Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

What do you mean by co-exist? Sure, if we engineer an organism that could not have occurred naturally and it then undergoes mutation and selection - is that your point?

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, 02:30 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.

I claim that they can't exist in nature. They cannot suddenly come into existence.

There is no natural mechanism that explains them.

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, 02:34 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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

As I pointed out in post 1 of this thread. Irreducible complexity can be the starting point of a chain of evolution. If irreducible complexity doesn't belong in science class because it hasn't been observed, shouldn't abiogenesis be excluded from science class as well?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 02:36 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

As I pointed out in post 1 of this thread. Irreducible complexity can be the starting point of a chain of evolution. If irreducible complexity doesn't belong in science class because it hasn't been observed, shouldn't abiogenesis be excluded from science class as well?

False analogy. IC can't happen naturally; abiogenesis is the hypothesis for what did happen.

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, 03:01 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

As I pointed out in post 1 of this thread. Irreducible complexity can be the starting point of a chain of evolution. If irreducible complexity doesn't belong in science class because it hasn't been observed, shouldn't abiogenesis be excluded from science class as well?

No. I know you are a deist, (even though you deny it), and think a deity could have wound the clock, directed it, and let it run. There is no instance (yet observed) of "irreducibly" complex anything. Complex yes. "Irreducibly complex, no.
The entire notion is false, on it's face.

"Abiogenesis" refers to "life arising from non-life". We SEE life, and want the question answered, "Can life arise from non-life". We know it can, and there is no absolute boundary. (You never watched the video series from Harvard in post # 25, did you) or commented on it, or what you objected to in it.

One is a search for what MIGHT have happened, and plausible pathways for life from non-life, to prove it "could have" happened. IC operates a priori from a definition which has never been observed. By your logic, they should teach how to search for teapots orbiting the sun.

The thing that WOULD be comparable, would be IF IC adherents actually PROPOSED methods by which OBSERVED "irreducibly" complex NATURAL structures came about, or what MIGHT be an IC structure.
A. None have been observed.
B. IC adherents NEVER spend their time doing that.

Irreducible Complexity used by theists to bolster their weak faith BEGS the question :
"How LITTLE complexity would you need to see, or what is your cut-off point at which, upon observing it, you would STOP believing in a deity ?". IF theists HAVE no such cut-off point, or boundary, then the entire argument is done in bad faith.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-12-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

Sorry, no - the idea of IC is that something is complex enough that it can't have come about by chance. The entire point of that ridiculous hypothesis was that it was a means to refute evolution, that's it. It was invented for that purpose by creationists, you're simply trying to shove a human boot onto an elephant's foot - it just doesn't work. If you say that the initial link in the chain (the first living thing) was irreducibly complex and everything evolved from that, then you're not talking about evolution, you're talking about the origin of life. Evolution only applies to the development of life over time, not its origins.

Yes, it's trivial to show that creationists are wrong, that's because their arguments are shit and they have no evidence. I can also beat a 5 year old in one-on-one basketball and outrun a toddler. Your point?

Of course it doesn't, but you're charging full steam ahead at that conclusion even if you're going to pretend that you aren't - you're at least a deist, interested in IC so that you can claim that a deity had to have sparked the initial process. Don't think you're fooling anyone here. In order for IC to suggest anything you'd have to present some evidence that it exists in nature and not just in a test tube created by humans. That's your task to prove and all you've done so far is suggest that it could exist and that Chas can't prove the negative that it doesn't. That's not how it works, otherwise we'd be tasked with proving that elves, Santa, and flying reindeer don't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Azaraith's post
16-12-2013, 03:18 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:34 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  As I pointed out in post 1 of this thread. Irreducible complexity can be the starting point of a chain of evolution. If irreducible complexity doesn't belong in science class because it hasn't been observed, shouldn't abiogenesis be excluded from science class as well?
False analogy. IC can't happen naturally; abiogenesis is the hypothesis for what did happen.
Science is the pursuit of natural explanations for observable events.
Science must be limited to natural explanations because these can be objectably observed and measured, the conditions can be set up and tests can be carried out and repeated. The objectivity is important because it allows scientific ideas to be objectively challenged and proven false.
The abiogeness that science speculates on presents a hypothetical natural explanation for the beginning of life.
So this is appropriate in the science class room.

If Irreducible Complexity is being used as "proof" of an intelligent creator then this is not a natural explanation and the intelligent creator and the creation of the IC structure are not observable, measurable or recreatable as a test. Thus this "proof" is not science but instead is theology. This does not offer a means of objectively determining truth about nature. This does not allow for objective challenges. Resolution of such disputes become the domain of political maneuvering rather than objective evidence based discovery.

In my opinion, IC can only be used in the science classroom in a very limited fashion. In a way that highlights that evolution requires small un-planned adaptations over time, that each step must either present a reproduction advantage or be neutral and survivable. That observed complexity according to evolution ought to be possible to break down into less complex functional structures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2013, 04:27 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
It's perhaps worth distinguishing between senses of irreducible.

It might be construed to mean that from which nothing may be taken away without interfering with function, in which case it's very much evident in nature (a natural consequence of parsimony) and human-made things (ditto - an arch is irreducibly complex Tongue ).

Or it might be construed to mean that which could not have arisen gradually (ie by evolution) - this being generally what hack theists would claim. And for which there is no particular evidence for nor any reason to suppose it...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 02:18 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 02:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:14 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

I claim that they can't exist in nature. They cannot suddenly come into existence.

There is no natural mechanism that explains them.

First You claimed Irreducible complexity doesn't exist.

Then you backpeddled and claimed non man made irreducible complexity doesn't exist.

Now you claim non-made irreducible complexity can't exist in nature.....which is nonsense. All that is required is a non human intellect of sufficient caliber.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-12-2013, 02:51 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(16-12-2013 03:14 PM)Azaraith Wrote:  
(16-12-2013 02:19 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

Sorry, no - the idea of IC is that something is complex enough that it can't have come about by chance. The entire point of that ridiculous hypothesis was that it was a means to refute evolution, that's it. It was invented for that purpose by creationists, you're simply trying to shove a human boot onto an elephant's foot - it just doesn't work. If you say that the initial link in the chain (the first living thing) was irreducibly complex and everything evolved from that, then you're not talking about evolution, you're talking about the origin of life. Evolution only applies to the development of life over time, not its origins.

Yes, it's trivial to show that creationists are wrong, that's because their arguments are shit and they have no evidence. I can also beat a 5 year old in one-on-one basketball and outrun a toddler. Your point?

Of course it doesn't, but you're charging full steam ahead at that conclusion even if you're going to pretend that you aren't - you're at least a deist, interested in IC so that you can claim that a deity had to have sparked the initial process. Don't think you're fooling anyone here. In order for IC to suggest anything you'd have to present some evidence that it exists in nature and not just in a test tube created by humans. That's your task to prove and all you've done so far is suggest that it could exist and that Chas can't prove the negative that it doesn't. That's not how it works, otherwise we'd be tasked with proving that elves, Santa, and flying reindeer don't exist.

My belief in God doesn't require biological systems to be irreducibly complex. I am certainly not trying to convince you that non man made irreducible complexity exists in nature. I am saying that it could exist in nature....if it does exist...you will most likely to find it at the starting point of the process we call natural evolution. There is a big difference between saying something can exist and something does exist. Just like there is a big difference between saying something can't exist(Chas's error because he fails to prove or even try to prove it can't exist) or saying we have no reason to believe that something exists.

Showing man made irreducible complexity is pertinent because it demonstrates the principle of irreducible complexity just as lab created abiogenesis would demonstrate the principle of abiogenesis. Irreducible complexity is something real...something we can observe. Abiogenesis...well that's just something we think can happen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: