Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 02:21 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In the case of machine evolution, intelligence is only needed to get the evolutionary ball rolling.....but once it gets going....it is not longer needed. Why can't the same be true of biological evolution?

ID'st are looking for the hand of God, and I am saying they should be looking for it at the inception of the process and not in the products. ID'st should be claiming that evolutionary systems themselves are irreducibly complex....not eyeballs or locomotive tails.

Desperation rears its piteously whiny head....

Thumbsup

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
06-12-2013, 02:24 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:54 PM)black_squirrel Wrote:  Irreducible complexity is not a scientific notion.
I mean, how could a scientist prove that something is irreducible complex?
Is there a definition that allows one to prove that something is irreducibly complex or not?

Simulation(s). It wouldn't prove it conclusively though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:33 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 02:37 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In the case of machine evolution, intelligence is only needed to get the evolutionary ball rolling.....but once it gets going....it is not longer needed. Why can't the same be true of biological evolution?

ID'st are looking for the hand of God, and I am saying they should be looking for it at the inception of the process and not in the products. ID'st should be claiming that evolutionary systems themselves are irreducibly complex....not eyeballs or locomotive tails.

For fuck's sake dude, we don't have to infer intelligent design with machines because we already know who, what, when, where, why, and how they were designed. Not only that, but their entire endeavor is entirely unscientific. Do they try to at all falsify their hypothesis? Nope. So they're less than useless, they're nothing but pomp and show. They pretend to give the thinnest veneer of visual legitimacy to cover their blatantly religious political agenda. There is no reason, no evidence, to infer an intelligent designer for the start of biological life. Besides which, Yahweh or any deity is a very unlikely candidate for the designer; it would far more likely be a time traveler or advanced extraterrestrials.

Also for the umpteenth time, giving a special label (Irreducible Complexity) to your ignorance does not magically make it a legitimate challenge to scientific theories.






(06-12-2013 02:24 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Simulation(s). It wouldn't prove it conclusively though.

[Image: then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png]

Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-12-2013, 03:40 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:33 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also for the umpteenth time, giving a special label (Irreducible Complexity) to your ignorance does not magically make it a legitimate challenge to scientific theories.

Irreducible complexity is not a label for ignorance. It is a label used describe a particular attribute of a thing. That attribute being complexity which could not arise via evolution. Something is either irreducibly complex or it isn't. The eyeball or a bacterial flagellum is either irreducibly complex or it isn't. Now you may be ignorant of whether or not those things are irreducibly complex or not but that doesn't change the fact that the attribute exists in those things or it doesn't. Your ignorance is irrelevant to whether or not something has the attribute of irreducible complexity.

In this very thread you admitted that machine evolution could never occur without an intelligence creating the first generation of evolving machines. According to you machine evolution requires the existence of structures which could not have evolved. If that is the case then those structures are irreducibly complex.

Lastly Steve is right. The idea that Evolution is the only explanation can be challenged by showing living things have structures in them which could not have evolved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 03:55 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:27 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

You can't seperate the two things. Irreducible complexity in it's most simple expression is that an organism/part of is too complex to have evolved therefore it must've been designed by gawd.

The eye is often used by ID fanatics as an example of this. ... If my eyes were designed, it was more likely by my 5 year old nephew, with crayons.

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
06-12-2013, 04:03 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 03:55 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  You can't seperate the two things. Irreducible complexity in it's most simple expression is that an organism/part of is too complex to have evolved therefore it must've been designed by gawd.

Why does it have to be "gawd"? Why couldn't it be just an intelligent being? By claiming is must've been designed by "gawd" you're shifting the goal post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 04:07 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 03:55 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  You can't seperate the two things. Irreducible complexity in it's most simple expression is that an organism/part of is too complex to have evolved therefore it must've been designed by gawd.

Why does it have to be "gawd"? Why couldn't it be just an intelligent being? By claiming is must've been designed by "gawd" you're shifting the goal post.

By responding to my use of gawd, instead of God (there I fixed it mate) Smile you sir have deftly and gracefully ducked my point.

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
06-12-2013, 04:15 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 04:07 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 04:03 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Why does it have to be "gawd"? Why couldn't it be just an intelligent being? By claiming is must've been designed by "gawd" you're shifting the goal post.

By responding to my use of gawd, instead of God (there I fixed it mate) Smile you sir have deftly and gracefully ducked my point.

God does not have to exist for irreducible complexity to exist. What was your point anyways? That irreducible complexity isn't a valid concept because God fearing people utilized it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 05:08 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2013 05:12 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
I hate to have to break this down line-by-line, but this shit is so deep, I find myself in dire need of chest waders. Dodgy

(06-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Irreducible complexity is not a label for ignorance. It is a label used describe a particular attribute of a thing. That attribute being complexity which could not arise via evolution.

How do you know when something is irreducible complex? When you can't understand how it came about naturally via evolution. When you don't understand something, you are ignorant of it. You are just playing a fucking word game to hide your mindless puerile bullshit, and I'll not fall for it. Irreducible Complexity is simply ignorance, it is nothing more than a fancy label. It is not a challenge, it is not a problem, it is not a roadblock. It is a propaganda tool and nothing more.


(06-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Something is either irreducibly complex or it isn't.

Either we understand how something works or we do not, either knowledge or ignorance. Giving your ignorance a label doesn't change that.

(06-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The eyeball or a bacterial flagellum is either irreducibly complex or it isn't.

We have a good understanding of how both can arise with natural processes within evolutionary framework.


(06-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Now you may be ignorant of whether or not those things are irreducibly complex or not but that doesn't change the fact that the attribute exists in those things or it doesn't. Your ignorance is irrelevant to whether or not something has the attribute of irreducible complexity.

Assigning a pointless factually vacuous attribute to something does nobody any good. Your thinking is so ass backwards, that it would be amusing if it wasn't so fucking sad. Assigning the 'attribute' of IC to a system is as pointless as labeling whether or not thoughts are edible; it is a pointless and factually empty. Either you understand how it works, or you do not. When you do not understand how it works, or how evolution could form that system, does that make the system irreducible complex? No. It simply means we haven't figure it out yet. Remember that evolution can both add and subtract pieces, creating a seeming irreducible complex system through the removal of prior needed pieces as they were removed for better efficiency.

It's the stone arch analogy; simply removing any one piece and the arch collapses. If however you add in a wooden support, you can then start remove part of the arch without it collapsing. The key being that once the arch was completed, you no longer needed the wooden support. In nature, this is the equivalent to an atavism wasting away because it's a needless use of valuable resources. The stone arch is not irreducible complex, regardless of whether or not you understand exactly how it was built.


(06-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  In this very thread you admitted that machine evolution could never occur without an intelligence creating the first generation of evolving machines.

This is because machines are built by us, and are not comprised of self replicating molecules.


(06-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  According to you machine evolution requires the existence of structures which could not have evolved. If that is the case then those structures are irreducibly complex.

They're also artificial, man-made, and their construction is both well known and understood. We have never, not once, not ever, witnessed anything ever simply being created ex nihilo (outside of the quantum scale, and even that doesn't appear to be under any sort of controllable intelligence).


(06-12-2013 03:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Lastly Steve is right. The idea that Evolution is the only explanation can be challenged by showing living things have structures in them which could not have evolved.


A system can be 'irreducibly complex' if you define it simply as 'remove a piece and it stop performing it's current function'. By that definition there is a lot of IC systems in nature. However many of these system we did come to understand how they have worked. Others worked differently whenever you remove one or more pieces (this is the case of the bacterial flagellum). Using IC as a label to systems so complex that you can't possibly understand how they could have evolved outside of intelligent fiat, then that is identical to just relabeling your ignorance and incredulity. IC is not even a hypothesis, let alone a competing theory. It most certainly isn't any positive evidence for a intelligent designer.

Is either a challenge to evolutionary biology? No.

Is using either label the equivalent to saying 'I don't currently understand how this could come about through evolution, and you never will either'. Yes.

Given the previous statement, is IC just a fancy label for a lack of understanding? Yes.

Is IC a useful tool for moving science forward? No.

Is it a propaganda tool used to foist religiously inspired pseudo-science onto those too stupid to tell the difference? You've proven that with every sentence either you or Steve have posted.


[Image: welcometothenewworld.jpg]

[Standing over Adhemar]
Wat: You have been weighed.
Roland: You have been measured.
Kate: And you absolutely...
Chaucer: Have been found wanting.
William: Welcome to the New World. God save you, if it is right that he should do so.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
06-12-2013, 05:08 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
I just got tied in to the flow of conversation. BQ said something about the eye I responded being sociable and all, seeing as I can slightly relate to what was being said. ...

Anyway
http://www.theguardian.com/science/punct...1/jan/10/2

Looking at your original post, am I right to be under the impression that IC in the natural world has been thoroughly debunked and you agree with this?

You continue to make the point that designed robots can eventually evolve themselves. ... if in 3000000 years we traced their line back, we would get to the point where we made them. We designed them at that point and thus they are irreducibly complex?

Even if I were to agree with you, respectfully, what are you saying? IC is now valid so something folows...? I'm interested to know what you're getting at? Smile

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: