Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills 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.

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
It is a valid challenge.

If a structure is complex then it is an interesting challenge for a scientist to show how that structure can have come about via evolution.

It benefits no-one to just assume evolution and not to bother looking for evidence in support of it. I like it that the ID proponents are making the challenge. I like that they point out stuff like bacteria flagellum or the blood clotting cascade etc, because that then motivates the scientists to discover how such things evolved.

When theories are not challenged then they are not using the scientific method. Evolution should be challenged.

Just because there are no other scientific theories explaining the diversity of life, that doesn't mean Evolution shouldn't be challenged.


(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
ID is not a theory, it is theology.
However, once in a while these guys do present or highlight some challenges which have some value.
Reading through Jonathan Wells book "Icons of Evolution" certainly highlights some issues with the education system, if indeed School biology books show images of peppered moths on tree trunks, or if they show the Haeckel's embryos.


(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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.
and the flip-side is that if you assume it evolved and stop looking for answers then you will never find out. I think it is great that the ID proponents point to these structures and it is great that the scientists work hard to show how these things are reducable.


(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is why ID is both a useless and defeatist idea that squanders and stifles scientific progress and understanding instead of expanding it.
They expand scientific understanding, by motivating the scientists to provide evidence for stuff.
Unfortunately they also use propaganda and deceit to confuse less scientific people.

(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
I never said ID is a challenge, I said irreducible complexity is a challenge.
There is no value in just putting the blinkers on. It is too easy to write off the religious as a bunch of deluded, misguided wack-jobs, but once in a while they do offer some challenges.

Evolution is a great theory, it explains a lot, but evolution is very hard to prove because it takes so long for living structures to evolve, so long to go from a bacteria to a human. Granted there are masses of evidence from many diverse scientific fields but still there are many puzzles as well. I'd love to be an evolutionary biologist as it is so interesting and there is still much to discover.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I never said ID is a challenge, I said irreducible complexity is a challenge.
There is no value in just putting the blinkers on. It is too easy to write off the religious as a bunch of deluded, misguided wack-jobs, but once in a while they do offer some challenges.

IC is simply saying that if there is no accurate explanation for something then it must have been willed into existence, its pure God of the gaps argument.

And if you think scientists just stop looking for answers because they think evolution was responsible, then your ignorant or disingenuous.

The only challenge it offers is how to stop it leaching into schools by the wedge crowd whose sole purpose is to stop kids learning evolution because it contradicts the bible.

Evolution is a transparent science based on facts and truth.
IC is manufactured problem to wedge open gaps in science for the bible to make sense.

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, 02:47 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 01:04 PM)sporehux Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I never said ID is a challenge, I said irreducible complexity is a challenge.
There is no value in just putting the blinkers on. It is too easy to write off the religious as a bunch of deluded, misguided wack-jobs, but once in a while they do offer some challenges.

IC is simply saying that if there is no accurate explanation for something then it must have been willed into existence, its pure God of the gaps argument.
No. Forget about the "god" bit.
Irreducible complexity is more of a direct challenge to the theory of evolution rather than a proof of "gods".
The theory of evolution claims "decent with modification", and it claims small modification e.g. a slightly altered protein or a copy of something but in the wrong place. It is step wise e.g. you can see how the eye has evolved overtime to become some complex elaborate structure. If the eye just appeared all of a sudden, let's say a normal worm all of a sudden gave birth to a worm with a fully functioning, eye as complex as that of a human, then this would be a serious challenge to the theory of evolution.
With evolution, the steps must themselves either provide some reproductive advantage or be benign. They certainly can't be detrimental, or operate towards a preconceived strategy or design.

(04-12-2013 01:04 PM)sporehux Wrote:  And if you think scientists just stop looking for answers because they think evolution was responsible, then your ignorant or disingenuous.
This is not what I think.
I think scientists try to look for and solve problems.
I think scientists would see complexity (such as the bacteria flagellum) see that it presents a problem with regards to the theory of evolution and then put effort into solving the problem. Which is exactly what they have done. They certainly don't look at these structures and say, well its not a problem so I won't bother investigating it.
(04-12-2013 01:04 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Evolution is a transparent science based on facts and truth.
I think you would get value out of reading the "Icons of Evolution" book.
It highlights some issues of evolution as it is taught in schools.
e.g. Haeckels embryos.
I've only just read the book myself and am only just starting to double check the validity of Well's claims. Certainly his claim against Darwin's finches is ridiculous. But if some of his claims are true then it seems there are misleading claims and examples in science school books.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 02:58 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 03:01 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
We're just beginning to understand how genetics and epigenetics work, how genes work, how they get turned on and off, (thus how Evolution works). If the 20th C was the century of genetics, the 21st will be the century of epigenetics. Darwin knew nothing about epigenetics.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/health_...igenetics/

PJ : The 70th son of El Elyon, (Yahweh Sabaoth, the Babylonian/Sumerian war god-god of the armies-lord of the (arrayed) "hosts"), had nothing to do with any of it. Tongue

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
04-12-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 09:40 AM)sporehux Wrote:  Am trying to sub for their bass player so I can get in undercover, but the guy is dedicated.

OK well let me know if they need a guitar, sax, flute, piano, drums, or organ. We can infiltrate them together, they couldn't possibly think we co0uld get *two* moles in. Heh.

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, 09:18 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  It is a valid challenge.

No, it's not. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so, either.

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, 09:39 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 02:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think scientists would see complexity (such as the bacteria flagellum) see that it presents a problem with regards to the theory of evolution.

Ok I take back the insults, but your definition of evolution is off the mark.
Attributing a gap issue as a challenge to evolution is just like claiming a sinkhole on a city street presents a problem with the transport services for the whole city.

Especially as IC has no alternative theory to put forward, other than GOD did it.
Explain how IC can help discover the truth of science gaps, you can't because its sole purpose is to stop looking. Evolution theory is dynamic, there is no dogma unless you are irrational about it.

Gap > IC > evolution could be wrong,
Gap > Evolution science > why is this so, lets investigate and share results.

the only alternative to evolution science we have is Creationism and that has a few books of "believe it or else go to hell" compared to thousands of read and make your own mind up evolution science texts.

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
04-12-2013, 10:46 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 09:39 PM)sporehux Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 02:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I think scientists would see complexity (such as the bacteria flagellum) see that it presents a problem with regards to the theory of evolution.
Ok I take back the insults, but your definition of evolution is off the mark.
Attributing a gap issue as a challenge to evolution is just like claiming a sinkhole on a city street presents a problem with the transport services for the whole city.
It's not a gap issue. If something was really found to be irreducibly complex then it would prove evolution as being false.
Evolution is a falsifiable scientific theory and this is what makes Evolution such a strong theory. Since it is falsifiable and yet there is no proof showing it to be false.
Similar to the fossil record. If we found that all the animals alive today were around in their current form right from the Cambrian period then this would provide a challenge to Evolution.
Or with regards to DNA, if we found that Human DNA was closer to that of the Kangaroo (marsupial) than that of the Bonobos (Primate, Placental Mammal) then Evolution would have a challenge on its hands.
Irreducible Complexity is a concept which must be untrue for Evolution to be true. so if a claim is made that a natural biological structure is irreducibly complex then that does provide a challenge, until that structure is proven to be reducible.
Yeah, of course there is the argument of where lies the burden of proof?
You, me and other atheists are going to say that the burden of proof lies on the claimant that something is irreducibly complex.
Many theists may say the burden of proof lies on the proponents of evolution.
Either way, I would think a scientist whom likes a challenge, would enjoy trying to find the answer.
(04-12-2013 09:39 PM)sporehux Wrote:  Explain how IC can help discover the truth of science gaps, you can't because its sole purpose is to stop looking.
But it has helped solve some gaps by inspiring real scientists to show that bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting cascade are reducible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 11:23 PM (This post was last modified: 04-12-2013 11:34 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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
It is a valid challenge.

If a structure is complex then it is an interesting challenge for a scientist to show how that structure can have come about via evolution.

It benefits no-one to just assume evolution and not to bother looking for evidence in support of it. I like it that the ID proponents are making the challenge. I like that they point out stuff like bacteria flagellum or the blood clotting cascade etc, because that then motivates the scientists to discover how such things evolved.

When theories are not challenged then they are not using the scientific method. Evolution should be challenged.

Just because there are no other scientific theories explaining the diversity of life, that doesn't mean Evolution shouldn't be challenged.

It is not a valid challenge, not even close. Dodgy

Biology already questions itself and attempts to find answers, because it is science and science is falsifiable. ID is not there as a good-guy challenger to make evolution or our understanding even better, it's Creationism in lab coats. IC is the closest thing they ever got to a legitimate challenge to science, and even it fell apart at the fundamental level. IC does appear to exist, and it is not a challenge for evolution. Did you watch the videos I posted? Evolution can both add and subtract, creating a seemingly IC system through evolutionary streamlining for efficiency.

How do you determine is something is IC? Simple incredulity.

Does labeling something as IC help you understand it? No.

Does it make any predictions? Nope.

Does it at all help improve our understanding? Not at all.

So is IC a useful 'challenge' to evolutionary theory? Not even close.



(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
ID is not a theory, it is theology.
However, once in a while these guys do present or highlight some challenges which have some value.
Reading through Jonathan Wells book "Icons of Evolution" certainly highlights some issues with the education system, if indeed School biology books show images of peppered moths on tree trunks, or if they show the Haeckel's embryos.

Theology has no place in science.

Jonathan Well's (who is also an AIDS denialist, so that should tell you just how scientifically minded and objective he is) book is complete bullshit. School books don't use Haeckel's embryos, they use actual photographs. Also the Peppered Moths of industrialized Great Britain DO land on tree trunks, that's why they're peppered to match the fucking trees. The lie that they don't and that the photos were purposely staged for the express purpose of fabricate evidence (instead of challenges of good insect photography) are creationist fabrications.

http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/icons-evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/iconshe.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_1.html





Wikipedia Wrote:In 2000 Wells wrote Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we Teach About Evolution is Wrong, which claims "What the textbooks don't explain, however, is that biologists have known since the 1980s that the classical story has some serious flaws. The most serious is that peppered moths in the wild don't even rest on tree trunks. The textbook photographs, it turns out, have been staged." The arguments put by Wells have been dismissed by Majerus, Cook and peppered moth researcher Bruce Grant who describes Wells as distorting the picture by selectively omitting or scrambling references in a way that is dishonest. Professional photography to illustrate textbooks uses dead insects because of the considerable difficulty in getting good images of small, relatively fast moving animals. The scientific studies actually consisted of observational data rather than using such photographs. The photographs in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no different than the "staged" photographs. While an experiment did involve the gluing of dead moths to trees, this practice was just one of many different ways used to study different individual elements of the overall hypothesis. This particular experiment was not meant to exactly reproduce natural conditions but instead was used to assess how the numbers of moths available (their density) affected the foraging practices of birds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_mo...eationists



(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you just assume that it is irreducible complex and stop looking for answers, then you will never find out.
and the flip-side is that if you assume it evolved and stop looking for answers then you will never find out. I think it is great that the ID proponents point to these structures and it is great that the scientists work hard to show how these things are reducable.

Except, that's not how it worked. Behe claimed that the immune system was IC and never followed up. No research, full fucking stop. He never did anything to attempt to falsify his 'hypothesis', such as doing research to determine how the immune system worked or evolved. No, determining how the immune system works and evolves was done by legitimate biologists and not the crack-pot creationists in lab coats. This was made abundantly clear in the Kitzmiller V. Dover case, where Behe was put on the stand and made a complete fool of himself by the exposure of his incredible ignorance and ineptitude. Behe was more concerned with selling his Darwin bashing books than he was in doing legitimate research and actually moving science forward.



(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  This is why ID is both a useless and defeatist idea that squanders and stifles scientific progress and understanding instead of expanding it.
They expand scientific understanding, by motivating the scientists to provide evidence for stuff.
Unfortunately they also use propaganda and deceit to confuse less scientific people.

Except that it's ALL propaganda, and none of it helps science. IC is just meant to give a veneer of legitimacy to ID (creationism in lab coats), in an effort to bypass science and to use politics to get their bullshit agenda taught in public schools. They don't want to educate, they want to indoctrinate. They're not interested in finding the truth, they think they already have it. For fucks' sake...



(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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.
I never said ID is a challenge, I said irreducible complexity is a challenge.
There is no value in just putting the blinkers on. It is too easy to write off the religious as a bunch of deluded, misguided wack-jobs, but once in a while they do offer some challenges.

Evolution is a great theory, it explains a lot, but evolution is very hard to prove because it takes so long for living structures to evolve, so long to go from a bacteria to a human. Granted there are masses of evidence from many diverse scientific fields but still there are many puzzles as well. I'd love to be an evolutionary biologist as it is so interesting and there is still much to discover.


You are that incredulous, wow. Blink

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
05-12-2013, 01:27 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(04-12-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  IC is the closest thing they ever got to a legitimate challenge to science, and even it fell apart at the fundamental level. IC does appear to exist, and it is not a challenge for evolution. Did you watch the videos I posted? Evolution can both add and subtract, creating a seemingly IC system through evolutionary streamlining for efficiency.
It's great that the real scientists put effort into explaining the complexities of life, how evolution can explain things that appear IC.
Because of course, if there was no explanation then it would be a mystery that is seemingly contradictory to Evolution.

(04-12-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How do you determine is something is IC? Simple incredulity.
It would probably be impossible to prove, but easy to point to things that appear to be IC (given the knowledge of the time)

(04-12-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Does labeling something as IC help you understand it? No.
No, but it does motive the real scientists to find an explanation.

(04-12-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Does it at all help improve our understanding? Not at all.
It does if the real scientists find an explanation.

(04-12-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So is IC a useful 'challenge' to evolutionary theory? Not even close.
It is absolutely a challenge, that's why real scientists look for the answers, and explain away the apparent complexity.

(04-12-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Jonathan Well's (who is also an AIDS denialist, so that should tell you just how scientifically minded and objective he is)
Yes, he does make it difficult for a person to figure out if there are any gems amongst all the BS.

(04-12-2013 11:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 11:59 AM)Stevil Wrote:  and the flip-side is that if you assume it evolved and stop looking for answers then you will never find out. I think it is great that the ID proponents point to these structures and it is great that the scientists work hard to show how these things are reducable.

Except, that's not how it worked. Behe claimed that the immune system was IC and never followed up.
No he didn't, but the real scientists did. They worked out that bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade were reducible. Yay!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: