Irreducible complexity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2013, 01:41 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 01:27 AM)Stevil Wrote:  No, but it does motive the real scientists to find an explanation.

No it doesn't motivate anything. All of the ID/IC bullshit took scientists, educators and philosophers away from their usual work to debunk that garbage.

Quote:It does if the real scientists find an explanation.

Molecular biologists and microbiologists are always looking for explanations, that is what they do for a living. The scientific community wasn't sitting around doing nothing until ID was proposed.

Quote:It is absolutely a challenge, that's why real scientists look for the answers, and explain away the apparent complexity.

No it doesn't really challenge anything because it is not a scientific hypothesis.

Quote:No he didn't, but the real scientists did. They worked out that bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade were reducible. Yay!

No, it was known prior to Behe proposing anything that the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade were "reducible". AFAIK Behe didn't stimulate any new research that was presented in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted pre-existing papers and even textbooks as evidence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
05-12-2013, 01:46 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2013 04:32 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
Err guys... Irreducible Complexity is simple to describe and reason about. It exists when every part of a mechanism is essential to the function of that mechanism, such that the removal of any part would render the mechanism non-functional. Don't be arguing about what it means just because you can't be bothered to go check it out. The question is - is IC compatible with evolution? Behe et al posit that it is incompatible, but it is relatively easy to explain whey they are incorrect in this view. Moreover the explanation of possible mechanisms for IC to arise makes predictions that hold up in reality, and would have no reason to be true if the mechanisms were entirely created by an intelligent designer.

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
05-12-2013, 02:37 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
Tides go in tides go out : you can't explain it.

Oh wait you can explain it,
#### Fox News Alert ####
Bill Oriely , motivates science to discover moon gravity.

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
[+] 3 users Like sporehux's post
05-12-2013, 04:23 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 01:41 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
Quote:No he didn't, but the real scientists did. They worked out that bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade were reducible. Yay!

No, it was known prior to Behe proposing anything that the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade were "reducible". AFAIK Behe didn't stimulate any new research that was presented in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted pre-existing papers and even textbooks as evidence.
It's a bit beside the point who (individually) considered things to be complex and possibly "irreducibly complex". Whether it was someone affiliated with the Creation Institute or whether it was a "normal" scientist. All that matters is that scientists recognised the problem and went about solving it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 04:53 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 04:23 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 01:41 AM)Chippy Wrote:  No, it was known prior to Behe proposing anything that the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting cascade were "reducible". AFAIK Behe didn't stimulate any new research that was presented in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted pre-existing papers and even textbooks as evidence.

It's a bit beside the point who (individually) considered things to be complex and possibly "irreducibly complex". Whether it was someone affiliated with the Creation Institute or whether it was a "normal" scientist. All that matters is that scientists recognised the problem and went about solving it.

Yes, they (legitimate scientists and biologists) did solve the problem; and a bunch of hackneyed religious propagandists were not needed for them to do it. You need to stop giving credit and legitimacy to a bunch of credulous twats with political agendas who collectively sat on their asses and came up with a fancy label for their ignorance in an effort to make their bullshit seem respectable.


When science doesn't know how something works, science will try to get to the bottom of it without someone else drawing a line in the sand and saying 'you can't explain this, never will, and therefor your field is now in crisis'. Giving the guy drawing the demarcation line credit for helping move the field forward is blissful ignorance.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-12-2013, 05:10 AM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 04:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, they (legitimate scientists and biologists) did solve the problem;
So you admit it was a problem?

Something that appeared to be "irreducibly complex" was a problem because it didn't align with evolution, until the scientists solved the problem and worked out how it does align with evolution.

Doesn't matter what the label is, doesn't matter who the person is (or what they are affiliated with), what matters is that the problem was identified and subsequently solved.

(05-12-2013 04:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Giving the guy drawing the demarcation line credit for helping move the field forward is blissful ignorance.
I don't see Wells or Behe as being world leading experts on evolutionary biology. I don't see them as being heroes. Certainly they are blinded by their own beliefs. However from my own personal perspective I probably wouldn't have been aware of the bacteria flagellum or the blood clot cascade "problems" and scientific solution to the problem if it weren't for them harping on about it.

Again, I think evolution is fascinating stuff. I'd like to hear more about the problems and discoveries in this field.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 07:20 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2013 08:37 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 05:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 04:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, they (legitimate scientists and biologists) did solve the problem;
So you admit it was a problem?

Something that appeared to be "irreducibly complex" was a problem because it didn't align with evolution, until the scientists solved the problem and worked out how it does align with evolution.

Doesn't matter what the label is, doesn't matter who the person is (or what they are affiliated with), what matters is that the problem was identified and subsequently solved.


It was never a problem, so stop lying.





A real 'problem' or 'challenge' would be something that contradicted a large amount of previous well documented and supported evidence, such as finding and radiometric dating fossilized mammals in the pre-Cambrian period. Once again, all Behe's irreducible complexity amounts to is a fancy label for ignorance, for the unknown; their purpose being to label it and use it as a tool to discredit evolution in favor of Intelligent Design (the aforementioned Crationism-in-Lab-Coats). Seemingly complex system were never a problem, because 'I don't know' is not a valid 'challenge' to a scientific theory.

How can gravity be infinite at the center of a black hole? Don't know? Well then let's give it a special name (irreducible gravity) and try to badger real cosmologist and physicist in an attempt to legitimize divine creation. The great thing is, we can still just lie and say we're helping them along doing their job by being contentious! Because without us spreading our propaganda and lies, Stephan Hawking would have given up trying to understand black holes decades ago! BRILLIANT!

[Image: BRILLIANT!.jpg]

Now do you finally see just how puerile your reasoning is? I understand that you're trying to save face here, but every attempt you make to try and legitimize IC (and by proxy, your own position of supporting it), does nothing but destroy your own credibility.



(05-12-2013 05:10 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 04:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Giving the guy drawing the demarcation line credit for helping move the field forward is blissful ignorance.
I don't see Wells or Behe as being world leading experts on evolutionary biology. I don't see them as being heroes. Certainly they are blinded by their own beliefs. However from my own personal perspective I probably wouldn't have been aware of the bacteria flagellum or the blood clot cascade "problems" and scientific solution to the problem if it weren't for them harping on about it.

Again, I think evolution is fascinating stuff. I'd like to hear more about the problems and discoveries in this field.

So essentially they are justified in their lies and propaganda, and you in supporting it, because otherwise you wouldn't be aware of evolutionary 'problems'? I don't know what is worse, your facile reasoning or your admitted intellectual laziness.

The only problem here is your continued defense of their bullshit ('problems' they have manufactured for their own political gains) in light of all evidence to the contrary.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-12-2013, 01:48 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(03-12-2013 04:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 03:11 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

I'm aware of that notion. I did not need to state (except to you, apparently) that single system step-changes over time would not enhance survivability in the water! We're talking about excretion, glandular, visual/comprehension, prey/predator, respiration, reproduction and MORE systems.

My point was that the original thread post and others were talking about the IC of the beginnings of life. There are countless stages of evolution where there are IC issues.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 01:48 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 04:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

I'm aware of that notion. I did not need to state (except to you, apparently) that single system step-changes over time would not enhance survivability in the water! We're talking about excretion, glandular, visual/comprehension, prey/predator, respiration, reproduction and MORE systems.

My point was that the original thread post and others were talking about the IC of the beginnings of life. There are countless stages of evolution where there are IC issues.

There are no unsolved "issues" and no "stages" where there are not VERY possible/probable solutions proposed, in either the origins, (DID YOU EVER EVEN WATCH the links I posted .. of course not), or the "stages". You just don't know what they are, nor are you really even interested in finding out what they might be, as then you would have to STFU about the subject. The entire subject is a red herring. Just as you don't know what real Biblical scholars do and talk about, you have no clue what real scientists do, and talk about. All you know is fundie propaganda.

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
05-12-2013, 02:02 PM
RE: Irreducible complexity
(05-12-2013 01:56 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 01:48 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm aware of that notion. I did not need to state (except to you, apparently) that single system step-changes over time would not enhance survivability in the water! We're talking about excretion, glandular, visual/comprehension, prey/predator, respiration, reproduction and MORE systems.

My point was that the original thread post and others were talking about the IC of the beginnings of life. There are countless stages of evolution where there are IC issues.

There are no unsolved "issues" and no "stages" where there are not VERY possible/probable solutions proposed, in either the origins, (DID YOU EVER EVEN WATCH the links I posted .. of course not), or the "stages". You just don't know what they are, nor are you really even interested in finding out what they might be, as then you would have to STFU about the subject. The entire subject is a red herring. Just as you don't know what real Biblical scholars do and talk about, you have no clue what real scientists do, and talk about. All you know is fundie propaganda.

No unresolved issues touching complex organic mechanisms? You mean like evolution of the eye, which only took over 1,000 steps and 400,000 years, not including:

*Placing the eyes in the maximal position (or at least a good position) for the animal

*Tying the eye/eyes to the brain with optic nerves

*Reversing images for humans and other processing for other animals

Etc.

As for Bible issues--you are wandering off topic--I've quoted my own research papers and have a degree. Who awarded your religion, biblical studies or ancient languages degree?

Do you have ancient Greek and Hebrew under your belt as I do? Have you spent thousands of hours studying the Bible issues as I have done? Do you have a four-year or Masters? Perhaps you are even a TA earning $7.50 hourly, which is why you claim to have students you "teach".

90% of your posts are telling all of us what mainline scholars say. Put me back on ignore until you formulate an original opinion, if you don't mind.

Thanks--and Jesus loves you, BB.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: