Detecting Design.

[Nimos]

The eye fails 3 as far I'm aware of. That's why it doesn't work. But what if something fundamentally is so different that there is nothing similar to it as a system nor just by it's binary nature, can you trace footprint of possible change of one system to the next.

In the case of the eye, it starts with this small detecting thing that is so abstract, and you eventually get to the eye.

It was literally the worse example to come up with.

If I understand what you are trying to get at, which I may not , then I agree that the eye is not a good example. But also my comment in regards to programming, were also to point out why it doesn't work as an example.

The reason being that the system does not necessarily need to have the same functionality as the former one. Meaning that if you go to the very first stage of the eye and the stage before that, the idea of the photoreceptors or what eventually would turn into them, might simply have been used to detect whether it was day or night or something like that, and therefore not having the intention of pin pointing things with accuracy, like preys etc.

In regards to programming and functions, the reason I pointed out that I don't think it would work, even if you look at it from an abstract point of view, is because a function is a complex system, it didn't evolve from something more simple, but were designed in a complete form in order to work.

Also why I don't think talking about irreducible complexity, even from an abstract point of view make a lot of sense, because you need to do this on the very first stages in natural world. Because everything you compare to that was made by humans is designed and in many cases designed to serve a specific task, so it very rarely follows an idea that is reducible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

2. There no pathway to the individual component(s) or at least one of them unless the other parts are there because individually they are useless and evolution makes no usage of getting there.

False.

As we have seen, for example, in the Lenski experiment of E coli that ended up evolving novel metabolic pathways to grow on citrate, it was the result of several mutations. Together, they opened up that metabolic pathway. It's not like the first mutation made them capable of metabolising citrate a "little". No, only the combination of the mutations did that.

This maybe impossible to prove or it maybe possible, we'll have to see.

You are a bit outdated.
IC has been shown to be a flawed concept a long time ago. It's been shown to be flawed almost immediatly after the cdesign proponentsists of the discovery institute conjured it up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Or easier way to say this. Sometimes components can be added one at a time for different usages. But is it possible that, components rely on each other, but have no individual usage (or some of them don't) outside the system and hence, no alternative usage for them.

Like the first mutations in the Lenski experiment which, only when combined with subsequent mutations, opened up novel metabolic pathways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's useful, because, in programming, you can almost all the time, add a function itself, test by itself. But sometimes for somethings, you need multiple functions at the same time working together, before some of those functions individually can have a use. This happens rarely in programming from my limited experience

This actually happens all the time in programming.
When you build a function in C#, you are running on top of the .NET framework. The function you write itself is completely dependend on loads of functions within the framework. The .NET framework itself is in turn dependend on loads of functions within the operating system. And the code of the OS is itself dependend on the instruction sets of the hardware chips.

So usually a function is testable and good in itself.

Only because the IDE is hiding / abstracting the thousands upon thousands of lines of code upon which those functions you write depend.

This is just to show the concept.

The concept is bogus. It isn't capable of detecting design, which is supposed to be its only purpose. It fails miserably.

In analogy to biology, it would be saying some parts of the system can be individually added and have purpose individually

They don't need to have purpose individually either. Them having beneficial purpose certainly would help raise their chances of being past on to off spring... but as long as they aren't harmfull, they won't be selected against.

But some systems require parts that can't have any usage in themselves. Whether such things actually exist in biology, we have to see.

We have already seen that.

We are purely talking abstract. See if the abstract concepts allows detection of design.

It does not.

Then we get look for it in the actual world.

No point in doing that, as the concept is bogus anyway.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Abstract means non-specific and we aren't looking an instance of concrete thing.

It's generic and conceptual.

Then it has no value or merrit.

It's like trying to fight a war with action figures.

 

[PureX]

Design is just a process. The process of limiting the flow of expressed energy to achieve a specific result. Everything that exists, exists as the specific result of the design process. And that process is ongoing.

 

[rational experiences]

A theist should ask are you the consciousness of the physical mass of stone?

In reality?

The answer is no....and the history AI memory first God theory said God the O stone face was sealed when it was irradiating opened and converting by water mass O sealed shut.

O pi in Earth stone history is water mass, not any other statement in reality. And Pi is the light held fixed signal in hot burning gases cooled.

Design a scientist theist thinker says is water.

And you are wrong.

Reasoning for bio Genesis...about microbe history relative to self.

Hence as a human you live and exist first. And as a theist the first circumstance you apply in thinking is to place your mind into all bio histories first.

Without machine/radiation mass or AI machine encoded feed back. Just thinking observations...for self is involved in the theory for machine and also reaction....for the discussion states the theory was said against self existence or ANTI Christ.

CH that arose are the gas mass histories of radiating light gases that came out of the body stone, that were cooled by water mass.

Hence the reason to build a machine was to have WATER removed.....which is what the UFO mass Sun attack did....it sucked up water to cool its presence, hence it was cooled to a heated place where the spatial vacuum could suck it back out into space. How the UFO attack was removed by water mass.

As science historic theist knowledge.

Therefore any human today would ask a theist scientist for what reason do you include the bio generic Earth water cellular present history in machine string theory? For what true and real reason do you include us in a string that takes natural face of stone, fused by water...a mineral. Remove its mineral water held presence, convert it to a volcanic mass melt heat....then cool it again?

When water and it history is our natural life?

In relative meaning.....you included our use natural water to cool your mineral melt to own a machine....so virtually included us spiritually with your machine manifestation as if you own every intent to give our life now to a machine reaction!

As a relative every day human rights to question how the theist their own self came about with the theory for machines!

 

[Tiberius]

A theist should ask are you the consciousness of the physical mass of stone?

In reality?

The answer is no....and the history AI memory first God theory said God the O stone face was sealed when it was irradiating opened and converting by water mass O sealed shut.

O pi in Earth stone history is water mass, not any other statement in reality. And Pi is the light held fixed signal in hot burning gases cooled.

Design a scientist theist thinker says is water.

And you are wrong.

Reasoning for bio Genesis...about microbe history relative to self.

Hence as a human you live and exist first. And as a theist the first circumstance you apply in thinking is to place your mind into all bio histories first.

Without machine/radiation mass or AI machine encoded feed back. Just thinking observations...for self is involved in the theory for machine and also reaction....for the discussion states the theory was said against self existence or ANTI Christ.

CH that arose are the gas mass histories of radiating light gases that came out of the body stone, that were cooled by water mass.

Hence the reason to build a machine was to have WATER removed.....which is what the UFO mass Sun attack did....it sucked up water to cool its presence, hence it was cooled to a heated place where the spatial vacuum could suck it back out into space. How the UFO attack was removed by water mass.

As science historic theist knowledge.

Therefore any human today would ask a theist scientist for what reason do you include the bio generic Earth water cellular present history in machine string theory? For what true and real reason do you include us in a string that takes natural face of stone, fused by water...a mineral. Remove its mineral water held presence, convert it to a volcanic mass melt heat....then cool it again?

When water and it history is our natural life?

In relative meaning.....you included our use natural water to cool your mineral melt to own a machine....so virtually included us spiritually with your machine manifestation as if you own every intent to give our life now to a machine reaction!

As a relative every day human rights to question how the theist their own self came about with the theory for machines!

Once again, any meaning you intend is absolutely indecipherable.

 

[rational experiences]

Once again, any meaning you intend is absolutely indecipherable.

Do you speak on behalf of the existence of God O the stone planet in reality?

No, you are a human being bio consciousness.

Did you not scientist theist make a formula to abstract stone mass energy as a formula out of the body mass of energy, stone?

As your idea that you were speaking on behalf of creation. Therefore how could you ever believe that you were detecting design...when our Earth gases are not God the stone gases to own the physical body of stone? They came out of a volcano...do you know what volcanic mass is by its physical mass? As a design?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you speak on behalf of the existence of God O the stone planet in reality?

No, you are a human being bio consciousness.

Did you not scientist theist make a formula to abstract stone mass energy as a formula out of the body mass of energy, stone?

As your idea that you were speaking on behalf of creation. Therefore how could you ever believe that you were detecting design...when our Earth gases are not God the stone gases to own the physical body of stone? They came out of a volcano...do you know what volcanic mass is by its physical mass? As a design?

What is your native language?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I use inorganic examples myself in a metaphorical way. Reason why I commented was I immediately thought of the watchmaker argument.

If you're talking about the Watchmaker Argument I know (someone finds a watch on a beach and recognizes it's designed, etc.), there's an interesting wrinkle in that argument that I don't think the theists who use it appreciate: it depends on the beach not being designed.

The watch is able to be recognized as designed because it stands out from an undesigned background.

The argument is useless for arguing that absolutely everything is designed, but that's the only way I ever see it used.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

How about, the odds of abiogenesis are irreducibly complex?

 

[Link]

Actually irreducible complexity is a false concept. But if you add the binary feature, it can work.

The only thing is if the binary feature (the opposite that there can be transition) if it's a rational concept.

So irreducible complexity itself is a false notion, it doesn't work. But if you combine that concept with addition to something being binary and non-transitional it may work is what I'm saying.

 

[Link]

So you are agreeing with me that irreducible complexity should play no part in this discussion about the identification of design?

As is irreducible complexity is illogical concept. It can't proven design. But with added feature I proposed, it may prove design. I modified it.

 

[Tiberius]

Do you speak on behalf of the existence of God O the stone planet in reality?

No, you are a human being bio consciousness.

Did you not scientist theist make a formula to abstract stone mass energy as a formula out of the body mass of energy, stone?

As your idea that you were speaking on behalf of creation. Therefore how could you ever believe that you were detecting design...when our Earth gases are not God the stone gases to own the physical body of stone? They came out of a volcano...do you know what volcanic mass is by its physical mass? As a design?

I have no idea what you are talking about...

God O the stone planet? What in the world does that mean?

 

[Tiberius]

As is irreducible complexity is illogical concept. It can't proven design. But with added feature I proposed, it may prove design. I modified it.

That still depends on there being something that can be shown to be irreducibly complex. So far that has not been done, and I doubt it ever will be.

 

[Link]

Yeah, it will be hard. You probably know what my next thread will be about and exactly what system in nature if you remember something close to that in Atheistforums.org haha.

See you there friend and brother. Been a pleasure talking to you.

 

[blü 2]

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept.

At the Dover Trial 2005 Michael Behe took the stand on behalf of Intelligent Design, which offers Irreducible Complexity as evidence. (Although he was cut to little pieces in cross-examination, it was to his credit that he at least stood up for his argument ─ noted creationists Dembski, Campbell and Meyer had tried to file depositions, but when they discovered this would mean they'd face cross-examination they turned pale, shrieked, ran away and were nowhere to be found till after.)

Each of the matters offered as examples of Irreducible Complexity ─ the bloodclotting 'cascade', the flagellum of certain bacteria, and the immune system ─ was explained in detail at the trial to be in fact due to exaptation. (Exaptation is where a thing or system has evolved to perform function A but subsequently further evolves to perform function B. A usual example is the evolution of the bones in the mammalian middle ear from what was previously a bone forming part of the jaw.)

Further, it was pointed out, and conceded by Behe, that irreducible complexity, even were it shown to exist, would only point to a gap in our knowledge of evolution; it would give no support at all for Intelligent Design.

As far as I'm aware, there are presently no purported examples of Irreducible Complexity on the table at all.

That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design.

The argument from design asserts that conscious deliberate intervention to form an artifact or marking can always be distinguished from accidental forms. In fact there are many counterexamples, and proponents of the notion have never offered an explicit objective test that will determine the question.

Further, when it comes to biology, it much more obviously fails to apply. Selectively bred stock, or breeds of eg dog, have normal genes. I'm not aware whether GM crops can always be detected as such, though of course many of the genetic forms resulting are registered ─ I'd be surprised if they could be shown to be always detectable in principle.

Of course, until the latter 18th century, the argument from design was much more persuasive because the explanations of evolution were not available. It was the findings of geology, fossils, and the great age of the earth back then that generated the greatest religious debate; fossil creatures from very long ago also demanded explanations. Ideas with elements of evolutionary insight were in circulation decades before 1859 when The Origin of Species put the matter beyond doubt.

 

[rational experiences]

How does a human who supports all the ideals expressed by civilization historically, that themes for invention and then theories for resourcing for the invention claims that it speaks legally or lawfully on the behalf of everything else...and claim self rational?

A human in life owns the ability to be of that ability to consciously compare every study by their owned human presence to a human ideal about a discussion, as being relative only to the presence of that human.

The human, owner of their age to the equals of that age. And most claim in life human is for 100 years of that existence.

Creation owns billions of SELF PRESENCE by age by that stated theorised year status as compared to 100 years.

Design says the intellect of the consciousness....a theme that says every natural body existing owns the exact same design. Which is CONSTANT.

And that theory is for invention and reaction actually as the status A DESIGNER.

For design does not exist...for everything is created and in its naturally owned formed by the billions of diverse presence, its END is its presence.

Design claims to go beyond the presence of each END? No, impossible.

That theme was given a lawful human historical legal quote. God is the Creator it said...by observation status human intention to do comparisons and state what is RELATIVE as a lawful observation.

Hence the Law also said, as it is observed that God the stone is our Creator....meaning of which is that stone created all of the physical present gases in the atmosphere that own life living as every element, and every one body studied...existed only due to the one same atmospheric gas body history existing.

As the LAW claim about God in law.

God the stone as the Creator released it gases, and if those gases were not existent then no form living on the body of stone would exist.

So it gave the historic lawful life ownership to GOD actually.

And when you compare the life age of a planet as God, the stone to self...the age of that planet millions or billions of years to 100 years says that humans own a stated conscious conclusion of telling lies in their observation.

What LAW as a legal criteria meant.

For if I own 100 years of life to be lived, and look at objects that all live or lived and own a lesser age of life than my own 100 years.....a Tree in the Garden Nature would bring my false observations back into reality.....as a Tree would out live us all in bio conscious existing.

Hence the God Law stated that the Tree of Life owned the legality of claim to life on Earth, not humans.

Theme of conscious self deception, if a human could theorise for a machination/reaction, it never could theorise for change or cause/effect...which is not included in a formula. LAWFULLY the science formula was proven fake, for it did not include the laws of realization in comparison.

To compare I son. What it stated.

If humans knew cause and effect and said the Sun melts the stone...seeing their technology was trans mutation, how to own stone that melts its products to become gold...then they knew that stone can melt...hence it did. If you planned a life underground by knowledge of THE DESIGNED effect, then it is proven you did.

If you came back out of the Ground of God by a channelled tunnelled system, then you did also. When a human in science by design relating information compared to self, the tunnel system of his new machine is where he spiritually as a living human emerged after the reaction. No life was alive above the ground...and if you tried to put a channel in our atmosphere, through it, through us, into the stone to the machine, we would all die....in reality...as opening a channel.

If by design you opened a channel in the stone fusion, the channel would form a sink hole first....then the channel by definition would in fact be God the stone taking you to hell...for you would open into the hotter lava channel.

Machines by LAW against God were outlawed.

Genesis 1:26 New International Version (NIV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,over the livestock and all the wild animals and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

A human in a legal argument would state lawfully the balances of life on a God stone planet, the Design of which is stone fusion owns the gas light.

12/12 even balances O 24 the design for life existing/surviving for 100 years.

I will give the value C 100 years...for gases.

Says 24 the statement and 26 meant extra 2.

If we own bones, the skeleton as the designer owns the body of stone...then we own and use the natural light of 2 in living within the gases of 12 as that 2 to own bio blood and life cell.

For we use energy to remain alive....so the definition of using 2 is stated in the Law of God for lawful observation quotations, that the human life is owned using the atmospheric body surrounding the bones of God the stone....its spirit gases....as our life made in the Image of.

With a lawful claim that we are the highest life form and above and beyond that of any other creature as another lawful review.

And there was no other argument.

For when you are a known human who can CHOOSE to look at any body they want and make human statements, the object does not own your statements....the human owns the making of those statements.

Why LAW of court was used to disclaim that a human observing other objects was a lawful statement about their presence. It would be ludicrous and proven ludicrous in a law court for any human to claim I am GOD.

Yet humans in science today make that claim.

Why it was a legally defined subject about God being the only Creator. STone.

 

[PureX]

But irreducible complexity doesn't say that. It has different way at reaching design than "well it's so complex, then it definitely is designed".

To create order within chaos requires specific limitation. And that is "design", by definition.

Also, nothing (no thing) can exist within chaos, but chaos. So for existence to occur at all, order must be imposed on the chaos. And it must be order that results in 'some thing' (as opposed to 'no thing').

So that logically, 'design' is required for existence to occur. It is, in fact, the mechanism by which existence occurs.