Intelligent Design (brief overview).

[I_am_not_mafia]

One thread I don't know if you guys remember was the binary nature of consciousness. Some thing is either consciousness or not. To go from non-consciousness to consciousness at whatever degree of any degree of consciousness, cannot happen by a mere mutation or a few. It has to be a lot and so many that it cannot be due to random type in naturalism way. 

It's quite easy to go from non-conscious to conscious.

Although you could say that consciousness is binary in that you can say that something is or is not conscious, some people can be more conscious than others. Calling it binary is disingenuous, because really, it isn't.

After all, some people are more conscious of why they are performing an action than others.

What then does consciousness mean at its most basic? It means sensing your own internal state and adapting to it. For example, while driving yesterday I noticed that I was starting to make silly mistakes and was probably fatigued and too warm so I let my husband take over.

So with a simple neural network, it would be quite simple to have the behaviour of the network read by another neural network and fed back in as an input for example. A simple mutation could achieve this.

[GUBU]

A briefer and more accurate description of creatardism:

It's a scam invented by liars to defraud idiots.

Guess what that makes you MK.

[chimp3]

That's how easy it always been to see the design of the Creator.

Easy is right. Way easier than trying to understand science.

[downbeatplumb]

When I was taught evolution in high school, they didn't even tell us anything about the issue of irreducible complexity and how evolutionist tempt to solve them.

It was like it was total non-issue. Before we get into actual details in nature... you have to understand what the irreducible complexity problem is to evolution.

A complex system has many parts. What makes a complex system possibly irreducible is dependency on certain parts on others.  That is without certain parts, other parts wont be useful. 

The problem of irreducibility, is that, it could not by mechanism of small mutations, have evolved because the irreducible complexity suggests that many parts are needed for them to work together for it to work at all.

Of course, you can always take about a more simple version of that system evolving to more complex version of that system.....

But the very first time the system rose, is it possible to go the route of gradual changes? That's the question.

I've realized there is many complex systems that this is not possible.

It's not "I don't know how it's possible so it's not", it's more I know how it's impossible.

Aside from this something are binary. That is they in or they out. One thread I don't know if you guys remember was the binary nature of consciousness. Some thing is either consciousness or not. To go from non-consciousness to consciousness at whatever degree of any degree of consciousness, cannot happen by a mere mutation or a few. It has to be a lot and so many that it cannot be due to random type in naturalism way. 

The reason is because of the binary nature of it.  You can imagine a million steps on the way, but then it make that transition, it's binary.

So aside form irreducible complexity of life of dependency issue, is binary design of things like consciousness.


Now certain things that we may think they are irreducible complex, but they are not, and evolutionary path might be possible for them. Other things not so much.


Sometimes it's not just a irreducible complex system, it's the need of several different type of irreducible complex systems working together... 

That's how easy it always been to see the design of the Creator.

Evolution does not have to be one way. Even if something is irreducibly complex now does not mean that evolution did not shed things. Evolution is great at reusing stuff. For example the bones that make up your ear were once part on the jaws of armoured fish.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do we need anything else to declare MK a poe?

[Fake Messiah]

We have religious people on this forum boasting all the time how they don't read Dawkins and other "atheist authors" as some sort of accomplishment, but it would all save us time if they did because this is something that has been discussed and debunked in all sorts of books. Most notably in dreaded "God Delusion" by Dawkins.
I mean not only would it save us time but religious people would not have to embarrass themselves for being so ignorant.

Here is an excerpt from that scary book to show you what you might know if you read it:

[brewer]

Is this that gappy god thingy the rest of you are always going on about?

[polymath257]

Too bad there are no actual examples of irreducible complexity. ALL examples have been explained as *reducible* to prior states.

[Mr.Obvious]

OP

It is a non-issue.

[Mystic]

I don't believe in scientific authority. Sorry.  I see it clear as daylight. Design is so manifest and has always been manifest.

I don't care about that peer journalism bullshit. 

There is no reason to trust any authority in this time where humans are ruled by deceivers.

Consciousness is binary. Yes there is various levels of it, but at the end, either something is or isn't conscious.

---

Too bad there are no actual examples of irreducible complexity. ALL examples have been explained as *reducible* to prior states.

There are plenty of examples. You just have to understand the problem properly.