Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

[Laird]

The point being humans can intellectually conceive long time spans, but to intuitively know how long long can be is far beyond our ability and experience. It's difficult for anyone to know what living to 100 years of age feels like until you do it.

I'm not sure that references to infinity and cardinalities of infinity are appropriate as indicators of "long time spans". The longest of long time spans is nevertheless finite. If you want to claim that neo-Darwinist evolution is viable because it has been working over an infinite period of time, then I think you have a few hurdles to overcome, not least of which being the mainstream scientific opinion that you so vigorously promote...

[Laird]

Assuming there is some sort of selection going on, I don't see why not.

My point related to (lack of) plausibility, not possibility.

Can you summarize what you think the compelling argument for IC is?

I'm not going to go there, because I'm not well-read on this subject. Others in this thread are far better placed to take on this role than me.

[Laird]

I'm not sure what the issue is here

From my perspective as a neophyte in these matters, the issue seems to be that you claimed, based on Minsky's theorem, that "the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time" (italics yours). However, the finding of the paper which nbtruthman presents (of which I've read only the excerpts which nbtruthman has quoted in this thread) suggests that Minsky's theorem does not entail that complexity necessarily and inevitably increases indefinitely, i.e. even given unlimited (more than "enough"!) time, which would at the very least call into question your claim that Minsky's theorem can explain any level of complexity.

Edit: as in my post below: I know you're on this, nbtruthman, I just couldn't resist sticking my paws in!

[Laird]

Does ‘how’ we arrive at an arch determine its complexity? All I’m seeing is a loaded definition of what complexity is.

Come on, malf. You don't want people to think you're being deliberately obtuse, surely? The point is that an analogy is being made with scaffolding. If you want to refute Kamarling's reasonable observation that scaffolding (which is then dismantled) doesn't seem to be at play in holes eroded out of rock, then you need to explain how (subsequently dismantled) scaffolding does come into play. Fair enough?

(Sorry for intervening, Kamarling - I know you've got this, I just sometimes get impatient and need to express it!)

Come on, malf. You don't want people to think you're being deliberately obtuse, surely? The point is that an analogy is being made with scaffolding. If you want to refute Kamarling's reasonable observation that scaffolding (which is then dismantled) doesn't seem to be at play in holes eroded out of rock, then you need to explain how (subsequently dismantled) scaffolding does come into play. Fair enough?

(Sorry for intervening, Kamarling - I know you've got this, I just sometimes get impatient and need to express it!)

And my point is that 
(perhaps?) neither the scaffolding nor the arch were predetermined points for the process. Therefore imbuing the end point with complexity after the event is tricky, without a loaded definition of complexity.

[Laird]

And my point is that 
(perhaps?) neither the scaffolding nor the arch were predetermined points for the process. Therefore imbuing the end point with complexity after the event is tricky, without a loaded definition of complexity.

Am I being obtuse myself, or are you still utterly missing the point? You reference "the scaffolding", but have still not explained what that scaffolding is in the case of natural erosion. In what way does the natural erosion of rock cavities require (or in any way involve) scaffolding, especially scaffolding which is subsequently discarded? You do recall that this exchange started with a purported analogy to natural erosion as a process which involves (subsequently discarded) scaffolding, right? Presumably, you're trying to defend that analogy? If not, then please, please explain that you're not, and what the point of your interjections has been given that you're not trying to defend that analogy.

And my point is that 
(perhaps?) neither the scaffolding nor the arch were predetermined points for the process. Therefore imbuing the end point with complexity after the event is tricky, without a loaded definition of complexity.

I like this example, as it seems to nicely illustrate the illusion of Irreducible Complexity. From a human perspective, scaffolding is deliberately introduced in order to achieve a result we otherwise would be unable to produce (the stone arch), which seems complex. Whereas, coming at it from the other direction shows that scaffolding (the erodible rock, in this case) is ubiquitous a priori.

Linda

[Laird]

I like this example, as it seems to nicely illustrate the illusion of Irreducible Complexity. From a human perspective, scaffolding is deliberately introduced in order to achieve a result we otherwise would be unable to produce (the stone arch), which seems complex. Whereas, coming at it from the other direction shows that scaffolding (the erodible rock, in this case) is ubiquitous a priori.

Linda

You seem to be missing the point as badly as is malf, if not more so. I won't repeat myself (nor Kamarling, who has admirably affirmed the (missed) point), except to ask: Linda, how exactly does the analogy hold? How does erodible rock involve scaffolding which is then dismantled?

I like this example, as it seems to nicely illustrate the illusion of Irreducible Complexity. From a human perspective, scaffolding is deliberately introduced in order to achieve a result we otherwise would be unable to produce (the stone arch), which seems complex. Whereas, coming at it from the other direction shows that scaffolding (the erodible rock, in this case) is ubiquitous a priori.

Linda

I guess it just highlights a fundamental difference in approach between those who (want to?) see a guiding hand in the process, and those who (want to?) see nature slowly churning away with fluky, surprising outcomes that can test human credulity.
If one is convinced that ‘god’ (or ‘mind’) is ‘ubiquitous a priori’ it is bound to shift one’s perspective. But I’m not sure why the same god doesn’t get any credit for the hole in the rock?

You seem to be missing the point as badly as is malf, if not more so. I won't repeat myself (nor Kamarling, who has admirably affirmed the (missed) point), except to ask: Linda, how exactly does the analogy hold? How does erodible rock involve scaffolding which is then dismantled?

Isn’t this just language? We just call the erodible rock ‘scaffolding’. (Possibly only after looking at a surprisingly shaped outcome.)