Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

[Laird]

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

No, it's not just language. It's a failed analogy. Scaffolding is supposed to be used to build something. Erosion isn't building, it's wearing away. A hole in a rock is not meaningfully analogous to a biological function, let alone one so complex that it could only have emerged from a - meaningful - scaffolding process.

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

Ah come on, Malf. We've all been involved in discussions where someone belabours a point that anyone can see is untenable (it is no surprise that Linda joined in - she's the champion dead horse abuser) but the point is so obvious that you can only be playing games here.

To reiterate: a Roman arch (the original analogy) is constructed using a complex set of specially shaped arch stones. Scaffolding is required to hold the stones in place until the keystone is inserted at which point the scaffolding can be removed and discarded. Removing the scaffolding before the keystone would cause collapse. Removing the keystone (or any of the specially shaped arch stones) would also cause the arch to collapse. Hence its use as an analogy for IC.

Now your turn: please explain how your eroded hole likewise serves as an analogy? Your argument seems to ignore the complexity involving shaped stones and the resulting complexity of the arch and rely on the premise that the rock that is eventually eroded can be thought of as scaffolding. Nobody but you is arguing about the latter.

No, it's not just language. It's a failed analogy. Scaffolding is supposed to be used to build something. Erosion isn't building, it's wearing away. A hole in a rock is not meaningfully analogous to a biological function, let alone one so complex that it could only have emerged from a - meaningful - scaffolding process.

Ok. I thought that whilst the word ‘scaffolding’ is used, the ‘neo-dawinist’ isn’t saying these structures were put in place with a specific end-goal ‘in mind’, but inadvertently helpful to what came after... In this respect the erodible stone turns out to be a similar ‘scaffold’.

[Laird]

Ok. I thought that whilst the word ‘scaffolding’ is used, the ‘neo-dawinist’ isn’t saying these structures were put in place with a specific end-goal ‘in mind’, but inadvertently helpful to what came after... In this respect the erodible stone turns out to be a similar ‘scaffold’.

Nevermind responding to me, malf. Kamarling's post was far more incisive than mine. Have at it, man!

Ok. I thought that whilst the word ‘scaffolding’ is used, the ‘neo-dawinist’ isn’t saying these structures were put in place with a specific end-goal ‘in mind’, but inadvertently helpful to what came after... In this respect the erodible stone turns out to be a similar ‘scaffold’.

Yes, I think we all saw that too but it wasn't the point of the analogy.

Ah come on, Malf. We've all been involved in discussions where someone belabours a point that anyone can see is untenable (it is no surprise that Linda joined in - she's the champion dead horse abuser) but the point is so obvious that you can only be playing games here.

To reiterate: a Roman arch (the original analogy) is constructed using a complex set of specially shaped arch stones. Scaffolding is required to hold the stones in place until the keystone is inserted at which point the scaffolding can be removed and discarded. Removing the scaffolding before the keystone would cause collapse. Removing the keystone (or any of the specially shaped arch stones) would also cause the arch to collapse. Hence its use as an analogy for IC.

Now your turn: please explain how your eroded hole likewise serves as an analogy? Your argument seems to ignore the complexity involving shaped stones and the resulting complexity of the arch and rely on the premise that the rock that is eventually eroded can be thought of as scaffolding. Nobody but you is arguing about the latter.

Yes. I’m starting to see that the Roman Arch may be a poor analogy for what is going on in nature.

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?

Its complexity doesn't test human credulity. At least nowadays it doesn't. I imagine there were native american myths which attributed these kinds of arches to gods. And I have to admit (I've done a lot of road trips through the US Southwest) that some of these seemingly natural formations are a bit overwhelming - whether it's trying to conceive of the age of the rocks at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or the profound eeriness in the company of hoodoos...  

Linda

Yes. I’m starting to see that the Roman Arch may be a poor analogy for what is going on in nature.

Lol.

Linda

It's complexity doesn't test human credulity. At least nowadays it doesn't. I imagine there were native american myths which attributed these kinds of arches to gods. 

What's the appropriate term here? Condescending or patronising?

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!

Sorry, I confused you. Minsky's theorem only tells us that us that traits that lead to higher reproduction rates will tend to increase in proportion. It has nothing to do with any continuous increase in "complexity," however we might define that.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with irreducible complexity. No one is claiming that an "arbitrarily complex" mechanism can evolve. Again, though, it has to do with the definition of complexity. And remember, IDers aren't using Behe's original definition anymore, nor even Dembski's. They are not useful. Instead, they are talking about unselected steps. But how are we to identify steps that were unselected?

~~ Paul