Debate:Specified complexity/Archive1

Hi, I can't begin to elaborate how many things you have misrepresented here. However, today I will be talking about the concept proposed by William Dembski: Specified complexity. The concept of specified complexity is COMPLETELY misrepresented here. I hope that you will either change the information here, or at least tell me where you SPECIFICALLY disagree with me. Rather an unpleasant way for an introduction... but I will try to define specified complexity correctly... Here I go.

SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY In this context the word complex refers to OBSERVABLE biological functions which are intricate and detailed. Specified refers to a SPECIFIC role it seems to have. In other words specified to a certain situation. Allow me to bring an example. Think of sexual arousal. The response to sexual stimuli involves number of changes that come with the anticipation of sex. Physical changes that are visible and also many psychological factors. The Human sexual response cycle involves the brain interpreting a stimuli and the phases of human sexual response cycle. These changes, involving multiple systems working together would no doubt be classified as complex (intricate and detailed), at the same time they are SPECIFIED to sexual reproduction.

Another example would be enzyme Rhodanese. It is a mitochondrial enzyme that detoxifies cyanide (CN−) by converting it to thiocyanate (SCN−). This is the body's chief defense mechanism against cyanide. In fact, any known treatment of cyanide poisoning comes from the effect of this enzyme. Without this enzyme even the smallest amount of cyanide (cigarette smoke, certain fruit seeds etc.) could have been easily lethal! The function of Rhodanese is no doubt intricate and detailed... However, it is also specified to cyanide. On an unrelated note, I will raise another point about Rhodanese. Without the existence of Rhodanese even the slightest contact with cyanide would no doubt be lethal to any living thing. Rhodanese could not have developed by adaption over time, since adaption would require chronic exposure to cyanide over population. But even the SLIGHTEST contact (let alone chronic) with cyanide would have resulted in histotoxic hypoxia.

Another example would be the sense of balance. Sense of balance or equilibrioception is one of the physiological senses related to balance. It helps prevent humans and animals from falling over when standing or moving. Balance is the result of a number of body systems working together: the eyes (visual system), ears (vestibular system) and the body's sense of where it is in space (proprioception) ideally need to be intact. The vestibular system, the region of the inner ear where three semicircular canals converge, works with the visual system to keep objects in focus when the head is moving. This is called the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). The balance system works with the visual and skeletal systems (the muscles and joints and their sensors) to maintain orientation or balance. Visual signals sent to the brain about the body's position in relation to its surroundings are processed by the brain and compared to information from the vestibular, visual and skeletal systems. No doubt this would classifed as complex (intricate and detailed), but it is also SPECIFIED to our NEED of equilibrium.

Another example would be blood clotting or coagulation. The mechanism of coagulation involves activation, adhesion, and aggregation of platelets along with deposition and maturation of fibrin. No doubt this would also, after OBSERVATION, be classified as complex (inricate and detailed)... but again it is also SPECIFIED to the cessation of blood loss from a damaged vessel.

Another example would be the corneal reflex. The corneal reflex, also known as the blink reflex, is an involuntary blinking of the eyelids elicited by stimulation of the cornea (such as by touching or by a foreign body), though could result from any peripheral stimulus. Stimulation should elicit both a direct and consensual response (response of the opposite eye). The reflex occurs at a rapid rate of 0.1 seconds. The purpose of this reflex is to protect the eyes from foreign bodies and bright lights (the latter known as the optical reflex). The blink reflex also occurs when sounds greater than 40-60 dB are made. The reflex is mediated by: the nasociliary branch of the ophthalmic branch (V1) of the 5th cranial nerve (trigeminal nerve) sensing the stimulus on the cornea, lid, or conjunctiva (i.e., it is the afferent). the temporal and zygomatic branches of the 7th cranial nerve (Facial nerve) initiating the motor response (i.e., it is the efferent). the centre (nucleus) in the pons of brain stem. No doubt this would also be called complex, but it is also SPECIFIED to eye defense.

Another example would be the feeling of pain. No doubt the brain cortex, involved in the feeling of pain, and the physical responses would be considered intricate and detailed. But pain also motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future. It is also specified to protecting yourself from damage.

Evolution in the most trivial sense of changes of heritable traits over time, and the concept of natural selection are observable. These small changes do occur. And nobody disagrees here. The problem comes when we move on to Universal common descent. The mechanism of common descent would require the explanation of specified complexity. And the example of such changes. If we say that the wolf and a dog could have had a common ancestor, this would be a logical claim consistent with THIS defintion of evolution... Since the changes are EXACTLY what would be anticipated from such a process. The changes from an ape like creature to homo sapiens requires a mechanism that would be able to explain more complex changes that are also SPECIFIED. I come up with only two options... Either there is a naturalistic mechanism other than just natural selection, which we do not know, and holds the key to such OBSERVABLE phenomena. Or there is intelligence behind this. I am anticipating a response. Farewell --Kingdamian1(talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Christopher (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You say "I can't begin to elaborate how many things you've misrepresented here" could you provide an example? If we're currently presenting a straw man of William Dembski's pseudoscientific idea it should be corrected as soon as possible. Then we can debunk what he actually said. Christopher (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * your explanation of specified complexity is flawed. I have given the correct definition. --Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't it called irreducible complexity? Or is it similar to intelligent design/creationism? Christopher (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake they're apparently different things. Christopher (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * after reading my arguments... Either edit the information... or tell me where I'm wrong--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are we wrong? How is our definition different from yours? Christopher (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You claim it is pseudo scientific... Whereas I gave real life examples and demonstrations... You claim that such complexity can be explained by Darwinian, naturalistic approach... Whereas I explain why it can't... Additionally... you represent specified complexity as us not understanding something and using this to our advantage... WHICH IS DEMONSTRABLY WRONG... I get the impression you did not read my initial argument completely.--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Having actually read through the page we don't appear to have a very clear definition.
 * Could you provide citations for the cyanide bit (as in citations for all of your claims, not just the existence of Rhodanese)? (Mainstream scientific ones, not AiG or other creationist organisations because I can't trust that they aren't making the whole thing up). Christopher (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The argument of Rhodanese IS NOT FROM ANY CREATIONIST WEBSITE... I don't understand what you want me to provide... You want a wikipedia page for Rhodanese?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I want citations for everything you say, I'm not going to put in any effort to fact check a creationist. Christopher (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Google Rhodanese... Google cyanide poisoning... Read both pages in WIKIPEDIA... Get back to me!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not do my own research, provide citations for everything you say that isn't common knowledge. Christopher (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, could you qualify "tiniest amount" in terms of mass (with citations of course)? Christopher (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by provide citations... The rhodanese bit is COPY PASTED from wikipedia... Since you are UNWILLING to check... you will have to take my word for it--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking your word for anything, provide bloody citations! It's not hard. Also don't cite Wikipedia, cite what Wikipedia cites, anyone can edit it. Christopher (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cites.... Anseeuw, K; Delvau, N; Burillo-Putze, G; De Iaco, F; Geldner, G; Holmström, P; Lambert, Y; Sabbe, M (February 2013). "Cyanide poisoning by fire smoke inhalation: a European expert consensus.". European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. 20 (1): 2–9. doi:10.1097/mej.0b013e328357170b. PMID 22828651........... as a source that in an ADULT with the presence of rhodanese... Levels of 0.5–1 mg/L is already considered mild poisoning... I REPEAT this is in an ADULT (not a small life form)... WITH THE PRESENCE OF RHODANESE (the lethal does WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY lower had such defense mechanism not been active)--Kingdamian1 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now we're getting somewhere! Now you can explain how this disproves common descent/"macroevolution". Christopher (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Attention Kingdamian1, as the top of this page says, "Please keep it civil!" As one of the site moderators (of Rationalwiki, not of this debate), I would appreciate it if you would refrain from implicit ad hominem attacks, i.e. "I REPEAT this is in an ADULT (not a small life form)". Bongolian (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyanide is a cellular toxin... Any exposure to cyanide, prior to rhodanese would have been INVARIABLY lethal! Hence, rhodanese must have evolved WITHOUT prior chronic exposure to cyanide... How does this, SPECIFIED COMPLEX function fit into a naturalistic view?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bongolian, how's that an ad hominem? Christopher (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I interpret that him as calling his opponent (you) a child. Maybe he meant something else though. Bongolian (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read the context it's clear he's saying "for an adult it takes X amount of cyanide to kill them, imagine how little it would take to kill some tiny microorganism". Christopher (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clarifying. Bongolian (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The citation you provided didn't say that any exposure to cyanide prior to rhodanese development would be lethal in small organisms. Also, rhodanese could have evolved with another "function" other than preventing cyanide poisoning. Christopher (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing means that Rhodanese just HAPPENED TO BE useful against cyanide... This is not science... This is an assumption made to defend a belief in Darwinism!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) that only addressed part of what I said, the other was your lack of a citation. 2) it's called a, you may say there's no evidence that rhodanese has any other functions and to my (very limited) knowledge you'd be correct. However, you still haven't provided any evidence that the solutions to the supposed problems with evolution are to replace it with your God. Christopher (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided many examples... if you do not have much understanding in cyanide posioning... why did you jump on this... you could have easily disputed other example... In the end i provided to explanations for such functions... Either intelligence... or an unknown mechanism OTHER THAN just natural selection!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really know why I started on the cyanide example but don't change the subject. Respond to my last comment. Christopher (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... I do not believe in common descent to start with... However... you could make an argument that these changes were directed by INTELLIGENCE (not an unguided process)!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Respond to my last comment. Christopher (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did... Specified complexity cannot be attributed to chance... AT LEAST you would have to provide examples... I cannot think of any other answer than intelligence in the case of such specified complexity... you are welcome to give an alternate explanation... however, keep in mind, that if it is a NATURALISTIC explanation... you would have to provide an example!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are changing the subject (perhaps not on purpose) you haven't yet responded to this comment. It's not anything special, I just don't like it when people change the subject. Christopher (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Which one? Can u ask again?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's why you weren't answering me. I'll copy paste my exact words: 1) that only addressed part of what I said, the other was your lack of a citation. 2) it's called a, you may say there's no evidence that rhodanese has any other functions and to my (very limited) knowledge you'd be correct. However, you still haven't provided any evidence that the solutions to the supposed problems with evolution are to replace it with your God.
 * could you respond to that? I hate it when the subject is changed halfway through a debate. Christopher (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you said that you have a limited knowledge in cyanide poisoning... I thought there was no reason for me to press you... I will need to explain the basics... Cyanide binds itself to cytochrome oxydase c... it is a large transmembrane protein complex found in bacteria and the mitochondrion of eukaryotes.
 * It is the last enzyme in the respiratory electron transport chain of mitochondria (or bacteria) located in the mitochondrial (or bacterial) membrane. It receives an electron from each of four cytochrome c molecules, and transfers them to one oxygen molecule, converting molecular oxygen to two molecules of water. In the process, it binds four protons from the inner aqueous phase to make water, and in addition translocates four protons across the membrane, helping to establish a transmembrane difference of proton electrochemical potential that the ATP synthase then uses to synthesize ATP... Cyanide binds itself to this enzyme... Thus preventing cellular respiration... This results in histotoxic hypoxia... EVEN thought the person is breathing... the oxygen is not being distributed... The lethal dose, as with ANY TOXIN... depends on the body mass... To put it into perspective... about 50 bitter almonds (not the ones you eat!) would be enough to produce a lethal dose in an ADULT... it would be about 7 in an infant... 3 in a small dog... The poisoning occurs WHEN rhodanese is OVERLOADED... of we suppose that rhodanese didn't exist... Poisoning would occur with the smallest amounts!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Could you respond to that comment now? All of it? I'm determined not to let the subject be changed. Christopher (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are doing... This debate was about something else than cyanide poisoning... Any medical encyclopedia would confirm my explanation of cyanide poisoning mechanism... What I am trying to say is that common descent would require an explanation for such things... like I put it... You people are giving the most trivial explanation of evolution.... WHICH I AGREE WITH... and then move us to common descent... You would have to provide an explanation for SUCH SPECIFIED functions... If you check the sense of balance example... it requires different functions working together and being compared by brain to give a sense of equilibrium... How do these sort of specified complexities fit into a Darwinian context? P.S I have given a thorough explanation of cyanide poisoning... Please, stay on what the subject of the debate was in the first place! --Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am attempting to address one of your points, you're trying to move onto one of your other points. We'll get into the balance thing in a minute. If you really don't want to talk about your cyanide example, cross it out like this which produces this and that'll be taken to mean you conceded that the cyanide thing isn't evidence against common descent. Either do that or answer my comment. Christopher (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the mechanism of cyanide poisoning. I'm disputing that the mechanism of cyanide poisoning is evidence against common descent. (Just to clarify as one of your comments implied I was disputing said mechanism). Christopher (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not know how much it is evidence against common descent... It is an argument against a naturalistic view. Against an unguided process being responsible...I personally do not believe in common descent... There are people who do believe that such a process was GUIDED... The argument is AGAINST No intelligence being present... Which one of your questions was not adressed?--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've provided multiple links to it and copy pasted the text when you previously asked which one I meant but I'll do it again. I mean this comment:


 * 1) that only addressed part of what I said, the other was your lack of a citation. 2) it's called a, you may say there's no evidence that rhodanese has any other functions and to my (very limited) knowledge you'd be correct. However, you still haven't provided any evidence that the solutions to the supposed problems with evolution are to replace it with your God.


 * You changed the subject (quite possibly without realising it) when I first said this. Now you have a chance to address this comment. All of it please. Thanks. Christopher (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have explained the mechanism of action of rhodanese... I have shown the mechanism of action of cyanide poisoning... I have shown the tiny amount it takes for poisoning with rhodanese being present in an adult... Without ANY DEFENSE mechanism in a smaller life form smallest amount of cyanide would be lethal... What do I fail to show???? This mechanism is better explained as a result of INTELLIGENCE, because a random process is unlikely to have developed an enzyme whose function is to defend us against a VERY LETHAL poison without prior exposure...--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've given up on trying to get you to answer that comment. What you've failed to show is that one poorly cited example disproves common descent when compared with . I provided a solution to your problem, rhodanese could've originally developed for a purpose other than cyanide poisoning prevention. Christopher (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You still haven't cited anything, the one citation you did provide didn't seem to support many of your claims. Christopher (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)!

I do not agree that there is masses of evidence for common descent... That being said.... Rhodanese DOES NOT DISPROVE COMMON descent per se... It disproves the idea of NO INTELLIGENCE.--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's loads of evidence, click on the link.
 * I'll try and sum up your basic argument, feel free to correct me if I misrepresent your position.
 * Your argument is that cyanide without rhodanese would be deadly in small amounts, as it would be deadly in small amounts any creature who was exposed to it pre rhodanese would die. Because they'd die, they wouldn't have a chance to evolve the resistance to cyanide without devine intervention. Quite badly put but am I mostly correct? Before I attempt to refute this I'll check with you that I'm not misrepresenting your position.
 * I'm doing this because this debate is getting really long. Christopher (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The argument is correct... I would love to hear your refutation... THAT BEING said... i didnt ask u to refute my points... but i would love to hear them!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to sign! Christopher (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Devine intervention is a mockery on your part... Without an intelligent GUIDE... as opposed to a random process!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a number of things wrong with this argument:


 * 1) Against the mountain of evidence for evolution (which I suspect you'll deny) it's a tiny potentially unexplained piece of evidence that doesn't warrant changing the theory.
 * 2) Even if it was unexplainable (I have a potential explanation that's a bit vague, I freely admit it isn't very good as I'm not a scientist). The fact that something is unexplainable does not mean it was done by god. If you want to say it was done by god then fine, make a testable prediction based on your devine intervention hypothesis. If you can't make a testable prediction your idea is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
 * 3) Here's my rather vague rubbish explanation: rhodanese initially developed for some other function (I'm not a biochemist so I won't suggest what) then had the side effect of preventing cyanide poisoning.
 * 4) Why couldn't one mutation have led to rhodanese production, the organism reproducing and slightly less of it's offspring die because there's one less method of death?

Sorry if any of this is unclear, if it just tell me. Christopher (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * God, I can't tell what I mean so I doubt you'll be able to. Christopher (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

NONE OF WHAT you are saying makes ANY SENSE in medicince, anatomy or biology... SUCH IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS CANNOT develop by chance as a biproduct of something else somewhere... THIS IS NOT SCIENCE... this is an assumption made to defend a naturalistic, darwinistic concept... You are free to believe it... Don't tell me it is supported by science... I DO NOT BLAME YOU for a limited knowledge in cyanide poisoning... And i have tried to leave this subject... But you are persistent--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Rhodanese serves a VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTION... You are exposed to small amounts of cyanide... potentially, on regular basis... Fruit seeds, cigarette smoke etc. all contain cyanide... Rhodanese is VITAL... SUCH FUNCTIONS CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY A RANDOM unguided process!!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This argument is NOT AGAINST common descent... YOU COULD argue that common descent was guided by either an unknown mechanism other than just natural selection... or intelligence!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with common descent... but that is an argument for another day. Today... we focus on an unguided process vs intelligence!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Where's the evidence it was done through devine intervention? What testable predictions does your hypothesis make? Christopher (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)