Go back
The design argument

The design argument

Spirituality

KellyJay
Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
162366
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry Kelly. I don't really understand what you're getting at apart from the last sentence.
Sorry my bad! I knew what I was saying, no one else could. 🙁

lemon lime
itiswhatitis

oLd ScHoOl

Joined
31 May 13
Moves
5577
Clock
05 Jan 15
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by RJHinds
What Behe was referring to by irreducible complexity of the flagellum motor was the fact that if one part from that motor is missing then it no longer functions as a motor. There is a need for all the parts and in the correct arrangement to function as a motor to propel the organism. Some evolutionists have tried to present his argument as something that it is not.
It's easy to look a frog and make presumptions about how the frog works.
But if you dissect the frog then you are able to see how it works.

The counter argument to irreducible complexity is to say a functional motor can be so simple that self assembly and operation is easy to imagine. But there are two problems with this idea. 1. how simple can a similar motor be before it can't function as a motor and 2. if we presume some other dissimilar (simple) method of propulsion, then we must believe it can evolve into some other (dissimilar) form.

The idea sounds feasible, but dissecting the idea and imagining how this might actually work brings into play new problems in need of new explanations. A quick fix idea can only work as a permanent fix if it is accepted without examination. If it can stand up to any scrutiny then it may have validation without benefit of proof... actual proof is better, but if validation is all we have to work with then we should be focusing on that.

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lemon lime
It's easy to look a frog and make presumptions about how the frog works.
But if you dissect the frog then you are able to see how it works.

The counter argument to irreducible complexity is to say a functional motor can be so simple that self assembly and operation is easy to imagine. But there are two problems with this idea. 1. how simple can a simi ...[text shortened]... oof is better, but if validation is all we have to work with then we should be focusing on that.
These guys might make good science fiction writers, but they couldn't cut it as engineers. 😏

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lemon lime
Since this is (supposedly) a design argument (pro and con) I came up with an analogy to illustrate the difference between a system put together by intelligent design (a refrigerator build from parts in your home) and an appearance of design in living systems. This is the crux of the intelligent design argument.

Living systems are much mor ...[text shortened]... nature without facing an argument, then you should be able to do the same with evolution.
Has anyone ever seen the formation of a star? I don't think so. 😏

wolfgang59
Quiz Master

RHP Arms

Joined
09 Jun 07
Moves
48794
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wolfgang59
My friend believes that 200 million years ago god created the first mammal and then let evolution take over.

What do you say to that Kelly?
Well Kelly?
What is your argument against my friend's [position on evolution?

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Well Kelly?
What is your argument against my friend's [position on evolution?
Why 200 million years? 😏

C Hess

Joined
31 Aug 06
Moves
40565
Clock
05 Jan 15
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lemon lime
Since this is (supposedly) a design argument (pro and con) I came up with an analogy to illustrate the difference between a system put together by intelligent design (a refrigerator build from parts in your home) and an appearance of design in living systems. This is the crux of the intelligent design argument.

Living systems are much mor ...[text shortened]... nature without facing an argument, then you should be able to do the same with evolution.
Okay, there are a few things that needs to be considered here. I hope you'll bear with me.

1) Something like a refrigerator is built for a purpose, and every part in it has a purpose. There isn't a single part in a refrigerator that could have evolved, or even come about by pure random chance, and there's not a single part in it that aren't used. The analogy is bad because it doesn't actually compare to a living system. Biological complexity has a lot to do with the fact that many parts are not in fact used, but appear to be inherited remnants (vestigial features). This fact alone should give you pause in your analogy. If biological systems were designed for a purpose by an outside designer, why would an organism have parts that are not even useful to it in its environment (in which we'd have to pressume this designer intended the organism to live)?

2) We know for a fact that every individual building block found in biological life can form through natural processes, from amino and nucleic acids, to specific proteins and other organic molecules (and by natural processes I mean to include cellular activities). Here we see that there's nothing inherent about nature that should prevent evolution from working, as everything needed for evolution (from fuel to mutations to selection) can be observed in real-time.

3) The vestigial parts (as well as genetic material) is shared in the biological world such that it's very easy to defend the idea of common descent. If you have two otherwise very different organisms sharing genetic material that's not used by either one, it fits the idea of common descent, but this shared, not used material, makes no sense at all, if every form of life was designed for a specific purpose, like a refrigerator where every part is used.

4) There's not one part of any biological organism that could not at least in theory be explained as the result of accumulated complexity from what we already know about the inner workings of biological systems, but there's not a single part in a refrigerator that could be explained as the result of the inner workings of the refrigator parts (because the latter can't replicate itself).

These are just minor, from the top of my head, objections to your analogy. What you're saying really boils down to: "A refrigerator is totally complicated, and living system even more so. We know it took human intelligence to build a refrigerator, so it must have taken an even bigger intelligence to 'build' life." But that conveniently ignores the fact that life keeps rebuilding itself, with variation. This rebuilding process has never been observed to require an outside of nature assistance. What other than more variation can you get from a system where the parts replicate themselves with variation? And how could such replication with variation not lead to more complexity with time?

Every time you wish to compare life to something made by humans (information or technology), you have to ask yourself who "reads" the information and "uses" the technology? Should you realise that it's a silly question (the "information" is only "read" by the parts of the organisms themselves, and the organisms are not "used" by anything other than other organisms), then you should also realise why your analogy fails to demonstrate the need for an outside designer.

lemon lime
itiswhatitis

oLd ScHoOl

Joined
31 May 13
Moves
5577
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by RJHinds
Has anyone ever seen the formation of a star? I don't think so. 😏
But we can validate that idea (without seeing it) because formation of new stars best explains a natural progression of lighter elements into heavier ones.

lemon lime
itiswhatitis

oLd ScHoOl

Joined
31 May 13
Moves
5577
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by C Hess
Okay, there are a few things that needs to be considered here. I hope you'll bare with me.

1) Something like a refrigerator is built for a purpose, and every part in it has a purpose. There isn't a single part in a refrigerator that could have evolved, or even come about by pure random chance, and there's not a single part in it that aren't used. The anal ...[text shortened]... you should also realise why your analogy fails to demonstrate the need for an outside designer.
I hope you'll bare with me.

No, I will remain fully clothed. But I'll have to come back to look at your argument later today... It's after lunch time, and I haven't had breakfast yet...

C Hess

Joined
31 Aug 06
Moves
40565
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
The only thing the fossil record really does tell us there were creatures that were alive that are now fossils...
...and that, when we put them in chronological order, according to features shared, fits perfectly with the idea of evolution from common descent. But other than that, no it can't be used as evidence for evolution. But it perfectly fits with what you expect to see if evolution was true. But really, it totally is no evidence for evolution. Not at all. Pffft, those silly evolutionists. Just because the pieces fit, doesn't mean they really fit. Don't they know anything about anything? 🙄

C Hess

Joined
31 Aug 06
Moves
40565
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]I hope you'll bare with me.

No, I will remain fully clothed. But I'll have to come back to look at your argument later today... It's after lunch time, and I haven't had breakfast yet...[/b]
Ha! I misspelled. I do that sometimes. I hope you'll bear with me. Uhm not perfect, you no.

KellyJay
Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
162366
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by C Hess
...and that, when we put them in chronological order, according to features shared, fits perfectly with the idea of evolution from common descent. But other than that, no it can't be used as evidence for evolution. But it perfectly fits with what you expect to see if evolution was true. But really, it totally is no evidence for evolution. Not at all. Pffft, t ...[text shortened]... ecause the pieces fit, doesn't mean they really fit. Don't they know anything about anything? 🙄
There are a lot of creatures that share features alive today, why wouldn't there
be more that died off before? Again, shared features are just shared features
they are not perfect link, if the changes came in as small ones over time there
would NOT be just creatures that shared features there would be creatures
with from every stages at all time throughout the full process so NO you do
not get to say it is what you think you should see because you are not seeing
what you think you should see. The only reason you spout off claims like
that is because you need to, even though it isn't true! You see what you
want to see!

stellspalfie

Joined
16 Jan 07
Moves
95105
Clock
05 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are a lot of creatures that share features alive today, why wouldn't there
be more that died off before? Again, shared features are just shared features
they are not perfect link, if the changes came in as small ones over time there
would NOT be just creatures that shared features there would be creatures
with from every stages at all time through ...[text shortened]... ims like
that is because you need to, even though it isn't true! You see what you
want to see!
there would be creatures
with from every stages at all time throughout the full process


why? if you are so sure about this and the scientists are wrong you must be able to explain why we should have so many fossils.

KellyJay
Walk your Faith

USA

Joined
24 May 04
Moves
162366
Clock
06 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]there would be creatures
with from every stages at all time throughout the full process


why? if you are so sure about this and the scientists are wrong you must be able to explain why we should have so many fossils.[/b]
You should not only see them in fossils, but living! For crying out loud you
think something stopped evolution for some reason when the creatures we
see living today appeared? Why would that be true? If it is an on going
process than everything from A to Z would still be on going. You think that
that for some reason whatever came before people wouldn't be around?
Monkeys may have a lot shared features as us, but they are not human and
if we came from them where are all of the creatures between us and them?

It would be the same for every living creature living today, lots of shared
features, but that does not mean they were connected through evolution,
it could be just as true they were designed that way because it is a good
design! The only thing the fossil record really shows us are creatures that
are not alive today, and some that are alive today.

RJHinds
The Near Genius

Fort Gordon

Joined
24 Jan 11
Moves
13644
Clock
06 Jan 15
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by lemon lime
But we can validate that idea (without seeing it) because formation of new stars best explains a natural progression of lighter elements into heavier ones.
How do you know this?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.