Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2013, 07:23 AM
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.

Name one that was not designed by people.

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
30-11-2013, 07:30 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 09:35 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:25 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You don't need sentience for machine evolution. You don't even need replicating machines. Computer viruses should evolve as they replicate themselves and are subject to "corruption" during that replication process.

Yes you do need sentience, either ours or theirs. Self replicating machines and computer viruses do not assemble themselves without sentience, because they are the products of intelligent designers; namely human beings. Even self replicating and evolving computer viruses are designed that way, once again by human beings. You are once again making terrible analogies without thinking them through.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
30-11-2013, 07:45 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 05:44 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  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.

Behe accepts common descent, his part is at 6:55 in the video. Drinking Beverage





[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 07:49 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 06:31 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  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

Hug :nohomo: :probably:

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
30-11-2013, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 07:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
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.

It's "they're looking" Blowjob, ... you idiot.
Did you EVER go to school ? And, no, you're totally WRONG again.



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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-11-2013, 08:04 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator

SO WE ALL AGREE that the phrase was coined by Behe.

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, 08:21 AM (This post was last modified: 30-11-2013 08:24 AM by DLJ.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
Um... well.... it's complicated.

No, it's not...

(30-11-2013 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...
up to that demarcation line we define as 'biological life'.
...

It's a continuum. No thresholds. No demarcation.

We are sentient machines. Actually, we are Bayesian Inference machines ... because we need to throw poop!




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 04:25 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  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...

I don't know if the first gen biological beings were irreducibly complex but if there is irreducible complexity in biological systems, that is where it would be. So much evolution has taken place that I doubt you could point to anything modern and unambiguously show that it is irreducibly complex.

I do think that irreducible complexity is a valid concept and science should be open to the idea that it may exists in biological systems. Now that we have begun to engineer biology its conceivable that we will create irreducibly complex biological structures ourselves. When that day happens the existence of irreducible complexity in biological systems will not be up for debate but it probably still won't be discussed in high school science classes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  When that day happens the existence of irreducible complexity in biological systems will not be up for debate but it probably still won't be discussed in high school science classes.

Presuppositionalist prepersecution complex. Angel

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
30-11-2013, 02:23 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-11-2013 04:25 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  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...

I don't know if the first gen biological beings were irreducibly complex but if there is irreducible complexity in biological systems, that is where it would be. So much evolution has taken place that I doubt you could point to anything modern and unambiguously show that it is irreducibly complex.

I do think that irreducible complexity is a valid concept and science should be open to the idea that it may exists in biological systems. Now that we have begun to engineer biology its conceivable that we will create irreducibly complex biological structures ourselves. When that day happens the existence of irreducible complexity in biological systems will not be up for debate but it probably still won't be discussed in high school science classes.

There is nothing that has been shown to fit the definition. It's a concept looking for validation.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: