Irreducible complication

The E wrote:
snip

When are you going to start?

When are you going to calculate the odds or at least provide a link to where that has been done by an evolutionist? I accept odds based on empirical facts which are over 10^9:1 as a reasonable proof

DDHv wrote:

The E wrote:
snip

When are you going to start?

When are you going to calculate the odds or at least provide a link to where that has been done by an evolutionist? I accept odds based on empirical facts which are over 10^9:1 as a reasonable proof

Why 10^9? Why not 10^10? Or 10^8? You setting arbitrary goalposts, while certainly a time-honored tradition of creationists, does not lend credence to your arguments (as does your refusal to provide links to the experimental proof creationists have supposedly produced)

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.

(It should be noted that Kauffman's theory has been shown to be feasible in experiments since that article was written)

By the way, here's an example from your own reading materials (at least, I assume it's part of what you were reading) for the statistical and biological fallacies creationists use:

No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process.

Well. I guess noone has gotten sick from bugs that are resistant to antibiotics then. There's a more complete refutation here.

I'm going to bow out now from this exchange as I can see (as I predicted) that no amount of facts or logic will be of use.
A parting layman's non technical point I will make is that of selective breeding. I grew up on a sheep and cattle station (ranch to the US). Over quite a few decades and generations we bred merino sheep with finer wool, and santa gertrudis cattle with higher food to weight gain capability.
Ok it was artificial selection in that rams and bulls were introduced by us that enhanced those genetically driven traits (possibly ID in that we were intelligent and we did it by design). However there were measurable changes in the populations over only a few generations. Surely the environment over thousands of generations could also have influenced changes?

Every discussion on this topic goes the same way. The realists quote science, and the believers throw up a blizzard of logical fallacies, then plug their ears. There's no way to "win" this debate because the two sides cannot agree on the basic premise.

I will say this: So-called "creation science" and "intelligent design" are neither science nor intelligent. They are a political con-job strategy. Public schools in the US are, quite properly, not allowed to teach and advocate religious dogma. The power brokers of religion know that this undermines their indoctrination of children, so they re-label their mythology as "science" (which it is not), hoping to either push it into schools under a false name or give parents a reason to pull their kids out of public schools and pay big bucks to enroll them in schools run by churches, where they can bend the curriculum back to indoctrination. Then, they push "school choice" and voucher programs to grab tax dollars for that indoctrination. They turn a profit AND secure the next generation of unquestioning sheep.

The E wrote:
Why 10^9? Why not 10^10? Or 10^8? You setting arbitrary goalposts, while certainly a time-honored tradition of creationists, does not lend credence to your arguments (as does your refusal to provide links to the experimental proof creationists have supposedly produced)

Now we might be getting somewhere.
From: http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.c ... -8HYlvTNFQ

"Science vs pseudoscience are about process, not conclusions, and therefore not values and beliefs (except for valuing science itself – and that is the entire point).... "

I'm surprised you didn't cite:
https://edward-t-babinski.blogspot.com/ ... denis.html
or:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/200 ... st-fa.html

We are now looking at a process instead of pre-approved conclusions.
Any figure would be arbitrary. I choose 10^9 because it is neither trivial nor astronomical.
When checking anything, first I look at assumptions. These articles below assume that abiogeneisis had adequate natural selection and mutation at the molecular level. The first, unlike the second, does not give details or sources. Neither makes any estimate on other chemical interaction. Amino acids react with many things that either foul or destroy them. There is also the question of the odds of amino acids or sub-units themselves forming and not being degraded or fouled in the process. Miller's experiment assumed an unrealistic atmosphere (from later discovered evidence), and had to trap the results to prevent the energy input from degrading the produced products.

The second article is more reasonable. Note that it does not calculate odds concerning interaction with other chemicals, or formation of the sub-units, etc. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler"

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

snip

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.

(It should be noted that Kauffman's theory has been shown to be feasible in experiments since that article was written)

By the way, here's an example from your own reading materials (at least, I assume it's part of what you were reading) for the statistical and biological fallacies creationists use:

Not that particular one. The ability of all "generations" of mutation to produce at least one functioning result capable of acting as a bridge to the next one is what irreducible complication is questioning. As said before, we need more research and less rhetoric before claiming this is settled, either way. Properly done, science is its own selective process. Theories must be selected using experiment, and logic (including math) by being exposed to questioners, not just rhetoric. And oh, boy, are there plenty of bad theories in its history. Some of them have even spawned good theories

"No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process."

Well. I guess noone has gotten sick from bugs that are resistant to antibiotics then. There's a more complete refutation here.

AFAIK, resistant bugs are selected from the genome, including genetic transfer from other bugs, so it is a decrease of total information, rather than an increase. It stops being beneficial when the antibiotic is no longer present. This link is worth reading, but it seems to assume the Morris' math allows no other mutations. Morris' math ignores possible others, but it would be nice to get more information about the math used for this link's conclusion
:begging:

Daryl wrote:I'm going to bow out now from this exchange as I can see (as I predicted) that no amount of facts or logic will be of use.
A parting layman's non technical point I will make is that of selective breeding. I grew up on a sheep and cattle station (ranch to the US). Over quite a few decades and generations we bred merino sheep with finer wool, and santa gertrudis cattle with higher food to weight gain capability.
Ok it was artificial selection in that rams and bulls were introduced by us that enhanced those genetically driven traits (possibly ID in that we were intelligent and we did it by design). However there were measurable changes in the populations over only a few generations. Surely the environment over thousands of generations could also have influenced changes?

The question is whether the selection/mutation process is open ended, or has natural limits. Working with current species has always been within limits AFAIK

dscott8 wrote:Every discussion on this topic goes the same way. The realists quote science, and the believers throw up a blizzard of logical fallacies, then plug their ears. There's no way to "win" this debate because the two sides cannot agree on the basic premise.

snip

What, you don't believe in evolution? Science assumes that given enough experiment, observation, and logic, good theories can be selected. No theory should be considered totally settled, as the history of science includes many bad and/or incomplete theories which were widely accepted. This means that no theory should be protected from exposure to any questioners. Even a jerk is sometimes right.

Irreducible complication assumes that there exist needed step(s) of change with unbridgeable gaps to the next one, like the inter - phyla gaps in the fossil record. This shouldn't be settled by marketing the opposite assumption.

DDHv wrote:

dscott8 wrote:Every discussion on this topic goes the same way. The realists quote science, and the believers throw up a blizzard of logical fallacies, then plug their ears. There's no way to "win" this debate because the two sides cannot agree on the basic premise.

snip

What, you don't believe in evolution? Science assumes that given enough experiment, observation, and logic, good theories can be selected. No theory should be considered totally settled, as the history of science includes many bad and/or incomplete theories which were widely accepted. This means that no theory should be protected from exposure to any questioners. Even a jerk is sometimes right.

Irreducible complication assumes that there exist needed step(s) of change with unbridgeable gaps to the next one, like the inter - phyla gaps in the fossil record. This shouldn't be settled by marketing the opposite assumption.

More verbal razzle-dazzle. Science is not a belief system. It requires no unquestioning faith. On the contrary, it questions everything, but it does so with an evidence-based methodology. Theories are constantly evaluated, refined and revised on the basis of new evidence. There are rules as to what constitutes scientific evidence, and "creation science" ignores them. It takes advantage of the freely admitted fact that we do not yet know everything about everything, and when it finds something like a gap in the fossil record, it proclaims that science can't explain it (leaving out the crucial qualifier "yet"), and insists that the only answer is divine intervention. This is the "god of the gaps" argument, and it fails because REAL science is constantly narrowing the gaps. It's also a false equivalency argument, insisting that all viewpoints are equally valid even though some are supported by reproducible evidence and some are not.

dscott8 wrote:

DDHv wrote:"=dscott8]Every discussion on this topic goes the same way. The realists quote science, and the believers throw up a blizzard of logical fallacies, then plug their ears. There's no way to "win" this debate because the two sides cannot agree on the basic premise.

snip

"
What, you don't believe in evolution? Science assumes that given enough experiment, observation, and logic, good theories can be selected. No theory should be considered totally settled, as the history of science includes many bad and/or incomplete theories which were widely accepted. This means that no theory should be protected from exposure to any questioners. Even a jerk is sometimes right.

Irreducible complication assumes that there exist needed step(s) of change with unbridgeable gaps to the next one, like the inter - phyla gaps in the fossil record. This shouldn't be settled by marketing the opposite assumption.

More verbal razzle-dazzle. Science is not a belief system. It requires no unquestioning faith. On the contrary, it questions everything, but it does so with an evidence-based methodology. Theories are constantly evaluated, refined and revised on the basis of new evidence. There are rules as to what constitutes scientific evidence, and "creation science" ignores them. It takes advantage of the freely admitted fact that we do not yet know everything about everything, and when it finds something like a gap in the fossil record, it proclaims that science can't explain it (leaving out the crucial qualifier "yet"), and insists that the only answer is divine intervention. This is the "god of the gaps" argument, and it fails because REAL science is constantly narrowing the gaps. It's also a false equivalency argument, insisting that all viewpoints are equally valid even though some are supported by reproducible evidence and some are not.

This ignores the contributions of information theory, which the ID workers are not doing. To ignore this field, any example of high information content being produced in a probable manner is needed. FYI, given wide estimates of the needed elements, the total probable information depth of the observed universe calculates to approximately 500 bits. Evolutionists speculate on possible filtering means to get around this. ID workers speculate on inadequacies of such means without the only proven method of producing high information results - our intelligence does it all the time. May the flaws in all these speculations be found, but it is not likely to be complete before I die of old age

I suspect the real complaint by evolutionists about the ID movement is that they don't like being subject to cross-examination. Science depends on this, or bad theories would never be eliminated.

Spiegelman's 1967 experiment:

This was the first
synthesis of an infectious nucleic acid.

This and the following experiments show molecular replication in a carefully prepared environment. Attempts to show that such an environment could have been formed naturally are true science, but so is trying to show any problems with such speculations.

Mention was made of ID "talking points." If there is a way to evade the point that oxidized minerals in all sedimentary strata are evidence that earth never had a reducing atmosphere, or that the planet is too small to have a hydrogen atmosphere, I don't know it. Also, so far there is no evidence that a pre-biotic soup can form in the presence of oxygen.

Other pre-biotic soup ID points: the reactions are reversible by the same energy that produced them; there are many interfering cross reactions; no mixture so far has been produced without the catalytic actions of enzymes having handedness; if our technology ever is able to reassemble a disassembled cell, it will be by design; so far no one has come up with a testable path for molecular evolution of photosynthesis.

Indeed, photosynthesis complexes can be pointed out as probable examples of irreducible complication.

Any theory can be proposed, refined, evaluated, and revised. My objection is to the way evolutionists cross examine ID workers, insist their work is unscientific, but try to avoid having the theory of evolution be cross examined by those who dislike it for any reason. The gatekeepers of scientific journals should judge submitted papers only on the quality of the experiment, observation, and logic, not on whether the paper supports or opposes any consensus. Elimination of ANY theory should also be possible, provided this is done using good quality tests.

Many non consensus theories have been proposed. Let us devise quality tests! The self correction of science depends on empirical methods, not scholastic ones.

Any and all theories which have not yet been solidly buttressed by the empirical means of good experiment, good observation, and good logic are not yet science, but rather only speculation. Looking for either the strengths or weaknesses of any such speculation is science. Claiming that those who don't like your speculation are not doing science is scholasticism.

We need to speculate in order to produce theories. This should not be confused with testing these theories


BTW, I'm a contrarian by nature. Given any consensus, I look at the assumptions and evidence to see if any other possibilities could possibly exist. Is it possible you have noticed any evidence of this?

I know this is futile, but....

DDHv, in order to be an accepted scientific theory that supercedes evolution, ID needs to do two things:

1. Make a testable prediction that cannot be explained using the theory of evolution.
2. Provide experimental and testable proof for the mechanisms by which creation happens.

In theory, point 1 is possible. Point 2, frankly isn't: Despite what cthia believes, it is utterly impossible to devise a test for the presence or absence of a deity.

The reason why ID isn't accepted anywhere is because its proponents have either utterly failed to devise experiments (concentrating more on armchair analysis of specific points of the theory of evolution; often based on faulty starting assumptions or using outdated information), or have devised experiments that were unsuccessful at providing a definitive proof for ID.

If ID cannot match these evidentiary standards (which, I obviously need to remind you, evolution passes), why should it be considered to be serious science? Furthermore, you still haven't addressed the fact that we've been using the mechanisms of evolution to great effect in medicine, agriculture and algorithmics; what equivalent practical applications has ID brought forth (or even postulated)?

Right now, the state of creationism is such that they take the same data evolutionary theory is built on, and says "Yeah, that's all the work of the Creator, case closed". That, to be frank, is intellectual laziness.

BTW, I'm a contrarian by nature. Given any consensus, I look at the assumptions and evidence to see if any other possibilities could possibly exist. Is it possible you have noticed any evidence of this?

That's not what you're doing though. You are strongly dogmatic and unwilling or unable to confront the possibility that you are wrong.