A photodiode is a single part, and yes we can add it without changing the system (it’s just a another input after all). A socket might be optimal (so I can swap if needed), but not needed for functionality.
2 Likes
As they say, garbage in, garbage out. You need correct figures to get useful results.
Does a tetraodon have a heart?
What is the genome size of a tetraodon?
Does a fairyfly (tinkerbella) have a heart?
What is the genome size of tinkerbella nana?
How many nucleotides does it take to code for a heart?
It clearly takes nowhere near 10^20 mutations for a new organ. Just by looking at the genome sizes of various organisms with hearts.
2 Likes
according to that source a photodiode contain at least few parts:
it is if we are talking about two match parts.
Nope, a photodiode is a p-n junction (just like other similar electronic parts, like LEDs and transistors), that’s it. The other parts just make it more efficient, but they are not necessary for function.
4 Likes
Rum’s characterization was a straw-man argument. So is the above. Rum did not use Behe’s words a “purposeful arrangement of parts” as @Jordan did and you are not using “design”. When you invoke unicorns to try and create an image of God as a fairy tale you are creating a straw-man. You are simply playing rhetorical games. You can fool yourself into false beliefs this way.
The design argument that Behe makes is a “method” and not a hypothesis. A method of detecting design in nature.
A paraphrase entails using different words to convey someone else’s idea. So it is unavoidable that different words were used. This is not that complicated, really.
My analogy had absolutely nothing to do with God. As usual, you just didn’t understand the point.
An argument is not a method.
His hypothesis is that he has a method that can detect design in nature. His hypothesis has been falsified, but he keeps pimping it out. And it is really sad that some religious institutions feel compelled to give him a platform to propagate his worthless ideas just because he is sympathetic to Christianity. At least this time they had him share the stage with someone who was able to provide the truth.
2 Likes
What is your point in using the word unicorn other then to create a straw-man argument?
That unicorns do not exist is something upon which I believe we can both agree. That’s why I used it.
I really don’t think you understood what I was saying at all. My point was that, when trying to support for a scientific hypothesis, merely constructing a valid argument is generally not sufficient.
In any event, I have found another summary of Behe’s presentation that is even better than @Rumraket 's:
1 Like
as far as im aware even a simple transistor has few parts:
(image from wiki)
so you cant just add a single part, you will need at least 2-3 parts to make it functional. in addition, are you saying that if i will take that photodiode and put it in a car, it will be able to move by light?
We have common ground here.
You need a tested hypothesis to complete the scientific method. The test needs to directly apply to the hypothesis. A lack of a tested hypothesis is what many historic sciences suffer from including evolutionary theory. Methodological naturalism does not work well when you stray from hypothesis that are thoroughly tested.
Again ID is not a hypothesis as Behe uses it. It is a method of detecting design in nature.
It’s a p-n junction, it’s just one part. You can add lots of things to make it better or more efficient, but you can’t get a lot simpler. It’s just a material (semiconductor) with two different dopants.
1 Like
according to wiki: " A p–n junction is a boundary or interface between two types of semiconductor materials, p-type and n-type, inside a single crystal of semiconductor.
so we are talking about 2 parts. and we also need the pins.
No, it’s one part.
2 Likes
so if i will add it to a car it will be able to move to a light source? can you show me how i can do that? thanks.
Feel free to copy my response to @colewd just above if you wish.
2 Likes
This really seems like what’s called “moving the goal post”. You said: “we cant just add a single part to a moving system and it will suddenly start to move to a light source.” and I was responding to that.
Now instead of “moving system” you changed it to specifically a car. Of course that might well require more than one change, although I would imagine it could be done fairly easily with minimal changes, especially with modern cars with software and cameras. I think you could do it with 0 new parts and just a software change.
I mean, I don’t have a real investment here, I don’t think it matters greatly how many steps a change takes. I know enough of how things work that 5 iterations of 1 step may often be better than 1 iteration involving 5 steps but every system is different.
2 Likes
but isnt a car a moving system? if animals can move to a light source can do that by a single change, why designed objects cant? is nature far smarter than the most smartes people on earth? i dont think so.
Yes, but that’s sort of a backwards way of looking at it. You were indicating that it wasn’t possible to add something to a moving system, I responded that I thought it was possible and gave an example. All I have to do is provide one example to “show” that it’s not impossible. You then replied with a requirement that I show it for arbitrary examples. That is again, moving the goal post.
Again, “a system” vs “animals” vs “designed object” are all different things.
“Smarter” is somewhat of a nebulous term. Sometimes nature is far smarter in that it has found things that work in a particular environments that humans find “above their heads”. I’ve seen several cases where scientists have used natural systems as a models when trying to find new strategies. Of course, in other ways nature can be far “dumber” that people, although sometimes “dumber” is more robust or otherwise advantageous way.
Unfortunately, I’ve reached my capacity for this topic as I’m swamped with work for the rest of the week.
4 Likes
Yes, in a manner of speaking.
4 Likes
I’ve always thought so. Indeed, the “argument from complexity” seems to me to run just the opposite way from how the cdesign proponentsists have it: living things are just too complex to have been designed. That’s not a formal argument – it is, rather, an intuitive judgment, and so of no scientific value (just as the ID judgment to the contrary is) but it has always struck me as downright weird that anyone would look at the sorts of complexity seen in living things and think of design. That’s some seriously counterintuitive intuition.
4 Likes