Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

This page explains a rebuttle to the "irreducible complexity" argument pretty well. Not sure about ATP, but AMP is explained here, also.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I don't buy that. Even if all life today does contain this "engine", that doesn't mean that it couldn't have evolved.

I also don't buy any of this "information has to be designed" stuff...



Of course it won't, because it doesn't work like that. The development of life is an incremental process, while shaking up legos or chemicals is not.

As for how improbable it is for life to form, my answer to that is to look at how many stars and planets are out there. The number of stars in our own galaxy is incomprehensible by itself... and it's been estimated that there are at least 100 billion galaxies, each at least with 10 million stars and some with as many as a trillion. It's very improbable that life will appear on any given planet, but when you consider the vast number of planets out there, the probability that life will spring up on at least one of them starts looking pretty good. If there's even a one in a quadrillion chance that a given planet will form life -- that's a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 chance -- then it would still be a near certainty that life will show up somewhere.

Anyway, PianoManGidley made his post while I was making mine, and I advise you to check out those links... in fact, check out the entire site.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY. From the PianoManGidley site (prospective mechanisms of general evolution):

1. deletion of parts
2. addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
3. change of function
4. addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
5. gradual modification of parts

I'm not saying these are not observed phenomenon; I am saying that these observed phenomenon are being misapplied to a proof that doesn't fit evidence. My rebuttal (for now):

1. "deletion" implies that information has already been built up, and is being subtracted from -- this is not the question being asked; it is a red herring.
2. "addition of multiple parts" or "duplication" implies the system already exists -- this begs the question: where did the system that is duplicated come from?
3. "change of function" implies a system already exists with a closely related function -- again: where did the closely related system come from?
4. "addition of a second function" simply hides the fact that a second function is then irreducibly complex and the first simply wasn't -- it degenerated into the "second function" and some other.
5. "gradual modification" ignores the inquiry we're considering. Essentially by assuming the answer, you arrive at the answer; this is a fallacy.

Consider that none of these mechanisms provides a way for information to build from null. One talks of "deletion" as a building tool; wrecking balls don't build new stuff. Another three talk of addition or change, but don't define how that process is guided to a meaningful end. The fifth just waves a magical wand and invokes "gradual change" without defining a mechanism or guiding principle. These "mechanisms" for general evolution don't work; they simply allow someone who glances -- without probing too deeply -- to think that there are working ways, even if not enumerated. That's deceit.


I don't expect you to buy it, especially if you have held your current faith for any length of time. The point being made is that if there is something "irreducibly complex", and if the amount of time for it occurring by chance exceeds everyone's (disparate) definitions of "life of the universe", then the something must have been designed because that something evidently exists. Information in a closed system does not come from nothing, yet we exist -- functioning living beings, each cell a library of congress full of information (Carl Sagan); just like energy in a closed system does not come from nothing. There is always an input for each; and the two are not equivalent: just try to make a library by placing stacks of ink and paper out in Death Valley (or next to a nuclear reactor for that matter). Won't ever work, because uncoordinated energy contains no information; and random information, likewise, contains no potential. On the one hand energy needs information to focus, and on the other hand information needs direction to motivate events. Both of these boil down to a will.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

I think all this talk about "information" is misleading. By using this abstraction, you're applying it in ways that strike me as arbitrary, as if the fact that we call it information suddenly means that somebody had to put it there.



I think you're missing the point. That page isn't talking about deletion as a building tool, it's talking about it as a means of arriving at an "irreducible" system, and one that doesn't work in isolation. Consider an organic system that "grows" several unrelated parts. These unrelated parts happen to work well together, and they eventually become consolidated into a single complex component. That's the sort of thing the page is getting at. The final product is irreducible, but the process is not; the whole thing doesn't have to be put together all at once.



Easy. It evolved.



I don't understand the problem here. What's the problem with arriving at an "irreducibly complex" system by gradual modification? You start with a system that isn't irreducibly complex, and you "gradually modify" it until it is. What's wrong with it? It would be a fallacy to assume that just because it's possible that it actually happened, but there's no fallacy in allowing the possibility.



Or, your idea of the amount of time for it to occur by chance is simply wrong.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

The "fallacy" here sounds more like the classic Argument from Ignorance: "I can't comprehend how this could have happened by chance/nature alone, so it MUST have been designed!" Just because YOUR brain can't comprehend something doesn't mean it's wrong/doesn't exist/didn't happen that way.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Then what about the original sin Adam and Eve supposedly were responsible for? Was that just symbolic as well? Jesus came because of a made-up sin? Besides, is there anything in the bible that suggests that Adam and Eve should be concidered as a parable? If not, what's to stop one from concidering the entire religion as a parable? What's more, there are no documents from the time when Jesus supposedly lived. The closest ones are from about 40 years after his death. The writers of those documents never even met Jesus. This gap is a bit suspicious...
Also, the new testament didn't start out as one book. There were multiple documents with different hypothesises of what had happened. I guess people couldn't tell what had happened back then either, and mabye god didn't care very much if he didn't even make sure the writers wrote the correct things?

Funny, I came online this morning partly so I could post exactly that. Though it's a longer name, I prefer to call it an "argument by lack of imagination". Science does require an imagination, albeit one that must be tempered by logic, reason, and the scientific method.

As long as we're making fallacious arguments here, I think I'll make an "appeal to authority"... scientists who know far more about this stuff than we do have thought about all this and they still arrived at the conclusion that it's possible through evolution, and that evolution is a much more scientific theory than any of the alternatives. Scientific consensus is rarely wrong, especially over a prolonged period, and especially when things have been scrutinized so heavily as in evolution. There's a reason that it has withstood so much scrutiny by so many people over so many years, and that reason isn't that all scientists are really just godless atheists who want to push an agenda. Science has shown that it doesn't tolerate any sort of short-sighted, closed-minded nonsense in the long term; the truth always prevails. That's why Copernicus and Galileo, while originally condemned as heretics, have been vindicated. First it was one against many, then two against many... but eventually they prevailed, because what they discovered was true.

Fashions change, but science is always science. Things are very different now than they were when Darwin conceived his theory, but the theory is still with us, and it is more solid now than it was in Darwin's time. New discoveries generally support rather than refute evolution. Moreover, a lot of the evidence we have found can be explained by evolution but cannot be explained by other things such as creationism. Creationists often talk about things like "gaps in the fossil record", but they neglect that they have a lot of explaining to do about the fossil record themselves. You can't just say "The flood changed everything" and leave it at that. That's just too convenient.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

For me, the hint that it's a parable is that God in the story of Adam and Eve doesn't entirely jibe with God as revealed through Christ. The concept of guilt for the sins of the fathers is a human superstitious fallacy that God worked with while introducing humanity to the concept of individual culpability through the prophets and then Jesus. Would the God of Christ doom billions for what one person did? Um.. no.

What the story tells us, I think, is that look, this is how great it would be if we'd just do what God says (Garden of Eden), but we DON'T do what God says (apple), and in fact NONE of us do what God says (original sin), and because of that life sucks (cast out of garden). It comes first in Genesis because it's the central problem of the relationship between man and God. Some may then say "OK, so then where did original sin come from? If the story is a parable, then that is left unexplained." I don't really think it has to be explained, though my personal belief is that original sin is the bad side of our animal nature (defined as bad insofar as it drives us to contradict scriptural morality) retained after evolution, and God is testing our worthiness to be with him by how well we use his gifts to overcome these things.

Like I said, a believer would assume historicity unless shown otherwise, but a rational believer would be willing to accept that evidence otherwise. That's how you keep the whole thing from being seen as a "just a parable". Yes it's true that if Jesus was somehow shown never to have existed, that would be the end of Christianity as we know it, though that's absolutely unlikely to happen. But as far as most of the O.T. is concerned, it's the message that's crucial for Christians, not most of the historical facts, especially when a careful reading will bring out several historical inconsistencies. (Most of it's reasonably accurate, but these people who preach 100% historical infallibility, in my opinion, are being willfully ignorant).

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Sorry folks, I'm going to have to shut this line down, for my part. I am a scientist -- a third year medical student in fact, with an Electrical Engineering / Programming background, years in industry; and I am a bilingual Preacher as well. I sit for USMLE Level 1 in a month; you might meet me in the Emergency Department in a couple months. You cannot honestly appeal to my ignorance without knowing something of my background... and you have already so appealed. Ad hominem attacks just end debate, without coming to any reasonable conclusion, and they indicate fear of true debate.

The fallacy I spoke of -- the 5th of the 5 above points -- is answering a particular partisan in a debate -- in this case over whether graduation is or is not the mechanism of origin -- simply by saying "well, of course it is". This doesn't really address the question at hand; it is already clear -- since there is debate -- that parties have taken sides. Saying "well, of course it is" is therefore a fallacy in argument -- you only indicate that you are on one side without furthering either side's argument substantially; it is a distraction which appears to be valid until closely scrutinized; or in this case, simply rephrased... A better statement might have been: "gradual change is the mechanism of origin because [insert relevant data here]".

As I said before, one of the 5 criteria on your website-for-the-faithful was referencing deletion as a building tool; it is not; it's an insufficient method even for fixing corrupted data. The next 3 of the 5 criteria reference using an already developed system in some way to effect gradual change; this begs the question "how do these systems come about by gradual change?" All three are circular arguments which -- although great as recursive models -- are never sufficient to establish proof: there has to be a base case. The 5th of the 5 is the fallacy we've already discussed.

I had hoped to find a (well)reasoned debate here, but since this is apparently a "bash the poor silly creationist" thread, I'm done posting. Have fun comforting each other in your various ignorances. I welcome discussion, and I can be drawn back in, but you will be civil. This has not been the pleasure I anticipated.

_________________
Too big to be my avatar, but I like it.

Yeah, that kind of debate would be nice, but it also takes a lot of research time. I really don't think you're gonna get people doing that for the R&P section of a Homestar Runner website. That's why I stayed away from your post after mine up there, and really have only posted things that I clearly marked as my own opinion and I knew I could get typed out relatively quickly. On one hand, a bunch of reading for an HRWF R&P thread. On the other, pretty much anything else you can think of doing. "Pretty much anything else" is gonna win out. I know Kef is already like 50 places on the internet at once.

It's exactly that reason I don't poke my head into too many of these threads. Understandably, not many of the participants are gonna do thorough checks on everyone's and their own links. And if only people with the time or will to spend the time to do a true thorough debate were allowed to post, you might as well delete the section because there'd be no one here.

Of course that also means no one has the time to have their mind changed, which is why all the "debates" in this section go around and around and around and around and never really get anywhere... *shrug* anyway, back to work.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

Just to kinda clear this bit up, God did not actually doom us all for what one guy did. He calls it all case by case, based on our own individual sins, because each and every one of us has sinned (Romans 3:23). What the universal dooming is really from is from Adam and Eve themselves. I think this might have been touched on before in this thread, if so sorry to be redundant, but here we go. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve were able to not sin, and also had the ability to sin, but before the fall that had not gone that route. When they did eat the fruit, they chose to sin, which effectively got rid of their being able to not sin - in a word they became not able not to sin. This spiritually was passed down through their offspring into the rest of humanity, so that all of mankind is universally able to sin, and unable to not sin. What Christ did when he died for humanity was he granted us the ability to regain again the ability to not sin. You still have the sin-favoring nature, but that is life, and something that is worked on throughout one's life. So there you have it as I've learned and observed. Does that make sense?

_________________

I have to agree for the most part with the Captain here. The whole idea behind Original Sin is two-fold: (1) that we are all messed up on coming into this world (that is, already oriented away from God and in need of his help), not that he intends to damn us all on account of one man's fault (the Cross itself is evidence that he did not intend that - not that we aren't at fault ourselves, but rather that he provides the remedy to our problem). And (2) that we all in some way or another contribute to the problems of this fallen world by not trusting God; in that sense, we are all guilty.

But here's my concern: you say that Original Sin is inconsistent with God revealed in Jesus Christ. I do not concur. If anything, the need for a universal Redeemer demonstrates a universal need for redemption. As Romans 5:12ff puts it, sin and death came into this world on account of one man's fault (mind you, this is man's doing, not God's), but now redemption, forgiveness, and eternal life are now available on account of one man's perfect sacrifice. So, to me, the idea of Original Sin (universal fall) is entirely consistent with Christ's work on earth (universal redemption).

_________________

EDIT: typed up before I saw Didy's response, but it still applies.

Yeah I didn't word that exactly right. Also I noticed that my view can be interpreted as the Jesus-as-mere-example view, which isn't orthodox, and I forgot to address that for DukeNuke. In either case, whether Adam & Eve existed or not, Jesus' death & resurrection opened up a spiritual path that wasn't there before. They didn't have to literally exist for that path to have been closed off, and they didn't have to literally exist for Jesus to open it up.

I understand your explanation, Ido, but it still seems morally outdated. Sure even with original sin God judges us each individually, and that's why the idea of God basically cursing all mankind to have original sin based on the actions of two people just doesn't doesn't fit, IMO. I'm not denying original sin, I'm saying this is a sign I see that this is parable, not history. The only way the story makes sense to me in light of Christ's teachings is as a parable (THE CENTRAL one) for the human condition. It's like the parables Christ used in which the characters did questionable things but were rewarded for it. Jesus wasn't condoning those questionable behaviors, he was trying to make a specific point. The O.T. is full of questionable behaviors (in light of Christ's teachings) and questionable history, but each story has a point that is still relevant. The point here is that we have this sinful nature that's based on the animal desires that we know by our God given rationality are detrimental to us, others, and the love of God; that we ALL have this problem; and that because of this conflict between bad-animality and rational spirituality, we can neither be innocent animals as before or will ourselves into perfect harmony with God. That's the problem Jesus provides a solution to.

_________________
ATTN: LOWER BOARD USERS HAVE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM. COME JOIN THE FUN!

I don't think any of us have made any ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you might have read that into my (now obviously incorrect) assumption that you're not a scientist, but I only made that assumption because, well, most people aren't. I am a scientist in a loose sense of the term, but probably not by most people's definition.

Of course, speaking from a logical standpoint, whoever advances an argument doesn't matter; the argument itself still stands. I know this, and I assumed (correctly, it seems) that you know this. But I still felt it important to establish that scientific consensus doesn't form for no reason, or for political reasons. In the short term, it could be possible, but in the long term, I'm convinced that it just doesn't happen.



It doesn't say it's a building tool. It's a deletion tool.

OK, imagine we have this situation:
* A system depends on parts A and B, and will completely break down if one of these is absent.
* Having part C gives a reason for part B to evolve, but when part B evolves and works together with A, part C is no longer needed.
* So, naturally, part B evolves, and part C gets deleted.

I don't see a problem here. The final product is "irreducibly complex", but it was still arrived at from a process that seems to make sense and demonstrates how deletion can take part in this process. Perhaps the system was still irreducibly complex when it had part C, but it was still ultimately arrived at from a simpler system that was not irreducibly complex.



You are correct. But the "base case" doesn't have to be irreducibly complex, which is the whole point. Moreover, the functions of the components of the base case don't need to have anything to do with the final system. The evolution of these components can "converge" toward an unrelated, irreducibly complex design, if that makes sense.

By the way, the page did provide some citations that should explain these points in more detail. Perhaps we should check them out. "For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996)." This suggests to me that a concrete, reproducible example has already been discovered, but of course we need to check that out for ourselves to be sure.



I was civil, am civil, and will continue to be civil. What's uncivil about putting pressure on your point of view? I thought that was the whole point of debate. If this is a "bash the silly creationist" thread, it's only because you're outnumbered, not because we're uncivil.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

I can see how my last post MAY have been construed as partially attacking, but that wasn't my intent. Sorry if you read it as such. Anyway, I find it interesting that since modern medicine is based on knowledge of biology as it relates to our understanding of evolution, and you're studying medicine, that you'd reject Evolution so blatantly. So many of the medicines we have today would never have been developed if it weren't for biology's acceptance of evolution.



I also find it interesting that Creationists, who use the Bible as the primary source to support THEIR unscientific claims, accuse scientists of circular reasoning. Pot, kettle, black. I'm not claiming that I'm well-learned in Evolution or know how to refute your arguments. Just thought I'd point out that Creationism relies a HECK of a lot more on circular reasoning than Evolution.



See above (both mine and Kef's posts). This isn't about bashing your belief--it's about addressing challenges to either belief. Which brings me to a new challenge: I challenge anyone supporting Young Earth Creationism to provide a peer-reviewed scientific article that provides a case for Young Earth Creationism (in a decent date, too--not something from 1620 way before Evolution was ever even dreamed) and explains why Evolution is wrong.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

_________________

Can I hold up both a light bulb & an apple?

_________________

Can I hold up some spaghetti?

Did you watch that video? It's about this guy who's making an animation of people who believe in either evolution or creation. If you believe in the former, send in a picture of yourself holding up an apple. If the latter, hold up a light bulb.

_________________

I'm not quite sure but has anyone mentioned Darwin's Finches?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
EDIT: The apostrophe isn't making this link work...you'll have to do some copypasta.
Evolution that is visible within our own living. The birds with the correct beaks for the conditions are SELECTED by the fact that they are more successful (IE breeding more). We can see this change on a yearly basis, even a seasonal basis. Why would god spend time on worrying about beak sizes if we're his ideal species?

Or another fantastic Galapagos Island creature The Galapagos Tortoise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galapagos_tortoise
Depending on each islands plant life each tortoise species has a different shaped shell to accommodate this. If we assume they all came from a single ancestor this is fantastic. And we can make that assumption based on how animals got to those islands. Most likely by floating broken-off landmasses seen floating often around the ocean off Ecuador.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

I think this is the link you wanted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

_________________
404 sig not found

I believe in both creationism and evolution. The order of which things were created in Genesis resembles the order of evolution from the dawn of time.

First

The first life on Earth was, of course, photosynthetic bacteria, which eventually became plants.


The first autotrophs lived in the ocean. They eventually became fish, which became amphibians, which became reptiles, which became birds (Or rather, birdlike reptiles like archaeopterix) before mammals came to be, even though they have the same (very early) origin.




And there we have the mammals.


I know that Genesis is probably too vague to interpret like that, or this idea is way too obvious..I dunno. But that's my hypothesis..I like it. *shrug*

Umm sorry but Mammals came before birds, or rather archaeopteryx. Mammal-like burrowing reptiles predated the Dinosaurs even.

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

According to that one crazy CGI documentary...

And my Zoology text book....

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

I've thought kinda the same thing, and I'm glad you could explain it pretty well. As for exactly which kingdom came in which order, I would imagine each kingdom was not clearly defined enough. To me, "mammal-like burrowing reptiles" sounds more like a reptile than a mammal (or literally 'cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth').
I still wouldn't say I'm an evolutionist though. I'm going to read some books on the subject sometime...

_________________

I think it's amusing how it seems that everyone is always either evolution or creationism, as if there is no other stance on the issue.

I think both are a real load. I'm sorry for putting it harshly, but I do. I have seen no undeniable evidence supporting or disproving either. I also find it amusing how so many people will spend countless hours trying to prove one or disprove another, when in reality the idea that we, as humans, could ever truly know where we came from is ridiculous. We will never know one way or the other how we got here, so even trying is silly. It's just so much easier to live your life on without trying to constantly prove why you are right because you never will. When it comes down to it, it's all about faith. If you believe in creationism go right ahead. If you believe in evolution, more power to you. Just never expect to be able to say truthfully "I know that creationism/evolution is true," because you won't. Believe what you want, make sure you really believe in that, and then that's all you will have, a belief. And that's all you need.

And my belief, is that the Universe, life, and everything is far beyond our understanding.

I'm sorry for my blunt and unimaginative views, but I don't care about what happens after death. I worry about the present.

Exactly. All to often will people try to spend their lives showing why we came from here and why we are going there, that not only do they never come up with any proof, but they have wasted their entire lives trying to explain life instead of living it. Yours is a good view to have.

One thing to keep in mind, people, is that Genesis Chapter 1 is essentially a song (sort of like an opening theme, if you will, like those synopses that open up ever Star Wars movie, explaining what's going on). It's not meant to describe a step-by-step process so much as to assert the claim that YHWH Elohim is the one behind all the processes. It attributes to the One True God the deliberate act of creating all things, rather than attributing them to random forces or "gods" that act selfishly and impulsively. For that reason, I'm not entirely sure we are obligated to try to match up every shift in the natural order the the cycle of creation in Genesis 1. (And before someone harps on the "Oh, they're just retreating to allegory," I'd like to point out that this understanding goes all the way back to the early Church).

But I do believe that, where the narrative itself picks up (beginning with Genesis 2), we are somewhat obligated to see this as a story of the unfolding of human history, partly because the events described there are intimately connected with the work of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. I don't think we are at liberty to simply toss Genesis 2 and 3 into the realm of allegory.

My point is, Genesis 1 does not lock us into a precise chronology of natural history. It obligates us only to confess that, whatever processes are at work, it is God who ultimately is in control of them.


Have you ever stopped to think, what if that's the wrong approach, that maybe one day you might just have to stand before a Creator and be judged for the life you lived in this present? I do not discount that the present is also important, but to ignore the future strikes me as not a terribly wise approach. Point is, your future may very well be much more important than you give it credit.

_________________