Doesn't Natural Selection lead to Specified Complexity?

Plants are found within the natural environment therefore, by all means plants are natural in that sense. Though some of the materials (dna for example) of which they are comprised of, are by all means unique to the environment.

It seems that you are saying that plants are natural and part of the environment, but plant DNA is not natural or part of the environment.
This makes little sense to me.Would this also mean that plants are not 'designed', but their DNA is?

Surely my definition includes the prospect of complexity, but it does not stop at that point. doing a quick look at Iterative design it seems to refer to tweaking? I could be wrong.Not this tweaking isn't necessarily performed by mindless forces, but through laziness as one merely tweaks his program to compensate for what ever problem he can see offhand, without looking at the wider picture, again I could be wrong.

You seem to have an unusual idea of what the term "unique" means.DNA certainly isn't unique. DNA is abundant.
A specific sequence MAY be unique, but then so too would the "plant" which contains it.However, since we don't address each dandelion as a "unique" kind of plant, it seems a little ridiculous to have such a double standard.I suppose you could say that DNA/RNA/mDNA was unique _IF_ you had a host of other life forms which didn't utilize any of these sequences. THEN, you could say "Look, life on Earth is 'unique' since all other life is silicon based" or whatever.But that would assume having discovered other life.

No, it would mean that plant is there as a result of an intelligent designer. DNA isn't found in the environment in the sense that you cannot look within a rock formation, river or air and say hay look I found dna here. DNA is found within a plant, yes, the plant is found within the environment, yes, however dna cannot be found outside the organism, or rather it isn't found within the natural environment.Simply saying dna is natural because plants are natural does not cut it as that would be a, truism, it goes much deeper than that.Take a clay cup for example....Clay can be found within in a lot of places in the environment, not only within the cup, but outside it as well. (a mountain for example)Intelligent agents usually create new (or unique) materials in an environment (metal, silk etc.) and they may use these new materials to create objects, a car & spider web (silk) for example.Because the plant also fits within the scope of a designer (intricate & interconnected parts, unique materials etc) it is highly likely that it was created by an intelligent agent.Or rather it is highly likely that an intelligent system was ordained to produce such creations, as plants depend on other life forms to survive.Though I must admit that I see a need to refine what I mean by "unique or synthetic materials." For now it is a general concept.

---

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. (lol!) The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

quote:

---

Surely my definition includes the prospect of complexity, but it does not stop at that point.

---

That would be true of any definition of specified complexity. But it seems clear that your notion of complexity is the common view, and not Dembski's improbability measures.

quote:

---

doing a quick look at Iterative design it seems to refer to tweaking? I could be wrong

---

"Tweaking" generally refers to minor changes. I am talking about iterative change rather than iterative design, which includes major additions (often unforseen by the original designer).

quote:

---

Not this tweaking isn't necessarily performed by mindless forces, but through laziness as one merely tweaks his program to compensate for what ever problem he can see offhand, without looking at the wider picture, again I could be wrong.

---

Laziness implies spending less effort than could be spent. While iterative change is less work than building a new design from scratch providing a new version in less time, spending less money doing so doesn't qualify as laziness in my book.

No, I would say that DNA is natural because it is made in nature - by nature.
If that is a truism, then why are you disagreeing?
Maybe it would help if you could tell me how you define 'natural'.
This might help clear up the confusion. Take a clay mountain for example....Clay can be found within a lot of places in the environment, not only within the mountain, but outside it too. (a cup for example).
I am really not seeing how you are differentiating between a cup and a mountain, apart from your premise that "cups are designed". But that would make your argument circular. Since these rules may only sometimes apply, how do you tell when they are applicable?
What do you measure and how do you measure it?
(The answer to 'How do you measure it?' is vital.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : stuff

Not sure what you mean by "defining intelligent designs". Is that a synonym for developing a model of intelligent design, which is what you claimed you wanted to do and is what I was responding to?Anyway, my main point was that if you go off half-cocked then what will happen to you is what has already happened in this thread - you'll get caught up in multiple inconsistencies and contradictions because not only have you not thought anything through, you don't yet have enough knowledge to be worth thinking through (something easily remedied with study).The suggestion to do your research first and go public second was a sincere and serious one. Your performance here is only proving the advantages of this advice.A side issue: It's not necessary to quote 40 lines if your reply addresses a mere few.--Percy

? What contradictions and inconsistencies?...I came here to refine my idea. If it is that I cannot prove a point I would admit it out rightly. Right now I'm caught up with some people who simply do not understand what synthetic materials are and how such a concept could be served as evidence for an object of intelligent design. Hard to tell when ever your being sincere or not, I take it that your predominantly insincere. Also, who are you to judge me... Often times only a few words are necessary to some up the some up the reply of an individual.

In Message 95 you said: That was what I was replying to. Then when you answered you instead said you were "defining intelligent designs." So I asked if that was a synonym for defining a model of intelligent design, because that was what you said you were doing in Message 95 that I was replying to. Oh, okay. I think it would be better to do that with other like-minded people so you could then take public a more coherent proposal. You don't even know if you could convince other IDists about your ideas about "synthetic materials" - why don't you try that first? Or PM some other IDists here and see if they'll join you here in this thread. Proofread much? Seriously, dude, don't let the quote be 20 times longer than the reply. There's a link to the message you're replying to right at the top of your message. The text is already there for all to see, you don't have to quote it all over again. Give the database a break.--Percy

If an object fulfilled all your criteria, but was not designed, then by your definition we should still have to call it an "object of design", because your criteria for being an "object of design" do not include being designed.Also, there are designed objects which do not fulfill your criteria --- a spoon, for example. Despite being an object that was designed, it does not qualify as an "object of design". Well, again, because your definition of "specified complexity" does not include the proviso that the complexity should in fact have been specified. You mention things such as how many parts it has and what materials it's made of, but nothing whatsoever about someone drawing up a specification. Spider silk is not usually man-made. The spider doesn't know how to make silk any more than I know how to grow hair out of the top of my head. In what way? Either something possesses specified complexity or it doesn't. Does it somehow contain more specified complexity if there are lots of copies of it? Would I be more complex if I had a twin brother? Very well, consider the last dodo. Did it have a lower degree of "specified complexity" by virtue of being the last member of its species than dodos did when they were plentiful?

Hopefully that was simply from a mis-reading of my post ... herein re-written with parenthesis:(Natural selection is a function of environment and gene distribution) and (drift is a function of gene distribution)... and I think I have more 'talking' to do about that ...

I didn't say that gene distribution can predict drift, merely that drift is functionally dependent upon it.I place 'drift' in the position of the 'function' or 'process' acting upon 'gene distribution'.so (and neglecting the NS part for this and only this point):GeneDist[k] = drift(GeneDist[k-1])I have NOT commented on exactly what drift is or is not ... and only included it as an offset in principle because you mentioned it. I was merely trying to show where it fit into my thinking, and why, for this discussion, I was neglecting it.Determinism:You do know what deterministic means, don't you?You answered a question of mine previously in a manner which can only mean you accept that the process of natural selection is deterministic."complete and fully detailed" at the same level of abstraction as the population.

What I am actually trying to say is that the 'specified complexity' observed by IDists is, in fact, illusory.Natural selection is capable of 'designing' systems to such a degree that they appear to have 'specifiec complexity'

quote:

---

I didn't say that gene distribution can predict drift, merely that drift is functionally dependent upon it.

---

Let us be clear, you wrote it as if it were a mathematical function with no other variables. If drift is not predictable, at least in principle, from gene distribution alone, you are either conceding a random element or admitting to the existence of other factors.More importantly you excluded environment, which under your formulation means that no event can have any effect on gene distribution other than through selection.

quote:

---

You do know what deterministic means, don't you?

​

You answered a question of mine previously in a manner which can only mean you accept that the process of natural selection is deterministic.

---

Yes, I do know what determinism means. More importantly, I understand that your question essentially assumed that the "chance" element would always come out the same way, which is hardly helpful. You have not yet dealt with my point that the outcome of evolution is strongly affected by non-selective events which are best modelled as chance. Not because universal determinism is necessarily false, but because they are completely disconnected from selection. [quote] "complete and fully detailed" at the same level of abstraction as the population.
[/qupte]
In other words you admit to intentionally using misleading phrasing ? "Not abstracted at all" might be considered a level of abstraction technically, but why not simply say that you don't abstract your description of the population either ? (I would add that to the best of my knowledge, populations are not usually described in complete detail - I guess that must be another of your oddities)