Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2013, 03:59 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:46 AM)sporehux Wrote:  "The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,"

NUFF SAID

The scientific community at large once rejected plate tectonics so there's that.

To me, its very apparent that irreducibly complex things can and do exist and the scientific community shouldn't autoreject the notion that it exists in biological systems as well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 04:01 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Omg it makes so much sense. How have I not heard of this? Irreducible complexity proves god... Oh no what have I done ive been living like a monster. We can't deny god anymore.. How did I not see this before? Its so obvious. I'm typing this on my cellphone, and I never even realized how complex this thing is. There is no way this thing just evolved from a monkey. God built this phone..and I'm going to get the message out! I need your help. The world needs to know
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
30-11-2013, 04:03 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 04:15 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-11-2013 03:46 AM)sporehux Wrote:  "The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,"

NUFF SAID

The scientific community at large once rejected plate tectonics so there's that.

To me, its very apparent that irreducibly complex things can and do exist and the scientific community shouldn't autoreject the notion that it exists in biological systems as well.
Of course they rejected the theory, that's how science works when theory's are submitted in an incomplete state.

So quote us the scientific submissions for this (IC) to be promoted to a theory. ?

At least platetectonics and continental drift were presented for review and falsification,

IC is nothing more than the ID crowd grasping for technical jargon to bamboozle their sheep.
But are too stupid to realise it sounds like "flux capacitor" to rational people.

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
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
30-11-2013, 04:15 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
What you gon do? Take away some of my complex parts and turn me back into a monkey? No, cause I was made by god. I'm irreducibly complicated. I won't give you ANY of my potential logic or reason. And you take my FREEDOMS away? You take away Christmas?! You better pray to sweet little baby Jesus with his cute little red cheeks out in the cold in December. Just born and shivering. You know what he needs? Silver and gold. Let's bring him silver and gold. Freezing infants love that shit. YOU CANT TAKE MY CHRISTMAS! But you CAN take Jesus into your hearts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 04:25 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  IDist who came up with the concept of irreducible complexity might actually be on to something true....but their looking in the wrong places for evidence to support their position. They look at things like eyes, or flagella....modern structures....which obviously undergone some evolution.

I don't think it farfetched that in the future machines will self replicate and possibly begin to evolve. The very first evolving machines will have been intelligently designed and contain structures which could not have emerged otherwise. They will be irreducibly complex. A trillion years later the machines could still be evolving and look very different......significant evolutionary changes likely have taken place and it might be difficult to identify a structure which is irreducibly complex.

IDist should be claiming abiogenesis itself is irreducibly complex, not an eyeball. If irreducible complexity is true, irreducibly complex structures will exist only in the first living things.

Problem with your analogy: You seem to be trying to raise the idea that abiogenesis is irreducibly complex, by likening it to the first generation of hypothetical self-replicating machines; no?

As you correctly point out; those First-Gen machines are themselves made of parts prior to them gaining the capacity to self-replicate and thus, by logical conclusion, were made and 'irreducibly complex', but over time it might be difficult to tell what parts that would be. However, this is not the case for abiogenesis; unless you intend on stipulating that abiogenesis was in reality, a fully-formed organism of some type being plopped out of nowhere, comprised of naturally non-occurring, non-graduated organs, which then self-replicated and evolved from that, blurring the IC component, I fail to see the comparison.

We have a few decent hypothesises on how abiogenesis occurred, and none of them are remotely like that...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
30-11-2013, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 04:44 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
Theists seem to be jumping off the cliff into Deism in greater numbers these days.
Irreducibly complex parachutes break the fall a little I guess. Safe landing Heywood.
TTT is waiting for you down there with cupcakes and meditation.

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
[+] 4 users Like sporehux's post
30-11-2013, 05:33 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Bah! I've heard the same biogenesis bullshit hurled from the likes of Ben Stein, who would most likely call me anti-semitic for saying he is a douchebag.

Although it is difficult to ascertain the probability of biogenesis, it is many times mores likely than an omnipotent deity creating everything...or even the existence of such a creature.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 05:44 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  IDist want to discredit evolution...which where they crash into a brick wall. If biological irreducible complexity exists, it does so at the inception and not at various points along the way.
(30-11-2013 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  To me, its very apparent that irreducibly complex things can and do exist and the scientific community shouldn't autoreject the notion that it exists in biological systems as well.

I'm really confused by these statements, as I don't think they correspond to the Behe et al model of irreducible complexity. Behe observed that irreducibly complex systems exist in nature. An irreducibly complex system is one for whom removing a single part renders the system inoperable for its current purpose. Anyone who cares to look will concur. Irreducibly complex systems do exist in nature, and the usual examples such as the bacterial flagellum can be verified by anyone with an interest.

Behe's argument is that these irreducibly complex systems cannot have formed by the process of evolution, because evolution produces stepwise random changes. He suggests that in order for the irreducibly complex system to have evolved it must have been missing a part and therefore been rendered non-functional. The non-functional system would have no evolutionary pressure to keep existing and becoming more complex. Instead, evolution would favour the individuals who invested their energy and resources into more productive uses. The non-functional machinery would have been selected out of the population rather than existing long enough to form the irreducibly complex system that eventuated.

Maybe I've missed something but I don't see Behe claiming a goal of of discrediting evolution, but only of following the evidence he sees. Nor do I see any rejection in the scientific community of irreducible complexity.

What I do see is a rejection of Behe's argument that evolution could not produce irreducibly complex systems. The two basic arguments I have seen are:
1. The precursor systems may not be useful as part of the irreducibly complex system, but that is not to say they have no use. Parts of the irreducibly complex system may themselves be or have been perfectly functional systems in their own right but have operated differently or for a different purpose.
2. The precursor systems may not have been equal to the irreducibly complex system minus one or more parts. Instead, the precursor systems may have been more complex and have been refined down to become the simpler and more streamlined irreducibly correct system.
3. Genetic drift is real. Random changes that make organisms slightly but not massively unfit do happen and are sustained for many generations. There is time for an unfit change to change a few more times to end up becoming something useful and beneficial.

These arguments are compelling because they make reliable predictions about reality. For example, we do indeed find that irreducibly complex systems such as the bacterial flagellum are largely composed of proteins and structures useful for other purposes such as secreting toxins into prey cells.

To suggest that the scientific community has not given these ideas a fair airing is a load of ignorant bullshit, and to suggest that ID advocates are only interested in discrediting evolution is to disagree with at least their public face and public statements. I really don't know where you are trying to go with this thread. Are you really seriously suggesting that in order to win some battle with atheism it is necessary for the theistic side to adopt fraudulent tactics and to abandon the pursuit of actual knowledge in favour of finding different ways to make failed arguments? Is this the shadow game theism is reduced to in your mind?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
30-11-2013, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 05:59 AM by sporehux.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
"An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system"

its a flawed argument because it discounts the removal of unfit mechanisms resposible for the ones remaining.


is irreductble complex a term that has any meaning out side of ID justification.

In what context could the term be used ?

"

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
30-11-2013, 06:31 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
The fucking routine is - get up, make coffee, walk the dog, come here and run my neck in between the Gwynnies; I get up this morning, there's kids on my Gwynnies couch, the forum is corrupted with these garish red stripes, and fucking Heywood is trying to tell us that abiogenesis is irreducibly complex.

I mean, did I just wake up on Planet X?

Am I going too fast, here? Irreducible complexity is some IDiot bullshit that claims certain biological structures have no functional precursors, abiogenesis is the hypothesis that organic functionality arose from inorganic compounds, and Heywood goes...

Nah, it ain't Heywood goes, it's Heywood is fucking gone. In orbit around his own navel, desperate for a gap in which to wedge his god so that the universe will recognize the awesome significance of his being.

Stupid universe. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: