Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-12-2013, 01:34 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(01-12-2013 07:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-12-2013 03:19 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Hey Wood, ya might wanna check this out:





Computational irreducibility; it's fringe, but not straight woo like the other thing. Thumbsup

Rule 30 for the win.

What does the lack of women on the internet have to do with anything?

Know Your Meme Wrote:Rule 30. There are no girls on the Internet.
Rule 31. Tits or GTFO.


No Girls on the Internet is a catchphrase used by netizens to imply that there are no female entities actually participating in online forums and conversations, especially in anonymous-friendly settings like chat rooms and message boards.

Tits or GTFO is a reinforcing statement of the preceding Rule 30 (“No Girls on the Internet”) that suggests the burden of visual proof rests heavily on the individuals who claim to be females.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-the-internet

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(02-12-2013 01:34 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-12-2013 07:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  Rule 30 for the win.

What does the lack of women on the internet have to do with anything?

Know Your Meme Wrote:Rule 30. There are no girls on the Internet.
Rule 31. Tits or GTFO.


No Girls on the Internet is a catchphrase used by netizens to imply that there are no female entities actually participating in online forums and conversations, especially in anonymous-friendly settings like chat rooms and message boards.

Tits or GTFO is a reinforcing statement of the preceding Rule 30 (“No Girls on the Internet”) that suggests the burden of visual proof rests heavily on the individuals who claim to be females.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-the-internet

I didn't say "Rule 30.", I said "Rule 30".

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
02-12-2013, 03:10 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(30-11-2013 03:21 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(30-11-2013 02:24 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  If they want to claim that, they should be presenting firm evidence in support of their claim. However that would put them in the position of trying to prove a negative. It would be simpler for them to say "the case for abiogenesis has not been made"... but to use that as a basis for ID would be an argument from ignorance: I don't know how life started, therefore I know how life started.

Their actual case is already an argument from ignorance however. They start with the existence of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms. Then they claim they don't know how evolution could have produced these, therefore they know how the mechanisms were produced.

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.

Sorry, don't we want to discredit what is commonly called by us "macro-evolution" rather than all evolution?

And it would sit at the inception of any great change, eg:

*sea life takes to the land--besides lungs to add to gills, there must be a change in respiratory, dietic/alimentary, reproductive, visual, etc. systems
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 04:47 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(02-12-2013 03:10 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Sorry, don't we want to discredit what is commonly called by us "macro-evolution" rather than all evolution?

You can want in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up faster.

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
02-12-2013, 06:09 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
They didn't all change at once PJ Wink
It's amazing what can happen in sixty million years though[1].

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

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
02-12-2013, 11:17 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(02-12-2013 03:10 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(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.

Sorry, don't we want to discredit what is commonly called by us "macro-evolution" rather than all evolution?

And it would sit at the inception of any great change, eg:

*sea life takes to the land--besides lungs to add to gills, there must be a change in respiratory, dietic/alimentary, reproductive, visual, etc. systems

[Image: Hell..-Has-Finally-Frozen-Over.jpg]

The preceding has been a visual representation of the time when evolution by natural selection and common descent will be invalidated in favor of spontaneous divine creation. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
03-12-2013, 03:11 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(02-12-2013 06:09 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  They didn't all change at once PJ Wink
It's amazing what can happen in sixty million years though[1].

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

In the water, the temperature might change as much as a degree in 24 hours. It can change 50 on the land. Winds and other things pose further dangers. That would be one example of an incredibly complex system, like our own glandular and skin systems, that a sea-based animal might find challenging on the land, while it is mating and eating and etc.

What you have in response is "we know they didn't all change at once". How do you know that? I can only see fully formed species on the page you referred me to.

You seem like a pretty honest person. But it stretches credulity to tell me you know that the complex organ systems didn't evolve or weren't created all at one time. What is your evidence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 03:11 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ....But it stretches credulity....

Shocking


[Image: 20120622052737!Rofl.gif]

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
03-12-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 03:11 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(02-12-2013 06:09 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  They didn't all change at once PJ Wink
It's amazing what can happen in sixty million years though[1].

[1] http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

In the water, the temperature might change as much as a degree in 24 hours. It can change 50 on the land. Winds and other things pose further dangers. That would be one example of an incredibly complex system, like our own glandular and skin systems, that a sea-based animal might find challenging on the land, while it is mating and eating and etc.

What you have in response is "we know they didn't all change at once". How do you know that? I can only see fully formed species on the page you referred me to.

You seem like a pretty honest person. But it stretches credulity to tell me you know that the complex organ systems didn't evolve or weren't created all at one time. What is your evidence?

Well however it happened, the VERY last notion, (ie the LEAST probable answer to the question), is that YOUR particular deity did anything. We know animals did not leave the water, in one step, which you might know if you ever really DID go school. What actually DOES "stretch credulity" is the notion that ANYTHING happened suddenly, in Evolution. When are you going to stop plying your ignorant garbage on TTA, SexuallyPleasingJebusTrollJoke. Maybe your church could take up a collection to send you to school ? BTW, the converts ? Who are your converts you (lied about) said "left TTA' ? Their names ? You forgot to give us their names.

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
03-12-2013, 05:42 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.
Michael Behe coined the term.
It's a valid challenge to the current theory of evolution.
If some structure is seen as being irreducibly complex then how can it have evolved via decent with modification?
The problem with "irreducible complexity" being a theory in its own right is that:
1. How can you prove that something is irreducibly complex? It seems the best they can do is say "I don't know how you can reduce that complex structure and have it provide some benefit to the carrier". This is a plea to ignorance.
2. The theory itself is not falsifiable. They say that the eye is irreducibly complex but then scientists show how eyes evolved. But the irreducible complexity proponents don't throw away their theory, they merely look at something else e.g. bacteria flagellum. No-one seems willing to put their faith to the test, by making it falsifiable. HJ now points to abiogenesis but obviously if more accurate and detailed versions of the Miller-Urey experiment are proven then I'm sure HJ won't give up on the idea of "irreducible complexity".
Ultimately, as science advances, the God of the gaps shrinks. It becomes so reduced that it goes into the area that may never be proven, what happened before the big bang. This god can be only Deist at best. And will only be believed by people that insist that their god's existence requires no proof.
For those people, why do they bother with these "irreducible complexity" or "cosmological argument" propositions? Why don't they be honest and say, "I believe because I have faith (in the story I have been told, or that I have read), no amount of evidence will persuade me otherwise."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: