Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, I am tired of rudeness. Rudeness and ignorance is a bad combination.Avoiding answers once again?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nope, I am tired of rudeness. Rudeness and ignorance is a bad combination.Avoiding answers once again?
Different species are competing for the same resources. That tends to produce complexity as they adapt to each other using those resources.
You are accusing me for making a circular argument, but you haven’t supported your accusation. …why won’t you support your accusation? *edit*I always answer properly asked questions. You should try it some time.
Well, that may be a bit of a straw man.Because there is nothing in the properties of amino acids that would force them to organize themselves in the pattern required to produce self replicating agents.
That would seem to be an argument from ignorance, in that you're not proposing any sort of actual mechanism for "design", but instead are arguing that since our current understanding of natural mechanisms can't fully explain "specified complexity", then "design" (by an unknown entity using unknown means) wins by default.If instead of ice you have hexagonal patterns of iron, you could conclude design, because there is nothing in the laws of nature that would force “iron” to organize itself in hexagonal patterns.
Now you know better than that. No need to break forum rules.You are accusing me for making a circular argument, but you haven’t supported your accusation. …why won’t you support your accusation?............well because you are a lying troll
People tend to complicate things, but the concept of inteligetn design (as proposed by Behe, Demski and many others) is very simple and easy to understand.
The theory of ID is based on 2 premises
1 Intelligent design is detectable: there are objective ways to detect design, this is uncontroversial; for example forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, detectives, cryptographers, and many other professionals detect design all the time. For example If we go to another planet and find something that looks like pyramids there would be an objective way to determine if they where design or not. And one could (in principle) conclude that these pyramids where intelligently design even if nobody knows who the designer, or where did it come from, or “who created the designer” the answer to those question could simply be “I don’t know”
2 if we apply those objective methods to living things, we would infer design: If we look at living things at apply the same methods that we already know that are reliable, to detect design, we would infer that life was designed by an intelligent designer (even if we might not know who the designer is, or were did he come from)
The objective method that Dembski and others propose is “specified complexity” something is specified and complex if:
1 it has many parts (or units)…. For example a book has many letters
2 they are organized in a pattern…..for example the letters are organized in such a way in which they produce meaningful words and sentences
3 the pattern is independent from the forces of nature: …. For example there is no a law (or principle) in nature that forces “ink” and “paper” to produce meaningful letters words and sentences.
Something requires all (1,2 and 3) in order to call it “specified complexity”
The argument is that life is specified and complex
even the simplest life forms would require many amino acids (1) organized in a very specific order and pattern (2) and nothing in nature forces the amino acids to organize themselves in such a way that they would produce functional self replicating “things”
*For simplicity lets define life as: something organic that can reproduce.
In my experience those who deny ID don’t really present an argument, and usually they don’t spot their point of disagreement, they simply troll and call ID “creationism with another name” instead of providing an actual argument.
1: Evolution works both ways. Sometimes it simplifies and reduces apparent complexity. It 'selects' the best design for the situation.1 Life, or to be specific “replication” I would argue that replicating systems are specified and complex. And therefore designed.
And it did. Archaea, bacteria, protozoa, &c are all still thriving. Moreover, as I stated above, evolution works both ways. It doesn't always go from simple to complex.The problem is that “natural selection” doesn’t aims at complexity, it aims at adaptability. NS tries to produce creatures that are well adapted. There is no reason for why “simple life” evolved in to “complex life” natural selection could have maintained life “simple” but well adapted.
Yes it does! Have you not been paying attention?In other words, NS explains why are organisms adapted, but it doesn’t explain why are they complex.
Stay yer tongue, ya scurvy wench! I've had men keelhauled for less.Hey, play by Audies rules, and stay out for now, ya
swab!!! Or else.
Yes there is.Because there is nothing in the properties of amino acids that would force them to organize themselves in the pattern required to produce self replicating agents.
Stay yer tongue, ya scurvy wench! I've had men keelhauled for less.
Well, that may be a bit of a straw man.
From my understanding, the primary hypotheses regarding the origin of life don't propose that amino acids self-assembled into proteins all on their own. Rather, the scenario is that nucleotides self-assembled into chains inside of lipid membranes, and that eventually one of those lipid-contained nucleotide chains was able to replicate. Once that replication began, selective pressures favored more efficient replicators.
It wasn't until after all that occurred that the nucleotides began coding for amino acids and proteins.
That would seem to be an argument from ignorance, in that you're not proposing any sort of actual mechanism for "design", but instead are arguing that since our current understanding of natural mechanisms can't fully explain "specified complexity", then "design" (by an unknown entity using unknown means) wins by default.
Is that about right?
Then at some point you have self-replicating nucleotides. That part has been demonstrated in the lab.Ok let’s assume that we already have nucleotides inside a lipid membrane….then what?
Unless you have some actual probability calculations to share, you're not really making an argument as much as you're just making an empty assertion.What are the odds of typing letters in your computer randomly and end up with the instructions of how to bake a delicious chocolate cake?.....I would argue that the origin of the first replicating agent would be a lot like that.
Given how you've stated that arising outside of natural mechanisms is one of the criteria for "specified complexity", the above makes your argument circular.The claim is that nature can’t create specified complexity;
Such as?we have positive and observable evidence that suggests that design is the only possible cause for specified complexity.
Aye, so many may think.
But no.
source?
The observed examples of natural selection tend to make organisms simpler (sure with some exceptions) but the overall trends seems to be simplicity………..but you can provide a source and prove me wrong
Years ago,I wrote a similar program using 32 characters. Thousands of each one. I then randomly took 32 of them seeing if I could get ABC...456. Never happened. I think the closest I got in 24 hours of running was a couple of ABCDEsOne of the things that convinced me of the power of mutation and natural selection was when I wrote my own version of the weasel program. I allowed for 90 symbols in each location (uppercase, lower case, space, punctuation) and, if I recall, a line with 70 symbols.
If you *randomly* select 70 characters, then *randomly* select 70 again, etc, the predicted time to find a target string is more than the age of the universe, even with the fastest computers.
But, if you allow each string to have 50 'children' and select the child that is closest to the target as the new 'parent', the target string can *easily* be found in just a couple thousand generations. That is almost immediate.
I think it's the opposite.those who deny ID don’t really present an argument