In another thread I said this:

Actually I agreed that a cloud shape is absolutely complex enough.  My point was that the shape could not be specified independently from the event prior to the actual stipulated occurance.  It was not detatchable in that we cannot say that we regularly observe clouds in the shape of countries. The marker for design requires complexity and specification but the cloud represents only complexity.

To which barney responded:


In the interest of maintaining the original context of the other thread, I answer this here.

As far as we know there are three modes of expanaition.  Two involve material mechanisms and include necessity driven by one or more of the physical laws and chance contingency based on random events.  A second type of contingency is purposeful and we call it design.  The question is can one detect the mode of causation by observing the characteristics of the item or event?  I claim you can by looking for clear markers for design.  One such marker is "Specified Complexity".

In the context of Specified Complexity, a specification is objectively defined in terms of a probability density of a region that includes the event or item in question and similar events that include a common definition that uniquely and directly identifies those events in that region but who's specification is detachable from the event itself.  I have described this to barney several times but he continues to pretend he hasn't received a definition.

In the cloud example, unless we tighten up the rejection region to include cloud shapes that precisely match the exact shape of Austria, we have no objective way of defining what is "Like Austria" and therefore no way to define the rejection region.  This problem arises because the specification can only be made in terms of the event itself because the specification is not detachable from the event.

So in this narrative, I have defined both design the process, and specification a potential attribute of the product of the process and have set them apart from each other.  

Barney's third point is that evolution is a process that mimics design is quite bold.  Experimental biology has confirmed that evolution is quite proficient at breaking and mixing up functional components, but it has utterly failed to generate even the first steps in generating any new multipart components.  There is no indication that evolutionary processes can generate even one new protein binding site and many theoretical reasons why it should not.

Yes, most uniquely identifiable organisms contain pathways, processes and components that are also unique.  The point of this discussion is to peer into empirical science to see if it can tell us how this is the case.  Evolutionary theory supposes that modification and natural selection accounts for these unique features.  If this is the case then we should be observing these processes in action in the process of accomplishing at least partial steps in this progression.  In addition we should be able to describe theoretically how these processes, when allowed to proceed after accounting for a theoretical maximum number of steps could possibly accomplish what the premise claims is accomplished.  The reality is that no material mechanism has ever been found that is capable of generating the kind of unique complex and specified systems that we observe when looking into biological systems.

What we find instead is that these processes do the opposite.  They break function and sometimes in the process of breaking function, they disrupt an otherwise effective attack strategy of a competitor that is applying selection pressure.  When the selection pressure is removed, the broken gene reverts back.

Thus the question of how these unique differences came into being is not answered by evolutionary processes. 


You are now changing the claim.  We clearly see a wide degree of diversity, that is not in question.  I don not claim that there is "nothing new", rather the reality is that by empirical studies (observation and experimentation) we find that evolution has not generated specified complexity, evolution has not generated steps toward specified complexity. and evolutionary processes seem to be missing a host of presumed but unobserved processes that might otherwise generate specified complexity.  In addition theoretical analysis from probability and information theory provide the basis to understand why evolutionary processes have failed.  Finally observation of design processes confirm that design can account for observed diversity.

tejtej, I did not intend to draw you into this discussion midway, and was not expecting that you would have an interest in this.  I am happy to explain the premise and will return later to do so.

Is human adaptive immune system complex enough?

The thing is, if complexity can be measured by some kind of probability, it would help if actual values for one complex and one not complex enough example from molecular biology would be provided.

I'm not a big fan of deterministic universe. Takes away the fun of living.

Numbers please.

While I agree that an objective measure of complexity would be a great thing, I think that so far all examples we discussed were the type of:

- not complex enough (say sickle cell anemia)
- to complex to be a result of chance event (flagellum)

Unless probability values are attached, this is a very subjective evaluation of how complex this examples are.

The argument is fundamentally silly. Complexity = God is a worthless explanation, as it quickly collapses in on itself due to using the trait to explain the trait under investigation while simultaneously having no evidence for the non-explanation in the first place.

If God must have done X because it's too complex to have arisen naturally, then the same applies also to God, since is equally complex if not more so. Therefore, he's a shitty rationale for the existence of all complexity in the first place. Of course, you will just use your special pleading to put God outside the scope of the problem, as theists always do.

You are also repeating the bogus nonsense about evolution not providing any evidence. Complete lie.