Math prof attacks the "open" explanation for 2TD

[billwald]

"Complexity" is a term in information theory. The word is not applied to hardware. Behe claims a mousetrap is irriducibly complex. In information theory a random string is irriducibly complex because any attempt to restate it in a different produces a longer string. Can the information in a mouse trap be restated in a different form that is more compact? If so, the trap is not irriducibly complex.

So if Behe wants to apply information theory to a biological component then an eyeball is far from irriducibly complex because the entire body can be described by a microscopic string of DNA.

 

[koban]

"Complexity" is a term in information theory. The word is not applied to hardware. Behe claims a mousetrap is irriducibly complex. In information theory a random string is irriducibly complex because any attempt to restate it in a different produces a longer string. Can the information in a mouse trap be restated in a different form that is more compact? If so, the trap is not irriducibly complex.

So if Behe wants to apply information theory to a biological component then an eyeball is far from irriducibly complex because the entire body can be described by a microscopic string of DNA.

Just for fun, check this site out for a refutation of Behe's claim.

 

[Johnny]

No, energy per se is not what I am discussing: it is entropy

Yes, I meant entropy.

It would seem to some that this would be true. But the reality is that the mechanism of random mutations plus natural selection cannot reduce entropy, or in other words cause an existing creature to "morph" into one which has a higher degree of ordering than what has already been programmed into the fertilized egg cell.

So in other words "Yes I have unintentionally refuted the professor's argument, but back to the mutations + natural selection thing.." Furthermore, you are more highly ordered than the cell you came from.

Can you give us an example of entropy reduction that doesn't make use of a machine (machine in this case understood in it broadest sense)?

The diels-alder reaction.

 

[Yorzhik]

Just for fun, check this site out for a refutation of Behe's claim.

It's interesting, but McDonald doesn't do much to refute irreducable complexity. The problem isn't the number of pieces, the problem is the function of the pieces as originally designed and their ability to be used virtually unchanged in a new design. That would refute irriducable complexity. McDonald takes huge leaps with each design and somehow thinks that if the number of changes is small, then the kind of changes must be simple - and that just doesn't follow.

 

[koban]

It's interesting, but McDonald doesn't do much to refute irreducable complexity. The problem isn't the number of pieces, the problem is the function of the pieces as originally designed

:hammer:

Great, then everything's irreducibly complex, if you have to refer to the "original" design.

and their ability to be used virtually unchanged in a new design.

Are you saying that if the components are used in different combinations, that would prove reducible complexity?

That would refute irreducible complexity. McDonald takes huge leaps with each design and somehow thinks that if the number of changes is small, then the kind of changes must be simple - and that just doesn't follow.

Did you open the link and read it? McDonald's first attempt was to refute Behe's own description of irreducible complexity: "If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex." (Behe, 1996).

Behe then modified his description of irreducible complexity in such a manner that McDonald interpreted it to mean "but he seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity; it is necessary to show how something could be built up, step by step, with each addition or modification of a part improving the function."

This description is what Mcdonald was addressing in the website posted, and he did it ably.


Just for fun, how do you describe irreducible complexity?






BTW, I found this interesting:

Behe's own Criticisms
In his "Reply to My Critics"[11], Behe admitted that there was a "defect" in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection". Behe specifically explained that the "current definition puts the focus on removing a part from an already functioning system", but the "difficult task facing Darwinian evolution, however, would not be to remove parts from sophisticated pre-existing systems; it would be to bring together components to make a new system in the first place." In that article, Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work". However, such work has not yet been published.

 

[Yorzhik]

GA, my reply to billwald didn't appear. I'll have to see if I just forgot to hit the "submit reply" button.

Anyhow, back to the show.

:hammer:

Great, then everything's irreducibly complex, if you have to refer to the "original" design.

Sorry, that would be me trying keep from being long winded. However, you should have figured it out anyway. The original design does not refer to something necessarily irreducibly complex. The idea to disprove irreducible complexity is to take that thing we start (that isn't irreducibly complex) and move it with small changes to the thing that was claimed to be irreducibly complex.

Are you saying that if the components are used in different combinations, that would prove reducible complexity?

No.

Did you open the link and read it?

Yes.

McDonald's first attempt was to refute Behe's own description of irreducible complexity: "If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex." (Behe, 1996).

And McDonald's first attempt did not remove any of those parts.

Behe then modified his description of irreducible complexity in such a manner that McDonald interpreted it to mean "but he seems to be saying that showing how something would work after removing some parts is not enough to reject irreducible complexity; it is necessary to show how something could be built up, step by step, with each addition or modification of a part improving the function."

This description is what Mcdonald was addressing in the website posted, and he did it ably.

Yes, he did it ably for people that don't think through the subject. If you think that McDonald removed some parts in the first diagram, then you would be someone who didn't think throught the subject.

Just for fun, how do you describe irreducible complexity?

Although Behe's original definition is not bad, I like Dembski's:

William Dembski's Enhanced Definition

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

BTW, I found this interesting:

So did I.

 

[koban]

GA, my reply to billwald didn't appear. I'll have to see if I just forgot to hit the "submit reply" button.

Anyhow, back to the show.


Sorry, that would be me trying keep from being long winded. However, you should have figured it out anyway. The original design does not refer to something necessarily irreducibly complex. The idea to disprove irreducible complexity is to take that thing we start (that isn't irreducibly complex) and move it with small changes to the thing that was claimed to be irreducibly complex.


No.


Yes.

OK so far, and I had hoped I was misunderstanding you.

And McDonald's first attempt did not remove any of those parts.

I'm looking at it right now, and he takes it from a four piece mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) as per Behe's original description, down to a functioning three piece mousetrap, on to a functioning two piece mouse trap, and finally to a functioning single piece mouse trap.

Take note that nowhere does Behe address the issue of a part serving several functions.

Yes, he did it ably for people that don't think through the subject. If you think that McDonald removed some parts in the first diagram, then you would be someone who didn't think throught the subject.

OK, without changing Behe's description of "irreducible complexity", since that is what McDonald is refuting, show me the error in his process.

Although Behe's original definition is not bad, I like Dembski's:

William Dembski's Enhanced Definition

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch, 285)

That looks good on the surface, but in order to be clear, I'd want the bolded terms defined explicitly. If you're interested, do it in terms of the basic mousetrap.

 

[billwald]

>Furthermore, you are more highly ordered than the cell you came from.

Define "order." Propose a numerical scheme for measuring and comparing order.

 

[Yorzhik]

"Complexity" is a term in information theory. The word is not applied to hardware.

It certainly can be.

billwald continues:

Behe claims a mousetrap is irriducibly complex. In information theory a random string is irriducibly complex because any attempt to restate it in a different produces a longer string. Can the information in a mouse trap be restated in a different form that is more compact? If so, the trap is not irriducibly complex.

Honestly, I like this trend where Shannon is being used in a discussion of biological information. Just remember, you brought it up first.

I have no problem with saying that if we apply Shannon's information theory to the mouse trap that it won't stand up under the created definition of irreducibly complexity in the context of Shannon's theory. The mouse trap is an analogy and all analogies break down at some point. But if we want to get more technical and make the analogy fit, the mousetrap would still be irreducibly complex even by Shannon's measure.

So if Behe wants to apply information theory to a biological component then an eyeball is far from irriducibly complex because the entire body can be described by a microscopic string of DNA.

You don't understand the argument. The machine of the eye and the DNA are the same in this context.

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm looking at it right now, and he takes it from a four piece mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) as per Behe's original description, down to a functioning three piece mousetrap, on to a functioning two piece mouse trap, and finally to a functioning single piece mouse trap.

Take note that nowhere does Behe address the issue of a part serving several functions.

All the parts are still there. If it a problem with Behe's definition, then understand that when "part" is mentioned, "function per part" is implied.

OK, without changing Behe's description of "irreducible complexity", since that is what McDonald is refuting, show me the error in his process.

He begins by assuming that multitasking a part removes its specified complexity.

Here are some pretty direct answers from Behe himself on these exact points: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm

That looks good on the surface, but in order to be clear, I'd want the bolded terms defined explicitly. If you're interested, do it in terms of the basic mousetrap.

It would be a machine constructed with a group of parts such that if the parts (read: the functions of the parts) are altered the machine doesn't work.

 

[billwald]

"It's interesting, but McDonald doesn't do much to refute irreducable complexity. The problem isn't the number of pieces, the problem is the function of the pieces as originally designed"

AAAAAAAAGH! The point of mutation plus selection is that there isn't any design. Behe has "presupposed" <G> what he wishes to prove.

 

[koban]

All the parts are still there. If it a problem with Behe's definition, then understand that when "part" is mentioned, "function per part" is implied.

Nope.

Like Billwald said, that's presupposing the answer.

Not gonna go that silly Hilston route.

He begins by assuming that multitasking a part removes its specified complexity.

Nope again.

He began by assuming Behe's defintion wasn't a moving target.

Here are some pretty direct answers from Behe himself on these exact points: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm

Got as far as the intro and my eyes glazed over. If Behe wasn't clever enough to ID the obvious flaws in his initial description, I'm not interested in watching him cover his butt.

It would be a machine constructed with a group of parts such that if the parts (read: the functions of the parts) are altered the machine doesn't work.

:darwinsm:

Then I guess you win!



Seriously, what's the point of this silly exercise?

 

[Bob Hill]

I majored in chemistry, physics and biology for a number of years when I was in college. One thing I learned in physics about the 2nd law of thermodynamics was the absoluteness of this law. It is always true that in every action and chemical reaction some energy is lost in the process. Although it seems that evolutionists would like to change this law, it is the basis of every action in the universe.

This second law of thermodynamics was scientifically established by Rudolph Clausius in 1850.

In 1991, a guy named Atkins wrote in his book, Atoms, Electrons and Change, “With the concept of entropy in mind, we can understand the force of Clausius’ remark that The entropy of the universe tends to increase. . . It is a more erudite, less picturesque (but potentially quantitatively powerful) way of saying that the universe tends to decay into disorder and chaos.” This law of science goes against evolution 100%.

In contrast, Christ was not subject to this law when He spoke the universe into existence. Psa 33:6 “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” John 1:3 “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”

I think the second law was made by God when sin entered the world. Long before Clausius, God inspired Paul to write about the second law in Rom 8:19-21, “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of (ruin, destruction, dissolution, deterioration, corruption) into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

What does this mean? It means, nothing can go against the 2nd law unless energy is added to the system in an intelligent way. God did that, and man can only do it at a very minute level. But when man does it, the total entropy (randomness) in the experimenter’s small universe still tends to the direction of loss of energy, decay, disorder and chaos, never the other direction.

Bob Hill

 

[Johnny]

Although it seems that evolutionists would like to change this law, it is the basis of every action in the universe...This law of science goes against evolution 100%.

::sigh:: No it doesn't, Bob Hill. We are not a closed system.

 

[Yorzhik]

Nope.

Like Billwald said, that's presupposing the answer.

Not gonna go that silly Hilston route.

It's not presupposing the answer. That's the point. We know we have; a machine wherein a missing part cause the machine to stop functioning. The question is; can this machine come together without intelligence?

Nope again.

He began by assuming Behe's defintion wasn't a moving target.

The definition isn't moving, but it does become more defined as callenges are raised. And having challenges raised is a good thing.

Got as far as the intro and my eyes glazed over. If Behe wasn't clever enough to ID the obvious flaws in his initial description, I'm not interested in watching him cover his butt.

It wasn't that complicated.

:darwinsm:

Then I guess you win!

This is another way of you saying I've presupposed my conclusion. You couldn't have made it more clear with this statement that you don't understand the argument.

Seriously, what's the point of this silly exercise?

Well, if you've presupposed that it is silly then I guess there is no reason. Since you have demonstrated that you don't understand the argument you may want to reassess that presupposition.

 

[Yorzhik]

::sigh:: No it doesn't, Bob Hill. We are not a closed system.

Johnny, an opened system can only help you if the energy is controlled.

 

[Johnny]

Johnny, an opened system can only help you if the energy is controlled.

What exactly do you mean by that? Are you going to argue, like Bob B, that a "machine" is necessary to "control" the energy? Control is so vague, please elaborate and give me an example. I would argue that all you need is free energy (heat, or light). And I could provide plenty of examples of organic reactions which rely only on heat or light and in which the entropy of the system is reduced. Controlled is such a vague word. What "controls" the free energy required for the entropy reduction that takes place when a hurricane forms? What controls the entropy reduction in the diels-alder reaction (a classic organic reaction)?

Do you agree with Bob Hill's argument?

 

[billwald]

>I think the second law was made by God when sin entered the world. Long before Clausius

Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect. Not true. SLOT causes this universe to function. If there was no SLOT in Eden then Adam couldn't stand erect without a special miracle from God because SLOT provides friction between one's feet and the ground.

 

[Johnny]

Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect. Not true. SLOT causes this universe to function. If there was no SLOT in Eden then Adam couldn't stand erect without a special miracle from God because SLOT provides friction between one's feet and the ground.

Nice.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

>I think the second law was made by God when sin entered the world. Long before Clausius

Creationists presuppose that SLOT is some kind of defect.

Not all creationists believe that.

Not true. SLOT causes this universe to function. If there was no SLOT in Eden then Adam couldn't stand erect without a special miracle from God because SLOT provides friction between one's feet and the ground.

It also enables one to digest food.