Misunderstanding the nature of biological redundancy

[Joao]

Continuing the discussion from Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye Debate:

[quote=“Eddie, post:205, topic:3204, full:true”]
@Joao

Redundancy in itself is no disproof of intelligent design.[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that you can’t explain it, and your huge misrepresentations below only confirm that.

You’re illustrating the problem with putting words above evidence, Eddie. You clearly don’t have the slightest clue about the NATURE of biological redundancy.

The U.S. military has redundant safety processes for making sure that its nuclear weapons don’t get launched by mistake;

They are not partial like biological redundancy. Fail.

hospitals maintain emergency power generators which go unused most of the time;

For that to be analogous to the nature of biological redundancy, some essential functions wouldn’t be covered by the generation system. Fail 2.

banks have back-up systems to prevent data loss in case of serious damage to their electronic systems; etc.

And not a one of those is analogous to the biological redundancy that exists in spades. It’s analogous to ring species.

Indeed, keeping two or three backup systems against the possibility of future failure is a sign of very intelligent design.

Biological redundancy doesn’t do that. Fail 3.

The person who not only designs something that works today, but designs systems to make sure that even if it fails to work in the future, another system will come in to restore or replace its function, is a more intelligent designer than the person who merely designs the initial system.

Perhaps you should learn about partially-overlapping functions in biology before pontificating from a position of complete ignorance, Eddie. But I have to compliment you for not running away from discussing mechanisms for once. If you could only do it from actual knowledge of biology…

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

Arguing over whether God intervenes A LOT
vs. A LITTLE is counter-productive. The qeuestion
is how much time does God need.

George

[Joao]

George, I’m not talking about intervention, just the basic way in which biological systems are redundant. Eddie obviously has no idea.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Joao

George, I’m not talking about intervention, just the basic way in which biological systems are redundant. Eddie obviously has no idea.

If you are BOTH on the side of “God’s very long-term intervention in the emergence of humanity”, just see Eddie as another denomination.

The task is just getting folks to accept that the Earth is old enough that Evolution will have enough time to occur.

George

[Joao]

@gbrooks9

The task is just getting folks to accept that the Earth is old enough that Evolution will have enough time to occur.

That’s only part of it, George. Another task is getting people to understand that evolution is limited in many ways that an omnipotent Intelligent Designer is not. My point here is that evolution is free to remodel mechanisms with partially-overlapping redundancies, but for a few nonredundant mechanisms, it is severely limited.

This makes clear empirical predictions that Eddie clearly would prefer not to address nor even understand. It’s all too threatening.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Joao

That’s only part of it, George. Another task is getting people to understand that evolution is limited in many ways that an omnipotent Intelligent Designer is not.

@Joao

I’m SO GLAD you raised this point … this is the discussion I’ve been hoping would come up.

But my position is the OPPOSITE! Not about your view of Evolution… that’s fine for the
intended BioLogos consumer.

My problem is that YOU and other like-minded folks think it’s an issue.

If I understand your words correctly, you think it is important to convince whom? - -
Atheistic Evolutionists?

It’s my impression that BioLogos doesn’t have to convince the Atheists of anything.
And attempts to do so just distract us from the main business:

that it is reasonable, if not mandatory, that Evangelicals correctly read God’s
SECOND set of Scriptures: the laws of nature as expressed in Evolutionary
science and its application to billions of years of Earth’s history.

George Brooks

[Joao]

[quote=“gbrooks9, post:6, topic:3362”]
If I understand your words correctly, you think it is important to convince whom? - - Atheistic Evolutionists?[/quote]
No. Where did you get that idea?

[quote]It’s my impression that BioLogos doesn’t have to convince the Atheists of anything.And attempts to do so just distract us from the main business:

that it is reasonable, if not mandatory, that Evangelicals correctly read God’sSECOND set of Scriptures: the laws of nature as expressed in Evolutionary science and its application to billions of years of Earth’s history.
[/quote]I agree with that, which is why it is important to understand that evolution is far more constrained than IDcreationism. It provides testable hypotheses that people like Eddie are afraid to test.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Joao

I agree with that, which is why it is important to understand that evolution is far more constrained than IDcreationism. It provides testable hypotheses that people like Eddie are afraid to test

I don’t come to that conclusion.

What’s important to show is that Evolution-with-God took millions of years.

The Evolution-with-God scenario could be more Evolutionary … or more ID-God-intervenes stuff.
It’s completely irrelevant which it is.

Only the Atheist Evolutionists threaten to jump off the roof if we allow Intelligent-Design (over millions
of years) to be discussed.

George