Irreducible complexity is nothing more than a Creationist’s favorite claim.
I'm not surprised, it appears to be a good one.
jan.
Irreducible Stupidity
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
I'm not surprised, it appears to be a good one.
jan.
It's time to read some Habermas, and criticism of his communication theory.
Shite humor noted!
And you think that by making fun of them, angrily at that, they will become rational and well-informed?
How so?
I second this, what evidence makes irreducible complexity a good theory/argument?
Also if that evidence were shown to be wrong, would that then make irreduicible complexity a bad theory/argument?
I mentioned an example of irreduceable complexity; removing the DNA from a cell to see which of the two major aspect was self sufficient and which part was dependent. With red blood cells, the cell body does not need the DNA, while the removed DNA is dead in the water.
Evolution, as is, assumes the dependent DNA, as shown above, is the leader of evolution, even though it is dependent. This is like the child leading the adult, which makes sense for an immature child. Sometime simple criteria, like irreducable complexity, helps to set reality straight.
When cells go through the cell cycle, the living part of the cell continues to operate when the DNA is taken off-line. The DNA is folded and packed into chromosomes and is totally off-line. That does not matter since it is a dependent. Female gamete cells will even extrude part of the DNA, since the cell body, in this case needs only half the DNA for subsequent tasks. The DNA is expendable and expandable.
Evolution, as is, assumes the dependent DNA, as shown above, is the leader of evolution, even though it is dependent. This is like the child leading the adult, which makes sense for an immature child. Sometime simple criteria, like irreducable complexity, helps to set reality straight.
When cells go through the cell cycle, the living part of the cell continues to operate when the DNA is taken off-line. The DNA is folded and packed into chromosomes and is totally off-line. That does not matter since it is a dependent. Female gamete cells will even extrude part of the DNA, since the cell body, in this case needs only half the DNA for subsequent tasks. The DNA is expendable and expandable.
Gotta love the creationists persistance. It's as if I believed that a magic trick proved that there were miracles because I couldn't think of a way to explain the magic trick. And then someone else comes along and explains the magic trick as just a trick. Instead of saying, 'oh magic must just be a natural trick even if I can't explain it straight away', I say: 'yes that is one trick that has been explained by natural means, but what about this other magical card trick, or magical bullet trick, etc... they can't be explained and must be proof of miracles'. Then of course the card magic gets explained and the claim for miracles and true magic shifts to the bullet trick, that gets explained and then the claim shifts once again.
So far the flagellar motor was an irriducible complexity claim, that got explained. Then the ic advocate shifts their argument to the blood clotting system, that got explained. And now another gap gets the ic treatment... dna.
Just one question, when this gap in knowledge gets explained, which gap will god be crammed into next?
So far the flagellar motor was an irriducible complexity claim, that got explained. Then the ic advocate shifts their argument to the blood clotting system, that got explained. And now another gap gets the ic treatment... dna.
Just one question, when this gap in knowledge gets explained, which gap will god be crammed into next?
This is your thread, not mine.
The thread is in the Biology and Genetics forum.
You've been challen
Now defend your OP.
jan.
I'm assuming you meant to write 'challenged'.
And in any case you've been incredibly bitchy toward me so I really couldn't care less whether or not you challenge me to anything.
answers,
I did, thank you.
Bitchy?
Okay, I appologise. I just get tired of stuff atheists (in particular) take for
granted, without giving explanation.
But, as you are here, in a discussion forum, why don't you explain to me
your attitude toward irreducible complexity, because it seems very obvious, and therefore simple to you. Yet I don't get it.
I've seen video by the two main proponents, and I've read their papers, and I still don't see what the joke is.
jan.
I did, thank you.
Bitchy?
Okay, I appologise. I just get tired of stuff atheists (in particular) take for
granted, without giving explanation.
But, as you are here, in a discussion forum, why don't you explain to me
your attitude toward irreducible complexity, because it seems very obvious, and therefore simple to you. Yet I don't get it.
I've seen video by the two main proponents, and I've read their papers, and I still don't see what the joke is.
jan.
Okay appology accepted, I'm sure you can understand my lack of enthusiasm in engaging in conversation with someone that has already shown that they are quite happy to talk down to me.
I would argue that the evidence against ic is the exact same evidence that they used to demonstrate ic but which has since been shown to be false.
Namely that evolutionary processes for the flagellum have been outlined (http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/a/F626DD5B2C1F0A87/1/SdwTwNPyR9w)
And that the evolutionary processes for blood clotting have been outlined (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU)
Unfortunately my fiance' is the microbiologist and instead I studied psychology. So if there is anything that I am missing with my limited understanding of biology, please let me know. However with that said, I am confident that science has the ability to answer the arguments of ID.
I would argue that the evidence against ic is the exact same evidence that they used to demonstrate ic but which has since been shown to be false.
Namely that evolutionary processes for the flagellum have been outlined (http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007#p/a/F626DD5B2C1F0A87/1/SdwTwNPyR9w)
And that the evolutionary processes for blood clotting have been outlined (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU)
Unfortunately my fiance' is the microbiologist and instead I studied psychology. So if there is anything that I am missing with my limited understanding of biology, please let me know. However with that said, I am confident that science has the ability to answer the arguments of ID.
You are not really talking about irreducible complexity, heck you are not really even talking about evolution. What you are discussing is actually abiogenesis. Evolution is a process of change that occurs from generation to generation in living organisms. Abiogenesis adresses the natural formation of life from nonliving molecules.
Your argument is a bit of a strawman anyway because the assumption you are making is that scientist working on abiogenesis think that DNA formed independently with no other organic material involved. This is silly and not believed by anyone AFAIK.
The truth is that we do not know the mechanism for the initial formation of life. I suspect we will in the future but we may never figure it out. If you want to say god did it you certainly can believe that because there is no definitvie proof as to how it happened, no need for strawmen...
They will never become rational or well-informed. Look at "Jan Ardena", right here on this forum, after years.signal said:
What we need to do is prevent them from becoming influential. Treating the thousandth repetition of their goofball assertions with patient and longwinded respect is damaging. They simply use the opportunity for more repetition, to dominate the public discussion by volume. That domination is the goal.
The role of anger here may be dubious - maybe no need to actually get angry (everyone opposing them in any way will be accused of anger, that's how they roll, but it might be better if the accusation were false) - but the anger itself is hardly unwarranted.
Every time you have to lead off by telling us what "evolution assumes", "evolution is", "evolutionists say", or whatever, you should delete that part and see if your argument stands.wellwisher said:
Because the basic reply to what you are posting is simple denial: no, that's not what "evolution assumes", that's not what "evolution says", etc etc etc. You don't understand evolutionary theory. You don't know what it is, what it says, how to use it for analysis or description, etc.
I hope you realize there exists quite a debate around what exactly "rational" means.
It's only those who have no clue as to how problematic the concept of rationality is that like to toss it around.
Secondly, being well-informed does not equate to being wise or being able to use that information wisely.
The theory of irreduceable complexity is related to the assumption of random changes, at the genetic level, playing a major role in evolution. Irreduceable complexity assumes some things are so complex, they could not have formed with only random changes. The number of homeruns in a row does not make logical sense. Rather that random assumption needs faith that life constantly wins the lottery; type of religion.
The evolutionists assume that this challenge to random can only mean a creationist tactics, since winning the lottery, even that many times is still more likely than divine intervention. In my mind, irreduceable complexity only challenges the random aspects of evolution, but it is not a challenge to the process of change. In other words, if there were logical mechanisms behind evolution, that uses random much more sparingly, irreduceable complexity does not pose any practical problem. It is only a problem if a theory is too dependent on random; that needs faith.
Let me give an analogous example of this difference. Say we look at a car. If we assumed this car suddenly appeared due to a bunch of random changes and selective advantage, it would seems a little too complex for this to have happened. We will need faith and the experts to wow us. But if we assume this car was sequentially assembled on the assembly line, this provides a logical explanation that does not need faith.
But if you assume it has to be random, or else,and you can't see the logic of an assembly line, then the so-called assembly line lools like magic. One might assume this means God, since how can you arrange to win the lottery without divine assistance. This called ability to reason leading to intelligent model designs. It is not about faith in the god of chaos; science casino.
I separated the DNA from the cell to deternime which is more alive. I didn't do it, but other have. This repeatable observation is the not the result of flipping a coin with the opposite true tomorrow. Even of you want to call this final arrangement selective advantage, natural selection makes changes on the DNA dependent on the cell body.
Having a logical sense of direction makes it easier to sequentially build irreduceable complexity, since it is not about winning the lottery ten times in a row. It is about finding mechanism to explain the processes in terms of cause and effect. This may seem like God. If it upsets your faith in science casinos, that is useful.
The evolutionists assume that this challenge to random can only mean a creationist tactics, since winning the lottery, even that many times is still more likely than divine intervention. In my mind, irreduceable complexity only challenges the random aspects of evolution, but it is not a challenge to the process of change. In other words, if there were logical mechanisms behind evolution, that uses random much more sparingly, irreduceable complexity does not pose any practical problem. It is only a problem if a theory is too dependent on random; that needs faith.
Let me give an analogous example of this difference. Say we look at a car. If we assumed this car suddenly appeared due to a bunch of random changes and selective advantage, it would seems a little too complex for this to have happened. We will need faith and the experts to wow us. But if we assume this car was sequentially assembled on the assembly line, this provides a logical explanation that does not need faith.
But if you assume it has to be random, or else,and you can't see the logic of an assembly line, then the so-called assembly line lools like magic. One might assume this means God, since how can you arrange to win the lottery without divine assistance. This called ability to reason leading to intelligent model designs. It is not about faith in the god of chaos; science casino.
I separated the DNA from the cell to deternime which is more alive. I didn't do it, but other have. This repeatable observation is the not the result of flipping a coin with the opposite true tomorrow. Even of you want to call this final arrangement selective advantage, natural selection makes changes on the DNA dependent on the cell body.
Having a logical sense of direction makes it easier to sequentially build irreduceable complexity, since it is not about winning the lottery ten times in a row. It is about finding mechanism to explain the processes in terms of cause and effect. This may seem like God. If it upsets your faith in science casinos, that is useful.
Wellwisher you are suffering from a simple misunderstanding regarding probability.
Your thinking:
(1) Something is complex and amazing.
(2) The probability of that particular complex and amazing thing occuring is incredibly small.
(3) Therefore that thing must have had ID.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are many complex and amazing end points. Multiple end points! Therefore the probability for one particular end point is exagerated because there is no requirement that that one particular end point be the only end point for the job to be completed. For example the probability of me flipping a coin 10 times and always getting heads is very low. But there are other equally amazing end points. Perhaps I could have flipped and gotten tails 10 times in a row! That would be equally as impressive. Perhaps I could have flipped the coin and gotten 5 heads and then 5 tails. That would have been very impressive too. Perhaps I could have flipped the coin and gotten 5 tails and then 5 heads. That would have been really impressive too. MULTIPLE END POINTS! There are multiple ways to show something impressive with a coin, it doesn't have to be just getting 10 heads in a row! The probability of showing something impressive with a coin is therefore high.
There is not one end point for something biologically complex and amazing. When you take into consideration all the different equally impressive end points and all the possible ways they could have come about, the probabilities of such events occuring increases dramatically.
Irreducible complexity shows that the probability of one particular impressive and complex end point is low. But what it doesn't show is that all possible equally impressive and complex end points are low. Because they are not low, there are practically endless ways in which life could have survived and evolved. The flagellar motor may not exist for another end point, rather another equally impressive mechaism is used for the same job.
When you look at specific events your concept of the probability of that event is greatly altered. For example a fortune teller could tell a million people that they were going to win $10 000 at the casino on the weekend. They could be wrong 999 999 times but the one person that wins a million dollars on the weekend will think that the fortune teller was somehow capable of the supernatural because they don't know about the rest of the data (all the wrong predictions). YOU MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE DATA WHEN MAKING A CALCULATION OF PROBABILITY. Irreducible complexity is basing probabilities on incomplete data.
Your thinking:
(1) Something is complex and amazing.
(2) The probability of that particular complex and amazing thing occuring is incredibly small.
(3) Therefore that thing must have had ID.
WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are many complex and amazing end points. Multiple end points! Therefore the probability for one particular end point is exagerated because there is no requirement that that one particular end point be the only end point for the job to be completed. For example the probability of me flipping a coin 10 times and always getting heads is very low. But there are other equally amazing end points. Perhaps I could have flipped and gotten tails 10 times in a row! That would be equally as impressive. Perhaps I could have flipped the coin and gotten 5 heads and then 5 tails. That would have been very impressive too. Perhaps I could have flipped the coin and gotten 5 tails and then 5 heads. That would have been really impressive too. MULTIPLE END POINTS! There are multiple ways to show something impressive with a coin, it doesn't have to be just getting 10 heads in a row! The probability of showing something impressive with a coin is therefore high.
There is not one end point for something biologically complex and amazing. When you take into consideration all the different equally impressive end points and all the possible ways they could have come about, the probabilities of such events occuring increases dramatically.
Irreducible complexity shows that the probability of one particular impressive and complex end point is low. But what it doesn't show is that all possible equally impressive and complex end points are low. Because they are not low, there are practically endless ways in which life could have survived and evolved. The flagellar motor may not exist for another end point, rather another equally impressive mechaism is used for the same job.
When you look at specific events your concept of the probability of that event is greatly altered. For example a fortune teller could tell a million people that they were going to win $10 000 at the casino on the weekend. They could be wrong 999 999 times but the one person that wins a million dollars on the weekend will think that the fortune teller was somehow capable of the supernatural because they don't know about the rest of the data (all the wrong predictions). YOU MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE DATA WHEN MAKING A CALCULATION OF PROBABILITY. Irreducible complexity is basing probabilities on incomplete data.
Right. But -
If you started seeing cars with two wheels, then with no wheels, then with no windshields, then with no engines etc going all the way back to the point where it was a single bolt;
If you saw cars reproducing themselves, with random changes added every once in a while;
If you saw that 99% of these changes were bad, with a very, very rare one being good;
If you saw an incredible variety of cars, each adapted for the landscape they were on -
If you saw all that, and your conclusion was "there must be a secret assembly line somewhere that's churning out cars; we just can't find it" that would be a pretty silly conclusion.
Agreed. And that logical sense of direction is called survival, or more accurately natural selection. The direction is always towards the ones that survive.
Which is why it's a strawman.
Some reading on abiogenesis and how probability plays into it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
I quoted your tossing of it, and replied in kind.signal said:
Accurately and to the point, I believe.
If you want to withdraw your comment, or change its language, I will be happy to amend my response in kind.
And proposals derived from that assumption have been nothing but a pile of silly errors and gross misconceptions, every time it has been applied to the origin and evolution of life on this planet. It has explained nothing, and contributed nothing to our comprehension of biological structures.wellwisher said:
So it has no standing in the field of biological theory.
There may indeed be such irreducibly complex entities relevant to some theory, of some kind, in some field. That's an interesting philosophical question, but it has no bearing on biological theory to date.
Last edited:
This is correct. This would be along the lines of a cow giving birth to a moose not only unlikely but effectively impossible.
Correct, it would take magic or a super being of some sort for this to happen.
Correct. This is the position of evolution. The 'assembly line' is time and environment. There are a series of changes over some time period maybe one or a couple of the changes are benifitial to the survival of the induvidual and they live to reproduce. At a later time with a different environment there are more small changes that occur and the beneficial traits are also incorporated into the species. This is the sequential 'assembling' of the currently existing animal.
Huh? There is no logic. Changes occur, if the changes favor the animal in its current environment it will have a higher likehood of survival and the change will become part of the attribute of the population. If not the animal will die. If the enviroment changes drastically the species may become extinct which has happened to millions of species. It looks like magic but it is really just science.
You might wonder how could the Cheetah be so perfectly suited for a life in the African savahna - it seems like it is magic. The answer is that it is luck. The cheetah is a North American native. It appears to have evolved to catch Pronghorn Antelope (the 2nd fastest land animal). The cheetah migrated across the land bridge during the last Ice Age and then down into Africa. The ecological collapse in North Americal that occured ~ 10,000 years ago resulted in the Cheeta becoming extinct in North America.
As I said before this little exercise is a strawman that doesn't even have anything to do with evolution...