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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, September 21, 2009, 05:14 (5338 days ago) @ David Turell

No one will deny that if I moved to Africa and sat out in the sun naked that I'd probably die, wheras one of my good buddies from Africa (esp. Sudan... holy crap are they dark) would shrug his shoulders. Oh, for the record, I'm nearly as white as my hair is blonde. I'll post a pic sometime...)
> 
> Believe me, black folks sunburn also. Further a recent review came up with no idea of why we turned white. Can't remember which website.-Moot really, doesn't nullify my point. I'd come out with 2nd degree burns, the other wouldn't. -> > 
> > The waters get even more cloudy when we add in evolutionary computer sims; in short randomness DOES give rise to ordered structures. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that computer sims provide evidence for or against a creator, only that order can come from chaos without any intervention beyond pressing "play.") 
> 
> Those computer simulations I've seen look too simplistic to start with.-You're not looking at that correctly: if you create spontaneous structure from simple rules, the simpler the rule set you can use lowers the bar for complexity to appear.-The more I think about this discussion the more I think that your RNA hypothesis wouldn't be as ground-breaking as it first appears. Natural Selection would still be a better explanation for why species go extinct and why others live. So for some organisms NS clearly will play a strong role in their development. Your idea would create a deeper mess for you; you need to be able to determine which species came about by RNA-driven changes, and which ones appeared due to natural selection. Carried to its logical conclusion, the two concepts are so intrinsically interwoven with each other that all you would have is another chicken-and-egg scenario.-And in my case, you also need to make it clear why exactly it would mean that a creator would be a more tenable position if it were true. From my vantage, you're still in philosophy-ville.

--
\"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.\"