actually we can test it. if you will remove some of your phone parts till you will left with 2-3 parts- you will get no function at all. right?
@scd,
No doubt, depending on which parts are removed, you can end up with a partial cell phone that serves no function for anyone⌠and that would be a good demonstration of why evolution has never produced a cell-phone.
But this is hardly an exhaustive proof.
You are missing two things:
- Irreducible Complexity as a concept can only be validated for those things that cannot have a path of useful functions on the way to becoming a complete evolutionary modification (eyes, wings, etc).
and
- It is only applicable in debates with Atheists who reject any involvement with God.
And you are still debating on the topic of Godless Evolution on a site dedicated to Evolution By God.
Still functions as a door stop.
only if you will involve intelligent. can it be functional in every step without any intelligent involved?
this is my point.
@scd,
If you ever quote me like that again, I will flag your posts in a heart-beat!
I am quoting your incomplete view⌠which naturally makes me sound like YOU if you quote that part and intentionally leave out my qualifications. Here is the entire quote, AGAIN:
In other words, when you remove a specific part, and it looks like the âfuture phoneâ cannot serve a function as an âunfinished phoneâ, if it persists in the species it is because it serves (at least temporarily) some NON-PHONE function!
I canât believe we are still talking about the dang phone⌠and what you donât get about the analogy of Irreducible Complexity. The first time Irreducible Complexity was proposed by Behe, he was talking about mousetraps. And the reason he no longer talks about that example is because an incomplete mousetrap can still have other uses.
So ⌠YOU, @scd, are the only one still talking about the simplistic (and erroneous) version of the Irreducible Complexity scenario.
If you donât comprehend the limitations that Behe himself recognized ⌠you will never get to talk about anything else⌠Has God spoken to you? Does he WANT you to spend your entire lifetime talking about incomplete cell phones?
I feel like these conversation inevitably end up at the following, seemingly unsurmountable, impasse:
- ID : some biological âsystemsâ are so complex and built in such a way, that it seems impossible that an exact set of small changes would form the system without âexternal inputâ, especially as a part of an overall system that works via optimization (selection) based on functionality. The burden of proof is on those who claim the impossible is possible.
- Mainstream Science: modern evolutionary biology is successful enough in making predictions, consistently validated by the data, and has enormous explanatory power, that there is no need to posit âexternal inputâ. We donât know all (or even many) of the specific steps involved in the development of any particular system at this time, but as a whole it is reliable enough that the burden of proof is on those who claim an additional mechanism is needed
Does this seem right?
1 Like
I think it would be fair to include a 3rd paragraph:
Something along the lines of âThe issue is a footnote in the discussion of how does God-Guided Evolution fit into the Biblical text and timeline?â
Ideally, one of the responses to ID should cover the fact that @swamidass is a âno caps, i.d.â supporter, donât you think?
It just seems like too often, as you know, we get caught up in the other two and not enough on that 3rd item. I think i.d. and God-guided evolution (especially when combined with generally traditional theology) is a very interesting position, and doesnât seem as well developed at this point which means productive conversations could be had.
One reason these conversations tend to be under-explored, or easily diverted, is that it is such a new idea on the battlefront of ideas⌠and because we hear tolerate âmain-streamingâ topics that are really footnotes:
We have already identified one footnote idea: can un-Guided Evolution be defended? (Yes, absolutely vs. No, Absolutely).
The second footnote idea is: can Science âseeâ or âdemonstrateâ the actions of God?
Both of these ideas are purely diversional ⌠because Genealogical Adam scenarios can function whether the answers are Yes/Yes or No/No, or Yes/No, or No/Yes.
There should be a SEPARATE room for footnote discussions.
its bascially mean that we have no evidence that (natural) evolution is possible at all.
Ah. the standard Creationist whine. âScience doesnât know everything therefore science doesnât know anything!â. Itâs hard to imagine anyone can be clueless enough to actually reason that way.
actually i think that mouse trap parts can be functional only if we involve designer. but even if im wrong it doesnt change the fact that a cell-phone cant evolve stepwise.