Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2013, 03:46 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(14-12-2013 12:10 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  You're running at the problem completely wrong - you've got a conclusion that you want to be true, so you're trying to find ways to prove it with evidence. If you were actually intellectually honest and scientific you would be looking at the evidence that you see in nature and deriving your conclusion from that. But unfortunately that approach doesn't support your religious ideology, so you don't want to do that. That's why I find creationists so funny, particularly those that play scientist and call themselves "Intelligent Designists" as if they were approaching the question of life's origins and development scientifically.

You have it wrong. I haven't tried to prove the existence of non man made IC in this thread. I'm suggesting that it is futile for ID'st to look for it in modern organisms not because it doesn't exist at all(like Chas's unsubstantiated claim) but rather that it would really only be needed at the inception of the system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 02:14 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(15-12-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-12-2013 12:10 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  You're running at the problem completely wrong - you've got a conclusion that you want to be true, so you're trying to find ways to prove it with evidence. If you were actually intellectually honest and scientific you would be looking at the evidence that you see in nature and deriving your conclusion from that. But unfortunately that approach doesn't support your religious ideology, so you don't want to do that. That's why I find creationists so funny, particularly those that play scientist and call themselves "Intelligent Designists" as if they were approaching the question of life's origins and development scientifically.

You have it wrong. I haven't tried to prove the existence of non man made IC in this thread. I'm suggesting that it is futile for ID'st to look for it in modern organisms not because it doesn't exist at all(like Chas's unsubstantiated claim) but rather that it would really only be needed at the inception of the system.

Either way, you're starting at a conclusion and trying to find evidence to fit it. Man made organisms say nothing relevant to the question of origins and there is no evidence for ID - it's a conclusion you *want* to prove, not one derived from the evidence. You can't possibly prove your conclusion either. Even if you found an irreducibly complex organism it wouldn't prove ID, it would just prove that the theory of evolution was flawed. ID isn't true by default if evolution is false, we'd just shift back to "we don't know yet" and continue searching for evidence. ID isn't scientific, it's a religious viewpoint attempting to wedge its way into schools by masquerading as "science" and some people are gullible enough to buy it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
16-12-2013, 02:46 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:14 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  
(15-12-2013 03:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You have it wrong. I haven't tried to prove the existence of non man made IC in this thread. I'm suggesting that it is futile for ID'st to look for it in modern organisms not because it doesn't exist at all(like Chas's unsubstantiated claim) but rather that it would really only be needed at the inception of the system.

Either way, you're starting at a conclusion and trying to find evidence to fit it. Man made organisms say nothing relevant to the question of origins and there is no evidence for ID - it's a conclusion you *want* to prove, not one derived from the evidence. You can't possibly prove your conclusion either. Even if you found an irreducibly complex organism it wouldn't prove ID, it would just prove that the theory of evolution was flawed. ID isn't true by default if evolution is false, we'd just shift back to "we don't know yet" and continue searching for evidence. ID isn't scientific, it's a religious viewpoint attempting to wedge its way into schools by masquerading as "science" and some people are gullible enough to buy it.

First of all, I am a staunch believer that the complexity and diversity of life on this planet is a direct result of a process we call evolution. Second, I don't see Irreducible Complexity to be in conflict with evolution. Both exist now(as evidenced by the irreducibly complex system of watermarks in synthetic bacteria) so I don't find it unreasonable that both could have existed in the past. Third, if a person wants to hypothesize the existence of irreducible complexity, I don't see anything wrong with doing so. I only suggest to them that the logical place to look for it is at the beginning of the process we call evolution(see post number 1 in this thread). Last, where I do have a problem is when people.....like Chas....start with a conclusion that there is no irreducible complexity....and then just expect people to believe their conclusion because they have concluded it to be so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 06:22 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:14 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Either way, you're starting at a conclusion and trying to find evidence to fit it. Man made organisms say nothing relevant to the question of origins and there is no evidence for ID - it's a conclusion you *want* to prove, not one derived from the evidence. You can't possibly prove your conclusion either. Even if you found an irreducibly complex organism it wouldn't prove ID, it would just prove that the theory of evolution was flawed. ID isn't true by default if evolution is false, we'd just shift back to "we don't know yet" and continue searching for evidence. ID isn't scientific, it's a religious viewpoint attempting to wedge its way into schools by masquerading as "science" and some people are gullible enough to buy it.

First of all, I am a staunch believer that the complexity and diversity of life on this planet is a direct result of a process we call evolution. Second, I don't see Irreducible Complexity to be in conflict with evolution. Both exist now(as evidenced by the irreducibly complex system of watermarks in synthetic bacteria) so I don't find it unreasonable that both could have existed in the past. Third, if a person wants to hypothesize the existence of irreducible complexity, I don't see anything wrong with doing so. I only suggest to them that the logical place to look for it is at the beginning of the process we call evolution(see post number 1 in this thread). Last, where I do have a problem is when people.....like Chas....start with a conclusion that there is no irreducible complexity....and then just expect people to believe their conclusion because they have concluded it to be so.


But....erm............ YOU do that.
lol

Common. Ya can't call Chas out for something you do yourself.
Wait.

dammit.......

this is the Poe I'm supposed to avoid eh>





my bad

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 11:57 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(08-12-2013 02:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(07-12-2013 01:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Please show an example of naturally occurring IC.
The mechanisms of evolution have been well defined and do not include anything that is irreducibly complex. My claim is well-founded.

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
16-12-2013, 12:25 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:46 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:14 AM)Azaraith Wrote:  Either way, you're starting at a conclusion and trying to find evidence to fit it. Man made organisms say nothing relevant to the question of origins and there is no evidence for ID - it's a conclusion you *want* to prove, not one derived from the evidence. You can't possibly prove your conclusion either. Even if you found an irreducibly complex organism it wouldn't prove ID, it would just prove that the theory of evolution was flawed. ID isn't true by default if evolution is false, we'd just shift back to "we don't know yet" and continue searching for evidence. ID isn't scientific, it's a religious viewpoint attempting to wedge its way into schools by masquerading as "science" and some people are gullible enough to buy it.

First of all, I am a staunch believer that the complexity and diversity of life on this planet is a direct result of a process we call evolution. Second, I don't see Irreducible Complexity to be in conflict with evolution. Both exist now(as evidenced by the irreducibly complex system of watermarks in synthetic bacteria) so I don't find it unreasonable that both could have existed in the past. Third, if a person wants to hypothesize the existence of irreducible complexity, I don't see anything wrong with doing so. I only suggest to them that the logical place to look for it is at the beginning of the process we call evolution(see post number 1 in this thread). Last, where I do have a problem is when people.....like Chas....start with a conclusion that there is no irreducible complexity....and then just expect people to believe their conclusion because they have concluded it to be so.

Irreducible complexity isn't compatible with evolution. The fact that it's synthesized in a lab doesn't mean that it can occur in nature, just as we've synthesized elements in the lab that never existed in nature (and only exist for fractions of a second in the lab due to instability). Hell, an English Bulldog wouldn't exist in nature if it wasn't selectively bred by humans (they can't breed without assistance). There are plenty of examples of organisms bred or engineered by humans that wouldn't ever evolve or exist in nature otherwise, that says nothing of their compatibility with evolutionary theory.

Irreducible complexity was a concept constructed by creationists specifically to "refute" evolution, despite their complete failure to find a single example of such an organism. Regardless of where in the timeline it supposedly occurred, it would conflict with evolution. You're placing it at the beginning is just conveniently pushing it outside of what you can expect to find solid evidence for, so you can claim it's plausible despite not having a shred of evidence in favor of it.

You're driving at the conclusion that a god existed to spark it all and that's not anything that is derived from the evidence, it's a claim you already believe and wish to construct support for. Otherwise you wouldn't even be bothering with suggesting IC had to do with anything or otherwise arguing in favor of theism as you have.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
16-12-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 06:22 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  But....erm............ YOU do that.
lol

Common. Ya can't call Chas out for something you do yourself.
Wait.

dammit.......

this is the Poe I'm supposed to avoid eh>





my bad

Maybe you can find a quote of me from this thread doing the thing you claim I did. As it stands now your nebulous accusation leaves me no way to defend myself.....that's not really fair.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-12-2013 02:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Please show an example of naturally occurring IC.
The mechanisms of evolution have been well defined and do not include anything that is irreducibly complex. My claim is well-founded.

Your claim is that irreducible complexity does not exist in nature. You "substantiate" your claim by pointing out that it is no where to be found in nature. That is like a fundamentalist claiming that abiogenesis does not exist in nature and "substantiating" his claim by pointing out it has never been found in nature. Neither your claim or the fundamentalist is substantiated....yet both you and the fundamentalist demand to be believed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 12:25 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  Irreducible complexity isn't compatible with evolution. The fact that it's synthesized in a lab doesn't mean that it can occur in nature, just as we've synthesized elements in the lab that never existed in nature (and only exist for fractions of a second in the lab due to instability). Hell, an English Bulldog wouldn't exist in nature if it wasn't selectively bred by humans (they can't breed without assistance). There are plenty of examples of organisms bred or engineered by humans that wouldn't ever evolve or exist in nature otherwise, that says nothing of their compatibility with evolutionary theory.

Irreducible complexity was a concept constructed by creationists specifically to "refute" evolution, despite their complete failure to find a single example of such an organism. Regardless of where in the timeline it supposedly occurred, it would conflict with evolution. You're placing it at the beginning is just conveniently pushing it outside of what you can expect to find solid evidence for, so you can claim it's plausible despite not having a shred of evidence in favor of it.

You're driving at the conclusion that a god existed to spark it all and that's not anything that is derived from the evidence, it's a claim you already believe and wish to construct support for. Otherwise you wouldn't even be bothering with suggesting IC had to do with anything or otherwise arguing in favor of theism as you have.

First, irreducible complexity and evolution can co-exist. Just because a thing has irreducible structures doesn't exclude it from having evolved structures. Second, ID'st are wrong to think that irreducible complexity refutes evolution and this is trivially easy to show. Third, irreducible complexity does not prove God. The suggestion of the existence of an intellect is as far as it goes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 02:24 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 11:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  Please show an example of naturally occurring IC.
The mechanisms of evolution have been well defined and do not include anything that is irreducibly complex. My claim is well-founded.

Your claim is that irreducible complexity does not exist in nature. You "substantiate" your claim by pointing out that it is no where to be found in nature. That is like a fundamentalist claiming that abiogenesis does not exist in nature and "substantiating" his claim by pointing out it has never been found in nature. Neither your claim or the fundamentalist is substantiated....yet both you and the fundamentalist demand to be believed.

Fail again Blowjob.
Fallacy of the false analogy.
One is the (supposed) outcome of a process, one is the (supposed) beginning of one.
They are unrelated, vastly different, and cannot be compared in any way.
Congrats on "going" *below*. Atheists can sleep safe in their beds, (well at least until a new whining session is initiated). Tongue

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: