My life is in direct defiance of God.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"What I am saying is that specified complexity is a strong indication of design, meaning it can arise only through an intelligent process."
That's a heck of a game of leap frog.
It may be a strong indication of design to you, but it isn't to me and apparently others here.
That all things complex (using any standard) may mean they can *only* arise through an intelligent process to you, but not to me and apparently others here.
"Therefore, if my description of specified complexity fits a biological system, then it should mean that it has been caused by an intelligent agency."
Nope. Not to me. That's another leap. "Should mean" doesn't cut it in any way, shape, or form. If you want to buy into "shoulds", have at it. "Shoulds" just aren't good enough for me and apparently others here.
I was going to completely ignore this, but after more contemplation, I'm gonna have to call you out:
"First of all, I want to thank you for accepting my description of specified complexity."
Do you see how in one instance you defined mere 'complexity' in a broad and simplified sense? Do you see that I then agreed that this could be a broad, simple definition? Do you see how you then inserted 'specified' into the mix?
This is dishonest behavior, you should be ashamed of yourself. Not that I want you to stop arguing, your perspective is valuable, but please learn to behave in a respectable manner.
Or don't, I do get a perverse pleasure pointing out your sneakiness and underhanded tactics.
Valiya - "But honestly guys... i have never heard anyone (evolutionist or otherwise) attack the idea that there is complexity in nature."
At no point have I ever said that I think there is no complexity in nature. The problem I have is I'm pretty sure you are not using any standard definition of complexity (hence why you won't tell us how to define it, what dimensions it has, how to measure it, or tell us how complex one of your examples is). Instead you want to use a undefined version, that way you can continue to make unfounded claims about it, without having to expose those claims to criticism. You have a history of doing this; remember when you told us that mutations don't add information, only to have to admit later that what your private definition of information (which you also never gave) differs from how it is used in science and mathematics? You also hinted that you have your own private definition of complexity. So I ask you, for probably the 5th or 6th time:
1) what are the dimensions of complexity?
2) what are the units of complexity?
3) how do we calculate complexity?
4) can you give us an example?
Since you are using some private definition, without at least some of the answers to those questions, I can't say that A is more complex (your version of complexity) that B.
Your argument on complexity and its need to be described seems to be based on the law of entropy. The fact is that chemical reactions create complexity. The sun itself is a nuclear fusion reaction that creates complex atomic structures. The reaction between acid and alkaline components doesn't require a design. It simply is what it is. To attribute these complexities to a supreme being is nothing more than personification of something you don't understand. Scientists try to avoid such bias, for obvious reasons.
Kataclysmic...
you are begging the question... we are in this debate to analyze if the complexity you see in nature can be produced randomly...or only through an intelligent agency...
No that you accept there is complexity in nature (thankfully you are not trying to duck behind creating smoke screens over what is very evident)... i am asking you how it could be produced... talking of nuclear fusion and chemical reactions as example of random creations of complexity... is like quoting the example of babies getting born as an example of random creation of complexity...
do you see what i mean? yes, babies are born every day...but the complexity in them is the result of the information that is already contained in the DNA.... the question is how did this arise? Similarly, once the chemicals and the necessary conditions in the sun are in place...then the fusion takes place...but how did all this come into place...when i see nuclear reaction taking place in a reactor... yes, the process seems to happen spontaneously...but i wouldn't say the reactor therefore came about through random undirected processes...
hope you get it my point...kataclysmic
Valiya, the problem is you have repeatedly used mathematical arguments about complexity, along the lines of:
1) There is too much complexity for x to have happened randomly.
2) X is y times more complex than z.
Without a definition for complexity, those arrangements are pure bullshit.
Oh and I see you have started using yet another wishy-washy term "random undirected processes".
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” This was stated by Richard Dawkins. Would you accuse him of using a wishy-washy term for using the word 'design,' ?
Stop pulling wool over the eyes of people over terms that everyone understands and uses...including the leading doyens of evolution....well at least i understand perfectly what Dawkins means by design....if you don't go ask him.
Nyarlthotep: "At no point have I ever said that I think there is no complexity in nature."
What sort of complexity do you there is nature? What is its definition? How do you measure it?
Valiya - "What sort of complexity do you there is nature? What is its definition? How do you measure it? "
You already asked me a very similar question, and I explained it to you---in detail---less than one hour after you asked. I've been waiting for you to answer the same question for more than 2 months. Other than your laughable attempt to try to bamboozle me with your answer that the dimensions of complexity is "space and time" (a 4 vector, lol!).
Oh yes i remember...that formulation you came up which factored everything in the world but complexity???? that was very clever...and remember your disingenuous tactics of accusing me of using ill-defined terms and you yourself using it when I turned the question around and demanded an explanation.... remember the term 'traits'...that's how the argument ended last time....
So, why don't you show a little generosity and do the honors once again here... Define complexity first, and then tell me how you measure it???
I already told you, it is proportional to the log of information. Information is the number of bits required to describe the state of the system. So for DNA there is 4 possible entries for each base pair, so:
00 = adenine & thymine
01 = thymine & adenine
10 = cytosine & guanine
11 = guanine & cytosine
Therefore to describe exactly which base pair is in a certain position, requires exactly 2 bits.
If you know the number of base pairs, then you easily calculate the amount of information, and from that you can easily get the complexity.
If you want to know exactly how to count the number of base pairs; I have no idea; ask a biologist; but their results are peer reviewed and available to the public.
Nyarlathotep: "If you want to know exactly how to count the number of base pairs; I have no idea; ask a biologist; but their results are peer reviewed and available to the public."
It is of course extremely smart biologists who have worked out all the math who tell us that there is huge information content in a cell. As you cannot do the counting, you simply have to accept biologists who have done that. Let me help you out here:
Check this site.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid...
This site has a research paper by scientist Kimura who studied information content in the genes. In it he says that about 10 to the power 7 or 10 to the power 8 bits of information would be necessary to specify human anatomy.’ Does that sound like small amount of information???
Little wonder Bill Gates had this to say: “DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
Do you still want to deny that there is there is very high order of specified complexity (or information or whatever you want to call it) is there in life?
Valiya - "Does that sound like small amount of information???"
Straw-man alert! I never even suggested the amount of information in a human being is "small".
In fact, if you had paid attention to what I said, you would have realized that what I said gives 6*10^9 bits of information in a human being. Also if you read the article you cited more carefully, you will find that he said a 10^8 INCREASE in information in humans from their genetic ancestors 500M years ago. This brings his figure quite close to mine. How is it possible that his figure so close to mine? I'll tell you. WE ARE USING THE SAME METHOD! You have over and over again tried to suggest this is my method, it isn't! Anyone with half a brain can derive this method from first principles, (trust me, if I can do it, anyone can).
--------------
Valiya - "Do you still want to deny that there is there is very high order of specified complexity (or information or whatever you want to call it) is there in life?"
Straw-man alert! I never said there wasn't a high amount of specified complexity in life. I have no idea how much there is SINCE YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED IT.
Straw-man alert! I never said information = specified complexity. Furthermore even if you are playing musical chairs again with your terms and actually meant information = complexity, I DIDN'T SAY THAT EITHER.
I've got the distinct impression that you just skim posts and don't actually read them.
Since you are still playing the game of hide and seek… unwilling to accept that more information leads to greater complexity, despite the article highglighting the correlation between complexity and information… I will take the conformist route:
Since you seem to agree there is information in DNA (or don’t you?), show me that information of the order you conceded exists in human genes can emerge through unintelligent processes. Show me an example of it happening in our lives.
Valiya - "Since you are still playing the game of hide and seek… unwilling to accept that more information leads to greater complexity"
Strawman alert!
Math fail alert!
If you had actually read what I wrote you would have seen that the definition I gave shows that complexity increases when you increase information! log_e{x+1} > log_e{x}
---------------
Valiya - "show me that information of the order you conceded exists in human genes can emerge through unintelligent processes. Show me an example of it happening in our lives"
bait and switch.
Remember you said that information can not increase in a system from a mutation. You also said that complexity can not increase in a system from a mutation. However, we showed you an example of a mutation that added 3000 base pairs... that is 6000 bits of information (see definition above). And therefore complexity increased: log_e{x} < log_e{x+3000*2} (see your math fail above).
When I brought this exact point up 2 months ago, you backpedaled and said those aren't the definitions of complexity and information you were using. Which brings us full circle to why I've been hounding you for 2 months for those definitions: I'M STILL WAITING FOR THEM. A little voice in my head says you have just bee repeating what you were told by someone, and don't have a clue...
Sorry the system truncated my inequality, should have read:
"And therefore complexity increased: log_e{x} is less than log_e{x+6000}"
probably you will be better advised to listen to your friend TRAVIS on this example of yours... he said, if i remember right, that he was actually laughing at this example as it was such a misfit for evolution. And that's why he gave the example of nylonase...
Moreover, when i further researched the subject based on Travis's example, i found scientists suspecting a pre-programed mechanism even for some of these micro-evolutions.
Moreover, in your example, i demonstrated clearly how after the mutation the bacteria lost an ability, and did not actually gain any new one...and if you want to insist that the addition of 300 base pairs should be accepted as new information...it's like saying that when a child randomly adds letters to a poem, and the result of it is that some meaning from it was lost...and you want to call it information addition... I would seriously suspect your cognitive abilities.
Valiya - "Would you accuse him of using a wishy-washy term for using the word 'design,' ?"
Perhaps, but what you do is even worse. You will notice he didn't try to make a mathematical argument out of a term that isn't not defined mathematically (or that he rejects the mathematical definition of). That is exactly what you have been doing for months, despite it being pointed out to you over and over again.
Oh, so perhaps you want to accuse dawkins of using terms wishy washily that too in his explanation of the study of biology which is at the heart of all the heated debates going on... may be it would serve you better to first settle those differences with evolutionists before you turn to creationists...otherwise it might seem like dawkins, who is way smarter than you, understand my argument...but not you. now, if you want you can jump on to my statement that dawkins is smarter than you and ask me to prove it mathematically???
I'm not here to smear or support Dawkins. I'm not here to smear or support you. I'm not a biologist, I'm a mathematician. You have made several mathematical claims about complexity, and I want to examine them. However, as long as you keep its definition a secret, that is not possible. So I am forced to conclude you are just making it up as you go along (which seems consistent with your game of musical chairs of ill defined terms).
If you are not a biologist who is engaging in bilogical polemics... i think you've got to first understand in what sense acknowledged biologists (evolutionists) have used terms... i have not used any terms in any new sense than what dawkins himself has used... if you smear me for the terms... be default you smear dawkins.
"you are begging the question... "
It seems you don't know what this term means.
You are the only one I've so far who has begged the question. You are assuming the outcome of the argument within your argument itself; that "complexity of nature" somehow equates to "complexity in design" and further that complexity must be the result of design. Notwithstanding the lack of a baseline for complexity (which is a comparative adjective) that still doesn't mean design must be present in the face of complexity.
Your argument is cyclical and begs the question.
Cmallen
“You are assuming the outcome of the argument within your argument itself; that "complexity of nature" somehow equates to "complexity in design" and further that complexity must be the result of design.”
The argument is so simple… let me repeat. I see specified complexity in nature. What is specified complexity? The arrangement of many primitive components to achieve a function. A watch has many cogwheels and springs and so on (complexity)… all arranged in a specific manner (specified) to enable time-measurement, I say it has specified complexity. When I observe a cell, I find the same phenomenon playing out: many small parts arranged in a manner for a function. A cell, is far more complex than a watch I would say… because it has more parts and more functions than a watch.
You are telling me this complexity came about through random undirected processes. What do I mean by that? Mutation (random) and Natural selection (undirected process which does not have a long term goal of say producing a camera eye for example).
I say, this is impossible, because going by what I observe in my daily life any specific complexity has arisen as a result of intelligence only. Show me an example otherwise.
I know the meaning of begging the question… and I have not done that. Come up with reasonable argument to break my case. I have explained it in detail…not hiding behind vague terms. And regarding information content in DNA, check out my answer for Nyarlathotep above.
Neither natural selection, nor mutation have a long term goal. Thank you for agreeing with me.
Oh, and I don't have to "break" your case. You claim something deliberate and planned happened, I said I'm not convinced. I don't NEED you to realise evolution happens, I feel confident it will happen without your approval. And also, evolution is not "undirected" as you say; natural selection is the director.
Debating with valia is like debating with a wall,
When one does not understand the difference between a deistic argument and atheistic one, it is best to ignore.
Seriously jeff,,, are you not getting bored of your childish whinings about me.... this i think is the 10th time or so that you are sneaking up just to make bad remark about me, without adding anything useful to the post...people are responding to my arguments because they think it's worth responding to....if you don't have anything constructive to contribute why don't you take up other threads and spend your time in a more mature manner.
"your childish whinings about me.... this i think is the 10th time"
I do not whine, I just see a very stupid reply(yes 10'th time) , give you a message, if you are smart enough you will understand it, if you are not you will say something stupid again like:
"you are sneaking up just to make bad remark about me, without adding anything useful to the post"
I will repeat the "something useful", maybe this time you will be able to understand WHY this defeats your entire argument:
"When one does not understand the difference between a deistic argument and theistic one, it is best to ignore."
OK I will be nicer and give you hitches explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPlMSkSXxz4
Cmallen
I never said something deliberate and planned happened… I am only saying that specified complexity can arise only through an intelligent agency… that’s what we are seeing all around us. We don’t see or believe or act in our everyday life based on an assumption that specified complexity occurs through random processes without the agency of intelligence. Even a specified complexity of a very low order…like a series of signals from outer space in a patterned fashion will be conclusive proof of extra-terrestrial intelligent life, according to scientists in this field. So, if you can show me a computer code or something like that which evolved without the agency of a mind working on it…you will smash my case.
Pages