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

by David Turell , Monday, September 21, 2009, 14:34 (5338 days ago) @ xeno6696

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.")-Perhaps the universal intelligence set it up that way. You math folks have pointed out that simple math and theoretical math seems to have a reality of its own. And points out that math reaches into all sorts of natural geography and biology: fractals for forestry (dendrology); for coastlines; etc.-> > 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. -Kaufman and his computer games make that clear.
> 
> 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. -Back to Raup: extinction is mainly bad luck. His argument is (altered slightly per your hypothesis) sudden change kills and mutation-driven change is too slow to correct. -> So for some organisms NS clearly will play a strong role in their development. Your idea would create a deeper mess for you;-If I am right, only to die. Clearly the inside mechanisms can move much more swiftly than the outside mechanism of NS waiting for the chance mutations. No question, inside is more agile.-> 
> 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.-Exactly. Any analysis of scientific findings, looking for meaning, looking at reasonable future events is in the suburbs of philosophy. My first wife said the only thing she learned in that class was 'x is a dog'. What I learned was 'matter is energy on the outside and mind is energy on the inside'. I still buy the universal mind idea. To repeat my tenet:If that code is the major inside driver and NS is the minor outside driver, the code is too complex for chance to have created it.