Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-12-2013, 07:31 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 06:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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".
Sure, yes.
It is certainly possible for humans to alter the DNA of life forms. This altering wouldn't be as a result of the evolutionary step wise "decent with modification".

(06-12-2013 06:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.
Well, the "simply by" bit is only simple if you deem your intellectual designer as being incredibly intellectual and incredibly capable and competent.

It seems however that the "errors" in the DNA copying process are random rather than causal, thus not designed. It seems when an octopus develops an eye over millions upon millions of years of evolution that the eye as we see it today was not the goal from the beginning. Presumably the eye is still in a state of evolution as is every living species and presumably these creatures and their features continue to adapt to suit an ever changing environment e.g. Ice Age, Global Warming, expansion across vast areas each with differing local climates.

The actual design of evolution, itself is simple. Replicating structures, random errors and selection based on ability to survive/reproduce. A cheetah is fast and so is its food (the antelope), this is because they have been in an evolutionary arms race. There was no plan 1 billion years ago to make fast cheetahs. The plan is not within the "design" of evolution. Adaptive spaces will simply be filled, and some animals or animal/plant combinations will appear as if they were designed together because their evolutionary journey has been with regards to a long history of interaction between them and their ancestors.

If you were to start evolution all off again, within the exact same environment that the first life forms occurred, you would get different results.
Once bacteria ruled the earth then fish ruled, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates.
If things had been different maybe the reptiles would have developed intelligence, maybe the marsupials would have dominated the placental mammals, maybe there would have been completely different families of animals.

The implications of evolution is that there was no plan for humans, we weren't destined to exist. And yet we are here, contemplating how we came to be. But if it weren't us, it may have instead been an intelligent species of reptile contemplating the exact same thing, wondering why they are so special.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 07:52 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Wow, you're really sore about the gawd thing Smile ... let's go with my favourite instead Zeus, ... Here's the thing, there are currently reptiles that do extremely well on land and water (anacondas) they can hold their breath for long periods of time or breath air with their mouths full. In terms of engineering, filters aren't a massive stretch (gills) so to go from land to water over several million years isn't too hard to comprend. ... From water to land is even easier, removing a filter is fairly simple. ... You didn't answer my question earlier, what are you getting at? At least you didn't answer it directly but following the thread you have. To me your stance seems to be.
Step 1. I acknowledge that IC is the cornerstone of fundamental Christianity.
Step 2. I acknowledge it has been debunked regarding the natural world.
Step 3. I need it to be true as a foundation for my belief system.
Step 4. I know ROBOTS!
Step 5. Perform mental gymnastics with robo christian theory.
Step 6. Yay! IC is the daddy of thought once again!
Step 7. Refuse to comprehend fairly easy evolutionary facts.
Step 8. Dodge all of the points that loads of people have put forward.
Step 9. Keep doggedly pushing robo christian theory as a straw man.
Step 10. Put fingers in ears and go lalalala if 1 through 9 fail.

I've had some whisky tonight and wouldn't normally be so crass but I can't see how in your heart of hearts, you don't know deep down you're bull shitting yourself mate. THE MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE in the real world that show your position to be crazy and you cling on!

Ignore my entire drunk post if you like but please indulge me in this ONE question. If you don't doubt your own position, what are you doing on an atheist forum banging drums (in this case irreducible complexity) that have been banged and silenced YEARS ago unless these are questions you're asking yourself instead of us?

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, 08:05 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
stevil Wrote:
(06-12-2013 06:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Well, the "simply by" bit is only simple if you deem your intellectual designer as being incredibly intellectual and incredibly capable and competent.

It seems however that the "errors" in the DNA copying process are random rather than causal, thus not designed. It seems when an octopus develops an eye over millions upon millions of years of evolution that the eye as we see it today was not the goal from the beginning. Presumably the eye is still in a state of evolution as is every living species and presumably these creatures and their features continue to adapt to suit an ever changing environment e.g. Ice Age, Global Warming, expansion across vast areas each with differing local climates.

The actual design of evolution, itself is simple. Replicating structures, random errors and selection based on ability to survive/reproduce. A cheetah is fast and so is its food (the antelope), this is because they have been in an evolutionary arms race. There was no plan 1 billion years ago to make fast cheetahs. The plan is not within the "design" of evolution. Adaptive spaces will simply be filled, and some animals or animal/plant combinations will appear as if they were designed together because their evolutionary journey has been with regards to a long history of interaction between them and their ancestors.

If you were to start evolution all off again, within the exact same environment that the first life forms occurred, you would get different results.
Once bacteria ruled the earth then fish ruled, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates.
If things had been different maybe the reptiles would have developed intelligence, maybe the marsupials would have dominated the placental mammals, maybe there would have been completely different families of animals.

The implications of evolution is that there was no plan for humans, we weren't destined to exist. And yet we are here, contemplating how we came to be. But if it weren't us, it may have instead been an intelligent species of reptile contemplating the exact same thing, wondering why they are so special.

The following is a video of a genetic algorithm creating a face. It has errors. Nonetheless it is an example of an intellectual capable agent using evolution to create something specific.





You can evolve anything you want if you design the system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-12-2013, 08:07 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

Fucking idiot.




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
06-12-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 02:18 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(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.

Small point: that's his credulity. And I agree with you; Carry on.

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
07-12-2013, 02:28 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2013 02:35 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 08:07 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird 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

Fucking idiot.




that reminds me of that hilarious yet shit scary Korean movie " THe HOST"



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
07-12-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 08:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The following is a video of a genetic algorithm creating a face. It has errors. Nonetheless it is an example of an intellectual capable agent using evolution to create something specific.

You can evolve anything you want if you design the system.
How does this computer program represent evolution?

As far as I know we developed eyes because eyes gave us a survival advantage e.g. be able to locate food, be able to see predators coming, be able to see sex partners.

Our eyes are close together presumably because we are predators and need to hunt other animals, thus judging distances is more important than having 360 degree views.

We have mouths presumable because we need to breath air and we need to injest food. That's why our mouths have openings, teeth, tongue, throat etc.

We have nose because there is a survival advantage in us being able to smell. If we ingest food that has gone off then we die.

Can you please explain why this computer "evolution" program produced a face?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(06-12-2013 06:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

An irreducibly complex thing cannot "be evolved", it could only be created. That is true by definition.

There is nothing in "the system" that is irreducibly complex.

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
08-12-2013, 02:36 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(07-12-2013 12:28 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 08:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The following is a video of a genetic algorithm creating a face. It has errors. Nonetheless it is an example of an intellectual capable agent using evolution to create something specific.

You can evolve anything you want if you design the system.
How does this computer program represent evolution?

As far as I know we developed eyes because eyes gave us a survival advantage e.g. be able to locate food, be able to see predators coming, be able to see sex partners.

Our eyes are close together presumably because we are predators and need to hunt other animals, thus judging distances is more important than having 360 degree views.

We have mouths presumable because we need to breath air and we need to injest food. That's why our mouths have openings, teeth, tongue, throat etc.

We have nose because there is a survival advantage in us being able to smell. If we ingest food that has gone off then we die.

Can you please explain why this computer "evolution" program produced a face?

Evolution is descent with change. The computer algorithm that generates the picture uses descent with change. I'm not privy to the actual code but I believe the algorithm goes something like this.

1. A random image is generated. It is the first of the evolving line. The primordial parent so to speak.
2. The image is "mutated". This mutated image represents the offspring of the parent.
3. If the mutation causes the offspring image to look more like the face trying to be generated the new image is kept and becomes the parent image of the next generation.
4. If the mutation cause the image to look less like the face trying to be generated the new image is discarded. The parent image is mutated again....another offspring is produced.
5. Rinse and repeat.

Human intellect is using evolutionary processes to create. The video is evidence of that. Evolution is being used to solve games, produce art, design airfoils, all sorts of stuff. As a theist, I have no problem whatsoever with God using evolution to create humans. Its an elegant and beautiful way to create.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-12-2013, 02:40 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(07-12-2013 01:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-12-2013 06:20 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I agree those things have been shown to be reducible.


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.

An irreducibly complex thing cannot "be evolved", it could only be created. That is true by definition.

There is nothing in "the system" that is irreducibly complex.

For you to claim there is nothing in the system that is irreducibly complex you must be privy to all the components of the system. One component of the natural evolutionary system are the first self replicating things. Please tell us about these things and how is it you know what they are, how the came into being, etc. Write a paper and win a Nobel prize.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: