Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Does IC have to be about "intelligence"?

No, but lets not muddy the waters.

(06-12-2013 01:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Replacing gods with human intelligence still devolves into an infinite regress problem. But it also confuses the process of evolution with that of abiogenesis.
Clearly there haven't been natural intelligent beings creating new species (in labs) during the course of the last 500 million years and yet new species have been appearing according to the fossil record.

Synthetic Organisms

(06-12-2013 01:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If IC were real. If it were to prove that Evolution in its current form is false, then maybe there is another natural process in play? Or maybe evolution is even more sophisticated or nuanced than is currently known? However, it seems that much of the complexity pointed out by the IC proponents have been proven to have been evolved.

The problem with the IC proponents argument is that they can only point to things that appear to be Irreducibly Complex. They have no way of proving that something actually is IC.

How do you prove the bacterial flagellum and the human eye evolved?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 10:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 03:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2) You've said "tell my students what you wrote" and etc. more than once.

I have never once said that, and you cannot find one instance where I did.
Your brain seems to not be tracking too well. Hmm, is that your problem ? You do make things up. Has this always been a problem for you ?

(05-12-2013 03:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  3) No original thoughts, then?

About this red herring topic ? Not really. The answers are all there for anything who really looks. You have none of them, as you have demonstrated.

(05-12-2013 03:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  4) I understand evolutionary biology from a lay perspective but with the added value of many hours in study beyond to deal with it as an apologetic--and I've found that rather it's the students who claim they are passionate about evolution who know very few of its mechanisms.

BS. There is no "special way" to understand evolutionary Biology, for apologetics. Science is science. You NEED to alter it, to fit you presuppositionalist nonsense. No wonder you are so deluded. You set up your (literally) soap box on some random corner at colleges. You were never once actually "invited" to preach there or anywhere. You mooched there, and made a fool of yourself. You are an insane nut-job, who shouts, and shows up uninvited. You clearly are more insane than we thought.

(05-12-2013 03:43 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  5) I've preached at Harvard, Yale and Columbia. The students there weren't any brighter or dumber than anywhere else concerning the gospel, morality, evolution, etc.

You're not exactly in a position to be commenting on that now, are you, soap box traveling orator ?
The names. Who are your TTA converts ?
Beelzebub loves you. Tongue

TTA converts have no names to you. They are all pseudonyms. Again I offer to tell this group my real name and address once you have done likewise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-11-2013 07:30 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes you do need sentience, either ours or theirs. Self replicating machines and computer viruses do not assemble themselves without sentience, because they are the products of intelligent designers; namely human beings. Even self replicating and evolving computer viruses are designed that way, once again by human beings. You are once again making terrible analogies without thinking them through.

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.

You mean like the odds of a simple cell with 18,000 base pairs coming together randomly being 1 x 10*80th power and the number of atoms in the universe being about 1x10*40th power--and humans having closer to 3 or 4 billion base pairs of DNA?

Good point. You sure you're not a fundamentalist Christian?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 02:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, there aren't. Your lack of knowledge and insight is not evidence of IC.

You can't imagine the steps or the gradual changes over a vast time because you are simply not smart enough.

No, imagining the gradual changes over time is simple. The mental gymnastics required to have, however, an animal move from land to sea or sea to land for one of thousands of examples of evolutionary IC is staggering--can you do it? How do humans, say, return to the sea--indulge me--some stimulus is designing evolution to do it--what do we eat? how do we swim? avoid predators? birth? respirate? THERE IS NOTHING THAT ENHANCES SURVIVABILITY FROM PARTIAL ADAPTATIONS WHILE I'M REMAINING (AS A SPECIES) ON LAND.

It is clear that you really are either not informed or intelligent enough to grasp these concepts. Please go read up on the evolution of aquatic mammals for the answers to your questions.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-12-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:28 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Did I mention, I don't like PJ?

And Heywood, you watch that vid I did recommend? Consider

I started the Steven Wolfram one. I'm swamped right and haven't finished it. I'll end up watching it 2 or 3 times though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:53 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 06:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 02:18 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. 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.

IC is an idiot label used by those who are ignorant of a process. Theere is no inherent attribute of ANYTHING that it is "irreducibly complex". All it means is the LABELER is IGNORANT of the process.

(06-12-2013 02:18 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Hmm, so locomotives have tails ? Do cabooses and refrigeration cars, and flatbed cars have tails ? What a fucking moron.
I see Blowjob is STILL asserting his deism, while claiming to be a theist. What an idiot. There is no living biological system today that can be pointed to which is "irreducibly complex". The multi-step process which eyes and everything else could have evolved, or is known to have evolved, has at least one proposed explanation. The default position is NEVER "Oh it's irreducibly complex''. It's "they need to figure that out". It's a false "god of the gaps, crap argument" by theists (and apparently deists) to point to their idiot conclusion which is prematurely JUMPED to, out of ignorance. The MOST they can say is "I don't know how that happened". IC is not a valid position. It's complete and utter bullshit. An argument from ignorance.

Um, the proposed explanation for complex eyes is that they "only" took 1,400 steps of designed evolution over 400,000 years--not including optic nerves tying signals to the brain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  No, imagining the gradual changes over time is simple. The mental gymnastics required to have, however, an animal move from land to sea or sea to land for one of thousands of examples of evolutionary IC is staggering--can you do it? How do humans, say, return to the sea--indulge me--some stimulus is designing evolution to do it--what do we eat? how do we swim? avoid predators? birth? respirate? THERE IS NOTHING THAT ENHANCES SURVIVABILITY FROM PARTIAL ADAPTATIONS WHILE I'M REMAINING (AS A SPECIES) ON LAND.

It is clear that you really are either not informed or intelligent enough to grasp these concepts. Please go read up on the evolution of aquatic mammals for the answers to your questions.

Sorry but finding skeletons of proto-animals or even transitional forms could be taken as evidence for this evolutionary change--but that still doesn't answer any of the questions I've posed.

You also need reasons for the stimulus to move the animals from one domain to the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:00 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The mental gymnastics required to have, however, an animal move from land to sea or sea to land for one of thousands of examples of evolutionary IC is staggering--can you do it? How do humans, say, return to the sea--indulge me--some stimulus is designing evolution to do it--what do we eat? how do we swim? avoid predators? birth? respirate? THERE IS NOTHING THAT ENHANCES SURVIVABILITY FROM PARTIAL ADAPTATIONS WHILE I'M REMAINING (AS A SPECIES) ON LAND.

Why wouldn't we just become extinct? Isn't that what happens to most life forms on Earth? The failure rate for life is tremendously high, making 'intelligent creator' an oxymoron at best.

I'd be interested in a biologist's take on this. PJ assumes that it was a complex species that moved from sea to land, or visa-versa. Is that the assumed theory, or just an easy example for him to debunk?

I have no issue imagining small, simplistic life forms making the transition. Also, I thought that it was environment that determined the value of partial adaptations. If EVERY life form found suddenly found itself in water (global flood part two, maybe), from the smallest cellular life form to the largest, would some already have the necessary traits to survive the initial transition while many others died off, traits that may have been meaningless while on land? I say yes. Would some continue to change, through favorable mutations, into species better suited for aquatic life? I say yes. Over millions of years, would we see new species almost unrecognizable from their ancestors? Yes, again.

I don't see where mental gymnastics are required here.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:03 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:00 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:41 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The mental gymnastics required to have, however, an animal move from land to sea or sea to land for one of thousands of examples of evolutionary IC is staggering--can you do it? How do humans, say, return to the sea--indulge me--some stimulus is designing evolution to do it--what do we eat? how do we swim? avoid predators? birth? respirate? THERE IS NOTHING THAT ENHANCES SURVIVABILITY FROM PARTIAL ADAPTATIONS WHILE I'M REMAINING (AS A SPECIES) ON LAND.

Why wouldn't we just become extinct? Isn't that what happens to most life forms on Earth? The failure rate for life is tremendously high, making 'intelligent creator' an oxymoron at best.

I'd be interested in a biologist's take on this. PJ assumes that it was a complex species that moved from sea to land, or visa-versa. Is that the assumed theory, or just an easy example for him to debunk?

I have no issue imagining small, simplistic life forms making the transition. Also, I thought that it was environment that determined the value of partial adaptations. If EVERY life form found suddenly found itself in water (global flood part two, maybe), from the smallest cellular life form to the largest, would some already have the necessary traits to survive the initial transition while many others died off, traits that may have been meaningless while on land? I say yes. Would some continue to change, through favorable mutations, into species better suited for aquatic life? I say yes. Over millions of years, would we see new species almost unrecognizable from their ancestors? Yes, again.

I don't see where mental gymnastics are required here.

Good thoughts. Please name every species you can that is land or air based, that could survive and mate/reproduce/feed/respirate/gather and hunt, etc. while moving to an environment of total or near immersion in water.

Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 02:18 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Good thoughts. Please name every species you can that is land or air based, that could survive and mate/reproduce/feed/respirate/gather and hunt, etc. while moving to an environment of total or near immersion in water.

Thanks.

I'd be interested in a biologist's take on this. Hint: that's not you. Your incredulity has no place in science. I'm interested in what people who devote their lives to the study of life forms and evolution have to say, not what the latest IC post on AIG is saying.

You're overlooking things on the microscopic level and jumping to obviously bad examples like humans;
You're ignoring food sources like sunlight that exist on both land and water;
You're ignoring the fact that most life doesn't survive; intelligent?
You're ignoring the fact that we already posses traits useless in our current environment; intelligent?

No, thank you.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: