Proving irreducible complexity with a cell-phone


#21

Is that why your mom never hears from you?


#22

I just don’t understand one thing. How can people be so (enter a non-insulting word here) as to think that saying ‘cellphone is designed thus humans are designed’ would actually prove anything?


#23

Can you explain how serving as a paper weight is useful to the cell phone?


(John Harshman) #24

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#25

Yes. What the hell are you trying to say there?


(John Harshman) #26

Sorry. Cultural reference, probably not intelligible to non-Americans. I meant to imply that being a YEC, or whatever scd is, impairs one’s ability to reason.


#27

Yeah, I had something completely different in mind. :slightly_smiling_face:


#28

I think you have lost sight of the IC argument. It is argued that an IC system could not evolve because it would lack any function until all of the parts are present. This argument is countered by pointing to selectable function present in a system with fewer parts.


(Curtis Henderson) #29

Djordje, there was a short television commercial produced by the “Partnership for a Drug-free America” in the 1980s. Pretty much every American alive during the 80s gets this cultural reference, so I guess it was a success! You can take a look (here) if you are reeeally interested :slight_smile:


(Neil Rickert) #30

And that’s entirely the wrong question.


#31

Now I see why I didn’t get it. I wasn’t even born in the 80’s!


#32

so you are talking about the cell-phone itself. it will not work because eventually we need to end up with a cell-phone. so basically any weight is ok. why we should start with a weight in the shape of a cell-phone? another problem is that a weight is functional only if human will use it. but we are talking about living creatures so i dont think that human will use a creature as a paper weight.


(Mikkel R.) #33

I will.

but we are talking about living creatures so i dont think that human will use a creature as a paper weight.

Now, suddenly, we are talking about living creatures instead of cellphones? So are cellphones like living organisms or not? You can’t pick and choose.

I would use a cellphone-like organism as a paperweight while transforming it into a gps-like organims any time, and be proud of it.


#34

because there are no small steps between a cell-phone and a gps. we cant just add or change a single part in the cell-phone to get a gps. no one in the world can because its technically impossible.


#35

first: what make you think that in this case the analogy isnt useful as evidence for id?


(Mikkel R.) #36

Of course it isn’t. Cellphones with gps systems exist. So somebody gradually created a cellphone and gps system from a collection of components. All those components could function as a paperweight until the structure is assembled.

You can also take a cellphone, then use it as a paperweight. Then start disassembling it until you have a pile of components, while still using the pile as a paperweight. Then start removing parts from the pile, while adding parts necessary to make a combined cellphone and gps, until you have replaced all the components in the pile that made up the original cellphone, with the parts necessary to make a cellphone with gps, which you can then proceed to assemble into a functional cellphone with gps. And it never stopped working as a paperweight.


#37

can you show why this is a wrong conclusion in this case?


(Jordan Mantha) #38

If you know you want to convert an organic cell-phone into an organic GPS, and you have the technical ability to make an organic cell-phone in the first place, then yes, it’s entirely plausible to do it one small step at a time, that’s called chemistry.


#39

of course that they exist. the question is how to change stepwise one to another.

but a gps need at least several components that a cell-phone doesnt have. so you still need to made several parts at once. this isnt a small step.


#40

and the evidence for this claim is?..