Irreducible Stupidity

A

answers

Registered Senior Member
I think I'm getting a hang of this whole irreducible complexity thingo. Here are some examples I've come up with:

- The modern day computer is irreducibly complex, simpler computers that do not utilize ram are not possible because with a modern day computer if you take out the ram, the computer no longer works.
- Cars are irreducibly complex, two wheeled vehicles such as motor bikes are not possible, because if you take two wheels off of a car it can no longer function.
- TV’s are irreducibly complex, without the broadcast signal TV would have no picture and therefore no use, without the TV the broadcast signal would have nowhere to be sent and have no use. Therefore the TV as we know it today was invented by god.

I think I should use these examples in a new book that I'll write, titled: "Why evolution is now proven wrong and I'm super smart and science is dumb because god is super cool".

What do you think?
 
answers said:
The modern day computer is irreducibly complex, simpler computers that do not utilize ram are not possible because with a modern day computer if you take out the ram, the computer no longer works . . .

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think that it's hard to understand how computers work. They are so complex! So many tiny pieces! So many bits! They are therefore miracles.
 
lol had to have a bit of a laugh about this, just had a creationist throwing all of this at me last night.
 
Yeah it's a stupid argument lol. It's my best friend's wife who is a bit full on with her christianity. The debate did not go very well, well... what you'd expect from a debate with a christian. Lots of appeals to authority (aka fucking Behe) and as soon as you answer one argument they straight away shift the focus to another argument without ever admitting they were wrong with the last argument.

Frustrating...
 
circular.png


:wallbang:

circular-reasoning.jpg


But doesn't it seem awfully mean to try to disillusion someone?

Unless they are annoying the piss out of you and won't take bald suggestions to knock it off...in which case they're rather bothering you into it, aren't they?
 
An interesting example of irreduceable complexity is based on a well documented obsrvation; if we remove the DNA from a cell, the remaining aspects of the cell will still be alive, but the DNA will not be alive. The protein grids of the cell don't really need the DNA to be alive, other than as a template for reproduction and maintanence. The DNA, on the other hand, is helpless without the rest of the cell, and can do little without its constant support.

An example of this are red blood cells, which can live for months without DNA. This irreduceable complexity implies that the DNA plays a support role to the living parts of the cell. This implies a cause and effect that is opposite to the assumed state of the art.

The membram boundary condition is one of many tricks used by the living part of the cell to prompt the dependent DNA to assist with the evolution of the living parts of life. Evolution, as is, assumes the dead part of the cell leads the evolution of life.
 
answers said:
I think I'm getting a hang of this whole irreducible complexity thingo. Here are some examples I've come up with:

- The modern day computer is irreducibly complex, simpler computers that do not utilize ram are not possible because with a modern day computer if you take out the ram, the computer no longer works.
- Cars are irreducibly complex, two wheeled vehicles such as motor bikes are not possible, because if you take two wheels off of a car it can no longer function.
- TV’s are irreducibly complex, without the broadcast signal TV would have no picture and therefore no use, without the TV the broadcast signal would have nowhere to be sent and have no use. Therefore the TV as we know it today was invented by god.

I think I should use these examples in a new book that I'll write, titled: "Why evolution is now proven wrong and I'm super smart and science is dumb because god is super cool".

What do you think?
Click to expand...


I think you are willfully ignoring irreducible complexity, with shite humor.
State you beef with it, let's see what you've got.


jan.
 
- The modern day computer is irreducibly complex, simpler computers that do not utilize ram are not possible because with a modern day computer if you take out the ram, the computer no longer works.
- Cars are irreducibly complex, two wheeled vehicles such as motor bikes are not possible, because if you take two wheels off of a car it can no longer function.
- TV’s are irreducibly complex, without the broadcast signal TV would have no picture and therefore no use, without the TV the broadcast signal would have nowhere to be sent and have no use.
- - - - -
An interesting example of irreduceable complexity is based on a well documented obsrvation; if we remove the DNA from a cell, the remaining aspects of the cell will still be alive, but the DNA will not be alive. The protein grids of the cell don't really need the DNA to be alive, other than as a template for reproduction and maintanence. The DNA, on the other hand, is helpless without the rest of the cell, and can do little without its constant support.

An example of this are red blood cells, which can live for months without DNA. This irreduceable complexity implies that the DNA plays a support role to the living parts of the cell. This implies a cause and effect that is opposite to the assumed state of the art.
- - - - -
Click to expand...

ardena said:
I think you are willfully ignoring irreducible complexity, with shite humor.
Click to expand...
Is there some irreducible complexity left over, after we have dismissed the shite humor?
 
The DNA, on the other hand, is helpless without the rest of the cell, and can do little without its constant support.
Click to expand...

True of many things in biology. However, in some cases, RNA _can_ reproduce without the support of a cell, which is an example of a genetic code that doesn't need a support structure.

wellwisher said:
Evolution, as is, assumes the dead part of the cell leads the evolution of life.
Click to expand...

Millions of "dead" parts, working together, make up a living being. That's an odd definition, though; by your definition the human brain is dead.
 
synthesizer-patel said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Click to expand...

I knew before clicking what video that would be. Brilliant.

The idea of irreducible complexity has a bit of the often used strawman spontaneous generation in it. Now, SG is clearly not possible...we don't see new different things arising from other thing, like the classic maggots from meat without any flies to lay eggs. But yet all the presentations of IC make a hidden assumption that in some step from the beginning of the earth to the first things resembling bacteria, something like SG happened, and a totally new thing was produced that could be called living, whereas its "parent" can be called non-living. That is furthest from the truth.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I think you are willfully ignoring irreducible complexity, with shite humor.
State you beef with it, let's see what you've got.


jan.
Click to expand...

No I'm actually debating irreducible complexity with a friend of mine through email right now. So I'm not ignoring it.

And your opinion about my sense of humor really matters to me, could you please continue your criticism. Without your input I have no idea who I am. Thank you so much. May god bless you with healthy bowel movements for the rest of the week.
 
answers said:
No I'm actually debating irreducible complexity with a friend of mine through email right now. So I'm not ignoring it.

And your opinion about my sense of humor really matters to me, could you please continue your criticism. Without your input I have no idea who I am. Thank you so much. May god bless you with healthy bowel movements for the rest of the week.
Click to expand...

Shite humour aside, when you conclude with statements like this...

''I think I should use these examples in a new book that I'll write, titled: "Why evolution is now proven wrong and I'm super smart and science is dumb because god is super cool".

...I assume you have an actual reason for using the term ''irreducible stupidity''. So what is it?

jan.
 
There are many reasons why ID is stupid. cdk007 has some videos on it on youtube, Ken Miller pretty much destroys it in one of his lectures as well. I don't see any reason in repeating what has already been said about ID on here.
 
answers said:
There are many reasons why ID is stupid. cdk007 has some videos on it on youtube, Ken Miller pretty much destroys it in one of his lectures as well. I don't see any reason in repeating what has already been said about ID on here.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far as to say Ken Miller destroys the notion, but that's probably a different topic.

I'm just curious as to why you saw fit to start this thread in the Biology & Genetics forums based on the content of the OP.

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top