(April 8, 2016 at 10:45 am)Esquilax Wrote:
Um, you are aware that arguments from ignorance don't count, right? I asked for positive evidence, and you handed me a pair of negative arguments, especially in regard to the latter. Don't believe me? Let's write out the actual formulation of those arguments, then:
"DNA contains complex, specified information, and I can't see how that could happen without design," is, aside from the utterly meaningless buzzword-ey nature of the key phrase there, seeking to get to design by removing evolution from the possibility space. It's a negative argument based in ignorance: evolution can't explain the existence of this information, therefore god.
Irreducible complexity is even worse, because it's just "I can't see how these would have evolved, therefore they're irreducibly complex." Never mind that in every instance of supposed irreducible complexity, a reducibly complex answer has been found, the point is that, again, it's an argument that relies on evolution not having an answer, rather than actual positive evidence. Both of these claims just seek to reduce the pool of possible answers, fallaciously assuming there are only two options in there, rather than actively pointing to one particular option.
I think that you are rephrasing the points to make your case. If I rephrase your arguments, to "I can't see how this evidence could happen without evolution..." would that mean that the case for evolution is nothing but negative arguments? It seems to me, that when you make a positive case for one thing, then you are necessarily excluding other alternatives. The criticism of a purely negative argument is that you are assuming your position, by negating the opposing position. You are not given positive reasons to connect the evidence to your position. If there are only two options, then this is legitimate, if there are other options, then it is not.
We can get into the claims of complex specified information, and irreducible complexity. I think that your statement that in every instance an answer has been found is overstated. But; again, I don't want to go into too many directions at once (nothing really get's discussed then).