Complexity Improbability and Design

[Furrowed Brow]

In the debate Winning Life’s Lotteries 4gold made the following point:

Complexity is special because it is a method by which we use to determine whether a phenomenon is random or designed.

Question 1: Is it too improbable to believe that some complex natural phenomena do not require a designer?

Question 2: Are improbability and complexity two measures by which we can validly conclude a designer.

[The Duke of Vandals]

It is not that I fail to see the point of natural selection, it is just that I am not buying into it.

Is there a reason you're ignoring an evidenced phenomenon?

What would you say to someone who stated, "It's no that I fail to see the point of meteorology. I just don't buy into it because I think Zeus makes lightning" ???

[Cathar1950]

You fail to see the point of natural selection. If lobsters found themselves in an environment where they had to spend varying amounts of time on land, over many generations, the lobsters which exhibited the ability to survive out of water the longest would eventually become dominant.

We can call the last one to survive out of water 'dominant', at his funeral.
It is not that I fail to see the point of natural selection, it is just that I am not buying into it.

Lobsters don't have funerals. Maybe we would call them land crabs.
Tell us what you are buying or selling because I can't imagine how natural selection would not be a nessesary outcome.

[olavisjo]

Lobsters don't have funerals. Maybe we would call them land crabs.
Tell us what you are buying or selling because I can't imagine how natural selection would not be a nessesary outcome.

I have to give you a 100 tokens for the land crab.
But, when I envision evolution by natural selection, I see something like draining a lake and waiting for at least half the fish in it to die, then refill the lake, wait for the fish to produce the next generation, then repeat the process.
I just can't imagine that those fish will ever develop limbs and lungs, even though they could sure use them.
How much code would you have to write to create a lung? Your code must produce all the air passageways and the tiny sacks with capillaries and the blood vessels to collect the blood, you need a muscle to open and close the lung, you need a nervous system that measures O2 and CO2 levels to tell the muscle how fast to breathe.
You say you can break it down into small steps, but to me a thousand small miracles is just as hard to accept as one giant miracle.
The best that science can do is to show that these things can happen on their own, then I will change my mind and say "Is it not wonderful how God created the elements and the laws of nature to make all this possible".

[The Duke of Vandals]

Lobsters don't have funerals. Maybe we would call them land crabs.
Tell us what you are buying or selling because I can't imagine how natural selection would not be a nessesary outcome.

I have to give you a 100 tokens for the land crab.
But, when I envision evolution by natural selection, I see something like draining a lake and waiting for at least half the fish in it to die, then refill the lake, wait for the fish to produce the next generation, then repeat the process.

Yeaaa... Bad example. Let's see if we can come up with a better one.

Imagine a butterfly. This butterfly lives in a wooded region and feeds on leaves (while it's a catterpiller(sp?)) and pollen (when it becomes a butterfly). Plenty of that around.

The butterfly (as a species) does well. It thrives and expands to nearby valleys. The butterflies in those valleys eventually* the five valleys around the region get give different strains of butterfly.

There are blue ones the color of the sky (these are the original).
There are green ones that are the color of leaves.
There are orange ones.
There are black ones.
There are red ones.
There are yellow ones.

Green, orange, black, red and yellow. All from genetic mutation from being isolated in their own valley for years and years.

Then, along comes a new predator; a species of bird with keen eyesight. This bird species migrates randomly to the butterfly region and valleys and proceeds to chow down on the butterflies.

All of the butterflies are easy to see because of their bright wing colors except the green ones. The birds can see the green ones, but are likely to be mistaken for leaves. So, all the other species get eaten and the green ones live because their wings accidentally happened to be a color that gave them an advantage.

Now, along comes a theist years later who sees the green eaf-like butterfly and concludes "god made the butterfly that way". How silly does he sound?




*we're talking many generations here for all of these. Not specific butterflies, but the species.

[Cathar1950]

Yeaaa... Bad example. Let's see if we can come up with a better one.

Way to take my prize or at least the few moment of glory.
I was just using the first thing that came in my poor head.
Lobsters are not the same as land crabs but it was making a point had he used crabs instead. Way to take my thunder. No wonder Zeus is mad at you.

Thanks olavisjo I can use the tokens as I was getting low.

[byofrcs]

Lobsters don't have funerals. Maybe we would call them land crabs.
Tell us what you are buying or selling because I can't imagine how natural selection would not be a nessesary outcome.

I have to give you a 100 tokens for the land crab.
But, when I envision evolution by natural selection, I see something like draining a lake and waiting for at least half the fish in it to die, then refill the lake, wait for the fish to produce the next generation, then repeat the process.
I just can't imagine that those fish will ever develop limbs and lungs, even though they could sure use them.
How much code would you have to write to create a lung? Your code must produce all the air passageways and the tiny sacks with capillaries and the blood vessels to collect the blood, you need a muscle to open and close the lung, you need a nervous system that measures O2 and CO2 levels to tell the muscle how fast to breathe.
You say you can break it down into small steps, but to me a thousand small miracles is just as hard to accept as one giant miracle.
The best that science can do is to show that these things can happen on their own, then I will change my mind and say "Is it not wonderful how God created the elements and the laws of nature to make all this possible".

This happens seasonally in some rivers which are fed by monsoon or other seasonal rains. The ability to use this niche in both dry and wet seasons is an advantage and a creature that can tolerate air for periods of time as well as swim is at an advantage to other animals as it can remain where the food is for longer period of time.

The lungfish comes to mind and interestingly the marbled lungfish has the largest known animal genome. This would suggest an accumulation of code. It's hard to make calls as to how important genome sizes are; one amoeba, Amoeba dubia has about 200 times as much genetic material than humans though the readings are not accurate and open to argument, the values do show a huge diversity of sizes that do not make any sense when looking at it from a designer point of view.

Amoeba dubia, with a genome that huge, wasn't designed but pimped.

Intelligent Design ?. Yo' way man, check out this Amoeba: we took a hum-v and a caddy, we welds them together, puts on 30 layers of paint, sticks them on 24 inch platinum rims, adds a jacuzzi, a projection screen, a 5000 watt sound system. We calls this, "Intelligent Design."

The creator is more like a chop shop with bad taste or it's blind.

Blind evolution or bling bling ? Which makes more sense ?

[olavisjo]

The lungfish comes to mind...

200 tokens for the lungfish.
I have to say that arguing with Byofrcs is like arguing with God. And I am finding a new respect for evolution, one day I even picture having a conversation with God like the following.

I created the land animals form amphibians which I created form the sea animals.

You mean the evolutionist were right?

Yes, they were right about how things were created.

So we don't have to smite them with fire from the sky?

No, we don't smite people for honest ideas.