Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 11 posts ] 
Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance
Author Message
ElshamahPosts: 392Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:32 am

Post Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

What i most routinely see, is oponents of my posts arguing that intelligent design is a argument from ignorance. I disagree.

There are many parts, subunits of enzymes and proteins, co-factos etc. that have no apparent multiple functions and could not be co-opted or be available through horizontal gene transfer, or whatever. One example are the last 8 enzymes used in the biosynthesis pathway of chlorophyll http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1546-c ... is-pathway  for what reason would these enzymes emerge naturally , if by their own , and not duly embedded in the whole biosynthesis process, they have no use at all ? and even lets say chlorophyll : why would nature invent such extremely complex pathways to produce such a complex molecule, if, even if ready to go, it is not embedded in the whole process of photosynthesis ? and how could they be embedded in the system, if the light harvesting complex were not present ? please explain. Furthermore, i wonder how nature came up with the information to make the individual parts, the subunits, and providing the right assembly instructions for the individual parts, and the whole thing. As its known, body plans and 3d cell shape does not depend only on genetic information, but also epigenetic information and other unknown factors.

Image

Darwins doubt, pg.268

What natural selection lacks, intelligent design—purposive, goal-directed selection—provides. Rational agents can arrange both matter and symbols with distant goals in mind. In using language, the human mind routinely "finds" or generates highly improbable linguistic sequences to convey an intended or preconceived idea. In the process of thought, functional objectives precede and constrain the selection of words, sounds, and symbols to generate functional (and meaningful) sequences from a vast ensemble of meaningless alternative possible combinations of sound or symbol. Similarly, the construction of complex technological objects and products, such as bridges, circuit boards, engines, and software, results from the application of goal-directed constraints. Indeed, in all functionally integrated complex systems where the cause is known by experience or observation, designing engineers or other intelligent agents applied constraints on the possible arrangements of matter to limit possibilities in order to produce improbable forms, sequences, or structures. Rational agents have repeatedly demonstrated the capacity to constrain possible outcomes to actualize improbable but initially unrealized future functions. Repeated experience affirms that intelligent agents (minds) uniquely possess such causal powers.  Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection and other undirected evolutionary mechanisms that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can determine or select functional goals before they are physically instantiated. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities. They can then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant information-rich outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks—by definition—are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality—with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking intelligent design to overcome a vast combinatorial search problem and to explain the origin of new specified information, contemporary advocates of intelligent design are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence.

Irreducible complexity is not based  on a negative, namely that there is no evidence for a naturalistic pathway. Rather than that, it makes a positive claim, which can be falsified, upon :  (a) gene knockout, (b) reverse engineering, (c) examining homologous systems, and (d) sequencing the genome of the biochemical structure. ( Dennis Jones ) Gene knockout has been done several times, providing evidence that the organism was unable to replace given gene or protein by natural means. 1 The absence of evidence that evolution is not capable to replace given part is empirical evidence, that falsifies the claim of the ToE. Its therefore not justified to claim the inference is a argument of ignorance. Quit the contrary is the case. As for example, if i ask you : can you change a us$100 bill ? and you answer: sorry, i have no smaller bills. You open your wallet, and and its confirmed, no change in your wallet, then you have proven that you have indeed no smaller bills. You have proven a negative, which is not a argument of ignorance, since you checked and got a empirical proof.

If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument  takes the following form:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.  

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t2099-i ... rance#3676
Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:49 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Elshamah wrote:Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.
Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts.
Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.  

Elshamah, how many threads do you need to make the same argument.

And I already addressed this formulation of your argument here. It is still an argument from ignorance.

SpecialFrog wrote:
Elshamah wrote:Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E.
Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E.

First of all, unless you can prove that the only possible causes for E are {(A-X), Y} then even if premise two is correct, all this establishes is that Y is a possible cause. Without positive evidence that Y is the cause it is no more likely to be the actual cause then some currently unknown cause.

However, you haven't done anything like prove an equivalent of "premise two" for any of your claims. Can you demonstrate that an entity exists that is capable of doing any of the things you claim can't be done by natural processes?

Elshamah wrote:Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X.

Even if true this tells us nothing about the likelihood that Y is the actual explanation for E.

Your argument can be summed up as: "you can't prove another explanation is possible so my explanation wins" even though have done nothing to prove your explanation is possible either, let alone more probably true.

Can you provide any evidence that a being exists or existed that is capable of being responsible for the beginning of life on our planet? Can you provide any evidence that such a being has done so?

Metaphors are not evidence.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:12 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Irreducible complexity is not a successful argument against evolution for reasons already stated in your three other threads.

In fact we have observed the origin of an irreducibly complex pathway for the utilization of citrate under aerobic conditions in Richard Lenski's long-term evolution experiment with E coli.

A gene duplication spawned a copy of the citrate transporter in vicinity of a regulatory element that is only active under aerobic conditions. This allows the cells to use citrate when oxygen is present, which they normally cannot do.

If you remove the duplicate gene, the cell can no longer use citrate with oxygen present. If you remove the regulatory element, the citrate transporter fails to activate when oxygen is present, and the cell cannot use citrate and will die if there is no other food available. So there you go, a two-component, irreducibly complex system that requires both components to be present to work. If you remove one of the components, the system stops working. So it is irreducibly complex and it evolved.

If it is irreducibly complex it can still evolve. In fact we expect that the evolutionary process will create irreducibly complex structures. Do you understand this? If evolution is true, there should be irreducibly complex structures in living organism.

Premise one in the argument is false.
Elsamah wrote:Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems.

False. Case closed, argument refuted.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:34 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Elshamah wrote:There are many parts, subunits of enzymes and proteins, co-factos etc. that have no apparent multiple functions and could not be co-opted or be available through horizontal gene transfer

Prove it. Prove this claim.

Your are making a claim here, you are claiming that there is no way they could be co-opted from different structures, or delivered through horizontal gene transfer, or that they could never have had a different function.

You need to prove that claim to be true.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:38 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2740Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

The irreducibly complex argument is and always has been an argument from ignorance.
For irreducible complexity to be an argument, there must be something which is irreducibly complex.
That has always been done in the form of "Look at how complex X is. I don't see how X could have come about naturally trough a gradual process. Therefore X is irreducibly complex". That is an argument from ignorance, it states that you don't know something in on breath (how X has come about naturally) and then on the very next breath claim that because of not knowing that you actually do know what you previously stated you didn't knew (X hasn't come about naturally, it is irreducibly complex).

Notice that it is never done by doing exhaustively searching the gene space (brute forcing every possible combination), and then coming to the conclusion that no combination is possible. Partially because such a search would take centuries to complete, partially because the science is not developed enough so that you can map a specific DNA sequence to a phenotype, but mainly because people who make such claims are not scientists but rather incompetent clowns, for which such a work would be way over their heads, but most importantly they know they are wrong and they just want to lie to you anyways, and doing work is to much work for that.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Fri Jul 17, 2015 6:23 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Jireh wrote:Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance


Correct. It's a prediction of evolutionary theory, made decades before a lying moron or any of his fuckwit fanboiz were even born.
Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:04 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

hackenslash wrote:
Jireh wrote:Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance


Correct. It's a prediction of evolutionary theory, made decades before a lying moron or any of his fuckwit fanboiz were even born.

Though Elshamah's argument itself is an argument from ignorance. Even if all of it were true (which it is not) it would still not constitute evidence for his claim.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:54 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Correct again. Jireh's argument is that irreducible complexity is a) not an argument from ignorance and b) a problem for evolutionary theory. The first argument is correct, the second is not. Irreducible complexity is not an argument from ignorance, the argument that it's a problem for evolutionary theory is.

Of course, I and others demolished all his idiotic copypasta years ago, but still he clings to it, because he's too thick to recognise when he's been beaten.
Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:31 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1253Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

The problem with Elsamah's arguments in general is that he doesn't even understand how Michael Behe formulated the argument. Elsamah seems to have got the impression that it is by definition impossible to evolve an irreducibly complex structure.
But that's not how Michael Behe uses the term. He doesn't say irreducibly complexity makes evolution impossible, he says it makes it unlikely because the structure would have to pass through many(depending on how complicated it was) stages with altered functions, and so in his view, there would be no smooth hill for natural selection to climb.

You really don't have a case when your opposition needs to tell you how the arguments you use are supposed to work. :lol:
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:33 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Yep.
Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:34 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3473Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Irreducible complexity is not a argument from ignorance

Elshamah wrote:
Image


Honestly, what is the point in copying and pasting the same thing on the same forum repeatedly? It is as if you believe that the more times it is said, the more correct it becomes.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sat Jul 18, 2015 4:49 am
YIM WWW
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 11 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests