Design evidence # 111: The heart

Your entire argument here is basically 'Irreduceable
Complexity'.Just because you cannot imagine an evolutionary
route to the human heart does not mean there isn't
one. It doesn't mean there is either, I might add,
just that of itself it is no argument either way.The use of the word 'design' in the quoted text is not
(I would suggest) intended to convey 'design'. It is a
turn of phrase.Question:: Can evolutionary process be considered as
designing organisms?

Point taken.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::
I never said I don't use IC at all, what I said was that IC or not, the interdependance of the system (ie. heart, brain, nervous system, multitudes of blood vessels, etc) shows specified complexity, and it
is in and of itself, at the very least inferrence of design.

---

Complexity and design are unrelated.Many of the best designed objects are wonders of simplicity.
The mother of all inventions (the wheel) is the most perfectly
simple designed object one could imagine, and yet without it
we would not have technology as we know it. The lever is extremely
simple, as is the hammer, the knife, and a host of other
clearly designed objects.If we cannot say that all designed objects are complex, then we
cannot, surely, use complexity as a design criterion.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::
Please explain how inferring design based on a complex system of interdependant parts, is circular logic.

---

To say that if something is specified it is designed, sounds to me
like saying that its designed of its designed.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::
I would argue that this system is irreducibly complex.
If you take away the heart, the system breaks down.
If you take away the brain, the system breaks down.
If you remove the blood vessels, the system breaks down.
If you remove the nervous system, the system breaks down.

​

They all have to be in place and working properly, or the system breaks down.

---

Yes that's what IC means ... remove a part and the system
stops operating in the way that it did.

quote:

---

Sonnikke say::

​

Ipetrich earlier attempted a story for how the heart might have evolved:

​

{For description see previuous posts}

​

This is a very cute story or "just-so" story, but it is nothing more than that (no offence Ipetrich).

​

The fact is, the heart, the brain, the eye, these are just a few examples of the immense problem evolutionism has in trying to explain how they might have evolved (except for cute just-so stories, of
course).

---

But that's the whole problem with arguments from IC ... they are
about the individual ability to accept that complex systems could have evolved.If we can come up with a feasible possibility, then IC arguments
crumble into dust. Why? Because the basic argument from IC is::'I cannot believe that X could have developed natuarlly in
incremental steps.'In order to refute that all we need is some feasible incremental
steps that can lead to an IC system ... and that's all. If it
could have happened via incremental development, then
arguing that IC indicates design is fallacious ... even if the
object turns out that it really was designed IC cannot indicate
it.

quote:

---

Used properly IC is "I can prove it could not have formed that way."

---

In that case, at the present, IC should be backburnered until
such an example exists in a form which cannot be refuted.

I agree.I have not suggested tht ID is wrong ... only that, with
current evidence I cannot accept it ... and that current
arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

As I understand it, Sonnikke's entire belief in design
is based upon the assumption that one can infer
design from complexity and inter-relationships.I suggested earlier in this thread, and elsewhere,
that since many designed objects are wonders of
simplicity, then complexity cannot be related to
design in any way.Sonnikke has not responded to this suggestion
thus far.

Percipient's take on my meaning was my intention, so
I don't really need to say anything else .... but I will A feature of good design is simplicity, not complexity.

Yes ... and it's also considered extremely bad practice.'Spontaneous elabroation' of code works very much like natural
selection::Add a bit and see if it did what you wanted it to.
If it did, it stays, otherwise modify it a bit

Believe me I appreciate the practical problems, but a
good software design lends itself to extension The software development process is evolving itself,
compmage pointed out a 1989 program that is causing headaches
in his/her company ... and legacy code of that age is
always a nightmare to deal with!!The point being made though, was that good designs are
simple, elegant even. And this is more often the case,
even in software, when there is a single designer and maintainer.I mainly deal with real-time control systems (closer to
organic systems in concept than large and unwieldy accounting
systems etc.) and these have to be designed well from the
outset, and implemented as designed if you don't want
castrophes.I think you were agreeing with the simplicity in good
design idea though, since you pointed out that that kind
of development was like evolution ... and results in messy
sub-optimal, over-complex solutions.

What language is that in? 8000 lines seems a little
sedate {edited 'cause I forgot the smiley}[This message has been edited by Peter, 03-03-2003]

Your argument was that the complexity and inter-dependence
evident in living systems was an indication of design.I said that complexity and design are unrelated (in the sense
that your argument requires) pointing out that simplicity is
the hallmark of good design.PaulK pointed out that many software projects (due to external
constraints on time, money, personnel, etc.) have an ad hoc,
iterative, additive development that leads to excessively
complex, highly inter-dependent software architectures.You have now suggested that we cannot claim design without
knwing what is good, simple, etc.Hopefully you can now see why it is that complexity cannot be
used to infer design ... no matter how much may wish to see
design.I opened a thread some time ago asking for design criteria.
Not suprisingly there was little relevant response.Oh, and I might add for those who argue from IC, that I have seen
software systems which have been built up in an ad hoc manner
over time that have increased in function (and complexity ... or
messiness as I call it ) where, due to the way that things
have been added, if a function is removed the whole program fails
to work ... and yet there is a revision history that shows
how the current program was developed iteratively.

Ouch!!!!!