News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

irreducible complexity

Started by yepimonfire, December 28, 2011, 08:02:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

superfes

Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2012, 07:00:07 PM
Also men can't perceive as many colours as some women. Some women have a forth cone cell receptor so they can perceive more colours, they are known as tetrachromats. Men have 3 types of cone receptor cells and 3 iodopsins (green, red, blue) but women that are tetrachromats have four cone receptors and 5 iodopsins (green, shifted green, red, shifted red, and blue). However it is rare and even though they are called tetrachromats they are not the same type of tetrachromats when the term is used for birds, insects or reptiles as they see an ultraviolet colour in addition.

I want to see in ultraviolet too!

Man I need to text God real quick and see what he can do for me... he's still helping Tebow right?
Nothing teaches the true teachings of Jesus Christ better than not following them.

Ali

Quote from: superfes on January 17, 2012, 12:04:10 AM
Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2012, 07:00:07 PM
Also men can't perceive as many colours as some women. Some women have a forth cone cell receptor so they can perceive more colours, they are known as tetrachromats. Men have 3 types of cone receptor cells and 3 iodopsins (green, red, blue) but women that are tetrachromats have four cone receptors and 5 iodopsins (green, shifted green, red, shifted red, and blue). However it is rare and even though they are called tetrachromats they are not the same type of tetrachromats when the term is used for birds, insects or reptiles as they see an ultraviolet colour in addition.

I want to see in ultraviolet too!

Man I need to text God real quick and see what he can do for me... he's still helping Tebow right?

Hardly.  Did you see the game on Saturday?  I'd say that God is a Patriots fan these days.

Heisenberg

God's always been a Patriots fans. They have 3 Superbowls (possibly soon to be 4) and Tebow will never win one. The Jets had a run last year not unlike the Broncos streak of luck this year, but of course no one attributed it to god because they didnt have the blowhard at quarterback. Sorry for the off topic.
"No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low"-John Lennon

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Yet they work perfectly.  I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.

You have now.



Please choose A or B and explain your reasoning for the choice you made.
You chose which is the more reasonable arrangements of elements.
It's not the schematic I hoped.  It's still just a thought.  How about a schematic that shows the thought process on HOW there is a better design and not just some cartoon pictures.  DESIGN it.  *You know...rewiring of muscles, the eye, it's workings inside...just basic stuff.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: Tank on January 14, 2012, 12:35:02 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 13, 2012, 11:35:41 PM
Yet they work perfectly. I have yet to see anyone come up with even a schematic of a "better" design.

You have now.



Please choose A or B and explain your reasoning for the choice you made.
You chose which is the more reasonable arrangements of elements.
It's not the schematic I hoped.  It's still just a thought.  How about a schematic that shows the thought process on HOW there is a better design and not just some cartoon pictures.  DESIGN it.  *You know...rewiring of muscles, the eye, it's workings inside...just basic stuff.

That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?

Out of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as? 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


AnimatedDirt

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 07:04:17 PM
That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?
Hardly fair?  Have you seen the Religion forum and all that the typical Atheist asks the Christian to prove empirically?  Really, it's unfair to ask for a REAL design using the REAL eye as a backdrop, reworking the nerves and all that goes into what makes an eye work?  I mean, it doesn't have to work perfectly yet...it's a "working design" where there was actual thought put into redesigning that which "God designed".  If cartoon pics are acceptable as proof, then let it be proof on the whole of the forum and not just here.

Quote from: xSilverPhinxOut of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as?
A manner in which our scientists and drs are studying that can prevent disease and/or cure.

Heisenberg

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 07:04:17 PM
That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?
Hardly fair?  Have you seen the Religion forum and all that the typical Atheist asks the Christian to prove empirically?  Really, it's unfair to ask for a REAL design using the REAL eye as a backdrop, reworking the nerves and all that goes into what makes an eye work?  I mean, it doesn't have to work perfectly yet...it's a "working design" where there was actual thought put into redesigning that which "God designed".  If cartoon pics are acceptable as proof, then let it be proof on the whole of the forum and not just here.

Quote from: xSilverPhinxOut of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as?
A manner in which our scientists and drs are studying that can prevent disease and/or cure.
What are you arguing here? Are you actually arguing that the eye is designed as well as it possibly could be?

Clearly it's not perfect. If it was, we could zoom in and see atoms, or be able to focus on galaxies on the other side of the universe, or be able to see other wavelengths of light (gamma rays, microwaves, etc).

So what are you saying, that an omnipotent being with unlimited time and resources wouldn't be able to design an eye that could do any of these things? The fact that no one on the forum (and this is an assumption) has the knowledge to design a blueprint for an eyeball that is superior to ours proves nothing. In fact, it's nothing but a strawman. This god of yours isn't bound by the same limitations as we are, so whats his excuse?
"No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low"-John Lennon

xSilverPhinx

#37
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 07:16:32 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 18, 2012, 07:04:17 PM
That's...hardly fair. You feel that because someone doesn't grow their own organs for now that the whole argument against better design is invalid?
Hardly fair?  Have you seen the Religion forum and all that the typical Atheist asks the Christian to prove empirically?  Really, it's unfair to ask for a REAL design using the REAL eye as a backdrop, reworking the nerves and all that goes into what makes an eye work?  I mean, it doesn't have to work perfectly yet...it's a "working design" where there was actual thought put into redesigning that which "God designed".  If cartoon pics are acceptable as proof, then let it be proof on the whole of the forum and not just here.

Quote from: xSilverPhinxOut of curiousity, what do you see gene therapy as?
A manner in which our scientists and drs are studying that can prevent disease and/or cure.

Ok, I don't know how you feel you can expect a god who is omnipotent can't do better than a "working design" such as ours or if that god can, then why they didn't. That's basically the question here, but fair enough if you want someone to make a better working human eye from scratch, that's your prerogative.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Twentythree

#38
Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:25:17 PM

What are you arguing here? Are you actually arguing that the eye is designed as well as it possibly could be?


Yeah, I don't get it either what is the argument? And why is there always so much attention given to eyes when discussing irreducible complexity. All of our senses are equally fascinating and limited. It's even more interesting to me to imagine how the brain of an ant senesces chemicals and how the snout of a shark can sense electrical fields in the water. What is the argument here and how is it not but to bed by accumulated complexity and the red queen? 

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Heisenberg on January 18, 2012, 07:25:17 PM
What are you arguing here? Are you actually arguing that the eye is designed as well as it possibly could be?
I have yet to see a better design for a human that functions or even possibly could function in a working drawing.

Quote from: HeisenbergClearly it's not perfect. If it was, we could zoom in and see atoms, or be able to focus on galaxies on the other side of the universe, or be able to see other wavelengths of light (gamma rays, microwaves, etc).
By this logic, the nose is imperfect too.  One should be able to smell what's cooking on the opposite side of the earth while smelling what is right in front of my nose...silly isn't it.
Quote from: HeisenbergSo what are you saying, that an omnipotent being with unlimited time and resources wouldn't be able to design an eye that could do any of these things?
Certainly an omnipotent god could IF THAT WERE THE DESIGN.  A design can be perfect for its purpose and not perfect in that it does EVERYTHING perfectly.
Quote from: HeisenbergThe fact that no one on the forum (and this is an assumption) has the knowledge to design a blueprint for an eyeball that is superior to ours proves nothing. In fact, it's nothing but a strawman. This god of yours isn't bound by the same limitations as we are, so whats his excuse?
That's exactly the point.  To say something is flawed and there is a better design is to know the Designer and the Designer's purpose...the Atheist doesn't even believe there is a Designer, so how is the eye even considered flawed without knowing the purpose?

Heisenberg

#40
The purpose of the eye is to see... We can not see everything so it is has not perfectly designed. Pretty axiomatic if you ask me.

And even if seeing as much as possible wasn't the goal, why are there the inefficiencies mentioned above? It's simply poor design no matter how you slice it. And what do you make of the video posted elsewhere on the board (sorry I forget where it was) about the giraffe and it's circuitous laryngeal nerve?

Ill give you this much: if the purpose of the eye was to make people believe that god does NOT exist, then maybe it is perfectly designed. But would a god who attempts to hide his existence want to be worshiped anyway?
"No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low"-John Lennon

Guardian85

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 05:56:57 PM

It's not the schematic I hoped.  It's still just a thought.  How about a schematic that shows the thought process on HOW there is a better design and not just some cartoon pictures.  DESIGN it.  *You know...rewiring of muscles, the eye, it's workings inside...just basic stuff.

Do you have any idea how complex such a schematic would be? Making something like that from scratch would be a project for a whole team of biologists, and you expect someone on some forum to knock one up in a day? The schematic shown was a consept scetch, and it did show a design concept that would have been superior to the eye you are reading this with.

It is an inescapable fact that if the human eye had been designed in a lab today, the designer would have been fired for making something so excessively flawed that you need a supercomputer just to run the basic software.


"If scientist means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I guess I'm a scientist, then."
-Unknown Smartass-

AnimatedDirt

#42
Quote from: Guardian85 on January 18, 2012, 08:33:40 PM
Do you have any idea how complex such a schematic would be? Making something like that from scratch would be a project for a whole team of biologists, and you expect someone on some forum to knock one up in a day? The schematic shown was a consept scetch, and it did show a design concept that would have been superior to the eye you are reading this with.
Basically what you're saying is that *you THINK the design flawed, but cannot come up with a better one.

Of course I realize how complex such a schematic would be...A Schematic!  That's the whole point.

Quote from: Guardian85It is an inescapable fact that if the human eye had been designed in a lab today, the designer would have been fired for making something so excessively flawed that you need a supercomputer just to run the basic software.
Inescapable fact?  Coming from one who I presume is happily using this flawed piece of equipment and has yet to demand science come up with a fix...?  I think your last sentence is very telling though.

Edit:  Added the "Of course..." line.

Heisenberg

Not everybody's mind works perfectly, such as people with neurological disorders and mental illness. Luckily science has come up with many fixes in the form of medicine.
"No one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low"-John Lennon

Ali

For that matter, my eyes are quite bad.  Luckily science has a fix for that too.