Earlier 19th century is about the transition time: Smith was among the earlier professional-type scientists, and Darwin was just about the last of the gentleman-scientist types.
1 Like
So irreducibly complex systems no longer exist?
1 Like
Oh you just have to knit pick donât you. havenât you anything better to do?
If you raced a car with three cylinders against an otherwise identical car who would win? (Survival of the fittest)
That is not what i said or meant.
If you need to observe before it can be scientific then you have no grounds for accepting any of ToE. It is not observed in real time. it is not observed in any time.
So you cannot criticise irreducibility because you cannot observe it.
Richard
Being able to blast whatever point you intended to smithereens because you didnât think before putting fingers to keyboard, and hence are completely and trivially wrong, is not nit-picking.
Or knit picking.
Stop using words you donât understand.
That has absolutely nothing to do with irreducibility.
Science constructs and tests hypotheses so we can understand what we canât directly observe. Thatâs the entire purpose of science. If it was just observing stuff we would call it observation. We donât. We call it science.
3 Likes
âimpossible to make smaller or simplerâ
Your referenced definition for irreducible is âimpossible to make smaller or simplerâ, which is not to say âimpossible to makeâ. If there is a pathway to make an irreducible system, such as jaw bones integrating into a system detecting vibrations in the air, then it is possible for the ultimate irreducible system to have developed step wise. There is no requirement to even prove or observe that happened in real time; so long as there is a plausible natural progression, irreducibly does not present a barrier to evolution.
2 Likes
Stop trying to teach me. I know wht science is. I also know its limitqtions, which you appear not to. And you also appear unable to understand principles without examples.
i told you that i have had enough I have been polite, Now stop.
Richard
HmmmâŚ
Whoa â the adjusted quotes describe quite accurately the YECers who post here!
One irony is that at least one such claims theological education yet denies its value unless it agrees with him.
Ditto â I see the design not in particular instances but in the establishment of the process(es).
Ditto also.
Given that things eat other things, the eaten must reproduce or go extinct.
As evidenced in pine forests in central Oregon; I once drove thirty miles without seeing anything but dead trees, all from one cause.
Nonsense.
Evolution knows nothing of any âprimary functionâ, it only âknowsâ if something is useful.
2 Likes
And it was a long time back. (the apology was no 45!)
You appear to be quote mining
Richard
Nice insight. Itâs easy to focus on mutations as though the environment isnât that significant!
Which quite often are linked mechanisms, BTW.
This assumes that there is a goal that is being aimed towards. Evolution doesnât work that way.
Nor, actually, do engines: modern automobile engines have numerous parts without which they cannot function, but many of those parts didnât even exist in earlier motors, and there are parts that were essential in earlier motors yet that donât exist in todayâs motors.
Then it is useless to talk about it with regards to science. One may as well use a tide table to determine the ingredients for a souffle.
So itâs imaginary. The question then is why your imaginary things should be preferred over anyone elseâs imaginary things when it comes to science.
Yes, they do: their starting point is âwhat it looks like to me in English without needing any study or education is what it really meansâ. That canât be found in the Bible, it comes from outside.
Another starting point is âIn order to be true, the Bible has to be scientifically accurateâ. That also cannot be found in the Bible, it comes from outside.
5 Likes
But you are inventing limitations based on what you freely admit arenât scientific ideas.
The limitations exist.
Science is not an islandâŚ
Irreducibility as a concept exists. It is not my fault that evolutionists believe they are immune to it.
Richard
If something cannot be dismantle then the reverse must be true.
Who has claimed that jaw bones are irreducible? Not me. If the thing can be made slowly it is not irreducible. There is no half way or pert way possible, so you cannot grow it that way either. This is just plain English, or does science claim a special version of that as well.
This is the whole point of this âargumentâ. Science seem to claim that irreducible does not mean it canât be built slowly, which is why it claims there is no such thing as irreducible. Evolution is not trying to dismantle so why would anyone claim that irreducibility is significant if it doesnât affect the building of it?
Philosophically evolution is an impossible enigma. Evolution is driven by chance (random deviations) and yet the results defy fluke.
Show me a bone that is not perfectly fitted for purpose. Show me a simple version of a femur, or even a limb. The femur is not a simple tube, let alone the ends which fir perfectly into the appropriate joint, not to mention cartilage, sinew, muscles, and nerves to control them. Such "detais, are glossed over.
The hip of a reptile is 90 degrees rotated from a mammal. That is not just turning it, there are different dynamics, The relative strength for the torque involved is different, the muscle lay out is different. They are completely incompatible Each one has to start from scratch and where is the mechanic or designer to make them fit together and work> Are you telling me thatt such things are a result of random deviations
The more you delve into anatomy the more outrageous random construction becomes and this is without considering the dynamics of ecology.
But, of course, philosophy is not a valid crit of science.
(and neither is incredulity)
Richard
The reality is that there are multiple different axes of belief on many topics that intersect in various ways. ID is a self-proclaimed big tent, and definitely needs to be treated as a range rather than a point, but there are significant ranges within practically any category. Both ID and young-earth movements tend to have the bad habit of claiming that the entire movement holds the views being advocated by a particular individual or to a particular audience; atheistic criticisms tend to have a bad habit of believing such claims. For ID, it is especially important for someone seeking to accurately communicate their views to spell out details. Of course, much of the public does not realize the diverse views, creating further confusion. Many false dichotomies are promoted, particularly by those who hope to use the argument âhereâs a flaw in that view, therefore my position has been proven fully correctâ. Such arguing is all too familiar from politics. âMy opponent is terrible, therefore vote for meâ. Often the opponent is indeed terrible, but thereâs no proof that the person saying that is an improvement and no consideration of whether there are any other alternatives besides those two.
Often, assignment of an individual to a particular category has been done on superficial criteria. This includes use of a particular shibboleth to pigeonhole someone without considering the totality of what they have said (for example, dal Prete showed that early church to medieval writers often used âyoung-earthâ sounding phrasing to merely mean non-infinite age). Conversely, there is often the approach of so and so is one of the good guys, so obviously any prooftexting I can do to find something that seems to agree with my view shows that this person sides with me. Dawkins claiming that good scientists who were weakly theistic really count as atheists, while genocidal dictatorial atheists really count as theists, is an example. Likewise, the young-earth misrepresentation of Jesusâ reference to Noah in Mt. 24 and Luke 17 as an endorsement of their position shows a disregard for context that discredits their claim to being biblical. Jesus refers to the flood as an incident that took some people by surprise; it is not a sound reading of the text to claim anything one way or the other about the geographic extent of the flood based on what Jesus said in these passages.
4 Likes
Then you should be able to demonstrate that scientifically.
They donât â thatâs just your imagination. There just havenât been any valid instances encountered.
Only if you regard biological systems as Tinkertoys â beside the fact that âcanât be dismantledâ and âirreducibleâ are not synonyms.
Then there is nothing yet encountered that qualifies as irreducible.
Weâve been around and around on this, and youâve been shown that your âdilemmaâ is false. What will it take for you to grasp the basic science?
âRandomâ does not equal âflukeâ:
Whatâs fascinating about the second one is that many of the patterns driven by sound can be found in biological structures in nature.
No, they arenât â they fit the pattern.
Why do you keep talking about random construction? Thatâs exactly what evolution says is impossible!
1 Like
Itâs especially confusing since there are still people using the term âintelligent designâ the way we did in our informal club at university, where it meant starting with science and seeing design, not starting with religion and hunting for design. The term as we used it rejected any religious input since it was driven by atheists and agnostics who recognized that the moment you conclude that there is a Designer youâve departed from the realm of science.
Such an approach was a great way to get things thrown at you in university discussions in the STEM realm back when I was studying science!
Kool! Reference?
Thatâs especially egregious since Jesus states the point of comparison!
2 Likes
If the changes have a pattern then that is not chance, but it is not ToE either, it would mean the presence of an intelligence guiding/ As that intelligence cannot be identified by science it is not part of Scientific Evolution. ToE assumes that there is no pattern or guidance and its mechanisms rely on it. As soon as you give the deviations aim or guidance you negate the subsequent âcontrolâ of Natural Selection. They are not Natural selected they are guided. That is Theistic Evolution not ToE.
How on earth would you know! You have only addressed a fraction of the changes involved and you have observed none of them.
It is only that ToE could nt build anything irreducible so there cannot be any!
They are converses, that is, one implies the other. (even demands the other)
(Perhaps linguistics was not one of your study areas)
Err, um, then you have rewritten ToE.
It says nothing of the kind! That is ne of the arguments against ToE not part of it. Always has been,
If there is any guidance at all (not chance) it is not ToE. (see above)
I have asked you before to explain what you think the evolutionary process is, but you have never done so. I think you need to if you are going to stand by this statement. That ToE is not driven by chance (fluke)
Richard
What about things like atmospheric pressure â is this random?
Most would say no.
And yet the random motion of molecules does play an important part in this. Gravity does not make the molecules all fall down, but making one direction preferred to other directions. Not only that but the pressure is a direct result of the random collisions of those molecules with other things.
The point is that just because some part of a process is random, does not make the whole thing or the result random.
3 Likes
It would be a prerequisite of life, but, in theory, there are millions of planets where something is missing, including atmospheric pressure, so, yes, in that sense it is random chance that Earth is the perfect setting for carbon based life. (assuming no God, of course)
Without the guidance from God you get the multiverses whereby one out of billions gets it as we are
So yes, cosmic fluke or God, take your pick (Rhetorical)
Richard
Edit
The basic philosophical answer is that it is not about the chances of what we have happening it is the number of places it failed. By being here we confound any probability against being here.