Complex STructures
Next: New Fossil Prev: Predictions On Infidelity TOC
Casey Wed 12/4/2013 11:35 PM: Thanks
for the note and the good questions. I’ll reply to your questions briefly:
Scott:
“How does it predict complex structures will be formed?”
Casey:
Well, ID begins by observing how intelligent agents operate when they design
things. We observe that intelligent agents produce complex structures like
language-based codes and machines. And guess what we find in biology? We find
that all biology is based upon language-based codes and machines.
Scott:
“Why are we not finding even more complex structures?”
Casey:
What we find in biology seems to be always getting more complicated and complex
than we previously expected. So I think this prediction you state is being met.
For example, we now know that the DNA à RNA à Protein model is true, but there
are many many layers of controls within biology. We
know that one gene can code for multiple proteins in multiple reading frames.
In other words, there are overlapping codes in the DNA, much like overlapping
codes produced by a cipher. We know that RNAs don’t just create proteins but go
out into the cells and form complex logic circuits which regulate many cellular
functions. The more we learn about biology, the more complex it’s turning out
to be.
Scott Sat 12/14/2013 10:53 AM:
My question was relative to what we observe. Why do we not see phenomena a billion times more complex? How does ID predict the observed level of complexity?
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Your argument is one that refuses to accept reality. What we see is highly complex. You could always mov the goalpoat and say “Why isn’t it more complex?” So you’re not making a fair argument. In fact, the more we study life, the more we’re finding it’s MORE complex than we realized:
“The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. … [A]s sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data, the complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set — a space that is determined by a simple equation, but that reveals ever more intricate.” (Erica Check Hayden, “Life is complicated,” Nature, Vol. 464: 664 (April 1, 2010).)
So there you go…life is as complex as you can imagine it to be: like a Mandelbrot set. And let me guess: you’re still not satisfied!
Scott 1/31/14: The Evolutionary response is simple. We didn’t need to be a billion times more complex to prevail over the Tigers and the Leopards and the Wolves and the Bears.
Thus,
Bill Gates wrote: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more
advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” (Bill Gates, “The Road
Ahead,” pg. 228 (Viking, Penguin Group, 1996, Revised Edition)
Scott 1/31/14: Thread moved to Cherry Picking.
You
ask: “For example, why are we not finding humans with minds more sophisticated
and intelligent than we are?”
Casey:
Your argument is one which would refuse to accept design ever, because you
could always say “Well, why aren’t we more intelligent…” So I think your
question reflects a desire to avoid inferring design rather than a desire to
seek truth.
Scott Sat 12/14/2013 10:53 AM:
Remember, the worst thing we can do is prove that I didn’t raise my children to believe a lie. It’s important for you to understand my motivations here.
Scott 1/31/14: Moved subthread to Engineering and Design.
Scott 1/31/14: Subthread moved to Recognizing a Tanguero.
Scott
1/31/14: Subthread moved to Engineering and Design
Scott Sat 12/14/2013 10:53 AM:
Thank-you for your efforts, Casey. I am learning a great deal from you. I hope you are learning from my thinking as well.
Best,
Scott
Scott 3/23/14: In thinking about and responding to your correspondence, I am learning a great deal more about evolution than I would be on my own. I am also learning an awful lot about how such a brilliant mind can come to an entire network of incorrect conclusions. See Observations on the ID Brain for more.
Casey Tuesday, January 14, 2014 4:13 PM: Actually, hawkmoth defense systems are an irreducibly complex system that makes a great argument for design. See: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/844
Scott 3/23/14: Your favorite, Behe, tried to use the argument of irreducible complexity in the Dover trial. There, his argument was answered. See Nova Program. At the 1:05:00 marker, Bee’s arguments, some of his arguments in court were dramatized. Behe refused numerous opportunities to be interviewed for the program.
At 1:07:0, he is shown to present bacterial flagellum and is shown to quote David DeRosier of Brandeis University in a paper that said the bacterial flagellum appeared to be an electrical motor of human design.
However, at the 1:10:04 marker, DeRosier makes it clear that he was misrepresented. Rather, he explains how it arose through evolution and how it refutes Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity. Then, at 1:13:00, Miller (an expert witness for the plaintiff) further shows the falsity of the irreducible complexity argument. And then at 1:17:20, Scott A. Minick, University of Idaho, Associate Professor in microbiology who specializes on the bacterial flagellum is shown to read from Behe an experiment that could actually tested his arguments. In the end of the sequence, describes how difficult the problem of testing is for both sides of the argument.
[For more discussion on how Luskin misrepresents results from scientists, see Cherry Picking.]
Also, Dawkins discussed in TGSOE how the Lenski experiment refuted the idea of irreducible complexity. I discuss this briefly in Darwin/Wallace Prediction.
Next: New Fossil Prev: Predictions On Infidelity TOC