Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2013, 02:04 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 02:08 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
Irreducible complexity
IDist who came up with the concept of irreducible complexity might actually be on to something true....but their looking in the wrong places for evidence to support their position. They look at things like eyes, or flagella....modern structures....which obviously undergone some evolution.

I don't think it farfetched that in the future machines will self replicate and possibly begin to evolve. The very first evolving machines will have been intelligently designed and contain structures which could not have emerged otherwise. They will be irreducibly complex. A trillion years later the machines could still be evolving and look very different......significant evolutionary changes likely have taken place and it might be difficult to identify a structure which is irreducibly complex.

IDist should be claiming abiogenesis itself is irreducibly complex, not an eyeball. If irreducible complexity is true, irreducibly complex structures will exist only in the first living things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 02:24 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 02:29 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
If they want to claim that, they should be presenting firm evidence in support of their claim. However that would put them in the position of trying to prove a negative. It would be simpler for them to say "the case for abiogenesis has not been made"... but to use that as a basis for ID would be an argument from ignorance: I don't know how life started, therefore I know how life started.

Their actual case is already an argument from ignorance however. They start with the existence of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms. Then they claim they don't know how evolution could have produced these, therefore they know how the mechanisms were produced.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Hafnof's post
30-11-2013, 02:35 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
From the blind girl on forum, the eye isn't that impressive.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 14 users Like BrokenQuill92's post
30-11-2013, 02:43 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 07:24 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  IDist who came up with the concept of irreducible complexity might actually be on to something true....but their looking in the wrong places for evidence to support their position. They look at things like eyes, or flagella....modern structures....which obviously undergone some evolution.

No, their main problem is their presupposition. Irreducible complexity is a conclusion in search of evidence, not supported by it. It's essentially just a fancy label for ignorance.


(30-11-2013 02:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I don't think it farfetched that in the future machines will self replicate and possibly begin to evolve. The very first evolving machines will have been intelligently designed and contain structures which could not have emerged otherwise. They will be irreducibly complex. A trillion years later the machines could still be evolving and look very different......significant evolutionary changes likely have taken place and it might be difficult to identify a structure which is irreducibly complex.

This painful analogy is so terrible and grasping at straws as to be laughable.

If we do ever manage to create self-replicating sentient machines, they will be irreducibly complex because they will be intelligent designed; by us. Later they could very well design improvements to themselves, and this will have nothing to do with natural selection as it operates in the animal kingdom. This has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection, abiogenesis, or anything else concerning biology on our planet.


(30-11-2013 02:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  IDist should be claiming abiogenesis itself is irreducibly complex, not an eyeball. If irreducible complexity is true, irreducibly complex structures will exist only in the first living things.


See first point. Also at the start of life, that is the only threshold that cold be considered irreducible. Once you break down life to it's most basic parts to that you stop chemical self-replication and homeostasis, you've just stopped what we define as 'life'. There is a point where life itself is no longer reducible, but that's doesn't mean we can't understand how it all works leading up to that demarcation line we define as 'biological life'.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-11-2013, 02:47 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
I'm with Quill on that one. I used to be blind 25% vision (congenital nystagmus) when I hit my teens my eyesight improved to 55% so I'm now categorised as partially sighted. There are so many things that can and often do go wrong with the eye, it can't be seriously held up as an example of perfect design.

The whole argument of irreducible complexity is completely nul and void in my view, I've seen it debunked with ease repeatedly.

A man blames his bad childhood on leprechauns. He claims they don't exist, but yet still says without a doubt that they stole all his money and then killed his parents. That's why he became Leprechaun-Man

Im_Ryan forum member
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 03:21 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:24 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  If they want to claim that, they should be presenting firm evidence in support of their claim. However that would put them in the position of trying to prove a negative. It would be simpler for them to say "the case for abiogenesis has not been made"... but to use that as a basis for ID would be an argument from ignorance: I don't know how life started, therefore I know how life started.

Their actual case is already an argument from ignorance however. They start with the existence of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms. Then they claim they don't know how evolution could have produced these, therefore they know how the mechanisms were produced.

IDist want to discredit evolution...which where they crash into a brick wall. If biological irreducible complexity exists, it does so at the inception and not at various points along the way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 03:25 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This painful analogy is so terrible and grasping at straws as to be laughable.

If we do ever manage to create self-replicating sentient machines, they will be irreducibly complex because they will be intelligent designed; by us. Later they could very well design improvements to themselves, and this will have nothing to do with natural selection as it operates in the animal kingdom. This has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection, abiogenesis, or anything else concerning biology on our planet.

You don't need sentience for machine evolution. You don't even need replicating machines. Computer viruses should evolve as they replicate themselves and are subject to "corruption" during that replication process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 03:27 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:47 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  I'm with Quill on that one. I used to be blind 25% vision (congenital nystagmus) when I hit my teens my eyesight improved to 55% so I'm now categorised as partially sighted. There are so many things that can and often do go wrong with the eye, it can't be seriously held up as an example of perfect design.

The whole argument of irreducible complexity is completely nul and void in my view, I've seen it debunked with ease repeatedly.

You're conflating irreducible complexity with perfect design. There is a pretty big difference.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 03:46 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
"The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,"

NUFF SAID

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
30-11-2013, 03:58 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 04:03 AM by Free Thought.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:35 AM)BrokenQuill92 Wrote:  From the blind girl on forum, the eye isn't that impressive.

From the person on the forum who's eyes are forever-degrading in vision with the possibility of blindness; I concur. The eye is not that impressive.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: