Complexity, yes. Programmed, no. What objective method do you have for distinguishing programmed complexity from plain ordinary complexity? There are many known mechanisms for increasing plain ordinary complexity in DNA.With programmed complexity built right in, primordial, there in the beginning.
“All they’re really saying when you get right down to it is that metazoan ancestor had to have the capacity to generate diverse cell types later in its evolution, which is kind of obvious. They’re also arguing that the ancestral metazoan could not have been as locked in and limited in its repertoire of functions as a choanocyte in an extant sponge, which, again, is a given. What is not obvious is that the ancestor had to have been archaeocyte-like in form and function.”That is evolution, buffalo. Not ID, not IDvolution, not devolution. Evolution.
Not quite. There is the capacity to develop more, and different, complexity in future. You have not yet told us how to distinguish programmed complexity from ordinary complexity.Yes, the complexity is there and the programming is there.
Yeah quite.Not quite. There is the capacity to develop more, and different, complexity in future. You have not yet told us how to distinguish programmed complexity from ordinary complexity.
NOT A FIGMENTYou still haven’t stated which private revelation you read this nonsense about aliens.
This is not irreducible complexity at all. As defined by Michael Behe, the man who coined the term:
I appreciate the quote, my only information about ID coming from the links and information posted in this thread.Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.
I can’t say there is much that I would consider to be irreducibly complex, since the overall complexity of living forms can take many shapes and sizes, while remaining true to what it is. Maybe the context of the quote, which I am too lazy to pursue, might clarify what he meant.
I would use the term in a different sense, meaning that the complexity of a living system is not reducible to its constituent parts. The level of order of the overall system is its soul, which utilizes the material components of which it is constructed, to express the kind of being it is. Let’s take ourselves for example; my way of using such a term would be to indicate that as a person, we can lose pretty much everything that we are physically and psychologically, and still remain human. In terms of the subject at hand, stem cells, considering the fertilized human egg as the ultimate example, it exists as a person at the point of its conception.
With regards to evolution, if it becomes clearer that diverse species originated from a pluripotential organism, the really difficult, if not impossible question the theory of evolution has to address is how that organism came to be.
The ultimate Source is God, who brought life forth in steps, utilizing what had been earlier created as the physical universe: light, then atoms, then cells, then multicellular organisms, and finally beings with eternal souls, capable of knowing their Maker, capable of love.
I don’t think that God being God, did this through common ancestry. There is no need for this. Even what I would consider a remote possibility were how different kinds of life came to be, the fact is that with each step up the hierarchy of being, from atoms to we ourselves, a new set of relational capacities, types of souls, if you will, had to be created. And, the physical aspect of these successively more complex creatures, could not have simply morphed in accordance with the random activity of events following the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry. Additionally, survival is the shadow of what actually we see in nature, where everything has its place, depending on and transforming the common environment that includes all organisms.
Exactly. …With regards to evolution, if it becomes clearer that diverse species originated from a pluripotential organism, the really difficult, if not impossible question the theory of evolution has to address is how that organism came to be.
That’s the first time going to that site. I couldn’t remember exactly what Our Lady said about UFOs, but I know she did ,and a google search came up with that site.I’m sorry, @Techno2000 but that’s the most obvious conspiracy theory website I’ve seen in weeks! Do you really read and believe that site?
You’d be so much better off reading reliable Catholic science websites and truly educating yourself. You’re smarter than that!
Behe was referring to systems with multiple parts, like flagella on bacterium, that require all the parts in order to function. His idea was that since all the parts are required at once for the system to function, you couldn’t have a gradual development of parts through random mutation, as no smaller combination of parts would provide a survival advantage and would in fact be a waste of cellular resources leading to a disadvantage. This notion is horribly flawed for a number of reasons, and has been scientifically demonstrated to have no basis in the very flagella example he originally used, but that’s the basis for “intelligent design” as a scientifically observable fact.I can’t say there is much that I would consider to be irreducibly complex, since the overall complexity of living forms can take many shapes and sizes, while remaining true to what it is. Maybe the context of the quote, which I am too lazy to pursue, might clarify what he meant.
A theory of evolution doesn’t really have to answer this question, and indeed science doesn’t really answer questions but rather eliminates answers. I see no reason to say that, on a material level, an accumulation of vast amounts of genetic material wouldn’t eventually lead to the kind of pluripotency we see in stem cells. With a big enough “toolbox” of genetic material a flexible stem-cell could become darn near anything, with clusters of such cells assisting each other and eventually leading to organ systems as we understand them; survival would favor groups of such cells that specialized and assisted eachother, and thus this tendency towards mutual dependency would continue to develop in a myriad of ways, from colonies of single-celled organisms to multi-cellular single organisms.With regards to evolution, if it becomes clearer that diverse species originated from a pluripotential organism, the really difficult, if not impossible question the theory of evolution has to address is how that organism came to be.
Common ancestry isn’t necessary for God, but it is evident in our observation of living things. We didn’t come up with it to explain a weakness in God’s power, but rather we’ve observed it and developed theories for how it works. God doesn’t “need” gravity to keep matter together, either, but we observe it and attempt to understand how it works.I don’t think that God being God, did this through common ancestry. There is no need for this. Even what I would consider a remote possibility were how different kinds of life came to be, the fact is that with each step up the hierarchy of being, from atoms to we ourselves, a new set of relational capacities, types of souls, if you will, had to be created.
Since you are making a statement of fact, that it has been scientifically proven that a half built flagellum has some functionality, I’m going to need a reference in order to judge for myself. You can be sure I’ll give you my feedback, so as to not to waste your time.This notion is horribly flawed for a number of reasons, and has been scientifically demonstrated to have no basis in the very flagella example he originally used, but that’s the basis for “intelligent design” as a scientifically observable fact.
Naturally that is what is needed. Now you should demonstrate where this has happened randomly. Of course, if the genetic material is useful to intracellular processes, such that there exists a viable cell, capable of utilizing and contributing to its environment, it will survive, and given that a significant aspect of those highly specialized and synchronized processes allow for reproduction of very, very similar offspring, then we will find more of its kind. It is easy in the generalization to underestimate how totally involved all this is. I don’t think it would be an exaggeration to say that it involves as much stuff going on as everything we find in a typical city.In the case of a stem-cell like being, all that is really required is an accumulation of genetic information over successive generations, and for this genetic information to be utilized randomly by the cells with some expressions being beneficial and others being detrimental.
If someone out there thinks it important that I give it any sort of credence, then it does. Obviously, I took it on belief that it was true for some sixty years; most people do and couldn’t care less if I do or don’t. It is the modern creation myth, weaving into it both true science and all sorts of science fiction, while supporting modern mores.A theory of evolution doesn’t really have to answer this question
Common ancestry is seen in lines of different kinds of living beings; for example, human beings beget human beings. This happened once they were created.Common ancestry isn’t necessary for God, but it is evident in our observation of living things.
That’s an interpretation of the fact that the soul and the body are one. We are a similar unity, but our soul is spiritual, grounded in the now of eternity, with a free will and the capacity to know. Animals have an instinctive soul, that we share in our perceptions, emotions and bodily reactions. A more complex relationality such as vision does require an intact nervous system, but to say it is emergent from the myriad of chemical reactions that are taking place is ultimately saying nothing. Give me the process whereby the musical scale is different than a rainbow.the souls of things up to the level of non-rational animals are actually emergent properties of matter itself,
It isn’t necessary to demonstrate where this has happened randomly, only that it could happen randomly, just as we can’t demonstrate that gravity (as opposed to angels) is the reason that planets keep in their orbits around the sun. Scientific theories don’t rise and fall by proving exactly how this or that happens, but by explaining how all observable data can be accounted for in the most basic and comprehensive manner. It isn’t possible to go back in time and show that the primordial stem-cell, or whatever the actual progenitor of animal life was, developed through random accumulation of genetic material. If, however, random accumulation of genetic material can account for such development then there is no reason to insert God into the equation on a material level, just as there is no need to assume that angels keep the planets on their courses.Naturally that is what is needed. Now you should demonstrate where this has happened randomly.
Your personal incredulity doesn’t really matter. This is the “Argument from Incredulity” logical fallacy at play.If someone out there thinks it important that I give it any sort of credence, then it does.
I honestly don’t understand what you’re getting at here. I am talking about Aquinas’ account of the material soul. Animal souls are operations of their bodies, but rational souls have operations that are not part of the body and can therefore be known to be spiritual and subsistent. In theological terms, God’s special intervention in material processes is not required to explain animal life, but it is required to explain how a spiritual soul comes to be the form of a material body. This can be seen in Genesis where God tells the Earth to bring forth lower life forms, but personally breathes life into Adam.A more complex relationality such as vision does require an intact nervous system, but to say it is emergent from the myriad of chemical reactions that are taking place is ultimately saying nothing. Give me the process whereby the musical scale is different than a rainbow.
My favorite explanation of the evolution of the flagella is by Dr. Kenneth Miller, a Catholic PhD. Here is his explanation…Since you are making a statement of fact, that it has been scientifically proven that a half built flagellum has some functionality, I’m going to need a reference in order to judge for myself. You can be sure I’ll give you my feedback, so as to not to waste your time.
I assume there is only one Our Lady of the Roses and her revelations are nonsense. Here is a good little summary from EWTN.NOT A FIGMENT
"In this final battle, there are many agents of hell loosed upon earth. They are traveling in transports. Do not be won over to a false theory of life beyond the heavens, other than the Kingdom of God. Know that it is satan who sends these vehicles before you. They are to confuse and confound you. These objects that take flight across your earth are from hell. They are only the false miracles of your times.
“Recognize them, My children; they are not a figment of man’s imagination. They are present in your atmosphere, and they will become more dominant as the fight goes on for the souls.” - Our Lady of the Roses, December 24, 1973
https://www.tldm.org/Directives/d45.htm
Objects move in time and space in accordance with specific relationships that we have been able to elucidate. Gravity is the name for what we observe. The matter as to the cause of those events is unresolved by simply giving them a name. To say that gravity is the reason that planets keep in their orbits around the sun is to say that they keep their orbits around the sun because they keep their orbits around the sun and that this is the same thing as what keeps our feet planted on the ground. Actually, I do believe that angels move the planets, because without them there would be no planets, no time, no space, no mass, they being the means by which what we conceptualize as the laws of nature, are brought into existence from what would otherwise be nothing.It isn’t necessary to demonstrate where this has happened randomly, only that it could happen randomly, just as we can’t demonstrate that gravity (as opposed to angels) is the reason that planets keep in their orbits around the sun.
Reason and knowledge of how matter actually works, tells us it is impossible.It isn’t possible to go back in time and show that the primordial stem-cell, or whatever the actual progenitor of animal life was, developed through random accumulation of genetic material.
I don’t know why you are here. I am to grow in understanding. My personal incedulity is of supreme importance to my relationship with the truth.Your personal incredulity doesn’t really matter. This is the “Argument from Incredulity” logical fallacy at play.
We are made of dust just as are all living creatures. What distinguishes us from them is the relational quality that includes free will and the capacity to know God. Everything else is hardwired. Aquinas did not have the knowledge we have today about the workings of nature, but he did talk about a vegetative and animal soul, which we also possess in addition to our spiritual soul.I honestly don’t understand what you’re getting at here.
Gravity is a theory, or rather part of a theory, that explains our observations and hasn’t yet been disproven. The point is that science doesn’t “prove” things in a manner where we can say “this is certainly true”, rather it allows us to formulate theories that explain observable phenomena. With science we can’t say “this occurs because of that”, but we can say “this theory is sufficient to explain that, and it isn’t contradicted by other available data”.Objects move in time and space in accordance with specific relationships that we have been able to elucidate. Gravity is the name for what we observe.
That is fine, but your ideas are not scientific and are not even philosophically required to explain the existence and movement of material objects. God’s Power alone is sufficient, so the angels as intermediaries are superfluous and not supported through science or reason.Actually, I do believe that angels move the planets, because without them there would be no planets, no time, no space, no mass, they being the means by which what we conceptualize as the laws of nature, are brought into existence from what would otherwise be nothing.
You are free to explore ideas and grow in understanding, but your lack of understanding has no bearing on the Truth, and it certainly doesn’t disprove scientific theories.I don’t know why you are here. I am to grow in understanding. My personal incedulity is of supreme importance to my relationship with the truth.
He most certainly did not believe that we humans possess vegetative and animal souls in addition to our spiritual souls, and neither does the Church. We have a rational soul that also possesses the functions of material souls without being material itself; we are not composites of multiple souls and a body, but one soul and one body.Aquinas did not have the knowledge we have today about the workings of nature, but he did talk about a vegetative and animal soul, which we also possess in addition to our spiritual soul.
Peace and God bless!We conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation, and this soul is at the same time sensitive and nutritive, the pre-existing forms being corrupted.
Would you expand on that statement? Is it because he doesn’t agree with you? Is it because you question his PhD? Is it because he’s Catholic? A blanket statement isn’t much to discuss nor is it helpful. Thank you.I don’t find Ken Miller to be credible.