“Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information
stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that
directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living cell.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction because this trend is real. I would add to this arguments relating to first-cause, fine-tuning, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
Yes, I am aware of the general disagreement here with my position.
Time will tell...
On 6/02/2025 6:07 pm, Ernest Major wrote:
On 06/02/2025 06:29, MarkE wrote:
“Researchers have shown that translation of the genetic information
stored in our DNA is much more complex than previously thought. This
discovery was made by developing a type of advanced microscopy that
directly visualizes the translation of the genetic code in a living
cell.”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190606133759.htm
1) Complexity in living cells is not a particularly good proxy for the
probability of spontaneous emergence.
I assume Davies means abiogenesis, not instantaneous formation.
The more complex a minimal first life must be, the higher the
improbability of naturalistic formation, yes?
2) On an initial scan of the press release and paper this looks like
evidence against life being designed.
On 8/02/2025 9:39 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt
Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction >>>> because this trend is real.
What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]
So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.
No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for >logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 8/02/2025 9:39 pm, Martin Harran wrote:Martin can handle his own arguments, but I noticed that you
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive
discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt
Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction >>>>> because this trend is real.
What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]
So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to
be true.
No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for >>logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.
again failed to provide the evidence for your claim that ID
has gained traction. I'd also be interested in such
evidence, since it contradicts my own observations.
On 12/02/2025 4:58 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 8/02/2025 9:39 pm, Martin Harran wrote:Martin can handle his own arguments, but I noticed that you
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive >>>>>>> discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt >>>>>>> Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction >>>>>>> because this trend is real.
What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction? >>>>>>
[...]
So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to >>>>> be true.
No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context, >>>> as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for >>>> logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.
again failed to provide the evidence for your claim that ID
has gained traction. I'd also be interested in such
evidence, since it contradicts my own observations.
Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.
On 12/02/2025 3:47 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 12/02/2025 4:58 am, Bob Casanova wrote:Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 8/02/2025 9:39 pm, Martin Harran wrote:Martin can handle his own arguments, but I noticed that you
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG >>>>>>>>> meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive >>>>>>>>> discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt >>>>>>>>> Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real.
What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction? >>>>>>>>
[...]
So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you
thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to >>>>>>> be true.
No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context, >>>>>> as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for >>>>>> logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.
again failed to provide the evidence for your claim that ID
has gained traction. I'd also be interested in such
evidence, since it contradicts my own observations.
Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.
others. Patience exhausted long ago.
Worked all last weekend and to midnight each day this week. But even so
I do hate to disappoint my fans.
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
On 14/02/2025 9:31 am, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:55:11 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 12/02/2025 3:47 pm, Bob Casanova wrote:"Fans"?
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:25:11 +1100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 12/02/2025 4:58 am, Bob Casanova wrote:Sorry; heard that quite a few times before, from several
On Sat, 08 Feb 2025 14:26:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 22:03:57 +1100, the following appeared in3 days; no evidence. Thanks for confirming.
talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 8/02/2025 9:39 pm, Martin Harran wrote:Martin can handle his own arguments, but I noticed that you
On Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:17:26 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG >>>>>>>>>>> meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive >>>>>>>>>>> discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt >>>>>>>>>>> Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction
because this trend is real.
What evidence have you got that ID has gained and sustained traction?
[...]
So, nothing to offer. Appears to be just another example of you >>>>>>>>> thinking something *should* be true just because you would like it to >>>>>>>>> be true.
No response does not equal nothing to offer, especially in this context,
as we both well know.
Once again, a cheap shot over substantive comment, with a disregard for
logic. I don't believe you're engaging in good faith, Martin.
again failed to provide the evidence for your claim that ID
has gained traction. I'd also be interested in such
evidence, since it contradicts my own observations.
Work taking all my time at the moment. Be patient.
others. Patience exhausted long ago.
Worked all last weekend and to midnight each day this week. But even so
I do hate to disappoint my fans.
C'mon Bob, time to come out of the closet.
Cue Inigo Montoya; no, not the "prepare to die" one, the
other one.
--
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 10:29:52 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
In an idle moment I decided to use NovaBB to check just how much
Jillery has been trying to catch my attention recently. A lot more
than I thought, as it turns out, but this one in the 'Paradoxes'
thread last week gave me a good chuckle:
======================================
Martin wrote:
I think Jillery is lonely in my killfile. No other regular is in it >>except Nando and he doesn't seem to be around any more.
Jillery wrote:
Here's yet another example of Harran bragging about the size of his >killfile; typical male compensation. If he wasn't willfully stupid he >would go KF himself.
=======================================
First time I've ever heard of somebody being accused of male
compensation for bragging about how *small* something is, ROFL
Here's yet another example of Harran going out of his way to work
around his own killfile. Whether obsession, hypocrisy, or willful
stupidity, the result is the same.
As for the size of Harran's "male compensation", jillery will take him
at his word.
On 15/02/2025 10:06 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:59:53 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 1:53 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/8/25 5:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design
tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge >>>> to designed OOL also increases.
My assertion is self-evident, is it not? I.e.:
OOL: the more complex the first self-replicating entity needs to be, the >>> greater the challenge to its prebiotic (i.e. pre-Darwinian evolution)
formation.
Evolution: the more complex a "higher" organism, given a maximum
plausible rate of mutation, fixation and time, the greater the challenge >>> to its evolution.
On the other hand, your assertion that "evolution produces complexity
without the least concern" is not self-evident, and is neither an
argument nor a rebuttal. The capability of evolution to produce
complexity is, rather, a fundamental contention.
Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.
Agreed, care is needed in defining complexity and its relationship to function.
The challenge to evolution is the creation of functional complexity.
Here is a description of the ultimate manifestation of functional
complexity:
'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form
a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the
most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its
connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.' http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex- object-in-the-universe
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3 billion synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the neocortex
range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of synapses in
the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The neocortex has the
same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100 billion. One
researcher estimates that with current technology it would take 10,000 automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections between every neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of disk space to
store the data.' http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence- networks-identified-.html
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.
However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce "that evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of functional
complexity inside their heads"?
On 18/02/2025 4:06 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2025 11:05, MarkE wrote:
On 15/02/2025 10:06 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:59:53 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 15/02/2025 1:53 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/8/25 5:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to >>>>>>> naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design
tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the
challenge
to designed OOL also increases.
My assertion is self-evident, is it not? I.e.:
OOL: the more complex the first self-replicating entity needs to
be, the
greater the challenge to its prebiotic (i.e. pre-Darwinian evolution) >>>>> formation.
Evolution: the more complex a "higher" organism, given a maximum
plausible rate of mutation, fixation and time, the greater the
challenge
to its evolution.
On the other hand, your assertion that "evolution produces complexity >>>>> without the least concern" is not self-evident, and is neither an
argument nor a rebuttal. The capability of evolution to produce
complexity is, rather, a fundamental contention.
Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your >>>> usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity >>>> "needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s). >>>> This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform >>>> the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.
Agreed, care is needed in defining complexity and its relationship to
function.
The challenge to evolution is the creation of functional complexity.
Here is a description of the ultimate manifestation of functional
complexity:
'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together
form a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief
scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls
the brain "the most complex object in the known universe," and he's
mapping its connections in hopes of discovering the origins of
consciousness.'
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex-
object-in-the-universe
A problem with irreducible complexity as an argument for design (apart
from being achievable by natural processes) is the lack of an
objective criterion for delimiting systems, parts and functions.
Something maybe both irreducibly complex or not irreducibly complex
depending on the choices made for the preceding. Similarly there is an
issue with the lack of an objective criterion for dividing the
universe into disjoint objects. The human brain is part of the human
body; either the human is more complex that the human brain, or the
rest of the human body has negative complexity, or complexity is an
intensive rather than an extensive property.
More precisely, if an alleged case of irreducible complexity is
achievable by natural processes, it's not irreducible.
Another issue is defining a measure of complexity. If complexity is an
extensive property why is the elephant brain, with 3 times the number
of neurons, a more complex object than the human brain. (You could try
appealing to the size of the connectome, where there is a convenient
gap in our knowledge of the size of connectomes. I don't find it
especially plausible that human neurons have on average 3 times the
number of synapses as elephant neurons, but my intuition might be
wrong on this point.) If complexity is an intensive property then
might not corvid and psittacid brains have a higher complexity than
human brains; the achieve a surprising degree of intelligence with
much smaller brains.
Agree that complexity, including "functional complexity", is difficult
to both define and quantify.
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders
of magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If
you look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains
are a tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized
part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an
inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3
billion synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the
neocortex range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number
of synapses in the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The
neocortex has the same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100
billion. One researcher estimates that with current technology it
would take 10,000 automated microscopes thirty years to map the
connections between every neuron in a human brain, and 100 million
terabytes of disk space to store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-
intelligence- networks-identified-.html
Some organisms have deterministic cell fates. That is why
Caenorhabditis elegans was adopted as a model organism for
investigating the genetic control of development - it allowed
researchers to simplify the problem by not having to consider the
effects of randomness and environmental factors. This is not the case
for humans, and I believe for the majority of multi-cellular
organisms. The human brain is self-organising, but it doesn't self-
organise to a fixed target.
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one
question.
No.
However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce
"that evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of
functional complexity inside their heads"?
We already have. Do you have anything other than an argument from
incredulity against this?
Yes, Darwinian evolution is the prevailing theory. Nevertheless, this
cuts both ways: the absolute conviction that evolution has the
capability to construct the most complex object in the known universe
can similarly be called "belief from credulity".
What do you mean by your statement "The human brain is self-organising"
Are you suggesting that it is something like unprogrammed hardware, and
it writes its own software? Or are you referring to the process of
raising and educating a child?
On 18/02/2025 8:15 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
The question I would like to see you address is how your Intelligent
Designer might have gone about this.
The human brain indeed has unique characteristics in terms of its
ability and functions. Other species do not have those
characteristics, but they do have similar brain structures and, as
Ernest has pointed out in several examples, those brains can sometimes
be argued to be even more complex than the human one. So how do you
think your Intelligent Designer went about this? Did he play around
with various prototype brain designs on other species and then come up
with a particular design that he decided to give to humans alone?
Why the hostile, mocking tone, and straw man depiction of God?
On 18/02/2025 8:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:Same here.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:37:06 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 8:15 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
The question I would like to see you address is how your Intelligent
Designer might have gone about this.
The human brain indeed has unique characteristics in terms of its
ability and functions. Other species do not have those
characteristics, but they do have similar brain structures and, as
Ernest has pointed out in several examples, those brains can sometimes >>>> be argued to be even more complex than the human one. So how do you
think your Intelligent Designer went about this? Did he play around
with various prototype brain designs on other species and then come up >>>> with a particular design that he decided to give to humans alone?
Why the hostile, mocking tone,
Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]
and straw man depiction of God?
It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.
I'm with many ID proponents who are openly Christians, but in the
context of debating the interpretation and implications of scientific >evidence, deliberately and correctly refer only to a non-specific
intelligent designer interacting with this material world from outside
of spacetime.
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.
It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:29:54 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
Has talk.origins run its course, with this incarnation (post-GG
meteorite impact) the last of the dinosaurs?
And what of the Origins debate? My contention is that progressive >discoveries with the complexity and precision of life are making Mt >Improbable higher and higher [1]. ID has gained and sustained traction >because this trend is real. I would add to this arguments relating to >first-cause, fine-tuning, the Cambrian explosion, etc.
Since this point has become a bone of contention among some posters,
it would be helpful if you clarified exactly what you meant by "ID has
gained and sustained traction". Do you believe ID has done so among scientists? Or among the general U.S. population? If the latter,
that is my impression also. It is part and parcel of the larger
movement which has melded distrust of science and scientists in with reactionary politics and populist religious movements. If you ever
get back to this point, thank you in advance for taking some time to
answer my question.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:52:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 3:59 am, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
Why do you feel the need to hide your religious beliefs; why not just
come out and talk openly about God? That seems to me a lack of
confidence in your religious beliefs or at least your ability to
convince other people.
But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:52:12 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 3:59 am, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
Why do you feel the need to hide your religious beliefs; why not just
come out and talk openly about God? That seems to me a lack of
confidence in your religious beliefs or at least your ability to
convince other people.
But I have and do. I've quoted the Bible, I've given a (speculative)
outline of how God might have created, etc. Happy to be transparent
about my personal belief.
Is this what you are referring to, from the "Ool - out at first base?"
thread ?
==========================================
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 14:10:27 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
God is eternally preexisting, nonmaterial, above and beyond time,
matter, energy, but creating and controlling these.
God conceived of all created things before they came into being.
God spoke and there was...spacetime, matter, energy.
God created the initial low entropy state of the universe.
God designed physics, the periodic table, etc, as building blocks
capable of being fashioned into all created things.
God designed all living things and spoke them into being, either
directly, or indirectly through innate capacity for change and adaptation. >>
Etc.
===========================================
That is absolutely fair as a Faith statement but "God designed" and
God "spoke" things into existence tells us nothing about *how* God
might have created. It doesn't, for example, shed any light at all on
my question above which seemed to unsettle you so much, the one about
how you deal with other species sharing the structure of the human
brain and, in some ways, being even more complex.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:41:42 +1100, the following appeared4 days. OK; got it; you were blowing smoke. Thanks for
in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
On 18/02/2025 8:55 pm, Martin Harran wrote:Same here.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 20:37:06 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 8:15 pm, Martin Harran wrote:
The question I would like to see you address is how your Intelligent >>>>> Designer might have gone about this.
The human brain indeed has unique characteristics in terms of its
ability and functions. Other species do not have those
characteristics, but they do have similar brain structures and, as
Ernest has pointed out in several examples, those brains can sometimes >>>>> be argued to be even more complex than the human one. So how do you
think your Intelligent Designer went about this? Did he play around
with various prototype brain designs on other species and then come up >>>>> with a particular design that he decided to give to humans alone?
Why the hostile, mocking tone,
Not meant to be either hostile or mocking but I accept it may come
across that way due to my frustration with you continually refusing to
deal with issues raided by a fellow religious believer. [1]
and straw man depiction of God?
It is you and your fellow IDers who have created a strawman by
pretending to talk about some anodyne designer when you really mean
God; and not just *any* God, the specific Christian God.
I'm with many ID proponents who are openly Christians, but in the
context of debating the interpretation and implications of scientific >>evidence, deliberately and correctly refer only to a non-specific >>intelligent designer interacting with this material world from outside
of spacetime.
===========================
[1] For example, still waiting for you to produce the evidence you
promised 10 days ago about ID gaining traction.
So, "The check is in the mail"?
It'll come, I'm still doing midnighters. And distracting myself with
posts like these.
Either you know of such evidence or you were blowing smoke.
If the former, a simple one-line cite to the evidence would
have taken less time than the two sentences above. But I
suspect it's actually the latter; simply the most recent in
a long line of such from various ID apologists.
On 15/02/2025 1:53 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/8/25 5:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries
to minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the
challenge to designed OOL also increases.
"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."
You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the capability of evolution.
Do you realise that's what you're doing?
Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?
On 2/14/25 8:14 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 15/02/2025 1:53 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/8/25 5:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries
to minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the
challenge to designed OOL also increases.
"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."
You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the
capability of evolution.
Do you realise that's what you're doing?
Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?
I am thinking of the products of evolutionary algorithms. They get quite complex. And no wonder, since there is nothing inherent in the
algorithms to limit complexity. On the other hand, complexity *is*
limited by the algorithms of intelligent design, since the design needs
to be simple enough for designers (and repairers and maintainers) to understand it.
On 23/02/2025 06:19, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/14/25 8:14 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 15/02/2025 1:53 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/8/25 5:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design
tries to minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up,
the challenge to designed OOL also increases.
"Evolution produces complexity without the least concern."
You're making an assertion about a fundamental contention, i.e. the
capability of evolution.
Do you realise that's what you're doing?
Do you realise that's neither an argument nor a rebuttal?
I am thinking of the products of evolutionary algorithms. They get
quite complex. And no wonder, since there is nothing inherent in the
algorithms to limit complexity. On the other hand, complexity *is*
limited by the algorithms of intelligent design, since the design
needs to be simple enough for designers (and repairers and
maintainers) to understand it.
An omnipotent omniscient designer isn't limited by an ability to
comprehend the complexity. ID people get to resort to "mysterious ways
beyond human understanding".
On 15/02/2025 10:06 pm, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:59:53 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 1:53 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/8/25 5:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design
tries to
minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge >>>> to designed OOL also increases.
My assertion is self-evident, is it not? I.e.:
OOL: the more complex the first self-replicating entity needs to be, the >>> greater the challenge to its prebiotic (i.e. pre-Darwinian evolution)
formation.
Evolution: the more complex a "higher" organism, given a maximum
plausible rate of mutation, fixation and time, the greater the challenge >>> to its evolution.
On the other hand, your assertion that "evolution produces complexity
without the least concern" is not self-evident, and is neither an
argument nor a rebuttal. The capability of evolution to produce
complexity is, rather, a fundamental contention.
Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
usual petty sniping. I understand your arguments stated above.
WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
"needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
This makes your claim a GotG argument.
WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
they conflate complexity with functionality. The one does not inform
the other. The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
functionality for a given environment.
Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
difference. Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
their hematocrit. This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
increase its oxygen saturation. Of course, this requires time for
natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
likely die without it.
Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.
Agreed, care is needed in defining complexity and its relationship to function.
The challenge to evolution is the creation of functional complexity.
Here is a description of the ultimate manifestation of functional
complexity:
'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form
a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the
most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its
connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.' http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex- object-in-the-universe
'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'
'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3 billion synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the neocortex
range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of synapses in
the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The neocortex has the
same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100 billion. One
researcher estimates that with current technology it would take 10,000 automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections between every neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of disk space to
store the data.' http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence- networks-identified-.html
Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 31:02:38 |
| Calls: | 10,391 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,105 |