Posted on 03/08/2018 11:04:53 AM PST by fishtank
What’s “erroneous”?
I deduce from the article that "high speed stereo image processing and the myriad of cellular components underpinning the system" must be all working together or they wouldn't work at all as the article claims there are no precedents in other insects.
Perfectly reasonable assertion.
read post #37 for starters.
unlearner: "Bad example.
A modern horse is the product of artificial selection, aka selective breeding."
No, it was a perfectly good example which you chose to distort for reasons...?
That term "modern horse" could mean any horse, or even horse ancestor, in the past, say, million years.
You will not find any such horse, or any horse-like creature in the Jurassic period, circa 175 million years ago.
What you do find in mammals 175 million years ago are little critters like Juramaia:
Divinity has it’s perks huh?.....may I suggest you seek out the Aussie publication aptly named “Creationist” magazine.
But you just denounced “complex function” as being an issue.
All that “working together” arises from function of embryonic cell #1 - just like you do, and you’re a heckuva more complex function than a mantis.
Huh?
Dude, your cognitive dissonance is in overdrive. "Complexity" that results in a "function" IS the core issue.
All that “working together” arises from function of embryonic cell #1 - just like you do, and you’re a heckuva more complex function than a mantis.
"Embryonic cells" do not arise on their own, and are irreducibly complex in and of themselves, so again you're playing with the words and assuming what you're trying to prove.
papertyger: "And THAT is exactly the kind of rhetorical dodge that exemplifies the evolutionist position.
You know what the concept means.
Either explain HOW and WHY the concept is 'specious,' or give the proper 'scientific' term that defines an equivalent concept."
The fact is that "irreducible complexity" is not a scientific term, but rather one coined by anti-evolutionists hoping to discredit the theory.
It's the same kind of argument as the media crying, "Russia, Russia, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion" and then demanding that people prove to the media's satisfaction they're wrong.
And of course, the media will never be satisfied because they have no interest in being satisfied, only discrediting the administration.
And so with "irreducible complexity".
Any third grader can declare something "irreducibly complex" and use his inability to understand the explanation as "proof" he's right.
But all it really means is there's some pretty amazing stuff going on in biology, some of it not even our best minds can get around, and isn't it wonderful that God did not make it easy for us to figure out all his secrets?
Bottom line: "irreducible complexity" is a meaningless term because those who use it have no interest in accepting natural explanations for what we observe.
Thank you. Better put than I did.
“Irreducibly complex” isn’t a meaningful term, it’s invented to throw the discussion.
My point - which was ultimately accepted in a way intended to make me sound like an idiot - was that it’s not “irreducible” precisely because it DOES “reduce” to a relatively simple starting point (embryonic cell #1). Insofar as that’s “complex”, note that we just figured out that mantis 3D vision is a thing - we’re far from understanding something as simple as an embryo, so now is a good point to stop making authoritative condemnations regarding one’s understanding.
“...as the part of the image that is moving is the same, this is what the mantis zeroes in on—something humans can’t do.”
Actually, humans have very good neural processing when it comes to detecting motion. Not as good as most raptors, but still quite good.
“Interestingly, in the vast world of insects, the only creature to have stereo vision is the praying mantis. “
Not exactly true. Many insects, flies, for example, have overlapping fields of view which allows for some depth perception.
Again, not having found a common ancestor doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.
Here I always thought Juramaia was a bullfrog, as in the song ("Juramaia was a bullfrog, was a good friend of mine...").
“It is not my job to teach you science.
You didn’t teach anything. You asserted your opinion.
Sorry Joe. Your bulverism aside, “Irreducible Complexity” is a perfectly valid, non self contradictory, concept. The term (like “Bulverism) was coined by Michael Behe (an evolutionist, by the way) of Lehigh University to describe a concept that was not previously acknowledged or catalogued, that being a functioning mechanism whose constituent parts must be arranged in a specific order for that function to manifest. Further, that nothing inherent to those constituent part require them to be arranged in the functioning mechanism as opposed to a non functioning order.
That the term dovetail nicely with Dembski’s “Intelligent Design” theory is only reinforces the strength of a thesis whose critics chief tactic has been studied ignorance.
Moreover, how is our “third grader” better served by “some pretty amazing stuff going on” than an effort to describe objective reality?
Please see my refutation of the “better” explanation, down-thread.
Excuse me. Post #53...
Also, “sound like an idiot” is your doing, no one else’s. You don’t know how irreducible complexity is defined, nor does your attempt to salvage what has already been soundly refuted help matters.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Bottom line: "irreducible complexity" is a meaningless term because those who use it have no interest in accepting natural explanations for what we observe.
What the HELL does the intention of a user have to do with the validity of a term he uses? If the term, and the concept it describes, doesn't violate the law of non contradiction, regardless of whether or not it's being used properly the term is perfectly valid.
Calling a term "meaningless" for the reasons you do is nothing but petulance masquerading as sobriety.
My God, are you people so truly conceited as to believe you somehow honor God by siding with those espousing an inherently materialistic reality?
Eyes in front of the head usually means a predator...compare shark vs. flounder, eagle vs. robin, tiger vs. rabbit.
The compound eyes of the bee come to mind as well.
What I'm not is so cluelessly arrogant as to attempt to constrain God's methods and motives to fit some desperate human theistic construct.
Because at the end of the day, no one alive has the slightest clue, apart from the senses and reason with which He/She/It has equipped us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.