The Bad Design Argument

(George) #82


This creates the “illusion” of an ever-progressive complexity. But it isn’t something that can be quantified. If it could be quantified, we would be able to answer the question:

If it could ever happen that a fish population becomes a land-based tetrapod, is that a gain in complexity or a loss of complexity?

The tetrapod has lost its gills, but gained lungs. It has lost the ability to swim, but the tetrapod has the ability to run.

(Mark M Moore) #83

The whole system is designed to produce a variety of living things to fill every niche, and whatever input is necessary to jump start that system is also designed. I think @Argon correctly noted that the “bad design” argument does not apply to my model, since nature has plenty of autonomy. So it is not that I am dodging your question per se, it is just that it does not apply to what I believe happened. Under the thread “best arguments against design” I already laid out an experiment which, if it produced enough of the right kind of change, would be my example of a “best argument against design”.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) unlisted #85

(S. Joshua Swamidass) closed #86

(S. Joshua Swamidass) listed #87