Just to put the last nail in the 'argument from complexity' coffin...

This is going to be quick and it's going to be mainly based in pictures...if you need further explanation, I bemoan the education system.

Naturally occurring:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6b7165184ba.jpg[/atsimg]




Designed:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f85d4088ad7.jpg[/atsimg]




Naturally occurring:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/55fc796552a0.jpg[/atsimg]




Designed
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd425040e194.jpg[/atsimg]


Notice how all of the designed things there are simple and purpose built? Notice how all of the naturally occurring things are all complex and relatively unrefined? This is why the argument from complexity is downright stupid, as sometimes simplicity can be an indicator that something has been acted upon by an intelligent force.

Good on you sir,.. sometimes logic can be blinding to those who squint too hard!

S&F

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Just a quick point of digression here - perhaps I've just had limited exposure, but I'm not familiar with an argument from complexity, other than perhaps the ID movement, which isn't quite the same. Intelligent design just purports that certain things are irreducibly complex, requiring a certain number of components to have any useful function as usually (or previously?) understood as a requirement of darwinian evolution - small, beneficial steps via natural selection, etc., that are useful to the organism along the way to the final product.

If you're arguing against specified complexity, your examples are honestly pretty terrible and don't really say much - monkeys banging on a keyboard will produce complexity, but human authors (or other intelligent entities can produce specified complexity such as novels that can be read by others.

Not much of a nail in either coffin here.

reply to post by Praetorius


...except that specified complexity has never been proven so there's really no point in arguing against it. Ken Miller knocked it out of the park by taking one of Behe's examples and flipping it on its head: The mouse trap. If you take a piece out of it, it won't work as a mouse trap...but it'll still make a great tie clip or even a binder clip.

The idea of specified complexity is an attempt at a parlor trick. The parlor trick being that of secretly pushing back the goal posts in a discussion by saying that biological systems, particularly on the microbiological level, can only be thought of as beneficial if they serve the exact same function throughout their evolutionary development.

I'm arguing against the general complexity idea...mainly because it's a vague and philosophical. Specified complexity as an idea tried to venture into science...and then promptly fell flat on its face.

well since humans are complex and purposeful I guess it is a combination of both. Things go from perfection to imperfection, from simplicity to complexity, all things proceed from one absolute and then engenders into many complicated processes happening simultaneously, impossible to know all things at once, only through generalizations and personal contact.

i don't quite get how you can use those pictures to prove it, the rock is broken of something much bigger or a part of something much bigger(the earth).

if we brake a piece of those lenght of wires or zoomed in really close then what would our prespective be. natural or manmade?



i think it just depends on prespective, but i understand your point.

reply to post by filosophia


...things don't tend towards linear progressions under all circumstances. This is actually a clear fault with a lot of classical Greek metaphysics, it tries to ascribe an absolute rule for all things to follow in terms of general behavior when such a rule cannot be defined.

reply to post by lifeform11


Well, the point was that complexity isn't a necessary indicator of design and that other factors, including simplicity, could indicate design far better.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6d09e56fa12.jpg[/atsimg]

That right there is an incredible simple and definitively man made object.

I've never heard of this argument, but allow me to illustrate something using your general example of something naturally occurring versus something designed by humans.

Natural:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f604bd211459.jpg[/atsimg]

Designed:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e885280b83cc.jpg[/atsimg]

Natural:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/90362487eb6d.jpg[/atsimg]

Designed:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bcf5343e5e1b.jpg[/atsimg]


Yes, making something simple and practical is a mark of intelligence... but making something amazingly complex from those natural things make them appear very simple, and that is a mark of an even higher intelligence, no? Just like the entire universe is incredibly complex yet made from simple (in retrospect) neutrons, protons, all the elements, etc. And as Newton said "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion."

Random is an excuse, however.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


yeah i understand.

my point was just the fact that we judge it on our level, but things change the ferther in or out you go and start to take a different shape.

so something that is inteligent in design if we lived on it, the ferther in you zoom would appear more complex on the surface compared to ferther away, if we then manipulated things on the surface into things we can use we would make the same distinction, that the surface is natural, but the things we made are inteligent in design because we would be lacking the preseptive to beable to tell that the surface was infact intelligent in design all along.

i am not sure i am explaining what i mean here i need to think about a better example i think.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

...except that specified complexity has never been proven so there's really no point in arguing against it.

That's just a silly thing to say. Specified complexity isn't a theory or something abstract, it's an observation. Something is highly specific (for example a repeating pattern ABCABC) and highly complex (a pile of spaghetti with meatballs, with some microchips thrown in for flavor). Saying it's never been proven is like saying the sky hasn't been proven (hey, it's right up there!). Language is a good example of specified complexity.

Ken Miller knocked it out of the park by taking one of Behe's examples and flipping it on its head: The mouse trap. If you take a piece out of it, it won't work as a mouse trap...but it'll still make a great tie clip or even a binder clip.

This would actually be irreducible complexity, which is a different matter addressing systems that become effectively purposeless with removal of one part - every part being required for the unit to serve a purpose. Miller's refutation is debatable, regardless, especially since the mousetrap is not the only alleged irreducibly complex system out there.

The idea of specified complexity is an attempt at a parlor trick. The parlor trick being that of secretly pushing back the goal posts in a discussion by saying that biological systems, particularly on the microbiological level, can only be thought of as beneficial if they serve the exact same function throughout their evolutionary development.

Again, you're confusing concepts here. Specified complexity doesn't have anything to do with darwinian evolution or beneficiality specifically, it's just a description of things containing certain non-random characteristics.

I'm arguing against the general complexity idea...mainly because it's a vague and philosophical. Specified complexity as an idea tried to venture into science...and then promptly fell flat on its face.

I guess we'll agree to disagree on that latter bit, and good luck with the rest. Specified complexity is a simple fact, though, and most examples of it we see either come directly from an intelligent source, or are the biological results of disputed processes.

You're familiar with SETI? Yeah, they're looking for specified complexity. They're looking for language. And in our experience, all language comes from the creative, willful input of humanity.

And coincidentally, DNA is a language.

How about a photo of a very beautiful woman... which of course comes under the Natural ... ah... providing no clothes, nor make-up etc.... Now that also comes under Design and providing a relative IQ... Intelligent Design..

------> insert Beautiful Intellignet Woman ~*

A Major problem with Evolution Theory... It NEVER explains how a beautiful woman originated... It's nice to view the castle on the hill eh? Evolution has no idea how that castle got there lol

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by lifeform11

 

Well, the point was that complexity isn't a necessary indicator of design and that other factors, including simplicity, could indicate design far better.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c6d09e56fa12.jpg[/atsimg]

That right there is an incredible simple and definitively man made object.

Originally posted by Serafine
A Major problem with Evolution Theory... It NEVER explains how a beautiful woman originated..

Well of course it does.
The ones most "attractive" in any species are the ones that are more likely to find a mate quickly.
Then, they pass on those genes to the next generation more often.
The ones least "attractive" in any species are the ones that are less likely to find a mate quickly.
Then, they pass on those genes to the next generation less often.

Its actually a bizarre thought - but "attractive" can mean anything at all. What you find attractive is really a creation of what your ancestors found attractive. You dont get much say in it.

reply to post by Serafine

A Major problem with Evolution Theory... It NEVER explains how a beautiful woman originated...

No?

Sexual selection and the biology of beauty

Female body shape

Waist-to-hip ratio

Evolution is making women more beautiful

Tons more links to every aspect of beauty and natural selection you could possibly think of.

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

yeah i understand.

my point was just the fact that we judge it on our level, but things change the ferther in or out you go and start to take a different shape.

so something that is inteligent in design if we lived on it, the ferther in you zoom would appear more complex on the surface compared to ferther away, if we then manipulated things on the surface into things we can use we would make the same distinction, that the surface is natural, but the things we made are inteligent in design because we would be lacking the preseptive to beable to tell that the surface was infact intelligent in design all along.

i am not sure i am explaining what i mean here i need to think about a better example i think.

reply to post by alfa1


Alfa1... You are merely proving MY points... come on! You Have NOT answered... All Women are Beautiful... Evolution has NEVER explained how ANY woman originated... you can throw around all the stones you want but throwing them will NOT build the Castle on the Hill... NOT without Design.

reply to post by Astyanax


As I stated... Evolution has NEVER explained how a woman originated

See a woman is ah...... something not explained... in other words.... genetics and selection and propagation 101 DOESN'T explain HOW... Try to understand this.... you must begin with NO WOMAN in the explanation... NOT a Mother... NOT a Father... Not A Daughter... Understand?

Now from no mother and no father ...... a Beautiful Woman.... Think NO GENES... NO DNA... NO LIFE

I understand some try to describe the stones... the cuttings... all the "Material" in a Castle... yet they CAN'T explain HOW the Castle manifested on the hill. Explain how all that material manifested as a CASTLE..... or.... A Woman.. lol

reply to post by Serafine

Not understanding the "No father, No mother" position, that is actually what Creation suggests. Evolution can only work with what is already there, and what proceeds is a continuum of change, there is no discontinuity, or mechanism to step in a place organisms in their rightful place.

Humans (and all organisms) are explained rather sufficiently without the invocation of a supernatural being.

reply to post by Serafine


You are substituting something familiar to fill a gap in understanding. Not understanding each and every detail does not imply a super natural answer.

You feel more comfortable having an easy answer... That's all.

In addition, the processes that we observe DO design. They do so through what we refer to as "survival of the fittest". The state of being aliverequires certain elements. The process of obtaining those elements so as to remain alive provides the competition which rewards or punishes a creatures "design". Science can already do a good job at describing the events that drive this process.

A simple single cell in the sea.. Can it survive changes in temperature or salinity?

A many celled deer.. Can it out run the cheeta or digest new food if it's prefered plants die out?