Debate:Specified complexity/Archive2

I claim that this in itself is evidence for an INTELLIGENT designer... My testable hypothesis is that... if this is the work of a designer... We will find many such functions in life... You tell me... am i wrong?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a testable prediction we already know that stuff like rhodanese exists, if we already know that it exists it isn't a prediction. I'll give you an example, (I may get some details wrong but you get the basic idea) when Einstein proposed his theory of relativity it explained the orbit of mercury which differed slightly from what was predicted by Newtonian gravity. However, as the orbit of mercury was well known before Einstein formulated his theory, this wasn't a prediction. Einstein then predicted that when a solar eclipse happened we'd see a star in the wrong place, as no one knew we'd see the star in this place this was a prediction. (Einstein was proven right). You have to provide an example of your hypothesis saying "X will be Y" then X being shown to be Y. Christopher (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Other functions... will be found... which will also display specified complexity! I gave other examples above... I can give hundreds more!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't clarify. The prediction has to be different to what evolution predicts. Otherwise it isn't evidence for anything. Christopher (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It also has to be specific. Christopher (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You are probably using evolution in it's most trivial sense (change of heritable traits over time)... I DO NOT disagree with such changes through natural selection... Hence... A dog and a wolf could have had a common ancestor... Since the changes between a wolf and a dog are CONSISTENT with natural selection... WHAT i disagree with is an UNGUIDED PROCESS and UNIVERSAL common descent... SINCE the mechanism for these changes IS DIFFERENT from dog-wolf change... You have to either provide an example of such random changes through natural selection developing specified complexity... or stop claiming that this theory is supported by science!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop changing the bloody subject. Provide an example of a prediction made by your pet hypothesis that was later proven to be correct. It has to disagree with what the theory of evolution would say and be specific. Christopher (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct the dictionary... It has to disagree with what a NATURALIST view would say... I could make a prediction that specified complexity will be found in different life forms... I predict that the Specified complexity FOUND in these life forms will contradict the purely naturalistic view!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This "debate" is a bit of a mess, is it ok to make subsections?


 * I agree with Kingdamian1 that the current page is confusing because it redirects to Complex Specified Information and doesn't clearly explain specified complexity. This should probably be discussed in the talk page of the article.


 * In this book review (one of Wikipedia's references): "Bradley and Thaxton introduce the notion that "design detection" was similar to archaeology, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) particularly as depicted in Carl Sagan's fiction, and forensic investigations. They also apply Leslie Orgel's 1973 concept of "specified complexity" to life and rephrase it as a sort of measure of information. In short, Bradley and Thaxton's short chapter on the origin of life set the agenda for William Dembski's whole career. "


 * In 's biography, Wikipedia claims "In his book The Origins of Life, Orgel coined the concept of specified complexity, to describe the criterion by which living organisms are distinguished from non-living matter. " (Leslie Orgel was a real biologist who published many papers focusing on detailed mechanisms that could have contributed to abiogenesis). In other words, specified complexity may have started as a scientific hypothesis (I don't have the book, I can't tell) but then was repurposed by ID proponents. This document from 2003 provides a discussion about Dembski's ideas but doesn't address Kingdamian1's specific points.


 * In this 2016 paper (from Nature's Scientific Reports) the authors conclude "The present study, for first time, provides strong evidence that there was a rhodanese functional adaptation in response to changes in dietary resources in giant panda. " In short, scientists are working on it, and it may take 10 years or 100 years before we get a complete picture, there is no need to jump to conclusions here. --Cmonk (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is NO SUCH A THING as adaption to cyanide... What you provide DOES NOT ADRESS THIS issue... if evolution is true than an organism had to ADAPT TO CYANIDE... This is LAUGHABLE... Any MD will tell you this ANY GIVEN DAY... Cyanide is a CELLULAR toxin... It is one of the most lethal poisons known to humanity... Rhodanese is SPECIFICALLY designed to protect us from it... Plus... This debate has turned into a cyanide discussion... Please, pay attention to my whole argument... Specified complexity is observable and demonstrable... And is a STRONG argument against purely Darwinian views. Rational wiki has done nothing but made fun of a LEGITIMATE argument which I am ready to defend! P.S I'd like to see which incompetent person claims adaption to cyanide... The above examples are  just what I could say from the top of my head... I can bring hundreds of such examples which clearly DEMONSTRATE specified complexity... Name a major function in humans and I will give at least 2 different complex mechanisms which are SPECIFIED to each other (in other words, only make sense if the other is present)... and work together for our benefit... If such a thing can happen through an unguided process... with only natural selection... I would like to see an example... --Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The last link I gave you is for a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. The paper is titled "Dietary resources shape the adaptive changes of cyanide detoxification function in giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca)", is freely accessible, and lists a number of authors (He Huang, Shangmian Yie, and others). I do not know any of these people, but I trust published peer-reviewed literature until somebody can prove it wrong. If you think the research is wrong, please contact Nature and convince them to retract the paper. If you think that I misinterpreted what the paper says, then could you please cite the relevant text that shows my misunderstanding? I do not care much about cyanide (and herbivore adaptation to plant cyanide is not a controversial topic as far as I can tell), but it was your first example. Addressing all your points at once would be unreadable, so I think it best to go progressively. --Cmonk (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your peer reviewed article makes NO MENTION of the development of rhodanese (rhodanese developement MUST HAVE HAPPENED without prior exposure... since prior exposure would have been LETHAL)... You also dodge a question... How does SPECIFIED complexity fit into a Darwinian context?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So you don't reject the idea that herbivores can adapt to cyanide, but you claim that the rhodanese pathway itself couldn't have evolved? From what I understand, research into the evolution of specific molecules is recent and ongoing, and I don't know what the state of the art is. This paper states "The Cdc25s display sequence similarity to rhodaneses and are thought to have evolved from a bacterial, rhodanese-like protein " and gives a few references but I couldn't access them. At this point, I can only conjecture (like Christopher did) that a rhodanese-like molecule evolved very early in some ancestral cell, maybe to be able to digest some naturally occurring resource (maybe cyanide itself, like, maybe something chemically similar).


 * You gave an explanation of the cyanide mechanism, but you never said how you conclude that evolution of rhodanese is impossible (you only said that you don't know how it could have happened).


 * Earlier you said "Rhodanese just HAPPENED TO BE useful against cyanide... This is not science... ". I reject that last sentence. It seems to me that we are talking about at the molecular level. The abstract of this 2013 letter (Nature) (full text) says "Metabolic systems thus contain a latent potential for evolutionary innovations with non-adaptive origins. Our observations suggest that many more metabolic traits may have non-adaptive origins than is appreciated at present ", and in the text "Many enzymes are capable of using various substrates, which can further increase network complexity and the potential for exaptation. "


 * It is possible that the explanation has already been written in some paper that I can't access, or maybe it will be in the future. Since most of my answers are going to be "I don't know" and "maybe", you may not find them satisfying, but if you want more, you need to contact an actual expert (and potentially get the same answers). I do not intend to dodge anything (although I may not have the time/motivation to go through dozens of examples of things for which we may or may not have an explanation yet), but (a) my understanding of evolution isn't hindered by subjective concepts such as "specified complexity" (to the extent that I understand your explanation), (b) evolution of biochemical pathways is an active area of research, so there are many things that we don't know yet. --Cmonk (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a mutation or an evolutionary process known to produce specified complexity? What you claim about rhodanese origin is not supported by research... this is ASSUMED TO SUPPORT darwinistic view... according to your claim rhodanese exists by chance... and such VITAL enzymes cant evolve through chance... on top of this there was no PRIOR EXPOSURE TO CYANIDE.... since it would have been lethal... The body would not have known that Rhodanese would serve such an important function... pre rhodanese contact (let alone a chronic exposure) would have been lethal within about 10 minutes... SUCH IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS CANNOT DEVELOP BY AN UNGUIDED PROCESS Kingdamian1 (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am still not quite sure what specified complexity is, but if you are talking about exaptation, then this 2011 paper gives examples (in anthropology, not molecular biology) and more references. The important point in this paper is that exaptation is a contentious topic and "more studies are needed ".


 * My "claim", as I clearly said, is a conjecture, but I think it is compatible with modern biology (if you have peer-reviewed papers that tell the opposite, please provide references+quotes). I don't know if rhodanese exists "by chance" (BTW, natural selection is not "chance", although the mutations are random). Your claim that "VITAL enzymes cant evolve through chance " is unclear: what do you mean "through chance"? what creature? why 10 min? what concentration? what temperature (or any other factor that could affect toxicity)? why can't they evolve? And in my hypothetical scenario, mutations would have to happen before exposure (this is how natural selection operates).


 * If you want an example of an actual expert describing in excruciating details potential evolution of the most ancient and vital set of proteins, the proton-motive complex, try this 2015 book (the research is new and ongoing, so a large part is hypothetical, but at least it is coming from a reputable biochemist). --Cmonk (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please, read my original argument... I define what specified complexity is.... SINCE THERE WAS NO PRIOR EXPOSURE TO CYANIDE (had there been an exposure... The life form would die... cause there was no defense mechanism against it)... The body could not have adapted to cyanide... Without the existence of rhodanese... any amount of cyanide would be LETHAL... This implies that the body developed a defense mechanism against one of the most potent toxins without ever coming into contact with it (random chance). I again ask you to give an example of an evolutionary process known to be responsible for complex functions which are also specified...Kingdamian1 (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your definition doesn't matter, I can't find a peer-reviewed paper describing specified complexity. According to this book review "[Dembski's] notion of 'specified complexity', a probabilistic filter that allegedly allows one to tell whether an event is so impossible that it requires supernatural explanation, has never demonstrably received peer review, although its description in his popular books (such as No Free Lunch, Rowman & Littlefield, 2001) has come in for withering criticism from actual mathematicians ".


 * It seems that it is not a scientifically valid concept, so I can't give you any example until you provide peer-reviewed definition in reputable journal.


 * Mutations happen before exposure. The life form with the proper mutations wouldn't die. That is natural selection, and it is not random chance. The detailed molecular mechanisms are outside my expertise. The book I referenced above does provide detailed mechanisms for evolution of proton-motive complex. --Cmonk (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave observable examples of specified complexity... can you put my specific examples into a purely naturalistic context... Also... what is your field of expertise... I am an aspiring cardiologist and have some knowledge of medicine...Kingdamian1 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello! Me again, we don't care what your field of expertise is as 1) you could be lying and 2) one "aspiring cardiologist"'s opinion on evolutionary biology carries a lot less weight than thousands of evolutionary biologists backed up by actual evidence. Christopher (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You gave what you think are examples of specified complexity. Can you provide evidence that your god did it? Why should we have to prove that your god didn't do it? Christopher (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am glad to have that discussion... but that is part of theology... you have to present a naturalistic view of specified complexity... because it contradicts the idea of NO INTELLIGENCEKingdamian1 (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think your concepts are scientifically valid, publish them in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and then the people on this website (and everywhere in the world) will have to accept them. Until then, your examples are your personal opinion on various biological phenomena. I think your concept of "specified" might be related to exaptation, which is contentious but purely naturalistic and published in peer-reviewed journals. More generally, evolution is the current naturalistic explanation for the progressive generation of complex biological systems ("specified" or not). I am not aware of any valid alternative.


 * My field of expertise is not really important, I follow the advice of potholer54 and do my best to check information in peer-reviewed journals, so that I don't get too confused with false claims about difficult scientific topics (climate science, evolution, particle physics). If you think highly complex molecular systems cannot evolve from (almost) nothing, please read Nick Lane's book (link above) about the proton-motive complex (he briefly talks about the poisonous effect of cyanide). But this is new, bleeding-edge research, and it is probably going to take decades before we see concrete results. --Cmonk (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It does look like I am talking to a robot... NO!!! I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EXAPTATION!!!! The whole idea of Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations being selected... Can you, using ANY PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL... give an example of the type of mutation or ANY EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS which would be able to give rise to different complex mechanisms functioning together for one purpose, which would be able to explain DESIGNED FEATURES... You can check my examples... And I CAN GIVE 100s more which DEFY the WHOLE IDEA of an unguided process using randomness!!! This IDEA is a disgrace to modern science... Prove it otherwise... May your next post contain an example! PS. An aspiring cardiologist means that currently I am not an expert or have any appropriate credentials...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It does look like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand evolution or science in general. I don't mind the occasional conjecture, but let me make my position clear: do the research yourself, or wait for the real scientists to publish their work.


 * To recap:
 * it seems the current article doesn't properly describe "specified complexity", and that should be addressed on its talk page
 * "specified complexity" is not recognized as a scientific concept (you conveniently dodged that point earlier) and not well defined (you can't know that something has "one purpose", that is a personal opinion stemming from limited knowledge; "designed feature" doesn't mean anything; you are the only one to see a pattern in your examples, it doesn't matter if you have a million of them)
 * your only argument seems to be that you can't imagine how evolution works, so it's not possible, which is totally unconvincing


 * Until you start to support your points with peer-reviewed literature (or at least some credible source), you are just giving your personal opinion. If the answers you seek haven't been published, the only reasonable answer is "we don't know yet". --Cmonk (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

1)Why does rational wiki make fun of William Dembski and not show both sides of the argument.... 2)you COMPLETELY ignored my question--Kingdamian1 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You completely ignored all my points, so there is no need for anyone to take yours seriously. Dembski is not a biologist (BTW, he himself claims to have retired from ID). There is no scientific debate, so no side to present. Specified complexity is not science, it is pseudoscientific nonsense. --Cmonk (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So... unless something is reviewed by evolutionist (staunch opponents of anything ID)... nothing can be scientific????--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Dembski's biography says he's a mathematician, "David Wolpert [a highly qualified mathematician], co-creator of the No free lunch theorem on which Dembski based his book, characterized his arguments as "fatally informal and imprecise," "written in jello," reminiscent of philosophical discussion "of art, music, and literature, as well as much of ethics" rather than of scientific debate. " Even if it were "pro-evolution", specified complexity is nonsensical, which is why it is impossible to have a scientific debate about it. --Cmonk (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am highlighting a point that RationalWiki is EXTREMELY biased... Additionally, you seem to have a view... that unless something is peer reviewed... it does not matter... BUT THE PEER REVIEWERS in 99% cases are STAUNCH ATHEISTS and hate anything connected to ID. It's like asking Richard Dawkins to pass a peer review with the reviewers being YEC... I am saying that specified complexity is a STRONG argument... and should not be made fun of just because some atheists do not consider it fits THEIR DEFINITION OF SCIENCE!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Our viewpoint is biased as described here.


 * For scientific topics, if something is not peer-reviewed in a reputable journal or at least claimed by properly qualified experts, then it is probably worthless. Please spread this message as much as possible.


 * You need to present evidence for your 99% claim.


 * I am saying that your argument is a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance, it has (almost) nothing to do with atheism. --Cmonk (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

i have seen this a lot of times... instead of genuinely debating something... you just vaguely say that I am ignorant... I could literally create hundreds of talk pages on rational wiki... this seems like a place where liberels come to vent...Can you specifically pin point where have i shown ignorance of evolution? i am not blaming you for not knowing exact mechanisms of molecular biology... or not having all the answers... but my initial post would make any rational person reevaluate... you can change the name if you do not like specified complexity... however my point stands that such mechanisms are better explained as a result of INTELLIGENCE!!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Argument from ignorance (or incredulity; edit: my bad, the two are slightly different) doesn't mean that you are ignorant in general (I really wish you would read the links I give before commenting, do they not show properly on your device?). It means that you are claiming that you can't imagine a way for evolution to work, and then you conclude that evolution can't work, which is fallacious. There is no point debating a fallacious argument.


 * (edit) For instance, in the case of rhodanese, you said "The function of Rhodanese is no doubt intricate and detailed". This is a completely subjective assessment, how can you show that objectively? And then you said "it is also specified to cyanide". Show that. And then you still have to show that evolution couldn't possibly apply here (the whole idea of evolution is to explain how complexity arises naturally, so I really don't know what you are talking about).


 * I claim "we don't know yet", which is a perfectly valid scientific answer. You claim "it's impossible", which is a strong claim and requires strong evidence, and that is your responsibility. If you think you can do that properly, then you are welcome to try; just pick one example, because listing 100 examples of what you believe is impossible doesn't help at all. And in the end, you will still have to publish your work in a reputable peer-reviewed journal in order to benefit everyone. --Cmonk (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)