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

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 23:30 (5541 days ago) @ dhw

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.
> -Well, there's something else, something lightly touched on by literature, and apparently--not at all on this site. There's an alternative possibility to the generation of organs in organisms. (I apologize again, I will try to keep an A-->B-->C-->D format, though my personality type is prone to leap at the instant I find a connection.) -Mitochondria provide an incredibly VITAL clue in the discussion of the origins of multicellular organisms. They have their own unique and distinct DNA. How about 'organs' being the result of colonies of varied cells living in close proximity to each other? If there was a slightly poisonous chemical in the water that one type of cellular organism could process to something harmless (or perhaps for energy, as tube worms do), this would provide the impetus for cells to "decide" to live together; colonies of cells that have managed to become good at somethings better than others.-Not much science to back up this idea, beyond the existence of mitochondrial DNA, and doesn't solve the problem on *how* these colonies perhaps became whole organisms, or how most of them ended up having the same DNA, but it is at least, a different perspective that also sheds light on the fact that virtually *all* moving living things have *some* kind of social structure. Perhaps many of the early organisms participated in linear genetic transfers as bacteria are prone to do. (Just throwing that out there.) -Virii inject their own DNA into the host: Chickenpox victims have a stronger immune system. There's that to consider as well. -In my heart of hearts? My materialism is an operational materialism; I adopt enough of it to use the scientific method. I'm more prepared to accept the materialistic explanation, though that is because of the fact that we can at least *do* something about it. The logic of irreducible complexity boils down to an observation of complexity... but then doing nothing about it. -I feel that in this thread I've done more to help ID advocates in terms of actionable science than their whole movement has done in its roughly 18 year existence. If speciation only occurs due to environmental changes, than there is no *real* evidence to suggest ID's validity. But it's something they can experiment for...

--
\"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.\"