Irreducible complexity occurs naturally

R

RoyLennigan

Registered Senior Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

The most important part is the "Image gallery of a zoom sequence"

This is why I believe there is no need for an "intelligent creator". A simple mathematical relationship that occurs naturally has the ability to create infinitely complex structures.

If you really think about it, everything is a fractal anyways. Its just that it is so complex and big that we can't see the obvious patterns from our tiny and limited perspective.

I will leave you with this, though. The only niche for a god to fill is that god is a web of interlocking relationships that exist naturally within (or maybe even outside) the known universe. But to some people, thats just called nature.

Don't forget that nature is all and nothing is seperate from it.
 
" Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out indefinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel at the net's every node, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering like stars of the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that the process of reflection is infinite."

The Avatamsaka Sutra
Francis H. Cook: Hua-Yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra, 1977
 
Complexity is a human term denoting the incomprehensible or the phenomenon within which the mind cannot perceive a pattern to make it understandable and to store it as knowledge or experience.

To a weak mind what appears as complex is simpler to a stronger mind, because intelligence is the ability of distinguishing patterns.
This is why the simplistic explanations of religious dogma, are most attractive to the intellectually weak or to the most needy, whereas they are far too simplistic for a stronger mind, still healthy and unconcerned by its own mortality and vulnerability.

This is why in the Creationist strategies the notion of things being far too complex to be explained by human understanding or Evolution Theory is used in support of the far more simplistic ‘God did it’ reasoning which can neither define nor explain God but only as the non-existent existence with special status in the Beyond where human knowledge is ignorant and so forever hopeful.

The attraction to the simple for the simpleton is a natural occurrence where human need and human fear push reason to believe in what is most beneficial to its own survival, even while denying the self-serving survival motives behind them.
It is quintessentially hypocritical.
 
This doesn't explain abiogenesis...the actual supporters of ID have no problem with evolution (a change in species overtime) they argue the complexity of the genetic code system of the complex reading, writing, interpreting, translating, etc...of genetic code...there is a "code" within each of your cells that determines all of your physical characteristics...
 
RoyLennigan said:
Why wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Because it doesn't explain anything about the genetic coding structure, how its read, interpreted, translated, etc....all seemingly "designed" functions that are more than simply patterns

Also you need empirical evidence to support the theory, I mean look at all the atheists, they easily believe in something like abiogenesis without any empirical evidence, but when it comes to things like God, soul, afterlife, etc...they just need the evidence or else they'll never believe...hahaha
 
VitalOne said:
Because it doesn't explain anything about the genetic coding structure, how its read, interpreted, translated, etc....all seemingly "designed" functions that are more than simply patterns

Also you need empirical evidence to support the theory, I mean look at all the atheists, they easily believe in something like abiogenesis without any empirical evidence, but when it comes to things like God, soul, afterlife, etc...they just need the evidence or else they'll never believe...hahaha
Click to expand...

How is it "seemingly designed"? Please answer as detailed as possible, this is my first serious discussion on the subject and I would like to know.

Also, this is not a thread about atheism and I will not have it turn into a fight between atheists and theists. I am neither. Please try to leave the "hahaha"s out.

Thank You.
 
RoyLennigan said:
How is it "seemingly designed"? Please answer as detailed as possible, this is my first serious discussion on the subject and I would like to know.

Also, this is not a thread about atheism and I will not have it turn into a fight between atheists and theists. I am neither. Please try to leave the "hahaha"s out.

Thank You.
Click to expand...
What do you mean how? It reads, stores, interprets, translates, etc...genetic code like a designed machine. This code contains all the instructions for the cell, the machines in the cell carries instructions based upon this code, just like a designed machine (it does not however mean it was designed, only that it appears designed). This design with the genetic code is not explainable by simply patterns....remember this is a code that is translated into a different language by the machines within the cell....clearly anyone can see apparent design..

If this thread has nothing to do with religion, then someone move it to the biology section please....
 
Last edited:
river-wind said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Click to expand...
Well by actual supporters of ID I mean the Discovery Institute (the main supporter), here's a quote from the DI's site:
"It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas" http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#generalQuestions

Also I find it interesting that this termed was coined by the famous atheist Antony Flew, who has recently said:
"I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it", "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design" - http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/page2.cfm
 
VitalOne said:
What do you mean how? It reads, stores, interprets, translates, etc...genetic code like a designed machine. This code contains all the instructions for the cell, the machines in the cell carries instructions based upon this code, just like a designed machine (it does not however mean it was designed, only that it appears designed). This design with the genetic code is not explainable by simply patterns....remember this is a code that is translated into a different language by the machines within the cell....clearly anyone can see apparent design..

If this thread has nothing to do with religion, then someone move it to the biology section please....
Click to expand...

It seems to me that genetic 'code' has less similarity to computer or language code as it does to natural mathematical relationship. Reading several modern articles (more scientific-based) on recent findings in genetics will reveal this. Many writers and humanists will try to describe genes as a code like language. But the geneticists seem to feel that this analogy is inaccurate and conveys misconceptions. Look at this thread from another forum on this very subject.

One fact that motivates me most to believe that life is made of simple mathematical relationships that produce complexity is the golden ratio, which is seen over and over in different types of organisms and non-living matter as well as many aesthetics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
 
If we were really talking about the unseen hand of God or Alien 12 or the Great Wind directing mutations or the selective pressures for those hereditary changes, then I cannot argue it. The design of the claim is untestable at it's root, and is not science.

It is, however, completely possible. Just as you can't prove it, I can't dis-prove it. So if that description from the ID site is what you are supporting then you'll get no disagreement from me.

No agreement either, but that's a different thread.
 
Ok, here's my understanding of evolution:
Random mutations occur, mutations that are beneficial get selected for and mutatins that are harmful get selected against. I have a couple of questions.
1) This means wings acttually just start as random little nubs at the side of the bird. Random little symmetrical nubs on the side of the animal. Wouldn't these useless little nubs at first be a hindrance to said animal?
2) Why don't we see more random little nubs on animals, and not always in eventually useful places like the sides where they will eventually evolve into wings, why don't we also see random little nubs all over like on the back?
3) If intelligence is selected for (and I see no why reason it wouldn't be) why don't all animals over time become smarter and smarter? Why are humans leaps and bounds smarter than everything else on earth?

(P.S.-these are actual questions. I do believe in evolution, but I haven't looked into it very closely for myself. I basically have taken it on faith that it's true).
 
VitalOne said:
Well by actual supporters of ID I mean the Discovery Institute (the main supporter), here's a quote from the DI's site:
"It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas" http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#generalQuestions
Click to expand...
Wedge Document, anyone?
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html
 
Roy,
Am I missing something or is it kind of ironic that you provide something that was designed intelligetnly(fractals) as evidence that there is no intelligent design?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top