I need you to attack this argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2013, 02:03 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 01:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you even know what irreducibly complex means because your comment doesn't make any sense.

All nominated examples of irreducible complexity turn out to be just failures of human imagination.

Almost any system can made to appear "irreducibly complex" if you remove a vital component, e.g. the human digestive system is "irreducibly complex" because metabolism would not work without the liver. But that is a contrived case. The various proto-livers were part of a different set of internal organs, a different digestive system not one that looks like the current one sans liver.

You wrote "the first self replicating machine will be irreducibly complex". Yes in the sense that if you remove one of its components it will fail to work. But that doesn't demonstrate anything. In the natural history of the first high-fidelity self-replicator there would not have been a version that is exactly the same as the developed structure (I won't say "final" because that implies teleology) less the vital component that you have removed in your thought experiment. That's not how evolution works. The versions of the replicator that lack any given vital component in the developed form are different yet functional systems. They were likely lower fidelity self-replicators.

If I remove one of the surface mounted resistors in my mobile phone it will fail to work and that particular design of mobile phone can be said to be "irreducibly complex". But the remaining parts can be used to make another type of mobile phone which is less function-rich but still functional as a phone. That is more like how evolution works, but that is nevertheless just a crude analogy.

The idea of irreducible complexity is misguided and would be useful if only one "design" existed to solve any given adaptational problem. Every adaptational problem has a multitude of solutions, some better than others. In the absence of some vital part in design X there is a design Y that doesn't need that vital part but which still functions adequately.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
28-10-2013, 02:11 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 02:03 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 01:08 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Do you even know what irreducibly complex means because your comment doesn't make any sense.

All nominated examples of irreducible complexity turn out to be just failures of human imagination.

Is there even such a thing as "irreducibly complex" seems like a made up term to be a straw man with a cool name.
It's just a way to determine who has NFI how evolution works.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 02:11 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
We know that life exists. We do not know for certain what factors are necessary for life to exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 09:37 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 02:11 AM)sporehux Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 02:03 AM)Chippy Wrote:  All nominated examples of irreducible complexity turn out to be just failures of human imagination.

Is there even such a thing as "irreducibly complex" seems like a made up term to be a straw man with a cool name.
It's just a way to determine who has NFI how evolution works.

Irreducible complexity is an argument that certain systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. The first self replicating machines will evolve provided there is descent with change. Those first self replicating machines will be irreducibly complex because they did not and could not come into existence by an emergent complex process, but rather only thru intelligent design.

I imagine that if irreducible complexity exists in biological systems, it only exists at the level of the first self replicating organism.

The intelligent design crowd has their sights focused incorrectly. They are looking for irreducible complexity in modern biological systems when they should be looking for irreducible complexity in the first biological systems. Of course the folly of the ID'st is they are trying to discredit evolution and by doing so, they are giving irreducible complexity a bad rep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2013 10:02 AM by sporehux.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
I'm still too thick to get it. To me every hand tool is an evolved stick.
Stick +rock =hammer/AXE/arrow/saw/ = chainsaw
The term makes no sense.
Everything can be theoretically reverse engineered back to hydrogen.
This is a solid hypothesis like evolution. Every experiment and new breakthrough keeps affirming this
Theory.
May as well call ,Irreducible complexity "unga bunga complexity" or I don't understand complexity.
People of faith seem to be unable to say "I don't understand". Their im so special ego is inverted humility even though their bible suggests it.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 10:43 AM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2013 10:46 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 09:44 AM)sporehux Wrote:  I'm still too thick to get it. To me every hand tool is an evolved stick.
Stick +rock =hammer/AXE/arrow/saw/ = chainsaw
The term makes no sense.
Everything can be theoretically reverse engineered back to hydrogen.
This is a solid hypothesis like evolution. Every experiment and new breakthrough keeps affirming this
Theory.
May as well call ,Irreducible complexity "unga bunga complexity" or I don't understand complexity.
People of faith seem to be unable to say "I don't understand". Their im so special ego is inverted humility even though their bible suggests it.

What your talking about with the stick and hammer is memetic evolution. Memetic evolution uses intelligence as the mutation and selection mechanism. I should clarify.....Irreducibly complex doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't evolve memetically, but rather that it could not evolve thru natural selection. Basically certain things are so complex that they could not come into existence without an intellect. Ions from now, when machine life dominates the entire universe, those machines will be debating if the first self replicating machine was irreducible complex.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 10:53 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 09:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I imagine that if irreducible complexity exists in biological systems, it only exists at the level of the first self replicating organism.

Simply declaring that is not compelling.

On what basis do you make such a declaration?

(28-10-2013 09:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The intelligent design crowd has their sights focused incorrectly. They are looking for irreducible complexity in modern biological systems when they should be looking for irreducible complexity in the first biological systems. Of course the folly of the ID'st is they are trying to discredit evolution and by doing so, they are giving irreducible complexity a bad rep.

Yes. That is absolutely where they should focus. Making claims about the presently-untestable is all they've ever had, because all of their testable claims are and have been, indeed, completely wrong.

Unfortunately for them, "presently-untestable" is an ever-shrinking category.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 10:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 09:37 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I imagine that if irreducible complexity exists in biological systems, it only exists at the level of the first self replicating organism.

Simply declaring that is not compelling.

On what basis do you make such a declaration?

its just speculation on my part...that's what "I imagine" means. You should know that.

I imagine that one day, machines will begin to evolve like biological systems. However such a machine evolutionary system could not come into existence without an intellect(s) to build the first machines.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2013, 11:12 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 11:06 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-10-2013 10:53 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Simply declaring that is not compelling.

On what basis do you make such a declaration?

its just speculation on my part...that's what "I imagine" means. You should know that.

I imagine that one day, machines will begin to evolve like biological systems. However such a machine evolutionary system could not come into existence without an intellect(s) to build the first machines.

If by 'machines' you mean electro-mechanical machines of the sort we understand, then it is hard to imagine how they might come about without a designer.

However, biological organisms are chemical machines and it is not hard to imagine them coming about without design. We have evidence of the precursors occurring naturally.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2013, 01:31 AM
RE: I need you to attack this argument
(28-10-2013 11:12 AM)Chas Wrote:  If by 'machines' you mean electro-mechanical machines of the sort we understand, then it is hard to imagine how they might come about without a designer.

However, biological organisms are chemical machines and it is not hard to imagine them coming about without design. We have evidence of the precursors occurring naturally.

I don't know....there is a pretty big gap between the formation of precursor molecules and self replicating things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: