The assumption of ID and irreducible complexity i — Siti

IC <> ID. What you say applies to ID, not IC. ID Is a positive thesis, IC a wholly negative one. I'm not at all taking about ID, which is beneath serious debate.

IC <> ID — StreetlightX

That's why I said "and"...

Why don't you take those seriously?

All we can do is try to do science to it or not, and if we do try, see if that’s making any progress yet[/] or not. — Pfhorrest

Yep.

Then the rest of what you said is of no relevance, especially regarding teleology, which IC has no commitment to.

Why don't you take those seriously? — RogueAI

I don't think they answer anything - there is absolutely zero evidence for intelligent aliens interfering in biological evolution - and how does it help anyway? If it were true then the big question becomes not where did we come from but where did they come from? Ditto, simulation 'theory'...who or what is the simulator? And in any case, even if we are in a simulation, evolution would appear to be helping us to understand how the simulation unfolds - which, if that's what it is, is what we need to know. Whether it truly is a physical reality or a simulation, our goal is to find out how it unfolds and where we fit into the greater scheme. I don't find either of these ideas particularly useful in terms of elucidating how evolution unfolds, even if they were true.

Then the rest of what you said is of no relavence — StreetlightX

I'm not following - because I talked about two ideas (ID and irreducible complexity) making the same assumptions (as they do) my comments are irrelevant? Kindly explain how that works.

IC has no commitment to teleology. IC is essentially the thesis that shit happens; nothing more.

I don't think they answer anything - there is absolutely zero evidence for intelligent aliens interfering in biological evolution

The chain of logic is fairly straight-forward: given all the planets in the galaxy, it's pretty likely some alien life exists. From that, it follows that advanced alien life possibly exists. The possibility has to be taken seriously, at least. From that you need only posit that advanced alien life might interfere in evolutionary processes. We would, and in another thousand years, we'll probably be doing it.

and how does it help anyway?

It's an explanation for irreducible complexity. Aliens did it.

If it were true then the big question becomes not where did we come from but where did they come from?

Yes, it does beg that question. That does not mean, however, that directed panspermia can't happen. Or didn't happen. Perhaps their evolutionary path was much different than ours.

Ditto, simulation 'theory'...who or what is the simulator?

Again, just because a hypothesis begs a question does not mean that that hypothesis isn't true. Physics and Cosmology posit theories that beg all sorts of interesting unanswered questions (possibly unanswerable).

And in any case, even if we are in a simulation, evolution would appear to be helping us to understand how the simulation unfolds - which, if that's what it is, is what we need to know. Whether it truly is a physical reality or a simulation, our goal is to find out how it unfolds and where we fit into the greater scheme. I don't find either of these ideas particularly useful in terms of elucidating how evolution unfolds, even if they were true.

It's an explanation for problems of irreducible complexity: the programmers did it.

IC has no commitment to teleology. IC is essentially the thesis that shit happens; nothing more. — StreetlightX

What are you talking about...OK - here are Michael Behe's own definitions of IC:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. — Behe

An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway. — Behe

And here's his conclusion from the same article:

If the improbability of the pathway exceeds the available probabilistic resources (roughly the number of organisms over the relevant time in the relevant phylogenetic branch) then Darwinism is deemed an unlikely explanation and intelligent design a likely one. — Behe

How is any of that not a commitment to teleology?

Excepting Behe's unjustified leap from unlikely Darwinism to likely ID, how is any of that a commitment to teleology? Like really, explain it in your own words.

If you think the failure of a thesis necessitates the commitment to another - rather than simply leaving explanation in abeyance, as it should do - then you've simply recapitualted the magical thinking of ID proponents.

Again, just because a hypothesis begs a question does not mean that that hypothesis isn't true. — RogueAI

True, but if it leads to infinite causal regress why not just admit that we have no clue what caused it and focus on attempting to understand what we know exists? As far as we can possibly tell, the universe has been doing what the universe does for about 14bn years or so - what is the basis for assuming that at some entirely arbitrary point something very extraordinary happened when as far as we can possibly tell, most things are reasonably adequately explained by nothing extraordinary happening (Copernican prinicple)?

You see the connection between ID and teleology at least right? If the world were intelligently designed then whatever it was designed for would be its purpose.

Yes of course. But I simply don't care one bit about ID, which is on par with a belief in unicorns as far as I'm concerned.

how is any of that a commitment to teleology? Like really, explain it in your own words. — StreetlightX

OK - but can I use my own words that I already used...or do I need to reduce the complexity of the language?

The assumption of ID and irreducible complexity is that there exists a teleological relationship between biological structure and functionality (i.e. it is 'made' like that to serve that 'purpose' — Siti

Oh I see, IC is committed to teleology because you said so. Cool.

Seriously, that there may be a necessary but unselected for mutation requires no commitment to teleology. A teleological commitment would require the additional inductive leap that this mutation was designed. There is no necessary link between the two.

This is not a particularly complex point to grasp.

True, but if it leads to infinite causal regress why not just admit that we have no clue what caused it and focus on attempting to understand what we know exists?

I don't think directed/managed panspermia leads to an infinite regress. An alien race could have taken a much different evolutionary path that avoids these issues entirely. No causal regress needed.

Simulation theory certainly doesn't lead to an infinite regress. It ends at some physical universe where the simulation creators exist. Their evolutionary path could be inconceivable to us, and so again, these issues wouldn't even apply. You would have to wonder why they programmed it in, but that's just a mystery, not an infinite regress.

And infinite regress-like problems certainly hasn't stopped inflation theory from taking off. An infinite ensemble of causally disconnected universes that's impossible to prove? That makes intelligent design look positively pedestrian.

As far as we can possibly tell, the universe has been doing what the universe does for about 14bn years or so - what is the basis for assuming that at some entirely arbitrary point something very extraordinary happened when as far as we can possibly tell, most things are reasonably adequately explained by nothing extraordinary happening (Copernican prinicple)?

Key phrase: "as far as we can possibly tell". As far as we can possibly tell, simulation theory is possible, maybe even plausible (see Nick Bostrom's argument). As far as we can tell, advanced aliens exist and mess around with habitable planets. We're certainly going to do it if we don't destroy ourselves and I don't see why we would be special in that regard.

Oh I see, IC is committed to teleology because you said so. Cool. — StreetlightX

Dear God - what have I got myself into? No - IC is committed to teleology because (as Behe defines IC) it makes the assumption that all the parts of an "irreducibly complex" system 'arose' (either by design or by evolution) to fulfill a particular function as part of a particular system. That is teleology. His whole argument is that without one or other parts of the irreducibly complex system, evolution would never have given rise to the other parts because they would have had no function. But in reality, parts of systems evolve into parts of other systems sometimes when the original function (if there even was one) is no longer required. For example, whale hip bones no longer serve any perambulatory system function, but they do provide a convenient fixing point for the male whale's presumably prodigiously proportioned penis. And just because we can't identify the exact original 'purpose' of all the parts of a particular system, doesn't in any way imply that those parts could not have evolved independently or as parts of earlier co-evolving systems that had entirely unrelated functionalities.

Key phrase: "as far as we can possibly tell". — RogueAI

Well "as far as we can possibly tell" there are giant silver teapots orbiting all planets beyond our own solar system and entirely invisible moncupators in the back right hand corners of all our fridges. Just because we can't rule something out doesn't mean we have to rule them in.

Well "as far as we can possibly tell" there are giant silver teapots orbiting all planets beyond our own solar system and entirely invisible moncupators in the back right hand corners of all our fridges. Just because we can't rule something out doesn't mean we have to rule them in.

You're making a category error. The possibility of teapots orbiting planets isn't in the same category as the possibility of advanced alien life or simulation theory. Oribiting teapots aren't taken seriously by anyone. Simulation theory and advanced alien life are certainly taken seriously by many experts.

You're making a category error. — RogueAI

No I'm not, you were talking about things for which we have zero evidence...so was I.

No I'm not, you were talking about things for which we have zero evidence...so was I. [/quote]

Yes, you are. There are things we have zero evidence for that are possible, even plausible (alien life), and there are things we have zero evidence for which are not remotely possible (the flying spaghetti monster, orbiting tea pots, etc.).

In other words, you're equating the possibility of alien life existing with the possibility of a tea cup orbiting Jupiter. That's a ludicrous comparison. I certainly expect us to eventually find alien life. Don't you? I certainly don't expect us to find any orbiting tea cups. I assume you agree with this?

IC is committed to teleology because (as Behe defines IC) it makes the assumption that all the parts of an "irreducibly complex" system 'arose' (either by design or by evolution) to fulfill a particular function as part of a particular system. — Siti

But this is just crude adaptationism; the sting in the tail of IC is the second part, in which evolution could not have given rise to something because there was no available evolutionary pathway. But that's just the null hypothesis: that there is no way to get from A to B. That's what's 'irreducible'.

you're equating the possibility of alien life existing with the possibility of a tea cup orbiting Jupiter. — RogueAI

Now you are misrepresenting what I said - of course alien life is possible - even intelligent alien life and even super-advanced intelligent alien life. But there is absolutely zero evidence that the interference of such alien life in the process of biological evolution on earth is in any way a plausible explanation for apparently irreducible and otherwise inexplicable complexity in biological systems.

But this is just crude adaptationism; the sting in the tail of IC is the second part, in which evolution could not have given rise to something because there was no available evolutionary pathway. But that's just the null hypothesis: that there is no way to get from A to B. That's what's 'irreducible'. — StreetlightX

But that second definition too is based on teleological assumptions - the argument is that evolution could not 'select' in favour of a pathway leading to or including "parts" with no advantageous functionality - but that's a just a complete misconception of how natural selection works (I thought I had already explained that somewhere). In any case, nature does not select "in favour" of this or that trait generally, but largely against disadvantageous traits - i.e. things that tend to lead to an early death - of a cell, or an organism...etc. tend to lead to an early death and are therefore less likely to be passed on.

And by the way, you are misinterpreting "null hypothesis" again. The null hypothesis in this case is that there is no teleological relationship between evolved structure and biological functionality. The function is an accidental (natural) consequence of the structure in its environment, not the purpose or direction of the evolutionary process. And so far, I see no reason to reject the null hypothesis.

The argument is that evolution could not 'select' in favour of a pathway leading to or including "parts" with no advantageous functionality — Siti

I'm entirely with you on selective pressure being a loose net and the reality of exaptation and so on. None of this I dispute. None of this has been in dispute - so maybe save your sermons for class? But I think it's quite possible to decouple, or isolate, as it were, the negative thesis - you can't get from A to B - from the positive one - that each part must have a functional role. I'm perfectly happy to discard the argument for IC - which is irrelavent for a null hypothesis in any case - and simply hew to the conclusion it wants to derive.

I think it's quite possible to decouple, or isolate, as it were, the negative thesis - you can't get from A to B - from the positive one - that each part must have a functional role. I'm perfectly happy to discard the argument for IC - which is irrelavent for a null hypothesis in any case - and simply hew to the conclusion it wants to derive. — StreetlightX

But then you are left with a null hypothesis (which is not really a null hypothesis anyway) that simply states that "you can't get from A to B" when the process has clearly (somehow) done exactly that! Obviously something is wrong there!

The only proper null hypothesis is randomness and as yet, we have no compelling reason to reject it.

But then you are left with a null hypothesis (which is not really a null hypothesis anyway) that simply states that "you can't get from A to B" when the process has clearly (somehow) done exactly that! — Siti

Ugh, "...via an evolutionary process" obviously, I'd have thought that obvious enough.

As for null hypothesis I simply mean the idea that heritable change is not explained by evolutionary mechanisms. The thesis against which evolutionary science pitches itself. I'm not referring to a null hypothesis for ID or whatever.

Ugh, "...via an evolutionary process" obviously, I'd have thought that obvious enough. — StreetlightX

Obviously! So is there any reason - now that we have happily discarded the argument for irreducible complexity - to doubt that it is equally obvious that A has indeed led to B "...via an evolutionary process"? I can't think of one.