On 4/18/2010 7:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Let's consider that JHVH is the first mover, the effect with no cause,
> because He has been around forever and was never created.
>
> Now let's consider that JHVH created Man in His own image.
>
> Doesn't that discredit the Watchmaker's argument?
>
> I mean, if God modeled humans after God, then God has eyes, right? And
> if God has eyes (and all those other irreducibly complex systems) the
> God didn't create those systems.
>
> So doesn't
> 1) God has always existed
> 2) God made Man in his Image
> 3) Man has Irreducibly Complex Systems
> imply that irreducibly complex systems have always existed and didn't
> need to be designed?
>
>
Hmm. If you follow from your starting premise, maybe. The problem of 
course that (3) is in error anyway. You can *get* irreducible systems, 
without either needing them to be designed *or* previously existing. 
Basically, lets say that:

GTG did something specific and unique, and so did GTT, but you can have 
mutations, like GTGG, or GTTT, GTGT, or even GTTG, which work like their 
original versions. So, lets say 's' counts as a stop. What you do is 
start with GTTs, make a copy GTTsGTTs, then you mutate it a few 
different ways:
GTTsGTGs
GTTsGTTGs
GGTsGTTs

The last one of those copies is defective, but you still have a working 
copy anyway, and it allows for later getting: GTGTsGTTs But, the GTGs 
version would be "irreducible", once other related genes become 
dependent on that form, causing the GTGTs and GTGGs, etc. versions to 
"break" the system.

The trick here is, if you get several of these tweaks, which are 
inter-reliant, the *intermediary* versions may work with a larger number 
of variations and errors than the final version. At some point though, 
you are likely to run into dependency issues, where your GTGs, or 
variation **must** have that combination it in, to work with the other 
gene some place else, which underwent a similar change, and in the 
process produced new behaviors/functions.

Of thousands of genes involving body plan, segmentation, symmetry, limb 
formation, etc., all of them are derived from a relatives *small* number 
of codes. In some cases the codes are nearly identical for the gene 
that, say, makes fingers grow, but the transcription and developmental 
code is different, producing a new pattern of growth. Other cases "both" 
the transcription/development code *and* the control genes differ, but 
they are still identifiably variations on existing genes, that do 
similar things. Any irreducibility seems to come from a duplicate copy 
changing, and linking up with other changes, to produce a unique result, 
then undergoing subtractions, which fail to disable the new effect, but 
which render reversal to an earlier form impossible.

Given that, they neither could have previously existed, nor is adding a 
designer anything other than adding an unnecessary complication, unless 
you can present grounds to show that one is doing it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message