Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2013, 05:55 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil 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.
Michael Behe coined the term.
It's a valid challenge to the current theory of evolution.

No, it's not.

It is not scientific, therefore not a valid challenge.

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
03-12-2013, 06:11 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 05:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Michael Behe coined the term.
It's a valid challenge to the current theory of evolution.
No, it's not.
It is not scientific, therefore not a valid challenge.
The Theory of evolution requires stepwise modifications.
It cannot have multiple modifications all at once in order to get a complex structure to work.
The bacteria flagellum was once a "challenge" because of its complexity, until it was pointed out how reducible structures already exist within bacterium.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
03-12-2013, 09:31 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?

The Italian Wall Lizard. One of my favorite little critters was able to develop a larger head, a harder bite, and a new gut structure but instead of reiterating what Richard Dawkins will say in one of the videos you can simply watch yourself but the lizard didn't just evolve all at once but it did evolve fast enough that we are able to observe it i one lifetime. I know you will say its micro evolution but such a drastic change in little time could be able to continue easily the more time you give it and we have huge amounts of time which this has happened.

Not six thousand years creationist use and say that the diversity of animal life now is the result of Noah's ark but we are here to talk about reality and not some fictional story.













Fish with legs! I just find this interesting.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 11:41 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Michael Behe coined the term.
It's a valid challenge to the current theory of evolution.

Shocking

Is this a typo....?


[Image: colin-farrell.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
04-12-2013, 01:17 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Michael Behe coined the term.
It's a valid challenge to the current theory of evolution.

I mean this in all seriousness; I really hope you were just joking and forgot to use an emoticon or place the word 'not' before 'a valid challenge' or something. Blink


Wikipedia Wrote:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings, leading to a more accurate theory. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g. Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities which are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g. electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).

ID explains nothing, has no testable hypothesis, makes no predictions, and is not falsifiable. It fails to come close to the level of scientific hypothesis and is nowhere near anything that could ever be called a theory.


(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If some structure is seen as being irreducibly complex then how can it have evolved via decent with modification?

If you just assume that it is irreducible complex and stop looking for answers, then you will never find out. This is why ID is both a useless and defeatist idea that squanders and stifles scientific progress and understanding instead of expanding it.










(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The problem with "irreducible complexity" being a theory in its own right is that:

It simply falls short of every aspect required to meet the definition of a scientific theory.


(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  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."

Why oh why does it always end up in cosmology... Frusty

Well after you seem to understand why ID is not a theory (kind of makes me wonder why you said it was a challenge to evolution in the first place) and agree with me, your post devolves into lamentation over the the god of the gaps and cosmology.

Dude, your post is a mess and somewhat self defeating and contradictory.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
04-12-2013, 04:06 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
My theist m8 spouted the term in relation to a fly.
When I asked him to explain why IC applies to a fly he went all mr magoo.

Turned out to be yet another part of the wedge strategy preachers are sharing around the world to combat evolution. Still trying to bribe him for a copy.
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

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
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
04-12-2013, 04:10 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 05:42 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It's a valid challenge to the current theory of evolution.

No it isn't.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 04:11 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 04:06 AM)sporehux Wrote:  My theist m8 spouted the term in relation to a fly.
When I asked him to explain why IC applies to a fly he went all mr magoo.

Turned out to be yet another part of the wedge strategy preachers are sharing around the world to combat evolution. Still trying to bribe him for a copy.
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

For those of us who want to read the article like a normal human being, take the .m. out of the link so that you don't go to the mobile version of Wikipedia. Tongue

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 04:06 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Turned out to be yet another part of the wedge strategy preachers are sharing around the world to combat evolution. Still trying to bribe him for a copy.
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

The Wedge Document

I'll take the hundred bucks on PayPal, thanks. Tongue

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
04-12-2013, 09:40 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 08:33 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 04:06 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Turned out to be yet another part of the wedge strategy preachers are sharing around the world to combat evolution. Still trying to bribe him for a copy.
Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

The Wedge Document

I'll take the hundred bucks on PayPal, thanks. Tongue
Its apparently evolved into a checklist for preachers, its redone updated regularly and sent out to this particular Pentecostal sect world wide, they are getting pro active in steming the outbound tide of the nones,
The falseness of carbon dating and IC are the current top topics, and how to respond to Darwinists..
Am trying to sub for their bass player so I can get in undercover, but the guy is dedicated.

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
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: