌─────────┐
 │ 5 parts ├──────────────────────────────┤ 6 parts │
 └─────────┘                              └─────────┘

* - parts and instructions for assembly have to be
    very specific

no it's not. in lego you cannot remove parts from somewhere inside the structure just like with IC, or modify portions of the system to obtain different systems, which would be sort of like co-option. Additionally in lego you have a goal, a "target system that needs to be built at the end of the day" which creates the need for an instruction manual.

evolution is the opposite in each of those aspects.

See my edits in the quote.
LEGO is a good analogy for an IC system.

I agree that evolution is opposite. But life is like assembled lego systems, and I submit that evolution could not make such systems.

now you're saying part, and I agree, if you restrict yourself to step=part then what you say makes sence. It has nothing to do with evolution though, so neither do any of your conclusions.

Okay!? So, if you cannot build an IC system up one part at a time and have that system function, then you need to build it all up at once in order to function. What is the alternative? Not build it up? - still no function obviously. (You allude to modifying something later, but that is not really explaining how the IC system is built up - will comment later)

you build IC anyway you want, as long as the last step is not a pure-adding-of-a-part-step.

This statement makes no sense to me. Since building an IC system is what I am questioning, you didnt really answer anything here. Why the restriction for the last step (and I do not really know what you mean by it anyways)?

here's the table again:

Ok, when I first saw your table, I thought you were showing 4 separate ways evolution could work. I didnt realize that you meant them to be sequential steps.

But after looking at it again, you haven’t really clarified anything, if anything you’ve muddled it more so..

Code:

evolution step 1
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│[B]evolution[/B]:   │ work IC/nIC system -> add parts     -> work non-IC system.    │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Ok, this is fairly irrelevant. If you are staring with a reducible system (non IC), this step is irrelevant.

IF you are staring with an IC system, then at best, all you have is an IC system + another part. I suppose you could call that a 'working non-IC system', and it might be technically true, but it looks like you are setting up a sleight-of-hand trick to come.

In general, the problem with this step is you still have not explained where the initial "work IC/nIC system" came from. And specifically for a 'working IC system', that is what I am asking.

Code:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│[B]evolution[/B]:   │ work IC/nIC system -> remove parts  -> work IC/nIC system.    │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

obviously? Where did you just remove parts from? jack(rabbit), read the table again. we're not removing parts from an IC system. It's a reducable system.

Okay, this is step 2(?) Again, if step 1 started with a non-IC system, this step is irrelevant.

If step 1 started with an IC system, after this step 2 we are either 1) back to the starting point, or 2) at best we have a working IC system + parts still, just less additional parts than after step 1. You could not have removed one of the necessary IC parts, because the system would not work if you did.

Code:
Code:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │[B]evolution[/B]: │ work IC/nIC system -> modify system -> work IC/nIC system. │ └─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

This one I completely agree with. This is about the only thing that NS does well. But I would point out that the resulting "working system" basically still has the starting function, only it now does it better and/or it works in a new environment.

Click to expand...

You only agree with me because you misread me. I didn't say "modify part", I said "modify system". Functions are not necessarily preserved.

Despite any misreading on my part, your clarification doesnt really change anything. "System" is just a concept we are using in our language. In the physical instantiation of it, the "system" is just the sum of it's "parts". So "modify system" has to be at the least "modify part". How else can the system be modified without affecting at least one part?

Again, for a reducible system, this is all irrelevant. If starting with an IC system, you have to clarify what you mean by "modify". Because modification of the system, and thus on a part, is limited in scope as to what can be done......

your preemptive objection to this, from #90:

changes (random mutations) to one part would probably have to be coordinated with changes in all the other parts, which affects your probability of success to a exponential degree

Click to expand...

The interaction of any part with its neighbours is always local, so the modification required for a local improvement of a system are independent of the size of the system. exponential degree is just nonsence.

For an IC system, modification on any part would have to retain the function of that part. So, a mutation could change the efficiency or expression ratio of a part, but it probably could not change the function. If the part-function did change, that would mean any interaction with other parts in the sytem would also have to be changed to compensate (more mutations), otherwise the system as a whole would break down.

also, NS does not care about preserving interaction. Improving a system structure is by definition breaking the previous one. In such a case, the new system is new, it could be IC or not IC, because IC has nothing to do with any of this.

This is where you are way off! As much as NS could "care" about anything, it would have to preserve interactions in an IC system, unless something better came along. Because if it does not preserve the interactions between parts, then the system breaks down. And unless the breakdown of the sytem is advantageous and it chucks the whole system altogether, it will try to preserve the system. Something better coming along that involves not preserving intra-system interactions but still preserving the system as a whole is frankly illogical.

Improving a system by breaking it depends on what you mean by "breaking". If "breaking" means anything other than modifying a part while retaining its core part-function, then NO, you cannot "break" it. Because "breaking" then means essentially taking away a necessary part, even if "breaking" entails changing a part so that it's function changes. IC systems just cannot tolerate that.

For example, take that vision protein I keep referring to, Rhodopsin. It binds to a particular retinal molecule (11-cis-retinal), and when that retinal molecule reacts to a photon it changes shape and effectively changes the shape of Rhodopsin. The changed shape Rhodopsin then interacts with another protein.....and the vision chain continues. Rhodopsin is itself already highly specified, but if you change it a little so that it cannot bind to the retinal, or change it so that it does not reshape when retinal reacts with a photon, or change how it reacts to the other protein.... any of those changes and more would "break" the system and you lose vision. You could change it by making the existing functionality more efficient, but you are still retaining the functions and the other parts interacting do not have to modify. There are hard limits to how much you can change it.

Code:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│[B]evolution[/B]:   │ work IC/nIC system -> combo move    -> work IC/nIC system.    │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

true but I'm not talking about chaining. to be precise every RM is potentially a combo. RM does not have any notion of what exactly is "adding/removing a part" and such. there's always some modification in the mix.

You lost me here. I have no clue what you mean by "combo", and I do not get your reference to RM here.

because IC is a property that prevents you from removing a part. If you however modify the system,

Modify how? Again, if you change the function of a part, the system breaks.

.... or add a part,

So you have an IC system plus a part. Big deal. That part evidently is not crucial for the function of the IC system, so you are just talking about cosmetics. That makes the system reducible only in the sense that you can remove that specific part, but no others.

IC does not say anything about the system anymore. Anything can happen.

I beg to differ. IC still effects the system and not anything can happen.

IC is a property that has only any effect if a certain set of restrictions are presumed, which we cannot have. I'm talking about your assumption about NS, where you claimed step=part.

Huh? The IC restrictions are there based on evidence. What assumption about NS do you think is incorrect, that a NS step means 'creating' a new part. Well for building an IC system...ya, that is what it means. NS can remove function/parts from systems, but then you have to presume that a system (and non-IC system at that) already exists. I'm asking how you get a system in the first place

It's like saying "how can a painter possibly draw circles....

Ummm, what? You need help....seriously.

sure... how about this building-like-thingy. all blocks are not-connected, i mean not-glued-together. do you consider this to be an IC system? afterall, if you take away any part, the whole thing collapses:

Well, what is the function of the system? Is it even a system? Initially, I would say: No, that is not an IC system.

How about consider a spring mouse trap. That has been a popular device debated to be IC.

redbaron · Jan 29, 2015

Teax I'm not sure why you're still arguing about evolution with a bible basher. ID has been thoroughly dismantled time and time again, but proponents of ID won't stop pushing the agenda any more than young earth creationists will stop pushing the agenda that Dog made the universe, which is only 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were put here to test us.

The argument for ID isn't based on scientific literacy and curiosity, it's based on religious idealism.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html

Teax · Jan 29, 2015

redbaron said:
Teax I'm not sure why you're still arguing about evolution with a bible basher. It's been thoroughly dismantled time and time again, but proponents of ID won't stop pushing the agenda any more than young earth creationists will stop pushing the agenda that Dog made the universe, which is only 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were put here to test us.

The argument for ID isn't based on scientific literacy and curiosity, it's based on religious idealism.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html

yeah, well :balance:

you might have noticed I never posted links to such sites because I do not intend on proving evolution. Nobody will ever read this thread anyway.

My agenda is to train communication skills with non-math people. IRL I can't edit posts. conversations usually end abruptly. sometimes ad-hominem style... There's some great insight in this thread about how the mind works.

WookieeB · Jan 29, 2015

redbaron said:
Teax I'm not sure why you're still arguing about evolution with a bible basher.

I never bash my Bible, though I do read it often.

It's been thoroughly dismantled time and time again,

Yes, I agree, evolution has been thoroughly dismantled.

but proponents of ID won't stop pushing the agenda any more than young earth creationists will stop pushing the agenda that Dog made the universe, which is only 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were put here to test us.

Though I would count myself as an ID proponent, I do not believe the universe is 6000 years old or that dinosaurs had any knowledge of SAT's, nor do I act like such groupies.

As for Dog, I do not think he has the chops for creating the universe, even though he has decent chops.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/irreducible_com.html

Haha. Classic response from evolutionists. They do not point to anything in biology, but instead use a computer model to supposedly make their point.

Unfortunately, the AVIDA program doesn't refute anything about IC. The programmers smuggled in information into the model to have it arrive at the destination they wanted. Plus, they gave a selective advantage to the 'mutations' that is not realistic when compared to biology. That action is expressly not how IC would evolve (if it could). When they took away that selective advantage and ran the scenario, the target function never evolved. In the end, the AVIDA program showed evolution by intelligent design.

Teax · Jan 29, 2015

I'm going to answer the rest another day

I want you first to give it a try, do you really see no way to build this step-by-step?

Click to expand...

Well, what is the function of the system? Is it even a system? Initially, I would say: No, that is not an IC system.

soo... I guess you thought by claiming it's not a valid example you could hide the fact that you coudn't come up with a solution?

It's a system. The pieces interact with each other, they're standing on top of each other, supporting each other.

It's function is to not fall over. It's defying gravity. Holding it's shape. It's a building. It's standing. It's tall. take your pick. A step produces a functional system if the pieces don't fall or topple-over. obviously if you add a piece already lying on the ground, that one piece would be un-breakable, because it can't fall, but whetever, it's just a stupid puzzle. (intended to estimate your capability to grasp graph theory)

If you teleport away any of the pieces the rest falls over. Therefore it's IC by definition. If you try to build it like your other IC systems, by adding each part, it won't work:

Add PartA - OK
Add PartB - OK
Add PartC - the structure falls over

but you have more options, each step can be one of these:

1 part added
1 part removed
1 part modified = grab and move it somewhere else.

[bimg]http://en.tricklogic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Box_17-1024x726.jpg[/bimg]

How about consider a spring mouse trap. That has been a popular device debated to be IC.

co-opt a pickle jar or a box or something
add bait inside -> it attracts mice but doesn't hold them for very long
add a flap in the entrance -> now it can hold mice longer
make flap openable only to one side -> even longer.
add a spring/stretchy material to the flap -> longer still because the flap closes itself stronger
[bimg]http://www.acclaimmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2074903820_1375612450.jpg[/bimg]
add a toothpick so the flap stays open and only closes after the mouse climbed in and disturbed the toothpick. -> less time untill mouse comes in
make the jar from wood, wood is easier to come by, cheaper
wait untill the spring evolves to be strong. the stronger the better the trap is.
place the toothpick in such a way that the flap closes itself on the mouse, instead of letting the mouse pass
remove the jar except the part where the flap is attached to -> it can now hold the mouse with the flap. the jar was unnecessary
change a flap into a wire -> holds mice even longer/forever
adapt further
[bimg]http://www.housepests.info/images/mouth-mousetrap.jpg[/bimg]

notice how it became an irreducable system after you removed the jar? The idiocy of IC proponents is that they remove a part from the final system. But the final system is optimized to use all parts and cannot be removed without breaking the system. Before modification, the part was not necessary but was just a feature, a barely noticable improvement. Modification makes parts necessary. If you really understood what "reverse" is you should be able to figure this out yourself.

In short: how to make IC systems? 2 ways:
Add a part -> make it necessary
Add a part -> remove another part that became unnecessary because you added this better part.

how will you weasel out of this, let's hear it

what will you say?

was it not an IC system afterall?
will you attack co-option?
maybe you will claim that some step does not provide any benefit?
how about this: the flap is too complex of a system to have evolved in 1 step? hahaha

IC is based on people's inability to think backwards. How can you possibly build a system in any other way other than blindly adding part-after-part?

try the above challenge that I made for you, maybe you'll figure it out this time? maybe the aha-effect will give you the ability to think outside the IC-box.

redbaron · Jan 29, 2015

WookieeB said:
Haha. Classic response from evolutionists. They do not point to anything in biology, but instead use a computer model to supposedly make their point.

Haha. Classic response from an ID proponent. Point only to the parts of the article that they think supports their stance. I guess you missed this part:

For example, there are simpler versions of the eye on such animals as the flatworm. Clearly a primitive eye that could just tell the animal if it was in light or shadow, would be of benefit.

Of course, it requires a passable understanding of how evolution works to recognize the relevance of the above. Whicb sadly, means you won't. Or you just don't want to understand because it would invalidate your view of god as the creator.

Don't worry WookieeB, evolution is totally infeasible, but virgin births are not!

Grayman · Jan 29, 2015

redbaron said:
Don't worry WookieeB, evolution is totally infeasible, but virgin births are not!

I'm confused I thought artificial insemination was observable truth.

redbaron · Jan 29, 2015

Teax said:
My agenda is to train communication skills with non-math people.

Oh okay, well knock yourself out. You've certainly found a decent sample ~~retard~~ non-math person if you want to challenge your communication skills.

I wonder though. Isn't it a good thing if your communication with idiots ends abruptly?

Teax · Jan 29, 2015

redbaron said:
Oh okay, well knock yourself out. You've certainly found a decent sample ~~retard~~ non-math person if you want to challenge your communication skills.

I wonder though. Isn't it a good thing if your communication with idiots ends abruptly?

heh, see, I might've said it and then ~~actually edited this part away~~. :phear:

which is not possible in RL

situation dependent.

If you just meet someone, you're right: stop talking and walk away. But sometimes dense people sit in places of power. And those same insights are applicable in my field.

Grayman · Jan 29, 2015

Teax said:
heh, see, I might've said it and then ~~actually edited this part away~~. which is not possible in RL

situation dependent.

If you just meet someone, you're right: stop talking and walk away. But sometimes dense people sit in places of power. And those same insights are applicable in my field.

Hopefully you dont live in a democracy or you would be really busy. A republic is hard enough.

Frankie · Jan 30, 2015

English please! Is this the parallel universe?

Teax · Jan 30, 2015

Hopefully you dont live in a democracy or you would be really busy. A republic is hard enough.

I'm not a politics buff, my field is technical :^^:

English please! Is this the parallel universe?

welcome to the twilight zone~~~
[bimg]http://i843.photobucket.com/albums/zz352/loaloauk/Disney%20Planets/twilightzone.jpg[/bimg]

Teax · Jan 31, 2015

For the record...again, IC is not taking away any parts.

Take an IC system, go forward in time and delete/break a part, and continuing forward time shows that the IC system loses function. This is what scientists do in the lab.

dude, see the connection in these 2 quotes?

I'm using the word "IC" as a shorthand for "taking away parts would break the system", and your claim is that IC is not taking away parts. Smooth move WookieeB. Trying to divert converstaion to play with words.

Where have I talked about going back in time? I haven’t. I have always talked about the forward progress. Even when saying “if you take away a part, an IC system fails” I am referring to forward moving time.

Do you understand what "reverse" means?

Click to expand...

Of course I do. But “reverse” is not what I have been saying. I have been talking about building a system.(...)

yes, I'm sorry. It's true that you never explicitelly said it, but such things are called implication, also known as entailment. I gave you too much credit, you do not see the connection. Forget about it.

it's not quite as exciting as this:

Code:
I never said “NS can only add parts”. Of course NS can take away parts, it breaks and deletes stuff all the time for a beneficial result. That’s about all it can really do.

But NS cannot effectively build anything. And that is what I keep asking you to show. How can NS build?

(...)

IC is a property that has only any effect if a certain set of restrictions are presumed, which we cannot have. I'm talking about your assumption about NS, where you claimed step=part.

Huh? The IC restrictions are there based on evidence. What assumption about NS do you think is incorrect, that a NS step means 'creating' a new part. Well for building an IC system...ya, that is what it means. NS can remove function/parts from systems, but then you have to presume that a system (and non-IC system at that) already exists. I'm asking how you get a system in the first place

(...)

Code:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │evolution: │ work IC/nIC system -> add parts -> [color=orange]work non-IC system[/color]. │ └─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Ok, this is fairly irrelevant. If you are staring with a reducible system (non IC), this step is irrelevant.

IF you are staring with an IC system, then at best, all you have is an IC system + another part. I suppose you could call that a 'working non-IC system', and it might be technically true, but it looks like you are setting up a sleight-of-hand trick to come.

In general, the problem with this step is you still have not explained where the initial "work IC/nIC system" came from. And specifically for a 'working IC system', that is what I am asking.

you claim it is irrelevant yet it was the exact answer to your previous orange question.

It seems because of your naiive understanding of the word build you dismissed the steps remove and modify outright.

However in context the word build literally means find a sequence of functional systems, where the last system is the desired one. We are still calling it build even if 99% of the steps are not-adding parts.

To claim that a system needs to be whole from the beginning is a non-sequitor, because you havent exhausted every other possible building path.

Analogy:
IC system = house with a solid wall on the east side
build a system = burglar approaches the house from the east, tries to get in.
finished IC system = burglar is inside the house.
evolution = the fact that the burglar can walk in any direction, not just west.

You said: "It's impossible for a burglar to walk into this house, because there is a wall on the east side. Therefore the only way to get into the house is to teleport there".

However there could be a door on the south side, you haven't even checked. A burglar could have just walked around the house and found the door.

A detective is trying to reverse the process, starting at the scene of the crime. The reverse of getting in the house could be walking in any direction - east/west/north/south..... Just because you have shown that walking through a wall won't work doesn't prove anything.

[bimg]https://diydata.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/2011-12-13-07-15-02.jpg[/bimg]

Okay!? So, if you cannot build an IC system up one part at a time and have that system function, then you need to build it all up at once in order to function.

Deduction require 2 premises. Jack, you are in the habit of skipping over your premises so let me expose them for you:

you cannot build an IC system up one part at a time and have that system function
an NS step can not do anything else than "adding a part"
thus you need to build it all up at once.

both, 1. and 2. need to be true to infer 3.... but 2. is false! your inferences are all based on these premises, and you said yourself that "NS can do more than add parts" so you yourself do not believe that "a step is the adding of a part".

What is the alternative? Not build it up?

you build a different, reducable system, and then make your IC system by removing a part or modification. As long as the last step is not an "add part" step, you can get an IC system this way.

Why the restriction for the last step

because you can see in the graphic, IC tells you that removing a part from the final system breaks it. this proves that any building path which has the last step as "add part" would not be able to build an IC system. Otherwise you can build it just fine.

Code:

[color=Yellow]building a system part by part:[/color]
[color=Orange]IC:[/color]

                                                last step
                                                    │
                                                    ▼

     not                            not                            yes
   working                        working                        working
 ┌─────────┐     [color=Yellow]add part──►[/color]    ┌─────────┐     [color=Yellow]add part──►[/color]   ┌─────────┐
 │ 1 part  ├────────────────────┤ 2 parts ├───────────────────┤ 3 parts │
 └─────────┘                    └─────────┘  [color=Orange]◄── remove part[/color]  └─────────┘

Above analogy: if the police told you that the burglar was coming from east, having a solid wall on the east side of your house does not contradict their story. Entering from the east was not the burglar's last step, the burglar could still be coming from east, but then after reaching your house, he looked around for a door and entered from the south.

[bimg]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/boy-burglar-9407134.jpg[/bimg]

no it's not. in LEGO you cannot remove parts from somewhere inside the structure just like with IC, or modify portions of the system to obtain different systems, which would be sort of like co-option. Additionally in lego you have a goal, a "target system that needs to be built at the end of the day" which creates the need for an instruction manual.

evolution is the opposite in each of those aspects.

Click to expand...

See my edits in the quote.
LEGO is a good analogy for an IC system.

I agree that evolution is opposite. But life is like assembled lego systems, and I submit that evolution could not make such systems.

Your red edit pressuposed that the part was necessary, I never said that. Repeating: in LEGO you cannot remove or modify parts from somewhere inside the structure due to physical restriction of having to access that part. in evolution you can.

LEGO is a possible example for an IC system, but LEGO building process is unrelated to evolution building process.

lego-technic-bugatti-veyron-is-a-drivers-rc-car-video_5.jpg

Ok, when I first saw your table, I thought you were showing 4 separate ways evolution could work. I didnt realize that you meant them to be sequential steps.

[bimg]http://th02.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2014/081/d/6/bugs_doing_a_facepalm___remake_by_super_marcos_96-d7b5rh9.png[/bimg]

Evolution = stepwise RM + NS. RM does not know anything about parts, and can produce any combination of adding, removing or modifying of parts. therefore each step can be any of the 4 steps I described in that table, in any ordering.

you should re-check the table maybe you can understand it now.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
              │ start with         -> action        -> result                 │
┌─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│IC:          │ working IC system  -> remove parts  -> broken system.         │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│reverse of IC│ broken system      -> add parts     -> working IC system.     │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│evolution:   │ work IC/nIC system -> add parts     -> work non-IC system.    │
│             │ work non-IC system -> remove parts  -> work IC/nIC system.    │
│             │ work IC/nIC system -> modify system -> work IC/nIC system.    │
│             │ work IC/nIC system -> combo move    -> work IC/nIC system.    │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

"System" is just a concept we are using in our language. In the physical instantiation of it, the "system" is just the sum of it's "parts". So "modify system" has to be at the least "modify part". How else can the system be modified without affecting at least one part

exactly! a system is the sum of it's parts. Therefore if you modify a part, the resulting system is by definition a different system, the old one is gone/broken. IC/nIC can potentially change by modification, because what you get is a potentially differently functioning system.

So you have an IC system plus a part. Big deal. That part evidently is not crucial for the function of the IC system, so you are just talking about cosmetics. That makes the system reducible only in the sense that you can remove that specific part, but no others.

bullshitt assumption jack. Yes, you have shown that the newly added part is disposable, duh, but former necessary parts of the previous IC system can become disposable aswell. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. whether the former system is IC does not tell us anything about whether those parts stay needed. All you did is throw in a red herring unrelated to the actual question to distract from your lack of deductive support for your claim, like a smoke grenade.

For an IC system, modification on any part would have to retain the function of that part.

"For an IC system"? non sequitor. as you said yourself, a system is the sum of it's parts. therefore any modification creates a new system. IC is irrelevant here. functions do not need to be retained for a different system to work. because a different system may work in a different way. IC obviously does not apply across-systems because a part needed in this system is not necessarily needed in some other system. everything afterwards you said (which is a ton of text) is based on this very basic mistake.

So, a mutation could change the efficiency or expression ratio of a part, but it probably could not change the function. If the part-function did change, that would mean any interaction with other parts in the sytem would also have to be changed to compensate (more mutations), otherwise the system as a whole would break down.
(...)
This is where you are way off! As much as NS could "care" about anything, it would have to preserve interactions in an IC system, unless something better came along. Because if it does not preserve the interactions between parts, then the system breaks down. And unless the breakdown of the sytem is advantageous and it chucks the whole system altogether, it will try to preserve the system. Something better coming along that involves not preserving intra-system interactions but still preserving the system as a whole is frankly illogical.

Improving a system by breaking it depends on what you mean by "breaking". If "breaking" means anything other than modifying a part while retaining its core part-function, then NO, you cannot "break" it. Because "breaking" then means essentially taking away a necessary part, even if "breaking" entails changing a part so that it's function changes. IC systems just cannot tolerate that.

For example, take that vision protein I keep referring to, Rhodopsin. It binds to a particular retinal molecule (11-cis-retinal), and when that retinal molecule reacts to a photon it changes shape and effectively changes the shape of Rhodopsin. The changed shape Rhodopsin then interacts with another protein.....and the vision chain continues. Rhodopsin is itself already highly specified, but if you change it a little so that it cannot bind to the retinal, or change it so that it does not reshape when retinal reacts with a photon, or change how it reacts to the other protein.... any of those changes and more would "break" the system and you lose vision. You could change it by making the existing functionality more efficient, but you are still retaining the functions and the other parts interacting do not have to modify. There are hard limits to how much you can change it.

Something better coming along that involves not preserving intra-system interactions but still preserving the system as a whole is frankly illogical.

Well yeah an illogical strawman you just made up is illogical indeed. This would fix it:

Something better coming along that involves not preserving intra-system interactions but still preserving the higher-function.

psst, have you made any progress on my puzzle? (see my previous long post)
[bimg]http://intpforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2474&d=1422475253[/bimg]

WookieeB · Jan 31, 2015

(Responding in two parts)
Well, at least we are now working with something tangible. Unfortunately, your post shows that you do not really comprehend IC.

So you provided this -

First thing that I notice is that there is essentially one part, used multiple times in different arrangements. And the part function all by itself is just to react to gravity. How exciting. I suppose we can add gravity as a necessary component here, call it a "part if you want. Then you claim to have a "system" here with 4 of the same part arranged in a particular way (and throw in gravity), so there are 4 (...or 5?) parts to this system.

In keeping the analogy to biological systems, I had to ask what the function of your system was. You are seemingly dismissing it, making it sound like it doesnt matter. But function is critical. NS would not select some "system" or “part” if there is no function. Your domino thing has no more benefit than a pile of rocks if there is no function for it. So defining the function is important......

Teax said:
It's function is to

"...not fall over" - OK. If you are referring to the structure as a whole not falling over, then yes, it is IC. If by chance someone comes by and knocks part B, C, and D away, but A remains standing, and if that is considered "not fall over", then no it is not IC.

"...It's defying gravity" - depends. If this is just a restating of "not fall over", then see above. I would ask if the function of the system is it has to remain in it's present physical state and defy gravity. If yes, then it is IC. But if you could remove part A and put B,C,D on the ground in their current state and fulfill your function, then no, it is not IC.

"...It's a building" - that is a description, not a function. So not a "system" as it has been defined and obviously not IC.

"...It's standing" - description, not a function. Not IC

"...It's tall" - rinse/repeat. Description only, no function, no IC.

See! Having your "system" provide a function is necessary.

take your pick

I can't pick just any one. You have limited what is choosable. But hey, that is starting to sound like real life RM + NS.

But ok then, lets choose "not to fall over" and mean the whole structure has to stay in tact.

It's a system. The pieces interact with each other, they're standing on top of each other, in case you haven't noticed.
...
A step is functional if the pieces don't fall or topple-over. obviously if you add a piece already lying on the ground, that one piece would be unbreakable, because it can't fall, but whetever, it's just a stupid puzzle. (intended to estimate your capability to grasp graph theory)

If you teleport away any of the pieces the rest falls over. Therefore it's IC.

Ok, somewhat helpful, as it explains what each (identical) piece is doing, and determines what happens if a piece goes missing.

If you try to build it in the same dumb way you claimed is the only way to build stuff, adding each part, it won't work:

Add PartA - OK
Add PartB - OK
Add PartC - the structure falls over

Here is where you start to demonstrate that you do not understand IC. Though I think you hate the reminders, let me quote from another source. An IC system 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.

So let’s start building…..

Add PartA. - Not OK. Part A standing there does not fulfill the “function” of the system. It is not the system structure ‘not falling over’. It is a Part standing there not falling over, but if that is all that is needed to accomplish the function, then NS selects the part and there is no need for any others, and you have no IC system.

But if you want to, lets say PartA by itself has something about it to have NS select and keep it

Add PartB - still Not OK. Same problem as above. Two parts together and ‘not falling over’ does not satisfy the function of the whole system, so you do not have a system or function fullfilled yet, and NS has no reason to select these two parts. Also note, the placing of partB has to be very precise (specified) as to location and orientation to ever get to your final system - so you have introduced an unlikely event (low probability). If though, these two parts in any interacting configuration, (or either part A or B alone) satisfies the ‘not falling over’ function, then obviously the final system is not IC, because you are fulfilling the function with less parts.

...rinse, repeat….. Each additional step compounds the problems noted above., so still Not OK.

Are you getting it yet??

Even if you somehow get to the final system, for which building steps beyond step:1 NS has no reason to preserve, you have what? An overly complicated stack of bricks? If that particular configuration is beneficial for some reason, you have to explain how each build-up step to it was differently beneficial. If any configuration of parts ‘not falling over’ satisfies the function, then your system is NOT IC.

each step can be one of these:

1 part added

1 part removed

1 part modified = grab and move it somewhere else.

The different kinds of steps are somewhat irrelevant, because you are going to run into the same problems for each action as I illustrated above.

soo... I guess you thought by claiming it's not a valid example you could hide the fact that you couldn't come up with a solution?

Well, you gave me a sloppy example, but I worked with what i had. But as it is, I hope you are beginning to see that building IC is not as easy as you seem to think it is.

But your next example is a better test.

WookieeB · Jan 31, 2015

(part 2)
So now for the mousetrap. This works better because we are not talking about identical parts (like bricks) arranged in different ways, since most of the IC found in life systems are not built in brick fashion like your last example.. And here we will demonstrate even more so that you do not comprehend what it would take for NS to build an IC system.

The purpose of a spring mousetrap is, at the very least, to immobilize a mouse. I would argue that it is also designed to KILL a mouse, but maybe we can set that aside.

Remember, evolution would supposedly only pick and preserve some function that is beneficial, which corresponds to filling some need triggered by some environmental pressure. In this case of our example the need/function is to immobilize a mouse. There may be many ways to accomplish that function, but we are talking about a specific instance of a system that supposedly was evolved, so we have to explain how we get to that specific system.

As we go along, LPE = “low probability event”

Your step 1:

co-opt a pickle jar or a box or something

Since we are presupposing the existence of a jar/box, the prior function of that jar/box was NOT to immobilize a mouse. Besides not explaining where the jar/box came from, co-opting this means that a jar/box is available for a function other than what it was doing prior. But just having a (copy of) jar/box around does not fulfill the function of immobilize a mouse, and unless you can envision some other function this solo jar/box does, there is no reason for NS to preserve this first step.

But since we are presupposing its existence, we can move on.

Your step 2:

add bait inside -> it attracts mice but doesn't hold them for very long

Bait. Where does the bait come from? Even though this could come in many forms, it is not like bait is just lying around the cell or lifeform. Sorry, life does not have a garbage pile of infinite products just lying around for you to stumble upon. Bait is a fairly specified item, so you have a very low probability that RM will make something usable. NS cannot go ‘looking’ for it, cause it has no idea what bait is nor any understanding of the need for it. (LPE)

But OK, the odds gods were kind, and there is bait. So what do you do with the bait? Put it on the jar (many multiple spots available), touching the side of the jar (many multiple spots available), in the jar (many multiple spots available)? NS has no clue, cause bait ‘existing’ provides no purpose or advantage. Getting it inside is a LPE.

You also have to consider the positioning of the jar/box. If it is upright or upside down, then you have likely made the opening inaccessible to a mouse, as it is too far above them or blocked. (LPE)

So say fortune smiles again, and bait is inside the jar, and a mouse can get to the bait. Ummm, ok. This configuration in no way accomplishes “immobilize a mouse”, so NS would not select this on that basis. What other advantage does this configuration provide? Little if any. Again, no reason for NS to preserve this.

I will also point out that your step #2 is a minimum of at least 3 LPEs (corresponding to RM mutations) that have to be coordinated to even complete your step #2. Since you claim to be so keen on math, the probabilities of those events are multiplied together.

Your step 3:

add a flap in the entrance -> now it can hold mice longer

So now we need a flap. Same as above for the bait…..Where does the flap object come from? (LPE)

But unlike the bait scenario of step 2, you have to consider the shape and size of the flap has to be specified to fit the jar/box opening (LPEs)

And just because you have a flap around, you would need to add some other part(s) to adhere it to the jar/box (LPE (probably multiple))

And now a new factor to add. Assembly instructions. You need to bring the objects together in a timed and positional manner. For instance, you probably could not ‘install’ the flap before you bring in the bait, otherwise mouse cannot get to bait inside the jar/box. (LPE (probably multiple))

Your step 3 is a minimum of 5 LPEs, and very likely more, that again have to be coordinated (LPEs multiplied together). And still, after all of that is done (assuming it can be *snigger*), you still do not have a working mouse trap. Any mouse that comes by would not be immobilized, as if they could get in the jar, there is no reason why it couldn’t get out. NS has no reason to select any of this.

Your step 4: (I’ll try to be briefer)

make flap openable only to one side -> even longer.

To accomplish this would require either 1) more parts to hold or block the flap in some manner (LPEs) or 2) changing the shape and location of a flap in a very specific manner so that it wedges closed in one direction.(LPEs)

This is an interesting step in that if you do not make the changes correctly, you could make the flap openable to the wrong side and effectively invalidate everything that has been built up to this point.

Also interesting, is if it is done right, you may have just built a system that accomplishes the goal of “immobilizing a mouse”. If you got this far (*cough-laugh*), then NS might preserve this system. But then there is no reason for NS to go further, as the remaining modifications would most likely break the current system and you would never get to the system we are actually trying to explain.

So your step 4 needs a few more LPEs, which NS has no reason to preserve UNTIL it gets to the end.

Your step 5:

add a spring/stretchy material to the flap -> longer still because the flap closes itself stronger

Again, more parts (LPEs) and specific arranging of said parts (LPEs). Like step 3, this is at least 5 LPEs, if not more.

Plus, this step by itself is actually working against you, because it would make it more difficult to open your flap for any mouse to get in. So, though NS again has no reason to preserve this step, it might actually work to prevent this step.

This is a good example of how two (or more) distinct events would have to simultaneously occur to provide any benefit. Because your step 5 only is beneficial if it happens at the same time of…..

Your step 6:

add a toothpick so the flap stays open and only closes after the mouse climbed in and disturbed the toothpick. -> less time untill mouse comes in

Yet more parts (LPEs). And this has to coordinate with Step 5, otherwise there is no point….. which seems to be the theme for NS in building this.

Your step 7:

make the jar from wood, wood is easier to come by, cheaper

This one makes no sense to me. NS has no sense of “cheaper” or “easier”. Besides, even if NS’s magic wand got it up to the beginning of this step, it means it already has accessed whatever materials the jar/box is using. Your statement makes this change sound simple, but in reality this would be a cluster f*^K for NS to do, cause not only does it have to rework the material for the jar, it also would have to rework the way all the other parts interact with the ‘jar’, essentially redoing all the prior steps. (Multiple and extreme LPEs)

Your step 8:

wait untill the spring evolves to be strong. the stronger the better the trap is.

Of all your steps so far, this is the only one that even remotely sounds like something NS might do, though it heavily depends on how your ‘spring’ is made. Still gotta add LPEs

Just a reminder, up to this point we still do not have our IC system. Why again would NS take it this far?

Your step 9:

place the toothpick in such a way that the flap closes itself on the mouse, instead of letting the mouse pass

Wow, a major re-design in how the trap works (More LPEs. Gotta take off my shoes to keep up the count). Good luck NS, cause any adjustments in this step won’t work till it actually works!

Your step 10:

remove the jar except the part where the flap is attached to -> it can now hold the mouse with the flap. the jar was unnecessary

Now, after it’s wonderful fantasy voyage, NS gets to drop something..... or does it? You need to keep more of the now-wooden-jar than just where the flap is connected, because you have to have a place for the bait, and the spring, and probably the toothpick, and any associated other parts you’ve failed to describe. At best you can reshape the jar, but not “remove” it as you think.
(Lots and lots more LPE’s)

Your step 11:

change a flap into a wire -> holds mice even longer/forever

BWAHAHAHAH!!! More NS transmutation. NS is a regular Harry Potter now.

adapt further

Why even comment on this further.

***

So even with a lot of concessions thrown in, you still end up having a whole bunch of LOW PROBABILITY EVENTS occurring that have to be multiplied together to give an honest chance of building a simple IC system. Life is full of many, many, many IC systems that are way more complicated and specified than a mousetrap. And you REALLY think RM + NS can do this????

Frankly, you have laid out a process that evolution could never do.

But you have wonderfully demonstrated what INTELLIGENT DESIGN can do.

notice how it became an irreducable system after you removed the jar? The idiocy of IC proponents is that they remove a part from the final system.

Hardly. You could not remove the jar as you stated cause it would mess up what you had built up to this point. The idiocy of evolutionists is that they think RM+NS could build something like this.

But the final system is optimized to use all parts and cannot be removed without breaking the system. Before modification, the part was not necessary but was just a feature, an improvement. Modification makes parts necessary. If you had any notion of what "reverse" is you could figure this out yourself.

The optimization and modification of your system was all done via INTELLIGENCE. It was purposeful and calculated. Anything other than that and your project fails. There is no reason to think that NS could or would have done any of that.

You obviously have some clue as to what engineering requirements would need to be to build up to a system step by step. But you have no idea how to make such a built-so-far structure useful after each step. You built your mousetrap with a future goal in mind, and took purposeful steps to reach that goal. NS cannot do that. Your system was IC after you completed it, not before at each step completion. And that precisely is the problem for NS. If it cannot make the system useful after each step, it will not ever take the next one.

You maybe could make a case that after your “step 4” you had something useful. But you still had a host of improbable steps to get there, and NS had no reason to keep any of those along the way. Your further modifications were not better, and actually some of them were probably detrimental - again, something NS would not do.

In short: how to make IC systems? 2 ways:
Add a part -> make it necessary

Only if after each “add a part” (which is more complicated than it seems) your so-far-built-up system is necessary/useful. As I have demonstrated, NS is not good at that.

Add a part -> remove another part that became unnecessary because you added this better part.

This presupposes you already have an IC system to begin with, so you are not explaining anything.

I'm sure you will try to weasel out of this somehow, so let's hear it

See above. I think that should satisfy

“what will you say?”

was it not an IC system afterall? - nope

will you attack co-option? - nope

maybe you will claim that some step does not provide any benefit? - yep

how about this: the flap is too complex of a system to have evolved in 1 step? hahaha - Jokes on you, cause it couldnt unless you consider determining material, shape, size, location, and assembly is 1 step.

place your bets?

Did you win?

IC is based on people's inability to think backwards. How can you possibly build a system in any other way other than blindly adding part-after-part?

This is rich! Last post you were complaining that I was thinking backwards. Now you are complaining that I am not. Are you for real?

try the above challenge that I made for you, maybe you'll figure it out this time?

Done. Maybe you can figure how IC is not like laying a bunch of bricks.

WookieeB · Jan 31, 2015

redbaron said:
Of course, it requires a passable understanding of how evolution works to recognize the relevance of the above. Whicb sadly, means you won't. Or you just don't want to understand because it would invalidate your view of god as the creator.

Which shows you not only do nt understand how evolution works, nor do you have much of a memory.

You seem to think that using rhetorical words like "simpler versions of the eye" and "primitive eye" makes your case. That all sounds nice but it is not evidence.

Recall, long ago when you first posted on the thread and I explained that even a "primitive" eye is vastly complex and not something that NS has power to create. Go back and review the numbers, and when you can get around them you can come back to talk.

Don't worry WookieeB, evolution is totally infeasible, but virgin births are not!

Irrelevant

WookieeB · Jan 31, 2015

Teax said:
dude, see the connection in these 2 quotes?

I'm using the word "IC" as a shorthand for "taking away parts would break the system", and your claim is that IC is not taking away parts. Smooth move WookieeB. Trying to divert converstaion to play with words.

Well, redefining things incorrectly is one of your problems. You should be careful with that, otherwise people might start to accuse you of erecting a strawman.

In case you have forgotten, the acronym IC means "irreducibly complex". That is a description of the current state of a system, not an action. Saying "taking away parts would break the system" is not actually performing the action of "taking away parts", but is describing what would happen in the future if you did. Do you understand the difference between "current" and "future"?

An IC system is a functioning system at the present time. Describing what could happen in the future is only comparing your present state with the future state if those actions took place, but it doesn't mean those actions have taken place. IC implies that you CANNOT future take away a functioning part and keep the system-as-a-whole functioning in that future.

Is the English language working for you now?

yes, I'm sorry. It's true that you never explicitelly said it, but such things are called implication, also known as entailment. I gave you too much credit, you do not see the connection. Forget about it.

You have a lot of fancy wiki pages you use, but you are always short on evidence on how they apply. In all my conditional statements, I was referring to future actions. Once there was an IC system, I never went back in time. I also find it interesting how you accuse me of going backwards or in reverse-time and make that to be a problem, and then in the following post you complain "IC is based on people's inability to think backwards." LOL, you wanna take some time to get your stories straight?

you claim it is irrelevant yet it was the exact answer to your previous orange question.

It seems because of your naiive understanding of the word build you dismissed the steps remove and modify outright.

You are REALLY bad at references. I do not see any question in orange in your, mine, or any previous quote. Nor what "exact answer" you are referring to. Nor in the orange statements you did highlight, you are not elucidating what your so-called "dismissed" steps are.

Try again.

However in context the word build literally means find a sequence of functional systems, where the last system is the desired one. We are still calling it build even if 99% of the steps are not-adding parts.

Since you haven't specified where the word "build" is that you are referencing, I'm going to take a wild guess and look at my question "How can NS build?" (IF that is the question you are referring to, 1) it's not orange, and 2) you havent explained anything with regards to your complaints regarding the meanings of "build", "remove", or "modify".) Combine that question and your context for "build", I have no problem. So that means I want you to explain how NS can find a sequence of functional systems, where the last system (IC) is the desired one.

In case you haven't got it yet, my contention is that NS realistically cannot produce "a sequence of functional systems" on the way to an IC system. I would like you to provide a hypothetical example.

You're domino and the mousetrap examples didnt work so well. Got any others?

To claim that a system needs to be whole from the beginning is a non-sequitor, because you havent exhausted every other possible building path.

This statement is a non-sequitor. You are not understanding IC

****

Analogy:
IC system = house with a solid wall on the east side
build a system = burglar approaches the house from the east, tries to get in.
finished IC system = burglar is inside the house.
evolution = the fact that the burglar can walk in any direction, not just west.

Your analogy makes no sense either. But let't try to have some fun with it.

What the hell is a "finished IC system" compared to an IC system? "Finished" implies there is an 'unfinished', but you have not explained what that is. Are you saying that a "house with a solid wall on the east side" is unfinished? Illogical

What in the world would the function be of "burglar is inside the house"? And how is (whatever) that function different to whats going on with "house with a solid wall on the east side'.

*** You seem to be missing the importance of functions in all of this. An IC system serves a function. Each part in an IC system has it's own (distinctly separate) function that contributes to make the IC-system function. Let me try my own analogy -

For example, a house is an IC system, and the purpose of a house is to 'provide shelter to someone'. There are at minimum 6 parts to the house. 4 walls, a roof, and a door. IF (a possible future event) you took away any of those parts, then the house fails in its function. A wall in that house would be a 'part', in that the wall serves its 'part' purpose as providing a support for the house. A wall itself is not the IC system, as a wall itself does not provide shelter. Neither would a roof by itself, nor a door, nor 3 walls+door+roof - none of those would fulfill the 'house' function.

Now pay attention, because I think this might throw you for a loop........ A brick in that wall is NOT a part! And a wall itself is not (necessarily) an IC system of its own. A brick in a wall could go missing, and the wall and house would continue to function. NS could come along and knock out a brick, or a few bricks, and as long as the wall stays supporting the house and the house function continues, that is OK. And/or if there was a hole in the wall to begin with (but wall and house functions were intact), then NS could come along and add a brick or three to the wall. This would be akin to your redefining-obsession meaning of "modify" - no parts being added but a part is being modified.

Now a burglar coming into the house doesn't "finish" my IC-house. Though a burglar might be considered an object (part or system), it is not the addition of a part to my house, nor building anything new. My IC-house is performing it's function, and it is performing that function for some other object out there, which in this case is the burglar. ***

You said: "It's impossible for a burglar to walk into this house, because there is a wall on the east side. Therefore the only way to get into the house is to teleport there".

However there could be a door on the south side, you haven't even checked. A burglar could have just walked around the house and found the door.

A detective is trying to reverse the process, starting at the scene of the crime. The reverse of getting in the house could be walking in any direction - east/west/north/south..... Just because you have shown that walking through a wall won't work doesn't prove anything.

I do not see how any of the rest of this is an analogy to IC. Nothing I have said relates to this.

you build a different, reducable system, and then make your IC system by removing a part or modification. As long as the last step is not an "add part" step, you can get an IC system this way.

because you can see in the graphic, IC tells you that removing a part from the final system breaks it. this proves that any building path which has the last step as "add part" would not be able to build an IC system. Otherwise you can build it just fine.

Dude, I do not know what you are smoking, but I'm sure I do not want any of it! In your obsession to redefine everything, you are getting IC all wrong. Yet again for the umpteenth time, making an IC system does NOT involve removing a part. IC system exists and functions, IF you remove a part the IC system breaks. So in an IC system you do not WANT TO, nor CAN YOU remove a part, because then the system breaks. Mentioning "removal" is just done to contrast an IC system (with all its parts intact, present, not going anywhere, not having won any sweepstakes to take a vacation,...) with a broken system. Broken system=bad. IC system=good

So I do not understand your limitations on the "last" step.

Your graphic is also wrong!. Building an IC system is not the orange part. It would be the yellow part. So let me redo your graphic, cause it is a great example to show what building an IC system entails and why NS cannot do it.

Code:

[color=Yellow]building an IC system part by part:[/color]
[color=Orange]no reason to do this[/color]

                                                last step
                                                    │
                                                    ▼

     not                            not                            yes
   working                        working                        working
  (not IC)                        (not IC)                         (IC)
 ┌─────────┐     [color=Yellow]add part──►[/color]    ┌─────────┐     [color=Yellow]add part──►[/color]   ┌─────────┐
 │ 1 part  ├────────────────────┤ 2 parts ├───────────────────┤ 3 parts │
 └─────────┘                    └─────────┘  [color=Orange]◄── remove part[/color]  └─────────┘

See? That is better. The proper way to build an IC system.

NS would not build this way. After step 1, it is not working, so NS doesnt keep it. NS would not go any further.
Now say, RM fortuitously pops out the 2 parts. This is a very low probability, as it essentially is multiplying the odds of developing part one and developing part 2. Not likely, but it is realistically possible. Great! You have 2 parts and...... Bummer! The system is still not working, NS doesnt preserve it. Sorry RM, it was a good effort, but still no cigar.
The more parts you add for system, the greater the odds for RM coming up with it. And you do not have an IC system, nor anything NS would want to keep until you have all 3 parts in place.

This also supports my premises....

Deduction require 2 premises. Jack, you are in the habit of skipping over your premises so let me expose them for you:

you cannot build an IC system up one part at a time and have that system function

an NS step can not do anything else than "adding a part"

thus you need to build it all up at once.

both, 1. and 2. need to be true to infer 3.... but 2. is false! your inferences are all based on these premises, and you said yourself that "NS can do more than add parts" so you yourself do not believe that "a step is the adding of a part".

You starting to get it? Premise 1 is true. Premise 2 is true for the purpose of building up an IC system. Yes, NS can take things away, but taking things away does not contribute to building up an IC system. The only way NS could take something away to make an IC system would be if it had prior added a part to the system which was not a required piece for IC (thus being non-IC and reducible). But logically that is very unlikely to happen, as then that part would conceptually be nothing more than scaffolding, and NS would not build scaffolding because that entails working toward a goal, which NS cannot do.

Your burglar analogy still doesnt match up.

Your red edit pressuposed that the part was necessary, I never said that. Repeating: in LEGO you cannot remove or modify parts from somewhere inside the structure due to physical restriction of having to access that part. in evolution you can.

What do you mean. How can evolution do what you are saying? Or just drop the LEGO reference for now cause you don't get IC.

Evolution = stepwise RM + NS. RM does not know anything about parts, and can produce any combination of adding, removing or modifying of parts. therefore each step can be any of the 4 steps I described in that table, in any ordering.

you should re-check the table maybe you can understand it now.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
              │ start with         -> action        -> result                 │
┌─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│IC:          │ working IC system  -> remove parts  -> broken system.         │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│reverse of IC│ broken system      -> add parts     -> working IC system.     │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│evolution:   │ work IC/nIC system -> add parts     -> work non-IC system.    │
│             │ work non-IC system -> remove parts  -> work IC/nIC system.    │
│             │ work IC/nIC system -> modify system -> work IC/nIC system.    │
│             │ work IC/nIC system -> combo move    -> work IC/nIC system.    │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

I understand it just fine. Unfortunately it is still wrong for what IC is, "reverse of IC" is not the reverse of IC, and your evolution steps are still presupposing a system that NS would not have built up in the first place, nor do any of your steps help and/or correspond to reality.

{work IC/nIC system -> add parts -> work non-IC system.} - irrelevant, cause we are ending up with a non-IC system, and we are not trying to explain that.
{work non-IC system -> remove parts -> work IC/nIC system.} - you haven't demonstrated how evolution would do this to get a working IC system, and getting to a non-IC system is irrelevant.
{work IC/nIC system -> modify system -> work IC/nIC system.} - same as above
{work IC/nIC system -> combo move -> work IC/nIC system.} - same as above

exactly! a system is the sum of it's parts. Therefore if you modify a part, the resulting system is by definition a different system,...

No, it is not necessarily a different system. Reminder: parts and systems are defined by their functions. Modify a part, like removing a brick from a wall, does not make the function of that wall any different, nor break the higher-level system. I have acknowledged that NS can modify parts, but as long as that is within the parameters or maintaining the part function and the higher level system function. This is not a "different" system

the old one is gone/broken.

If you modify a part too much, you're most likely effect is a broken part and thus a failed system. NS will work to not allow that.

IC/nIC can potentially change by modification, because what you get is a potentially differently functioning system.

If you modify a part so that it takes on a different function, you have broken the prior system, but it is very, very unlikely that your "new" system provides a new beneficial function, because the other parts in the prior system that your changed part interacted with have not themselves adjusted to interact with the new-function part. NS does not have the ability to foresee effects of changes to a part and adjust the rest of a system to match. You are then only relying on RM getting lucky with some very, very low odds (realistically impossible). The more parts that were in the original IC system, and/or the more number of parts interacting with your changed part reduces your odds multiplicable ways.

bullshitt assumption jack. Yes, you have shown that the newly added part is disposable, duh, but former necessary parts of the previous IC system can become disposable aswell. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. whether the former system is IC does not tell us anything about whether those parts stay needed. All you did is throw in a red herring unrelated to the actual question to distract from your lack of deductive support for your claim, like a smoke grenade.

Because up to this point you still do not understand IC, I'll let you figure out for yourself how this is a stupid statement. Hint: think about parts as function

"For an IC system"? non sequitor. as you said yourself, a system is the sum of it's parts. therefore any modification creates a new system. IC is irrelevant here. functions do not need to be retained for a different system to work. because a different system may work in a different way. IC obviously does not apply across-systems because a part needed in this system is not necessarily needed in some other system. everything afterwards you said (which is a ton of text) is based on this very basic mistake.

You do not understand evolution either... not really. For a modification to occur like you are saying, you cannot adjust the instructions for the active IC system. Otherwise you break the IC system, and lose the function it is providing. NS will not allow that. So you have to work with a copy of the IC system that is not active. This is akin to gene duplication and over-expression of the duplicated gene. Both of those actions are something that can happen, but NS would typically work to remove this scenario (especially the over-expression) as it is wasting resources for the organism. But let us assume (as I am constantly having to do for you) NS is out to lunch and the organism would allow it.

Now we are basically talking a co-option scenario. You taking a system minus one part (that would normally mean failed system) and adding/changing something in that missing part-space that has a different function from the missing part. At this point you are saying it is a different system that works in a different way. That is presupposing a lot.

All the parts in the old IC system were specifically tuned to the system, and at the very least they are tuned for the part(s) they interacted with. In your new system, a non-changed part that interacted with the missing part is still expecting the function of that missing part. If your new/modified part doesn't give the proper feedback to the other non-changed part(s), that is going to be a problem for your system, because the rest of the system is expecting the old part-function. That alone will will crash your new system or at least degrade its function. NS not likely to keep this.

Except for your new part, the rest of the system is not ready for a new part-function. So for any of this to work, you are presupposing that the new part either 1) retains its function AND acquires a new one (two functions on one part now? getting a little thin on reality), OR 2) it can somehow mask the prior function enough to not crash the system while gaining the new part function (again a longshot on reality). That is why when you consider changing one part, you very likely have to compensate the rest of the system to match. And those multiple coordinated changes is too much for NS.

Plus, if you look at the system level, you have a finely tuned function that was based on a combination of interacting parts, and you expect based upon the modification of one piece of a system that you all of a sudden will end up with some new beneficial function? Fat chance.

If you understood how things actually work, you might have understood that the SPOILER text you quoted was there to point out the difficulty, improbability, unlikelyhood of modifying a functioning system involves more than just changing a part.

Again, if you think this is how it works, please provide me with a real-life, or reality-based example.

Well yeah an illogical strawman you just made up is illogical indeed. This would fix it:

Something better coming along that involves not preserving intra-system interactions but still preserving the higher-function.

You really think this is possible? Puhhleeze. Put up an example or shut-up.

Teax · Feb 1, 2015

yay I'm done. after your latest posts I finally have all the insight I ever wanted. thank you (honest). There's nothing more to be gained from this for me. I really hope it was useful for you too. :^^:

If you ever, in the future, will have any interest in disproving IC for youself, start here:

not now, future

seriously, stop clicking

burp

there's nothing in here you know

nothing

see it was true

la, lala

no point replying to any of this, (unless your intention is to argue against math?)

Deduction require 2 premises. Jack, you are in the habit of skipping over your premises so let me expose them for you:

you cannot build an IC system up one part at a time and have that system function

an NS step can not do anything else than "adding a part"

thus you need to build it all up at once.

both, 1. and 2. need to be true to infer 3.... but 2. is false! your inferences are all based on these premises, and you said yourself that "NS can do more than add parts" so you yourself do not believe that "a step is the adding of a part".

Click to expand...

You starting to get it? Premise 1 is true. Premise 2 is true for the purpose of building up an IC system.

"for the purpose of building up an IC system" <--- try for yourself to formally write down what that means. (formal = mathematical, not your vague "english" phrases).

Well, redefining things incorrectly is one of your problems. You should be careful with that, otherwise people might start to accuse you of erecting a strawman.

In case you have forgotten, the acronym IC means "irreducibly complex". That is a description of the current state of a system, not an action. Saying "taking away parts would break the system" is not actually performing the action of "taking away parts", but is describing what would happen in the future if you did. Do you understand the difference between "current" and "future"?

An IC system is a functioning system at the present time. Describing what could happen in the future is only comparing your present state with the future state if those actions took place, but it doesn't mean those actions have taken place. IC implies that you CANNOT future take away a functioning part and keep the system-as-a-whole functioning in that future.

Is the English language working for you now?

IC = taking away parts would break the system

nothing you said contradicts anything I have said. Formal reasoning about any property defined this (hypothetical) way is done in exactly the way I have layed out in front of you in these past posts and diagrams. I never changed your definitions and never claimed IC was a process of change. I suspect you won't understand until you study it.

To claim that a system needs to be whole from the beginning is a non-sequitor, because you havent exhausted every other possible building path.

Click to expand...

This statement is a non-sequitor.

it's a basic axiom of graph theory.

Well, you gave me a sloppy example, but I worked with what i had.

you didn't. solve the actual puzzle. It was intended to provide you with some small insight through the power of the aha-effect, nothing more really.

WookieeB · Feb 1, 2015

Teax said:
yay I'm done. after your latest posts I finally have all the insight I ever wanted. thank you (honest). There's nothing more to be gained from this for me. I really hope it was useful for you too.

If you ever, in the future, will have any interest in disproving IC for youself, start here:

Well, if you ever feel you want to discuss things based on their actual definitions and not twist their meanings to fit your argument, I'll be around.

"for the purpose of building up an IC system" <--- try for yourself to formally write down what that means

Well, I kinda already did that when I corrected your last diagram, but whatever.

IC = taking away parts would break the system

nothing you said contradicts anything I have said. Formal reasoning about any property defined this (hypothetical) way is done in exactly the way I have layed out in front of you in these past posts.

Then as you venture away, I will give you back a portion of your diagram and based upon the 'properties defined that hypothetical way' perhaps you can figure out why the diagram is wrong.

Code:

              ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
              │ start with         -> action        -> result                 │
┌─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│IC:          │ working IC system  -> remove parts  -> broken system.         │
├─────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│reverse of IC│ broken system      -> add parts     -> working IC system.     │
└─────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Hint: Evolution is a process of change. IC is not a process of change.

you didn't. solve the actual puzzle. It was intended to provide you with some small insight through the power of the aha-effect, nothing more really.

If "solving" the puzzle just means "How to build it in a step-by-step basis", that is easy.

Place part A (as shown in picture)
Place part B (as shown in picture)
Place a part (A_2) next to A and in the same orientation as A, under B, and in a location that is vertically under where part C appears in the picture, supporting part B.
Place a part (A_3) next to A and in the same orientation as A, under B, and in a location that is vertically under where part D appears in the picture, supporting part B.
Place part C (as shown in picture)
Place part D (as shown in picture)
Remove part A_2 carefully
Remove part A_3 carefully

Tada!!! We just built up the (IC) system step-by-step and even took parts away to do it.

But even if NS had the ability to perform each of those steps, it never would. That was my point.

****

Thank you. Goodbye, and may the Force be with you.

SpaceYeti · Feb 2, 2015

Wookie, I'm just curious about something; Do you actually believe in this IC thing, or are you arguing for crap's sake?

WookieeB · Feb 2, 2015

Yes. No.

Teax · Feb 2, 2015

^^
As Yellow explained in this post:

Yellow said:
(...) it all depends on our "anchor". Like anyone, we have basic assumptions upon which build our own philosophy. (...)

Having mapped some of WookieeB's anchors, I can see how the actual argument makes sence. He does not "have faith", but has what he perceives as "solid reasons" for his beliefs.

WookieeB · Feb 2, 2015

Teax said:
^^
As Yellow explained in this post:

Having mapped some of WookieeB's anchors, I can see how the actual argument makes sence. He does not "have faith", but has what he perceives as "solid reasons" for his beliefs.

And what "anchors" would those be?

OrLevitate · Feb 2, 2015

WookieeB said:
And what "anchors" would those be?

comfort

WookieeB · Feb 2, 2015

"comfort" is not an "anchor"

Grayman · Feb 3, 2015

WookieeB said:
"comfort" is not an "anchor"

<don't care to derail the discussion><deleted>

SpaceYeti · Feb 5, 2015

Teax said:
^^
As Yellow explained in this post:

Having mapped some of WookieeB's anchors, I can see how the actual argument makes sence. He does not "have faith", but has what he perceives as "solid reasons" for his beliefs.

Everybody thinks their beliefs are reasonable. How do we determine they actually are?

Teax · Feb 5, 2015

SpaceYeti said:
Everybody thinks their beliefs are reasonable. How do we determine they actually are?

Not every basic belief(anchor) has to be one. Facts, sure, are just facts. But

All aspects of reason (logic, math, language, programming, strategy, structure, system etc...) have a common core. That's why they're all coherent. Studying/interconnecting these subjects scatters your basic beliefs about abstract concepts and replaces them with reasonable beliefs. Anything that can not be scattered like that was not reasonable to begin with.

SpaceYeti · Feb 6, 2015

Teax said:
Not every basic belief(anchor) has to be one. Facts, sure, are just facts. But

All aspects of reason (logic, math, language, programming, strategy, structure, system etc...) have a common core. That's why they're all coherent. Studying/interconnecting these subjects scatters your basic beliefs about abstract concepts and replaces them with reasonable beliefs. Anything that can not be scattered like that was not reasonable to begin with.

I agree, for the most part. However, ID and IC are not based on any factual evidence, thus Wookie's beliefs regarding it are, in fact, unreasonable. Yes, he thinks it's rational, but then either he is wrong, or I am. How do we determine who is correct? Or is that your point, that he will believe he's being reasonable regardless of facts?

WookieeB · Feb 6, 2015

SpaceYeti said:
I agree, for the most part. However, ID and IC are not based on any factual evidence, thus Wookie's beliefs regarding it are, in fact, unreasonable. Yes, he thinks it's rational, but then either he is wrong, or I am. How do we determine who is correct? Or is that your point, that he will believe he's being reasonable regardless of facts?

What exactly is wrong with my facts? My oppositions argument has never faced any of the evidence I have put forward, but has instead tried dismissing it based upon his own made-up definitions and rhetoric. I'm all for looking at the facts, but you have to actually allow them into the discussion.

Teax · Feb 7, 2015

SpaceYeti said:
I agree, for the most part. However, ID and IC are not based on any factual evidence, thus Wookie's beliefs regarding it are, in fact, unreasonable. Yes, he thinks it's rational, but then either he is wrong, or I am. How do we determine who is correct? Or is that your point, that he will believe he's being reasonable regardless of facts?

I'd say not regardless-of-facts, but because-of-facts.

If ID/IC really was not based on factual evidence, figuring that out would be very simple: compare what-ID-is-based-on to the actual-evidence, point out the difference.

a concensus can be reached quickly.

However, to make an argument, beside the facts you also need some sort of mechanism(think: logic) - to combine these facts - to draw conclusions and make predictions. This mechanism is itself an anchor, a basic belief. The interesting thing about ID/IC is that it's really based on factual evidence, which makes them look like strong arguments, and serves as an effective distraction from this: reason is not consistently used as the mechanism for conclusions. I doubt a concensus can be reached.

How to at least determine whether you yourself have reasonable beliefs? That's where the coherence comes in I described in my last post. Being able to express yourself using any of the aspects of strict formal reasoning (e.g. math), is your proof. Which one doesn't matter, they're interchangable because coherent.

SpaceYeti · Feb 7, 2015

WookieeB said:
What exactly is wrong with my facts? My oppositions argument has never faced any of the evidence I have put forward, but has instead tried dismissing it based upon his own made-up definitions and rhetoric. I'm all for looking at the facts, but you have to actually allow them into the discussion.

Things which are claimed to be irreducibly complex have been shown to distinctly not be (by biologists), thus the idea holds no water. IC is not based on facts, because no item claimed to be irreducibly complex, well, is irreducibly complex. The flagellum, as the flagship example, can be reduced into many smaller parts.

One of the premises for your reasoning is false (No known non-intelligent cause of specified complexity) on at least one major count; If we follow that anything with complexity and an apparent purpose requires intelligence to design, then anything and everything we ever find which is complex and serves some apparent purpose will necessarily be judged to have been created by an intelligent designer. If we find a natural manner of it's creation, that's just another step in the complexity for the end, and thus caused by an intelligent designer. Essentially, going on this foundation, it's impossible to discover something which is complex and serves some apparent purpose, yet is not intelligently designed. However, you don't get to that conclusion because it's correct, you get to that conclusion because you don't allow any others. You're assuming something to be impossible (even though you're not outright saying it) when there's no evidence to suppose it actually is.

It's basically just a loopier way of following the form for "God created the universe, the universe exists, thus God exists.", and, when challenged, saying "So you're saying the universe doesn't exist?!"

Your initial premises are simply incorrect. We have discovered specified complexity which does not seem to have been created. It may have been, but there's no way to tell. Especially considering how horrendously inefficient it is! Intelligent design attempts to avoid wasted energy.

WookieeB · Feb 9, 2015

SpaceYeti said:
Things which are claimed to be irreducibly complex have been shown to distinctly not be (by biologists), thus the idea holds no water. IC is not based on facts, because no item claimed to be irreducibly complex, well, is irreducibly complex. The flagellum, as the flagship example, can be reduced into many smaller parts.

I suggest you go back and read the thread that Teax and I have been going through, because your understanding of what IC is is way off. IC is not saying that something cannot be reduced into smaller parts. Way wrong there, bud.

One of the premises for your reasoning is false (No known non-intelligent cause of specified complexity) on at least one major count; If we follow that anything with complexity and an apparent purpose requires intelligence to design, ...

And there again is a misinformed definition of ID. Again, I urge you to go back and read the threads, cause you are way off on understanding what ID is.

It is as I said before. You are dismissing the idea of IC or ID based on your own made up definitions.

We have discovered specified complexity which does not seem to have been created. It may have been, but there's no way to tell. Especially considering how horrendously inefficient it is! Intelligent design attempts to avoid wasted energy.

I would love to know what object you are referring to. Please do tell. I also love how it appears to have not been created, but it may have been, but there is no way to tell. (Am I the only one seeing the multiple contradictions in that statement?)

What does ID has to do with something being not inefficient or avoiding wasted energy? I do not know what you are talking about.

Brontosaurie · Feb 9, 2015

you dishonest creep fuck.

Teax · Feb 9, 2015

^^ whoa hold on

WookieeB said:
I suggest you go back and read the thread

that is really unhelpful, as Blarraun once said:

Blarraun said:
It would be useful to reference the variables that you are using in a spoiler of each post so that anyone can access it without going back a few pages or even to another thread to begin memorizing the set of variables only to forget what was going on.

SpaceYeti said:
Things which are claimed to be irreducibly complex have been shown to distinctly not be (by biologists), thus the idea holds no water. IC is not based on facts, (...)

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. I can imagine some scientists mean something different by "IC" and ofcourse disproving it... but I allowed WookieeB to define everything for the purpose of this debate. As long as the argument makes sence, I do not care whether his definition of IC is "mainstream" or made up or whatever. :^^:

Here's the definition of IC I've been working with all this time:

system is called IC only if taking away any part from this system, the resulting system would stop providing a function it was providing before.
in short: IC = taking away a part would break the system

Based on this definition, I believe it's pretty obvious that IC itself is testable. And something you can test, is based on facts, right?

SpaceYeti · Feb 11, 2015

Actually, I did read the thread, which is why most of my post was the tangent about Specified Complexity.

Second, if we use the definition of IC that Teax provided, then why does it even matter? What importance would such a concept ever have?

WookieeB · Feb 13, 2015

SpaceYeti said:
Actually, I did read the thread, which is why most of my post was the tangent about Specified Complexity.

Asusming that is true, then how did you get to the description you gave? I will have to break down your statements to try to figure it out.

One of the premises for your reasoning is false (No known non-intelligent cause of specified complexity) on at least one major count

Though we still have to see how the premise is false, I agree with the statement in parentheses. There is no known cause of specified complexity that does not involve intelligence. If you have an example of one, we would all love to know what that is.

If we follow that anything with complexity and an apparent purpose requires intelligence to design…

Mostly OK, though I wonder what you mean by “apparent” purpose. Are you referring to something that appears to have a purpose, but we really aren’t sure (ie: the purpose an illusion)? Frankly, I do not see why you included that qualifying word. The object in question either displays a purpose or it doesnt.

With regards to the specificity, which relates to purpose, please keep in mind that the specific arrangement that produces the purpose (the information) would have to correspond to a pattern that is independent of the physical properties of the object in question.

example: I know that clouds in the sky appear as randomly fluffy and sometimes misty in the sky, and this is due in most part to the physical nature of clouds and the environment they exist in. But one day I look up in the sky and see this:

Though it might be technically possible that clouds could naturally form up in that pattern, I am confident that in this case, without knowing about any other factors (like a plane in the vicinity), these clouds are the result of intelligent design. Why the confidence? Because the arrangement of the clouds matches a pattern (english letters) that is independent of any physical requirements of clouds themselves. And that is a trait uniquely linked with ID.

then anything and everything we ever find which is complex and serves some apparent purpose will necessarily be judged to have been created by an intelligent designer.

No. You make it sound like ID is the first and only consideration made. That is not the case. ID is an inference to the best explanation among competing hypotheses. All possible explanations have to be considered, and then one that best fits in explaining the parameters is selected. It often will be that an object of specified complexity is judged to be caused by intelligent design, but there is nothing that makes it “necessarily” so.

If we find a natural manner of it's creation, that's just another step in the complexity for the end, and thus caused by an intelligent designer.

I have no idea what you mean here. But can you give an example of us finding “a natural manner of it's creation”

Essentially, going on this foundation, it's impossible to discover something which is complex and serves some apparent purpose, yet is not intelligently designed. However, you don't get to that conclusion because it's correct, you get to that conclusion because you don't allow any others. You're assuming something to be impossible (even though you're not outright saying it) when there's no evidence to suppose it actually is.

But as the “foundation” you are referring to is incorrect, these statements are false and irrelevant.

Second, if we use the definition of IC that Teax provided, then why does it even matter? What importance would such a concept ever have?

Teax’s definition is not incorrect, but it is perhaps incomplete. Here is another phrased definition:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

The emphasis is that it is a system of ‘matched, interacting, individual parts’ where all parts are needed for function.

The problem comes in explaining how do you build such a system. For an intelligent agent, building it is not an issue, as it can have a goal in mind and bring in and/or modify parts to accomplish that goal. But evolution (RM + NS) cannot realistically do the same thing, as there is no goal in mind for NS. So unless there exists a beneficial function at each step of construction, there is no reason for NS to save any step along the way. And if NS is not acting on anything, then you are just left with purely random actions which do not have enough probabilistic resources to accomplish making the system.

SpaceYeti · Feb 13, 2015

So can it or can it not do a different job if one piece is missing?

WookieeB · Feb 13, 2015

SpaceYeti said:
So can it or can it not do a different job if one piece is missing?

Yes, the system can do a different job if a piece is missing. And a piece that contributes some sub-function in the system can, outside and independent of the system, perform that sub-function (or if tweaked a different function) elsewhere.

But be careful. The more parts or similarly structured parts you have that do other functions elsewhere ramps up the complexity when it comes time to create the system in question.

SpaceYeti · Feb 14, 2015

WookieeB said:
Yes, the system can do a different job if a piece is missing. And a piece that contributes some sub-function in the system can, outside and independent of the system, perform that sub-function (or if tweaked a different function) elsewhere.

But be careful. The more parts or similarly structured parts you have that do other functions elsewhere ramps up the complexity when it comes time to create the system in question.

So what? Why be careful? Careful of what?

Intelligent Design (pure)

Goose! (Duck, Duck)

Active Member

huh?

Attachments

Active Member

irony based lifeform

huh?

Active Member

huh?

irony based lifeform

Soul Shade

irony based lifeform

huh?

Soul Shade

Active Member

huh?

huh?

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

huh?

Active Member

Prolific Member

Active Member

huh?

Active Member

Banned

Active Member

Soul Shade

Prolific Member

huh?

Prolific Member

Active Member

huh?

Prolific Member

Active Member

Banned

huh?

Prolific Member

Active Member

Prolific Member

Active Member

Prolific Member