Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 02:32 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 02:00 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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.
You might even be able to answer your own rhetorical question if you wanted to. Think of all the species that already breath air and spend most of their time (if not all the time) in or submerged in water.

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(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.
Frogs, Hippos, Turtles, Penguins, Crocodiles, Grunion, Platypus, ...

Do you find Whales and dolphins interesting? They have lungs not gills, their tails go up and down rather than side to side. Are they mammals or fish?
What are mammals doing living in the ocean?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
06-12-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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
Sure, I think humans can create new species, maybe even create life someday. But that's the future. This doesn't explain what has been happening over the last 500 million years.
(06-12-2013 01:45 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  However, it seems that much of the complexity pointed out by the IC proponents have been proven to have been evolved.

How do you prove the bacterial flagellum and the human eye evolved?
You responded before I corrected my post. I changed the phrase "proven to have been evolved" to "proven to be reducible".

But there is some pretty decent evidence regarding evolution of the eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUJlz0KZu-8 1:22-2:58
Regarding flagellum they showed a reduced structure that appears naturally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:46 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 10:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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 ?


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.


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.


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.

But they had TTA names. So, again, I see you were lying.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Differential reproductive success is always the reason.

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
06-12-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 06:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.


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.

Evolution is not "designed". Clearly you have no clue how it works, or the MANY many examples of light sensitive organs that have evolved MANY MANY times in many different creatures. It did not happen in 400,000 years, you fool.
Maybe some day you'll actually go get an education, and stop making a fool of your self.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:03 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 02:00 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  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.

It doesn't work that way. You seem unable to comprehend the vast timescales and incremental changes involved.

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
06-12-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 03:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 01:53 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

Evolution is not "designed". Clearly you have no clue how it works, or the MANY many examples of light sensitive organs that have evolved MANY MANY times in many different creatures. It did not happen in 400,000 years, you fool.
Maybe some day you'll actually go get an education, and stop making a fool of your self.


That made me spew my Lungo[1]! Thanks for the laugh!

(goes off to make another)




[1] its a strong coffee much like a double expresso

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 01:46 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 10:07 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I have never once said that, and Abdul 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 ?


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.


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.


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.
ITS A TRAP! You are so poeTongue even offering private skype video chat. Anyone take you up on that?

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 03:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You responded before I corrected my post. I changed the phrase "proven to have been evolved" to "proven to be reducible".

But there is some pretty decent evidence regarding evolution of the eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUJlz0KZu-8 1:22-2:58
Regarding flagellum they showed a reduced structure that appears naturally.

I agree those things have been shown to be reducible.

(06-12-2013 03:21 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Sure, I think humans can create new species, maybe even create life someday. But that's the future. This doesn't explain what has been happening over the last 500 million years.

Suppose Craig Venter produces sharks with lasers on their heads. We could credibly say the biological laser is irreducibly complex...that it could not have evolved in nature. It would demonstrate definitively that irreducible complexity can exist in biological systems. I think you and I agree that in principle irreducible complexity can exist. If it can exist then claims of its existence shouldn't be auto-rejected because "Gawd don't exist".

Personally I believe an intellect could evolve anything it wants simply by designing the evolutionary system to produce what it wants and it is futile to look for irreducible complexity in modern biological structures. It might exist in the first evolving things. It might be the system itself which is irreducibly complex.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: