Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Irreducible complexity and natural selection

TheOncomingStorm
Posts: 249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.
Official "Director of Weather and Hyperbole in the Maximum Degree of Mice and Men" of the FREEDO bureaucracy.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ThunderClap
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

According to Kerry Anderson:

"The cilium is not just complex; it's irreducibly complex. For the cicilium to function, it must have the sliding elements, the connecting proteins, and the motor proteins for them to function at all. If one part is missing, the cilium does not work.

"It is also important to point out that the single components of the cilium are single molecules. That means there are no black boxes to suggest. Cilia are irreducibly complex at the molecular level."

It could not have formed from anything simpler, and it is complex (it has more than one working function). Since it is irreducibly complex, natural selection fails.
Do you hear the thunder?
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 8:03:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Clarification in terms: It is not used as an argument against natural selection. Natural selection is the elimination of certain trait bearing organisms in favor of other-trait bearing organisms. Over the years in a cold climate, wolves with longer hair would fair better, and the short hair ones would either migrate or die.

Irreducible complexity is used as an argument against evolution of complex structures from a form with their absence. For instance, the development of the previously mentioned cilia structure. The gradual evolution of such a structure would be a disadvantageous burden to the organism until the organ finally evolved into it's final practical form.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
ThunderClap
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 8:56:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 8:03:17 PM, Skynet wrote:
Clarification in terms: It is not used as an argument against natural selection. Natural selection is the elimination of certain trait bearing organisms in favor of other-trait bearing organisms. Over the years in a cold climate, wolves with longer hair would fair better, and the short hair ones would either migrate or die.

Irreducible complexity is used as an argument against evolution of complex structures from a form with their absence. For instance, the development of the previously mentioned cilia structure. The gradual evolution of such a structure would be a disadvantageous burden to the organism until the organ finally evolved into it's final practical form.

That is a good clarification to make.
Do you hear the thunder?
ThunderClap
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?
Do you hear the thunder?
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 9:03:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think Irreducible Complexity is a great argument. Where did these supossed "complex organisms" come from if evolution theory is true as a whole. DNA is very complex. More complex than a Computer. Science shows how life demands the Creator.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 10:43:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...

Yeah, no. The proper objection here is that it can't be demonstrated that something is irreducibly complex, for that is omniscience. Furthermore, I've seen videos proposing a possible evolution of the flagellum:
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 10:44:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And so we're stuck with impressions, guys. Damn... and evolution does have a lot going for it, or so I hear.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 11:21:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 10:43:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...

Yeah, no. The proper objection here is that it can't be demonstrated that something is irreducibly complex, for that is omniscience. Furthermore, I've seen videos proposing a possible evolution of the flagellum:

That's not going against what I said....
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 12:06:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 11:21:23 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:43:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...

Yeah, no. The proper objection here is that it can't be demonstrated that something is irreducibly complex, for that is omniscience. Furthermore, I've seen videos proposing a possible evolution of the flagellum:

That's not going against what I said....

What you said kinda sucked, though.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 1:09:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument essentially works. It proves that current evolutionary theory cannot be used to explain any biological system better than simply saying it appeared by chance.

It however has no implications regarding God or intelligent design. I have accepted it and therefore do not claim to know how life exists as it does today.

Since almost every creation myth in existence manages to contradict itself or sound profoundly absurd I have no doubt that whatever the full mechanism, even if it is intelligent design; it has nothing to do with any existing religion.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 7:50:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...

Any noodle-brain can come up with just-so stories to "explain" any phenomena, but showing that it actually happened that way in the real world is quite another matter. It's almost laughable, yet sad at the same time, to read some of this stuff and realize that people actually believe it.

multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps

Was this decision to give up two of their legs, or to grow 2 stumps, by , multiple different species, made by popular vote?? Ask an amputee whether they would fair better in the wild, under predation, with their stumps or with the original limbs. Before anything would have become an "evolutionary advantage", as a developing wing, it would have become an evolutionary disadvantage, as a leg. If the animal that you're talking about only had 2 legs, and grew stumps, where did it get the genetic information to grow another new set of limbs on the upper torso?? Doh!!!...I already know that answer. Pre-adaptive evolution via random, unplanned, accidental, coincidental, totally non-intelligently designed mutation, that just so happened to place them symmetrically, and in a place on the body where the animal would still have good balance, right??
ThunderClap
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 8:01:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...

I'm not talking about a macroscopic organism. I'm talking about a microscopic organism. Sure a fly can still walk around without its wings. It still has a cardiovascular system, a nervous system, and a muscular system. A fly is reducibly complex therefore it's a false analogy.

If a cilium or a flagellum loses any single part it dies. If a flagellum doesn't have a particular protein in its walls, it will die because it can't move at all. If a cilium loses any of its parts it dies, and those parts can't be developed as they are molecular to begin with.
Do you hear the thunder?
yesuke
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 9:48:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 8:01:28 AM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...

I'm not talking about a macroscopic organism. I'm talking about a microscopic organism. Sure a fly can still walk around without its wings. It still has a cardiovascular system, a nervous system, and a muscular system. A fly is reducibly complex therefore it's a false analogy.

If a cilium or a flagellum loses any single part it dies. If a flagellum doesn't have a particular protein in its walls, it will die because it can't move at all. If a cilium loses any of its parts it dies, and those parts can't be developed as they are molecular to begin with.

But that doesn't mean that it has always been dependent on the flagellum/cilium. Many micro-organisms don't depend on active movement.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 11:28:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a stupid argument. No one that brings it up has heard of scaffolding in evolution.

However, I did see an interesting way of defining it:

"A statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist."_Bjoern Brembs, Neurobiologist
ThunderClap
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 11:31:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/22/2013 9:48:00 AM, yesuke wrote:
At 11/22/2013 8:01:28 AM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:22:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:59:19 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 8:31:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:
At 11/21/2013 11:26:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

Who's to say that their weren't more primitive forms of these structures that have since evolved into the more complex ones we see today?

Pretty much all creatures on Earth can't be simplified very much without them just dying. You can only slightly simplify humans by taking out the redundant organs, but that's it. Who's to say that our unsimplifiable complexity isn't due to how evolution has taken place?

Charles Darwin in Origin of Species says, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin lived a few hundred years ago. Although much of what he said laid the foundation for modern biology, a lot of what he said was also plain crap because of a lack of knowledge at that time.. such as that statement.

Well, why is it complete crap? To me it seems reasonable. If an organism cannot function below a certain level in any theoretical form (cilia and flagella for example), and it is complex (requiring more than one functioning part to survive, then it cannot have started from another stage to evolve there, and there is no way for it to have spontaneously generated as a functioning complex life. So, why is that crap?

There was a chapter in the "Blind Watchmaker" that addressed these precise concerns. It went something along the lines that even if a necessary full form is needed to achieve a specific task, i.e fly, that does not mean that wings magically evolved overnight in one species. Instead, multiple species progressively gained larger evolutionary advantage from having small stumps, to small wings, to larger wings, to etc...

I'm not talking about a macroscopic organism. I'm talking about a microscopic organism. Sure a fly can still walk around without its wings. It still has a cardiovascular system, a nervous system, and a muscular system. A fly is reducibly complex therefore it's a false analogy.

If a cilium or a flagellum loses any single part it dies. If a flagellum doesn't have a particular protein in its walls, it will die because it can't move at all. If a cilium loses any of its parts it dies, and those parts can't be developed as they are molecular to begin with.

But that doesn't mean that it has always been dependent on the flagellum/cilium. Many micro-organisms don't depend on active movement.

Do cilia and flagella need it?
Do you hear the thunder?
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 4:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 10:25:36 AM, TheOncomingStorm wrote:
I just want to see what you guys have to say about it. For clarification: irreducible complexity is the principle that there are certain organic structures, such as the flagellum and cilia, that are complex enough that they can't work without any one of their parts and can't be simplified any more than they are. It's used as an argument against natural selection because something couldn't be that complex and have developed the way natural selection argues it would've.

I probably won't participate much, I just want to see what you guys have to say.

The flaw in that argument is the word "can't". To say that something can't happen in this reality is to claim an enormous amount of very intricate knowledge. It is to say, "the universe is such that this is precluded". However, new complexities of the universe and new mysteries are discovered every day. The argument is nothing more than pretend omniscience. Clearly, there are many mysteries and much debate about the history of evolution. But the history of evolution is not the same as the fact of evolution. Evolution is real and provable. Claiming to know for sure what its limits are or what its history was, is pretentious and premature.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 4:45:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 1:14:57 PM, ThunderClap wrote:

It could not have formed from anything simpler, and it is complex (it has more than one working function). Since it is irreducibly complex, natural selection fails.

Since it is so complex and since biological evolution is so complex and stretches through many millions of years with unknowable changes, and since the biochemical mechanisms are so complex and still - to a large extent - so mysterious, you could not possibly know enough to decide what could or could not form into what or through what evolutionary stages over many millions of years. You are essentially saying that since you cannot imagine it, it is impossible. Reality is not limited to what you can imagine.

That some complexity seems irreducible is an opinion, not a fact. It is merely "complexity which I can't explain". Unexplained does not mean unexplainable. And it certainly doesn't mean impossible.
Howardofski
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2013 4:56:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/21/2013 9:03:55 PM, janetsanders733 wrote:
I think Irreducible Complexity is a great argument. Where did these supossed "complex organisms" come from if evolution theory is true as a whole. DNA is very complex. More complex than a Computer. Science shows how life demands the Creator.

It surprises me how many people make the claim that enormous complexity is yet so simple that they can decide how it all did or did not come about. If it so enormously complex, how do they know so much about its evolution not being possible?

"Irreducible Complexity" is big words for "I don't know". I agree. They don't.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 8:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Irreducible complexity was really bought to the fore by Michael Behe who stated:

"There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems."

This, it seems was a bald faced lie, as can be seen by the by no means comprehensive list of studies and documented investigated evidence listed in the document here:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

So no, the main items discussed when talking about irreducible complexity are not irreducibly complex, as precursor forms can be demonstrated to be functional (although not always for the same purpose).

Of course, once the lie is out there, is simply gets repeated over and over and over again.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 9:45:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Irreducible complexity is an old intelligent design argument from decades ago. It has been debunked by many biologists, with the most notable one (to me) being by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller. The lowest percentage on a poll I have seen was 97.00%, and the highest was 99.99%, but the scientific consensus on evolution is overwhelming, and I'm sure many of them, if not all, know of the irreducible complexity argument. It's not a good one...
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:55:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 9:45:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Irreducible complexity is an old intelligent design argument from decades ago. It has been debunked by many biologists, with the most notable one (to me) being by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller. The lowest percentage on a poll I have seen was 97.00%, and the highest was 99.99%, but the scientific consensus on evolution is overwhelming, and I'm sure many of them, if not all, know of the irreducible complexity argument. It's not a good one...

It has not been debunked, and does not need to it has nothing to do with intelligent design.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 2:59:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:55:55 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:45:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Irreducible complexity is an old intelligent design argument from decades ago. It has been debunked by many biologists, with the most notable one (to me) being by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller. The lowest percentage on a poll I have seen was 97.00%, and the highest was 99.99%, but the scientific consensus on evolution is overwhelming, and I'm sure many of them, if not all, know of the irreducible complexity argument. It's not a good one...

It has not been debunked, and does not need to it has nothing to do with intelligent design.

Huh?

Firstly, all the examples in biology that I have heard that demonstrate "irreducible complexity" have been demonstrated as not irreducibly complex. Including, but not limited to, all the examples cited in this thread. I have posted a link that contains references to the all the significant amount of work concerning such endeavours (and incidentally a very brief google search of the same shows up the same information). If the evidence supporting a conclusion is demonstratably shown not to support the conclusion: the conclusion is debunked.

Secondly, the only proponents of "irreducible complexity" I have ever seen, read, or heard, have been Creationsts/ID proponents. In fact, A brief search of the discovery institutes website hold irreducible complexity as the third scientific evidence of their "theory".

http://www.discovery.org...

So in reality, both of the statements in your post are false.

However, and this is the difference between science and ID/Creationism. When a falsehood is discovered to be a falsehood, science stops using it. The converse is not true (as can be demonstrated by the "list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use").
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 3:49:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 2:59:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:55:55 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:45:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Irreducible complexity is an old intelligent design argument from decades ago. It has been debunked by many biologists, with the most notable one (to me) being by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller. The lowest percentage on a poll I have seen was 97.00%, and the highest was 99.99%, but the scientific consensus on evolution is overwhelming, and I'm sure many of them, if not all, know of the irreducible complexity argument. It's not a good one...

It has not been debunked, and does not need to it has nothing to do with intelligent design.

Huh?

Firstly, all the examples in biology that I have heard that demonstrate "irreducible complexity" have been demonstrated as not irreducibly complex. Including, but not limited to, all the examples cited in this thread. I have posted a link that contains references to the all the significant amount of work concerning such endeavours (and incidentally a very brief google search of the same shows up the same information). If the evidence supporting a conclusion is demonstratably shown not to support the conclusion: the conclusion is debunked.

That is not possible. Although Behe didn't communicate this very well there is a very simple dichotomy which proves it.

If an irreducibly complex system is a system which cannot accomplish it's function if you remove any component, then what is a system in which you remove all non-essential components?

Whether any given system is irreducibly complex is a matter of random chance, but every single one has a irreducible core. There is always a finite number of essential components without which function is not accomplished.

Secondly, the only proponents of "irreducible complexity" I have ever seen, read, or heard, have been Creationsts/ID proponents.

lol I've seen that poll being collected, defending irreducible complexity gets you branded as a creationist even if you clearly state that you do not believe in any gods or spirits it's a bit circular.

The argument proves what it was meant to prove. That's what I think and I guess that makes me a proponent. So you have now met a proponent of IC that isn't a proponent of ID.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:25:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 3:49:31 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/25/2013 2:59:21 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:55:55 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:45:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Irreducible complexity is an old intelligent design argument from decades ago. It has been debunked by many biologists, with the most notable one (to me) being by Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller. The lowest percentage on a poll I have seen was 97.00%, and the highest was 99.99%, but the scientific consensus on evolution is overwhelming, and I'm sure many of them, if not all, know of the irreducible complexity argument. It's not a good one...

It has not been debunked, and does not need to it has nothing to do with intelligent design.

Huh?

Firstly, all the examples in biology that I have heard that demonstrate "irreducible complexity" have been demonstrated as not irreducibly complex. Including, but not limited to, all the examples cited in this thread. I have posted a link that contains references to the all the significant amount of work concerning such endeavours (and incidentally a very brief google search of the same shows up the same information). If the evidence supporting a conclusion is demonstratably shown not to support the conclusion: the conclusion is debunked.

That is not possible. Although Behe didn't communicate this very well there is a very simple dichotomy which proves it.
If an irreducibly complex system is a system which cannot accomplish it's function if you remove any component, then what is a system in which you remove all non-essential components?

Many examples of "Irreducible complexity", where removing any one component causes non-function have been provided by ID proponents. Including the examples cited in this thread. The argument was not "precursors" are irreducibly complex, but that the feature itself is irreducibly complex.

Every single one of them (at least the dozen or so I know of) have been demonstrated not to be irreducibly complex.

The premise that those features are irreducibly complex has been debunked, conclusively. Saying that isn't the case is simply deluded.

Now, what you are doing is now saying "Well, the Irreducibly complex items we proposed aren't actually irreducibly complex; but the pre-cursor forms are."

Even though this is also not true; with several examples in the cited pages demonstrating this is not the case, and in some cases showing the underlying building blocks can all have function on their own, or in small combinations.

Basically, it is an argument from ignorance: "You can't explain it, therefore it is irreducibly complex."

What is missed here; is that if IR was true; there is no reason whatsoever to presume that we would not see features that are, indeed, irreducibly complex as they are. In fact, this is indeed what IR proposed and has been demonstrated as false.

You can take a premise that has been disproved on everything it has been asserted on, and apply it to one wrung down on the evolutionary ladder (which again, in many cases has been disproved) and hope that it is now applied. The question becomes:

How many times do you want to assert Irreducible Complexity on a particular item, only to be proven wrong before you start understanding irreducibly complexity is not actually a valid argument.

Whether any given system is irreducibly complex is a matter of random chance, but every single one has a irreducible core. There is always a finite number of essential components without which function is not accomplished.

Every core thus far defined that has been "asserted" as irreducibly complex has turned out not to be. There is only so many times you can do that before your assertion becomes silly.

Secondly, the only proponents of "irreducible complexity" I have ever seen, read, or heard, have been Creationsts/ID proponents.

lol I've seen that poll being collected, defending irreducible complexity gets you branded as a creationist even if you clearly state that you do not believe in any gods or spirits it's a bit circular.
The argument proves what it was meant to prove. That's what I think and I guess that makes me a proponent. So you have now met a proponent of IC that isn't a proponent of ID.

Your argument that it has nothing to do with intelligent design is clearly disprooved with the link; that shows that IR is central and fundamental to the intelligent design movement.

Please link a website, web-page not affiliated with or supported by ID, painting irriducible complexity as a disproof of evolution.