RE: Direction in evolution, from Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

My origional point in this was that Irreducible Complexity (IC) assumes purpose and therefore is circular reasoning. The question at issue in ID is whether complex biological structures like the eye, flegellum etc. evolved through natural processes or are the result of intelligent design. In support of the assertion of design, the irreducible complexity (IC) argument has been used. The mousetrap has been offered as an example of IC. Because it will not function if one of it's parts is removed, intermediate stages will not be funcional and therefore offer no selective advantage. But this assumes that the mousetrap HAS a purpose: catching mice. The evolutionist's contention is that what appears to be purpose is actually adaptation and is produced by natural process. Ultimate metaphysical purpose is beyond the scope of science. But when a complex biological structure performs a task that it seems very well suited to, it is the very question at issue whether this is adaptation on the one hand, or design for a purpose on the other. So to assume purpose is circular reasoning. It may be that the specific examples given in the past that were allegedly examples of IC (eye, flagellum, blood clotting etc.) don't hold up to scrutiny. But I think the IC argument in general is weak because of the assumption of purpose.
Brent

---- "Alexanian wrote:

=============
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This apocryphal story relates to Isaac Newton's supposed belief in design. Isaac Newton engaged in frequent discussions on the subject of God and design with friends. One atheistic friend disputed the evidence of design in reality.
The story goes that Sir Isaac then built a clockwork model of the Solar System, including all the planets and moons that were known at the time. The moons revolved around the planets and they all in turn revolved around the Sun, while each individual orb turned on its axis. "How were you able to construct such an ingenious device?" asked the friend when he saw it. "I just tossed the pieces at random into a corner, and they accidentally assembled themselves into this model," Newton replied. "That's absurdly impossible," protested the other. "A lot less absurd," countered Sir Isaac, "than your belief that such was the origin of the real Solar System, of which this toy is but a much simplified model."
Though widely cited today, there is little evidence to show the incident ever happened.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Parable_of_the_Solar_System_Model"

From: Gregory Arago
Sent: Tue 4/4/2006 5:27 PM
To: David Opderbeck; Bill Hamilton
Cc: Brent Foster; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Direction in evolution, from Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

The mousetrap analogy is just that, an analogy. It isn't 'real' science and fails (against the ID case) to distinguish between human-made and non-human-made things. Likewise, only for this reason does Dr. Behe continue to re-speak using his Mt. Rushmore example.

Mouse traps are 'designed,' 'concocted,' 'engineered,' 'constructed,' 'created,' 'built,' 'fabricated,' 'made' or what have you...by persons. Biological things, however, are not. (Let's leave the bio-tech issue aside for the moment.)

Yes, I think Bill is "stretching things by saying this is evolution." There have been 'changes' in animal traps and there are certainly 'trial and error' methods employed across the map (even in humanitarian sciences). But calling this example 'evolution,' which continually invokes 'random mutation' (I see little randomness or mutation in trying to catch an animal to eat) or 'natural selection' (this is clearly an example of 'human selection,' if we are not to reduce human beings to merely 'naturalistic determinism') is fallacious. Granted that evolutionary theory is more than it's two most celebrated 'mechanisms' - but please we shouldn't dodge them - then at least biological evolution and (computer) engineering evolution should be properly distinguished.

This (almost) mantra - "Write a simple program and evolve it" - is quite an astonishing thing to me. People choosing to 'evolve' programs?

Regards,

G. Arago

p.s. just (within the last few minutes) had someone try to convince me Amway 'has a great system of making money' - do people 'evolve' into being Amway millionaires?

David Opderbeck wrote:
Without getting into a heated debated about the mousetrap analogy -- Bill, I don't think this answers it, since you're assuming an intelligence that arranges the parts of the trap to work a certain way. I don't think the mousetrap analogy is designed to argue that engineered designs never progress through stages of engineering.

On 4/3/06, Bill Hamilton wrote:
The mousetrap isn't even a good example of something that could not have evolved. Imagine a cave man who comes on an animal which has been killed by a falling tree. After enjoying a good meal, he realizes that he can arrange a log to fall on an animal, so he rigs a log with a vine rope and he stands ready to pull the rope, causing the log to fall on an animal walking under the log. Eventually he (or someone else) realizes he can use bait to cause the animal -- in the process of trying to get the bait -- to trip the dead fall. Fast forward a few thousand years and you get a bunch of derived devices: bear traps, mouse traps, etc. Am I stretching things by saying this is evolution? Maybe, but the trap has moved from a primitive dead fall to a spring-loaded modern trap by a number of stages, by trial and error. And all the intermediate stages, though they are missing some of the features of the modern trap, are functional.

Have a question? Yahoo! Canada Answers. Go to Yahoo! Canada Answers
Received on Tue, 4 Apr 2006 15:44:13 -0700