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

by dhw, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 23:04 (5538 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt argued that according to conventional evolutionary theory, new organisms only arrive through "need", which I see as the passive or adaptive side of evolution. I tried to explain that the "evolutionary stumbling block for me is not adaptation but innovation", in the form of new organs, faculties etc. brought about by random mutations.-Matt: Widen your scope. The same incredulity can be applied to our galaxy...There is still much to discover!
Yes, indeed, but if we're talking about Darwinian evolution, it's no time to launch ourselves into space.-Matt: Evolution does not need to explain the origin of life [...] Evolution makes no supposition about abiogenesis etc.
You sound like me complaining to George about Dawkins, who informs us that "Evolution is the creator of life." You're repeating my own arguments to me! Abiogenesis is a totally separate subject, and we're discussing the problem of random mutations.-My focus, as I say, is exclusively on innovation. As David argues elsewhere, "we can give very good reasons for the benefits of two sexes", just as we can for all our senses and faculties etc., but we have hindsight. The organisms in which these systems first arose had no sight of any kind. The systems had to be "invented". To respond: "So nothing good ever happens by chance?" doesn't convince me that these immensely complex innovations (even in their most rudimentary form) could arise spontaneously. However, let me skip now to your final two sentences: "My point of contention with David on this issue is on being able to determine whether the mutations are random or not. I don't think you can."-This is where you and I almost join forces, though we may not be doing so for the same reasons, because once again I find the line of argument in your last two paragraphs difficult to follow. I like to go from A to B, and you seem to go from A to C to D to B! As usual, though, please accept my apologies if I'm at fault. Here is my A to B: If the mutations are random, we must accept the probability formulae of which you are so fond. Funny things can happen given enough time and enough organisms unconsciously shaking their genetic kaleidoscopes. If the mutations are not random, and are not induced by the necessities of adaptation imposed by the environment (how can they be if the organs never existed before?), then they are the product of design: this could be because they have been pre-programmed, or because there is a designer intervening. David opts, I think, for pre-programming. George opts, I think, for randomness. And maybe in your heart of hearts you opt for randomness, too, but with less certainty than George. I opt out of opting. If this summary is correct, we have probably gone as far as we can go in this discussion, at least for the time being. But maybe I've missed something.-(My thanks to you, David, George and BBella for all the latest very stimulating posts. I'm having a hard time keeping up, but I'll get there eventually!)