Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 07:53 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Because that's not how logic works, but I'm not surprised a theist doesn't understand that. Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false. You started the thread and made the claim, defend it (so far you've not provided any solid evidence). If Chas started a thread and stated that there are no irreducibly complex organisms then he'd have the burden of proof, but in responding to you he is just rejecting your claim. And the claim that there are no irreducibly complex organisms could be easily proved if you stated it as "there is no documented evidence of an irreducibly complex organism", as the documentation can be thoroughly searched and examined.

Quote:Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false.

An outrageous claim on its face. How many times do we have to hear "scientists don't yet understand how X system/adaptation/specie/etc." evolved to realize many of these instances given are IC instances?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-12-2013, 02:31 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 02:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 09:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  Show us something that is irreducibly complex and prove that it is so.

M. mycoides JCVIsyn1.0 is a bacteria that was created in the lab. The bacteria contains a biological system of watermarks to distinguish it from naturally occurring bacteria. Within that system of watermarks are the names of the people who created the bacteria and quotes from literature. It is not possible for bacteria to evolve specific quotes from literature. The watermarks themselves are irreducibly complex.

http://singularityhub.com/2010/05/24/ven...n-its-dna/

What do I win?

Nothing. Because this is not what anyone here is talking about. That is clearly man-made.

If you are merely contending that humans can create something that did not and could not evolve, then that is so obvious as to not be worth discussing.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-12-2013, 04:17 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 02:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  An outrageous claim on its face. How many times do we have to hear "scientists don't yet understand how X system/adaptation/specie/etc." evolved to realize many of these instances given are IC instances?

You should be embarrassed by your statement. What, exactly, is the cutoff date by which if we don't understand something we must default to 'IC'? What is it about your ego that makes you assume that if you don't understand it, it can't be understood.

You give up because it's beyond your understanding. Fortunately, scientists have more patience than you do.

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
[+] 4 users Like guitar_nut's post
09-12-2013, 04:28 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 02:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 07:53 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Because that's not how logic works, but I'm not surprised a theist doesn't understand that. Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false. You started the thread and made the claim, defend it (so far you've not provided any solid evidence). If Chas started a thread and stated that there are no irreducibly complex organisms then he'd have the burden of proof, but in responding to you he is just rejecting your claim. And the claim that there are no irreducibly complex organisms could be easily proved if you stated it as "there is no documented evidence of an irreducibly complex organism", as the documentation can be thoroughly searched and examined.

Quote:Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false.

An outrageous claim on its face. How many times do we have to hear "scientists don't yet understand how X system/adaptation/specie/etc." evolved to realize many of these instances given are IC instances?

There are no instances of IC. Not one has been demonstrated. Not one.

If you disagree, please provide the example and the proof that it is IC.

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
09-12-2013, 06:12 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 02:31 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  To my knowledge humans have only simulated goal directed or guided evolution and that suggest to me the possibility that only goal directed or guided evolution exists.
To me this is strong evidence that god does not guide evolution.
Otherwise human attempts at dog breeding would be futile, it would be like trying to take a piss ino the wind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
09-12-2013, 06:24 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
There is no valid concept of "goal directed" evolution. The tiny steps taht accumulate are not "guided" or "goal directed" in any way, nor is there a shred of evidence they are, or that they would/could be any different, it they did not happ exactly according to the process they do. It's an invalid ignorant concept without a shred of support. Blowjob has never once proposed how "guidance" altered an already extant precess, or changed the probabilities, or outcomes, nor can he, nor will he.




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
09-12-2013, 09:18 PM (This post was last modified: 09-12-2013 09:24 PM by Azaraith.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 01:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 07:53 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Because that's not how logic works, but I'm not surprised a theist doesn't understand that. Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false. You started the thread and made the claim, defend it (so far you've not provided any solid evidence). If Chas started a thread and stated that there are no irreducibly complex organisms then he'd have the burden of proof, but in responding to you he is just rejecting your claim. And the claim that there are no irreducibly complex organisms could be easily proved if you stated it as "there is no documented evidence of an irreducibly complex organism", as the documentation can be thoroughly searched and examined.

Re-read the thread. I started out by saying "If irreducibly complexity is true....." which is certainly not a claim. I gave an example of possible irreducible complexity in a non-biological system.....again not a claim. Until Chas challenged me to prove his claim that irreducible complexity does not exist wrong, I never ever put in this thread a claim of my own that irreducible complexity exists in biological systems....until then I only said that it could exist and if it does exist where I thought it would be found....again not a claim.

I really believe that Chas thinks only theists need to support their claims.....which is silly.

False. You claimed that "IDist should be claiming abiogenesis itself is irreducibly complex", which is to say that you believe that there exists evidence that there exists something that is irreducibly complex. Process or organism, you made the claim that an irreducibly complex thing exists.

It's also blindingly obvious that you're a Creationist (relabeled as "Intelligent Designist") and believe that the concept of irreducible complexity is valid.

(09-12-2013 02:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 07:53 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Because that's not how logic works, but I'm not surprised a theist doesn't understand that. Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false. You started the thread and made the claim, defend it (so far you've not provided any solid evidence). If Chas started a thread and stated that there are no irreducibly complex organisms then he'd have the burden of proof, but in responding to you he is just rejecting your claim. And the claim that there are no irreducibly complex organisms could be easily proved if you stated it as "there is no documented evidence of an irreducibly complex organism", as the documentation can be thoroughly searched and examined.

Quote:Chas didn't make the claim, he stated that your claim that an irreducibly complex organism exists was false.

An outrageous claim on its face. How many times do we have to hear "scientists don't yet understand how X system/adaptation/specie/etc." evolved to realize many of these instances given are IC instances?

Not yet understanding something doesn't make it irreducibly complex. For something to be irreducibly complex, there would have to be a fundamental aspect of the organism that could not have evolved, not that we don't know how it evolved. No one has demonstrated any aspect of an organism that couldn't have come about by means of evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 04:51 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(09-12-2013 02:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nothing. Because this is not what anyone here is talking about. That is clearly man-made.

If you are merely contending that humans can create something that did not and could not evolve, then that is so obvious as to not be worth discussing.

Chas, post 1 of this thread talks about man made irreducible complexity. Its been a part of the discussion from the beginning. I'm glad to see that you are now back peddling on your claim that irreducible complexity doesn't exist. You can be taught after all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2013, 05:58 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(14-12-2013 04:51 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-12-2013 02:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nothing. Because this is not what anyone here is talking about. That is clearly man-made.

If you are merely contending that humans can create something that did not and could not evolve, then that is so obvious as to not be worth discussing.

Chas, post 1 of this thread talks about man made irreducible complexity. Its been a part of the discussion from the beginning. I'm glad to see that you are now back peddling on your claim that irreducible complexity doesn't exist. You can be taught after all.

Doesn't exist in nature, which is the only interesting part of the question. Drinking Beverage

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
14-12-2013, 06:40 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Sooooo....nobody thinks s.e.t. fixes this? I'm the only one? I feel so alone.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE. THANK YOU, AND HAVE A GREAT DAY! http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...a-few-days
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: