Debate:Specified complexity

This is a Debate Page, and it has gone pretty badly down the muddy slope.
This debate now resembles something halfway between a mud pit and a hell hole.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

some idiot decided to archive this mess, a large portion of text appears to be in there twice and some may have been inadvertently removed. Sorry! Christopher (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Bla bla bla, cyanide. Bla bla bla, specified complexity

TL;DR, I can't imagine how certain things could evolve, therefore God.

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.

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)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:

on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. 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 hypothesis, 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 hypothesis, 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.

—me about 10 minutes ago

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 <s>like this</s> 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:

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 the masses of evidence for it. 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:

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.
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.
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.
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)

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 Leslie Orgel'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 Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes, 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 Exaptation 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, and yet "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)

This is a Debate Page, and it has gone pretty badly down the muddy slope.
This debate now resembles something halfway between a mud pit and a hell hole.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

A really boring argument about cyanide