Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-11-2013, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2013 02:14 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 08:21 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(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.

I know, that line in the sand between what we define as 'life' and 'non-life' is about as existent as the line between us and our Australopithecus ancestors. Life is a continuum, unfortunately that confounds our evolutionary adapted habit of compartmentalizing things into groups with labels. It's how we can look at water and coal and say they're not alive, even though we are made up of a large amount of Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
30-11-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:09 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

When that happens, it will be in the science books under the heading 'genetic engineering' and not 'god did it'... Drinking Beverage

[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, 03:35 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Has anybody brought up serial endosymbiosis theory yet? As far as I'm concerned, that pretty much covers the irreducible complexity argument.

THIS USER IS NO LONGER ACTIVE.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
[+] 1 user Likes Cephalotus's post
30-11-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity is not a scientific notion.
I mean, how could a scientist prove that something is irreducible complex?
Is there a definition that allows one to prove that something is irreducibly complex or not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes black_squirrel's post
30-11-2013, 06:01 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
^When most evolution deniers use the phrase "irreducible complexity," they mean systems and organs that could not have possibly arose piecemeal, such as the eye and the digestive tract. What they don't understand is that modern science has a much better understanding of this than Darwin did. He was more focused on teeny-tiny changes and single gene mutations.

You'll have to forgive me if this has already been covered in the thread. I didn't watch the video links or read every single post because I've had this conversation so many time before. Sooooooo many times. Online and otherwise.


For real---soooooooooooo many times. <3

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
30-11-2013, 06:42 PM
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.

Sorry, complete nonsense. This is mental masturbation, nothing more.

Science has debunked this crap for eons.

Infinite regress for one. Ochams Razor if you want to stick to mere "thinking" about choices. But the easiest way to call bullshit on god claims as a gap answer is simple.

People who argue this are not arguing for the mere plausibility of a god being possible. The argument is always intended to point to their pet god claim.

An easy way to call bullshit on this tactic is to ask them if they would buy a god claim made by someone with another god claim using this same argument. The answer is no, they would not.

Complexity in science is an emergent property, not a starting point.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 07:35 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.

Okay; for the sake of argument, lets evaluate this.

First: How could a scientist show that a component of all organisms was irreducibly complex? Also how would they discover it at all; as you say it would be difficult to tell due to time.

Secondly: What is your opinion on which component is irreducibly complex?

Third: My opinion.
In my opinion, by the criteria you set out, the irreducibly complex component must have, in some form, existed in all organisms. My personal choice for such a component would be RNA. It seems possibly to me that before the rise of deoxyribonucleic acids, ribonucleic acids probably ran everything.
However, we know how both RNA and DNA are synthesised, so by definition, they are not irreducibly complex. And neither are their own composing pieces which we has seen form under experimental conditions.

Looks like my being a biology student, focusing on genetics and ecology is finally going to be of use to me.

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
30-11-2013, 08:38 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  IDiots who came up with the concept of irreducible complexityblah blah blah....

IDiots should be claiming blah blah blah....

fixed!

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 08:39 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 02:43 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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.

No, their main problem is their presupposition. Irreducible complexity is a conclusion in search of evidence, not supported by it. It's essentially just a fancy label for ignorance.


(30-11-2013 02:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

This painful analogy is so terrible and grasping at straws as to be laughable.

If we do ever manage to create self-replicating sentient machines, they will be irreducibly complex because they will be intelligent designed; by us. Later they could very well design improvements to themselves, and this will have nothing to do with natural selection as it operates in the animal kingdom. This has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection, abiogenesis, or anything else concerning biology on our planet.


(30-11-2013 02:04 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.


See first point. Also at the start of life, that is the only threshold that cold be considered irreducible. Once you break down life to it's most basic parts to that you stop chemical self-replication and homeostasis, you've just stopped what we define as 'life'. There is a point where life itself is no longer reducible, but that's doesn't mean we can't understand how it all works leading up to that demarcation line we define as 'biological life'.

If I keep punching the "Like" button, will I eventually be able to run it up?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-11-2013, 08:58 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:59 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The scientific community at large once rejected plate tectonics so there's that.


I love it when theist snake oil salesmen rattle off bullshit like the above, hoping that no one will fact check their shit.

Wegener's theory of a "pole-fleeing force" re: continental drift via cetrifrugal force was rejected "because the actual forces generated by the rotation of the earth were calculated to be insufficient to move continents."*

That's NOT "the scientific community at large rejecting plate tectonics".

How about you not try to sneak bullshit past, well, ANYONE -- but especially past a bunch of people who are a lot smarter than you and who actually check your bullshit shell-game claims.



* http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: