Specified complexity

[Roy]

There is one thing you're right about, yet ironically, it's actually further evidence for I.D.: human intelligence has never been able to engineer life from non-life. So, while life uses the same tools and principles we're familiar with, it uses them at a level which blows our scientists and engineers away. That's evidence for I.D., not against it. After all, if even brilliant men can't create life, there's no logical reason to believe a fortuitous chemical soup could.

So life could be designed because we can't engineer it. Obviously if we could and did engineer life from non-life that would also be evidence that life could be designed.

So both us being able to engineer life and us not being able to engineer life lead to the same conclusion. How convenient.

The designer-free explanation is incredibly weak, and since science is ultimate a competition of explanatory hypothesis, when one explanation is weakened, the alternative is simultaneously strengthened.

Er... no. Not least because there is invariably more than one alternative.

If you gentleman don't start arguing in good faith and with reason and logic, I'm not even going to waste my time here.

DayOneish is a fortuitous name. He may not manage DayTwo.

[lee_merrill]

To conclude, try to do two things: define what ''specified'' means in the context of this discussion, and by extension, try to to define ''specified complexity'' in a way that is not circular.

Which I posted a reply to, which you have not responded to!

He's saying the argument is circular because the word specified is circular.

Well, how so? Referencing the definition of "specified" that I posted.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Actually no, 'looking designed' from Dempski's nor your perspective is an anecdotal claim.

Not if the object passes Dembski's explanatory filter.

The flagellum has been adequately described by science as naturally evolved with no evidence of the so called ID 'specified complexity' that would determine that it could not have evolved naturally

Well, the last answer I got was "scaffolding", to which I replied with a question: So this means that something more complex than a flagellum needed to evolve first?

Even functioning organelles related to flagellum with missing parts are known to be functional in other organisms.

References, please?

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

Not if the object passes Dembski's explanatory filter.

You've been unable to explain how the explanatory filter can be used objectively - in fact, you've admitted it can't be. As such, it's subject to personal opinion, and thus arbitrary.

Well, the last answer I got was "scaffolding", to which I replied with a question: So this means that something more complex than a flagellum needed to evolve first?

That wasn't about the flagellum. That was about IC systems in general. For the flagellum, see immediately b

References, please?

You discussed the Matzke review YOURSELF. Do you even pay attention to your own arguments?

[lee_merrill]

You've been unable to explain how the explanatory filter can be used objectively - in fact, you've admitted it can't be. As such, it's subject to personal opinion, and thus arbitrary.

All opinions are arbitrary?!

You discussed the Matzke review YOURSELF.

As I recall, Matzke proposes that the flagellum is derived from a secretory system. This would not be "functioning organelles related to flagellum with missing parts are known to be functional in other organisms", i.e. a flagellum with missing parts is functional.

Blessings,
Lee

[TheLurch]

All opinions are arbitrary?!

Yes. Opinions are not evidence. I wouldn't have thought that needed to be explained.

[shunyadragon]

All opinions are arbitrary?!

Yes.

As I recall, Matzke proposes that the flagellum is derived from a secretory system. This would not be "functioning organelles related to flagellum with missing parts are known to be functional in other organisms", i.e. a flagellum with missing parts is functional.

Yes.

[shunyadragon]

Which I posted a reply to, which you have not responded to!


Well, how so? Referencing the definition of "specified" that I posted.

No you did not give an adequate explanation how 'specified' that you posted remotely applied to science, nor how your view of specified complexity' leads to a falsifiable hypothesis. I gave a constructive falsifiable use of how 'specified complexity' is relevant to science.

[shunyadragon]

Not if the object passes Dembski's explanatory filter.

No known object has ever been falsified by a hypothesis as not capable of forming naturally based Dempski's explanatory filter.

Well, the last answer I got was "scaffolding", to which I replied with a question: So this means that something more complex than a flagellum needed to evolve first?

References, please?

Provided many references which you have failed to respond to, nor apparently understand.

Sources relevant to Dempski's claims. The video is ok for understanding on a basic level of organic chemistry.

Source: http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/isnt-it-true-bacterial-flagellum-could-not-have-evolved

Isn't it True That the Bacterial Flagellum Could Not Have Evolved?

This is a statement often asserted by proponents of Intelligent Design, but it is simply not true. The argument goes that since the flagellum (the tail-like structure many bacteria have which helps them "swim") is a very complex machine, it could not have evolved naturally. This is because if you remove any of the proteins that make up the flagellum's motor, it can no longer function.

However, as this video beautifully demonstrates, the flagellum does function with fewer proteins, just not as a flagellum. Every part of the flagellum is made of proteins already in the cell, performing other functions. This is one of the most interesting aspects of Evolution: that adaptations can change roles, or combine with other adaptations to perform new roles.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: https://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/claims-evolution-flagella

Apart from dishonestly pretending that Explore Evolution is not making an ID argument here, the only problem with the "20+ proteins are unique to the flagellum, where did they come from?" argument is that it is wildly, hopelessly, false, and is obviously so to anyone familiar with the actual scientific literature and data on the subject. Pallen & Matzke (2006) reviewed the evidence on this specific point and published a table listing all 42 "standard" flagellar proteins (structural and regulatory) in the most-studied lab strains of E. coli and Salmonella typhimurium.

Here is a summary of the table published in Pallen & Matzke (2006) (the table is freely available online here):

Total number of proteins listed: 42
(this table excludes the chemotaxis proteins; there are ~10 chemotaxis proteins in standard E. coli, but the number can range from 0 to 10+ in various bacteria)

Total number thought to be indispensable in modern flagella: 23 (55%)
Total number "unique" (no known homologs): 15 (36%)
Total number of indispensable proteins that are also "unique": 2 (5%)

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

Well, how so? Referencing the definition of "specified" that I posted.

You mean this one?

the side information enable us to construct the pattern D to which [event] E conforms.

I asked you three times for an example of a gene sequence that was independent of DNA, and you dodged every time. You have not shown that a gene sequence can be constructed from side information. You simply assert that gene sequences and DNA are independent over and over and over.

The argument is circular because your specification is assumed to exist based on your conclusion, and never actually provided.

You've had 19 pages of posts and every single one of them confirms what I said in post #2: "[Specified complexity is] a con because the things IDers claim have specified complexity aren't actually specified anywhere. "

[JohnHermes]

On what basis "evidence" it's all random? Again you've failed to prove anything and decided to come out with more nonsense. At least beagle makes an attempt. Says a lot. Yes I guess the mechanics of photosynthesis is random too *giggles*.

[HMS_Beagle]

On what basis "evidence" it's all random? Again you've failed to prove anything and decided to come out with more nonsense. At least beagle makes an attempt. Says a lot. Yes I guess the mechanics of photosynthesis is random too *giggles*.

That post certainly made no sense whatsoever.

[Seeker]

That post certainly made no sense whatsoever.

I thought so too.

[lee_merrill]

No you did not give an adequate explanation how 'specified' that you posted remotely applied to science, nor how your view of specified complexity' leads to a falsifiable hypothesis. I gave a constructive falsifiable use of how 'specified complexity' is relevant to science.

Well, all this does not tell me why the word "specified" is circular.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

Yes. Opinions are not evidence.

Well, even if I grant you your point, that doesn't mean all opinions are arbitrary!

Blessings,
Lee