Scientism & Philosophical Arguments

[Esquilax]

Using information theory developed by Claude Shannon, we observe that DNA has the capacity to carry huge amounts of information. As Crick explained in 1958, “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein...Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein." Further experimentation since has led to specific knowledge of the types of information encoded.

Which doesn't answer my question, which is how you determined that information to be specified, as opposed to what it usually is, which is a post hoc understanding of patterns, occurring in minds? And for that matter, why do you think it's at all relevant to whether or not it was designed, given that information can also just be derived from ultimately unguided processes working under consistent patterns?

Can you give me a link that supports that we know about the process that could get around irreducible complexity (in spite of the fact that it "arose and faded before investigation was possible")?

Yes, and I can do it with the big, famous example of irreducible complexity: the bacterial flagellum. As the big loss of this argument in court showed us, the bacterial flagellum appears irreducibly complex in that removing any part loses the function of the structure, however, a full understanding of evolution, rather than a selective strawman of it, shows otherwise. In actual fact, the bacterial flagellum shares a number of parts with an earlier structure called the type-3 secretory system, and in fact you can take a large number of parts away from the flagellum and get that system.

The point there is that if your view of evolution includes the possibility that structures can evolve new functions via mutation and then can continue to intensify those traits while losing the less favorable original function- a possibility pretty much required by evolution as it's described- then the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum is, in fact, reducibly complex; it's just that what it is reducible to is not a simpler form of flagellum, it's a structure with a different function.

I got another example of irreducible complexity tossed my way the other day, about a plant that requires something from a bacteria, and a bacteria that requires something from the plant, so how could they have evolved that way? It took me about thirty seconds of thought to come to the solution: evidently one or the other organism had the ability to generate or collect the thing it gets from its counterpart on its own in the past, but when it gained its new sybiosis, that ability was redundant and energetically unfavorable, so it could safely be evolved out. That i what happens in evolution: functions rise and fall according to circumstances, sometimes change entirely over time, such that what today seems like it would be untenable if it lost pieces, has an evolutionary path in the past that doesn't require a strict, ordered, upward climb. Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a tree with tangled branches, such that things cross over each other and fall away and change.

It's obvious to see why something like irreducible complexity would miss that, though, given that the entire argument is nothing more than a glorification of ignorance: the ID proponent can't see how this would have evolved (not that they really cared to try) and therefore it had to be designed! Your ignorance is sufficient justification of this random false dichotomy! It's an argument that depends on not understanding, of course it wouldn't present a clear idea of what evolution actually does in the first place.

Historical scientist use abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation) all the time. Isn't that pretty much the what macro evolution is? How is this different?

The problem is that your inference is in no way tenable according to the premises you've presented. As such, the "best explanation" cannot be the one in your conclusion because the conclusion is in no way justified. My problem isn't with inferences or probabilistic reasoning, it's with your specific argument.

Because it sucks.

I find it interesting that you will dismiss one observation after another, that might have God as an explanation, by saying we have never observed God.

Look, you were the one who decided to feature observations so heavily in your premises, it's not my fault that a consistent application of that also precludes the very thing you're trying to demonstrate.

Then you use the fact that you never observed God to discount any miracles reported. Then because there have never been any miracles, there is no God. Then you say that God has not been observed and miracles are not possible so the Bible is nonsense. Isn't this circular?

It is circular, but it's also, you know, not a goddamn word of what I said? You'd think that'd be important, but hey.

So, the lack of observations of god handily takes care of your premises regarding observations, but the reason I discount miracles has nothing to do with that. The reason I discount miracles is that every miracle that has been tested turned out to have a natural explanation, and those cases where testing was not done, or was not conclusive, I'm still not justified in leaping to a supernatural conclusion, that'd be an argument from ignorance.

This should be obvious, but for a proposed explanation to be the solution to a phenomenon, it has to be possible. I mean, it has to actually have occurred, right? It can't be impossible and still be what actually happened. So when I'm presented with a miracle claim, in which every other solved miracle had a natural explanation, and all we have left are untested miracles, for which people are proposing a supernatural explanation without first demonstrating that the supernatural is possible, well then, you're asking me to ignore all of the demonstrable history of miracles, in favor of an explanation which runs counter to every other time, based on no evidence. You're essentially asking me to accept the supernatural for no reason at all.

That's why I discount miracle claims. Not because we've never observed god.

It's interesting, though, that instead of responding to what I actually said, you leaped instantly to an old theist canard. It's almost like you have no interest in having this conversation beyond reaching your predrawn conclusion by denigrating atheists...