Two sides of the irreducible complexity argument: dhw Pt1 (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 20, 2009, 20:33 (5541 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Sunday, September 20, 2009, 20:38

I would say that the design view is looking "inside" the organism whereas the traditional theory is looking "outside." The major obstacle for the design argument is that if it is true, than the event of macroevolution (drastic shift from one body form to another) should be viewable, or at the least, we should be able to induce it at will without needing a corresponding environmental shift.
> 
> I like the 'inside, outside' approach. But you've got the 'design' obstacle exactly backwards. The fossil record is staccato. Pause and lurch forward. Punctuated equilibrium. We can follow intermediary forms like the whale progression George provided, but no one has ever found the tiny steps, slow progression thru mutation should provide. -We've been over this before. The only way you could capture that information is to have a fossil from every generation from whale x to whale y, and considering the rarity of fossils in the first place, this is an unrealistic restriction. Who says that 10million years isn't enough? Who says that even 10,000 years isn't enough? This is impossible to know without access to the DNA record so we could actually "see" what was changing; even if we had all the generations between whale x and whale y. If the changes happen from an organism and it passes down to the next--however it happens--basic evolutionary theory as you are trying to fight it remains unchanged, and it still doesn't answer any question about a creator. -
>Instead we find quick adaptation possibly through epigenetics and microRNA control. We have not seen macro-evolution in the short span of the last 200 years, but it is so short a time period. -And here you fall victim to your own reasoning from above. How is 200 years too short with how many millions of species? How about Drosophilia. We've never seen population shifts w/o a corresponding environmental change, nor bacteria on agar plates. Only selection works. -If, in the future we fully understand the entire genetic coding system, and then can manufacture our own designed animals, it throws Darwin out the window. We have done ID ourselves, and the system is shown to be so complex, it could not have contrived itself naturally, and the designer wins. This has been my view for the last decade. I know you will argue that such a system could arise naturally. Knowing mutation rates, the time involved, the steps that had to be accomplished to create the code, will create odds beyond a probability bound. We should be able to do the math without suppositions at that time.-
No... it doesn't throw darwin out of the window because you *must* show that macroevolution happens *without* a corresponding environmental change. That is the *only* way to defeat the argument..n. but it would still stay nothing about a creator. (see above.)-[EDIT] I might not be making myself clear: The only way to say that darwinian evolution is incorrect is to show that macroevolution happens without an outside influence. Building our own animals would prove nothing any better than building our own conscious AI.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"