Total Posts:88|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Examples of Irreducible Complexity

edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2014 8:55:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The only testable part of ID, as of now, seems to be the assertion that some organisms/biological features are irreducibly complex (IC).
This topic is for the proponents of ID on this site: I'd like to know which are the most obvious/convincing examples of IC.
For ease of reading (and to avoid the endless accusations of strawman) I ask you to use the following format:

1) the definition of IC you use;
2) the example itself;
3) sources;
4) (optional) how to test the example in order to show that it is IC and not something else.

A note for those that don't subscribe to ID: I wrote this topic to satisfy my curiosity about what is considered proof for ID by people who believe in it, not to hear for the nth time a refutation of the theory, so please let's not make this topic another incarnation of the discussion on whether evolution exists or not.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:12:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe, 2nd ed, 2006, Is the source of virtually all the examples of irreducible complexity.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 12:12:35 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe, 2nd ed, 2006, Is the source of virtually all the examples of irreducible complexity.

Probably because it coined the concept, yes.
But here I am not interested in contesting sources or examples, it's just that lurking through many a topic in this forum (and elsewhere) I repeatedly find assertions that IC is obviously true. Since I'm not from the US, I find it very strange, so I want to know "straight from the horse's mouth" what can be seen as IC and why.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:05:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:12:35 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe, 2nd ed, 2006, Is the source of virtually all the examples of irreducible complexity.

Probably because it coined the concept, yes.

Well, being able to move beyond the founder's ideas seems like a sign of any healthy field. Or, for that matter, any field with a pulse.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:09:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:05:13 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:12:35 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
The book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe, 2nd ed, 2006, Is the source of virtually all the examples of irreducible complexity.

Probably because it coined the concept, yes.

Well, being able to move beyond the founder's ideas seems like a sign of any healthy field. Or, for that matter, any field with a pulse.

That's very true, but a little irrelevant to what I'm looking for.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:04:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM, edomuc wrote:

But here I am not interested in contesting sources or examples, it's just that lurking through many a topic in this forum (and elsewhere) I repeatedly find assertions that IC is obviously true. Since I'm not from the US, I find it very strange, so I want to know "straight from the horse's mouth" what can be seen as IC and why.

You asked a question "What are the examples of irreducible complexity?" and I gave you the answer, Behe's book is where it all comes from. I didn't critique the examples, I just pointed to them. I see no point in asking for people to recite the examples to you unless you want to refute them, and you say you don't want to do that. This is a debate site, so the norm is argue over stuff. The irreducible complexity concept is bunk. Just say so.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:04:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM, edomuc wrote:

But here I am not interested in contesting sources or examples, it's just that lurking through many a topic in this forum (and elsewhere) I repeatedly find assertions that IC is obviously true. Since I'm not from the US, I find it very strange, so I want to know "straight from the horse's mouth" what can be seen as IC and why.

You asked a question "What are the examples of irreducible complexity?" and I gave you the answer, Behe's book is where it all comes from. I didn't critique the examples, I just pointed to them. I see no point in asking for people to recite the examples to you unless you want to refute them, and you say you don't want to do that. This is a debate site, so the norm is argue over stuff. The irreducible complexity concept is bunk. Just say so.

I don't need you to tell me that ID has no basis in science, I'm working on my thesis for the equivalent of a MSc in molecular biology, I already know that.
If I wanted to argue that, as you said, I'd have posted a debate. What I wanted was to know why people are convinced by ID, but alas, it seems my curiosity won't be satisfied.
As an aside I was asking for sources because I didn't want to read the whole book, for the same reason that, in a debate concerning evolution, one doesn't cite Alberts, Lehninger and Gilbert full stop, but the relevant articles, even if technically those 3 books are more than sufficient for most cases.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:50:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/29/2014 8:55:17 PM, edomuc wrote:
The only testable part of ID, as of now, seems to be the assertion that some organisms/biological features are irreducibly complex (IC).
This topic is for the proponents of ID on this site: I'd like to know which are the most obvious/convincing examples of IC.
For ease of reading (and to avoid the endless accusations of strawman) I ask you to use the following format:

1) the definition of IC you use;
2) the example itself;
3) sources;
4) (optional) how to test the example in order to show that it is IC and not something else.

A note for those that don't subscribe to ID: I wrote this topic to satisfy my curiosity about what is considered proof for ID by people who believe in it, not to hear for the nth time a refutation of the theory, so please let's not make this topic another incarnation of the discussion on whether evolution exists or not.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing, but irreducible complexity should not be debateable. IC simply notes that there is some minimum set of parts required for some given function. It's every bit as intuitively obvious as natural selection.

The debate comes from the inference Behe draws from IC - that because some certain set of parts is required, the set of parts must have been assembled simultaneously, not one at a time. Evolutionists counter this by claiming the parts served some other purpose and then got re-purposed.

Evolutionists like to say they've debunked IC (meaning the inference drawn from IC) but of course they haven't - they have not demonstrated that any IC apparatus can evolve by any means. Evolutionist have not shown that ANYTHING can evolve, so they certainly have not shown that IC structures can evolve. Like the whole field, they have merely constructed a verbal hypothesis. They have not demonstrated any actual evolution.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:52:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:04:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM, edomuc wrote:

But here I am not interested in contesting sources or examples, it's just that lurking through many a topic in this forum (and elsewhere) I repeatedly find assertions that IC is obviously true. Since I'm not from the US, I find it very strange, so I want to know "straight from the horse's mouth" what can be seen as IC and why.

You asked a question "What are the examples of irreducible complexity?" and I gave you the answer, Behe's book is where it all comes from. I didn't critique the examples, I just pointed to them. I see no point in asking for people to recite the examples to you unless you want to refute them, and you say you don't want to do that. This is a debate site, so the norm is argue over stuff. The irreducible complexity concept is bunk. Just say so.

I don't need you to tell me that ID has no basis in science, I'm working on my thesis for the equivalent of a MSc in molecular biology, I already know that.

So here we go, exhibit A of how evolution dogma get propagated. This is being trained to be a scientist, wagging your tail like a puppy? Pfffftttt.
This space for rent.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 10:58:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:50:30 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/29/2014 8:55:17 PM, edomuc wrote:
The only testable part of ID, as of now, seems to be the assertion that some organisms/biological features are irreducibly complex (IC).
This topic is for the proponents of ID on this site: I'd like to know which are the most obvious/convincing examples of IC.
For ease of reading (and to avoid the endless accusations of strawman) I ask you to use the following format:

1) the definition of IC you use;
2) the example itself;
3) sources;
4) (optional) how to test the example in order to show that it is IC and not something else.

A note for those that don't subscribe to ID: I wrote this topic to satisfy my curiosity about what is considered proof for ID by people who believe in it, not to hear for the nth time a refutation of the theory, so please let's not make this topic another incarnation of the discussion on whether evolution exists or not.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing, but irreducible complexity should not be debateable. IC simply notes that there is some minimum set of parts required for some given function. It's every bit as intuitively obvious as natural selection.

The debate comes from the inference Behe draws from IC - that because some certain set of parts is required, the set of parts must have been assembled simultaneously, not one at a time. Evolutionists counter this by claiming the parts served some other purpose and then got re-purposed.

Evolutionists like to say they've debunked IC (meaning the inference drawn from IC) but of course they haven't - they have not demonstrated that any IC apparatus can evolve by any means. Evolutionist have not shown that ANYTHING can evolve, so they certainly have not shown that IC structures can evolve. Like the whole field, they have merely constructed a verbal hypothesis. They have not demonstrated any actual evolution.

It's not the definition of IC that is to be tested (though I personally see it as an argumentum ad ignorantiam). It's the claim that feature x or organism y is IC that can be tested.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:01:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:52:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:04:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM, edomuc wrote:

But here I am not interested in contesting sources or examples, it's just that lurking through many a topic in this forum (and elsewhere) I repeatedly find assertions that IC is obviously true. Since I'm not from the US, I find it very strange, so I want to know "straight from the horse's mouth" what can be seen as IC and why.

You asked a question "What are the examples of irreducible complexity?" and I gave you the answer, Behe's book is where it all comes from. I didn't critique the examples, I just pointed to them. I see no point in asking for people to recite the examples to you unless you want to refute them, and you say you don't want to do that. This is a debate site, so the norm is argue over stuff. The irreducible complexity concept is bunk. Just say so.

I don't need you to tell me that ID has no basis in science, I'm working on my thesis for the equivalent of a MSc in molecular biology, I already know that.

So here we go, exhibit A of how evolution dogma get propagated. This is being trained to be a scientist, wagging your tail like a puppy? Pfffftttt.

I've noted your informed opinion on scientific education. Rest assured, I'm giving it all the weight it deserves.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:04:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
As an aside I was asking for sources because I didn't want to read the whole book, for the same reason that, in a debate concerning evolution, one doesn't cite Alberts, Lehninger and Gilbert full stop, but the relevant articles, even if technically those 3 books are more than sufficient for most cases.

Refusing to read a whole books and demanding an incompetent summary is a mistake, and very much a sign of the times. Don't fall for it. Some DDOers insist that if knowledge is not in a short article on the internet, it should be treated as if it doesn't exist. Except for current events, 90% of everything worth knowing is not on the internet. Trying to squeeze blood out of a rock is not a good method, it wastes time rather than saving time.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:10:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 11:04:26 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
As an aside I was asking for sources because I didn't want to read the whole book, for the same reason that, in a debate concerning evolution, one doesn't cite Alberts, Lehninger and Gilbert full stop, but the relevant articles, even if technically those 3 books are more than sufficient for most cases.

Refusing to read a whole books and demanding an incompetent summary is a mistake, and very much a sign of the times. Don't fall for it. Some DDOers insist that if knowledge is not in a short article on the internet, it should be treated as if it doesn't exist. Except for current events, 90% of everything worth knowing is not on the internet. Trying to squeeze blood out of a rock is not a good method, it wastes time rather than saving time.

Actually I was hoping for links to papers (even if not peer-reviewed) as I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them. Since the only response this far has been that there's no need for testing, I begin doubting their existence.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:25:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 11:01:11 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:52:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:04:43 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:46 AM, edomuc wrote:

But here I am not interested in contesting sources or examples, it's just that lurking through many a topic in this forum (and elsewhere) I repeatedly find assertions that IC is obviously true. Since I'm not from the US, I find it very strange, so I want to know "straight from the horse's mouth" what can be seen as IC and why.

You asked a question "What are the examples of irreducible complexity?" and I gave you the answer, Behe's book is where it all comes from. I didn't critique the examples, I just pointed to them. I see no point in asking for people to recite the examples to you unless you want to refute them, and you say you don't want to do that. This is a debate site, so the norm is argue over stuff. The irreducible complexity concept is bunk. Just say so.

I don't need you to tell me that ID has no basis in science, I'm working on my thesis for the equivalent of a MSc in molecular biology, I already know that.

So here we go, exhibit A of how evolution dogma get propagated. This is being trained to be a scientist, wagging your tail like a puppy? Pfffftttt.

I've noted your informed opinion on scientific education. Rest assured, I'm giving it all the weight it deserves.

I don't care what you think about what I think, and you shouldn't really care what I think about you. But if you want to act like a scientist, you should care about the difference between hard science and consensus opinion. This business of rejecting IC because somebody told you it's bunk is the exact opposite of being a scientist.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:28:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 10:58:24 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:50:30 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/29/2014 8:55:17 PM, edomuc wrote:
The only testable part of ID, as of now, seems to be the assertion that some organisms/biological features are irreducibly complex (IC).
This topic is for the proponents of ID on this site: I'd like to know which are the most obvious/convincing examples of IC.
For ease of reading (and to avoid the endless accusations of strawman) I ask you to use the following format:

1) the definition of IC you use;
2) the example itself;
3) sources;
4) (optional) how to test the example in order to show that it is IC and not something else.

A note for those that don't subscribe to ID: I wrote this topic to satisfy my curiosity about what is considered proof for ID by people who believe in it, not to hear for the nth time a refutation of the theory, so please let's not make this topic another incarnation of the discussion on whether evolution exists or not.

I'm not sure why this is so confusing, but irreducible complexity should not be debateable. IC simply notes that there is some minimum set of parts required for some given function. It's every bit as intuitively obvious as natural selection.

The debate comes from the inference Behe draws from IC - that because some certain set of parts is required, the set of parts must have been assembled simultaneously, not one at a time. Evolutionists counter this by claiming the parts served some other purpose and then got re-purposed.

Evolutionists like to say they've debunked IC (meaning the inference drawn from IC) but of course they haven't - they have not demonstrated that any IC apparatus can evolve by any means. Evolutionist have not shown that ANYTHING can evolve, so they certainly have not shown that IC structures can evolve. Like the whole field, they have merely constructed a verbal hypothesis. They have not demonstrated any actual evolution.

It's not the definition of IC that is to be tested (though I personally see it as an argumentum ad ignorantiam). It's the claim that feature x or organism y is IC that can be tested.

How could it be argumentum ad ignorantiam or whatever? Do you dispute that mousetrap cannot work without a spring, and the spring can't work without some kind of board to attach to? This is what I'm fussing at, this refusal to even think about concepts you find uncomfortable.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:29:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 11:10:41 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:04:26 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
As an aside I was asking for sources because I didn't want to read the whole book, for the same reason that, in a debate concerning evolution, one doesn't cite Alberts, Lehninger and Gilbert full stop, but the relevant articles, even if technically those 3 books are more than sufficient for most cases.

Refusing to read a whole books and demanding an incompetent summary is a mistake, and very much a sign of the times. Don't fall for it. Some DDOers insist that if knowledge is not in a short article on the internet, it should be treated as if it doesn't exist. Except for current events, 90% of everything worth knowing is not on the internet. Trying to squeeze blood out of a rock is not a good method, it wastes time rather than saving time.

Actually I was hoping for links to papers (even if not peer-reviewed) as I'm fairly confident in my ability to understand them. Since the only response this far has been that there's no need for testing, I begin doubting their existence.

LOL, are you suggesting that I said there's no need for testing? I said the exact opposite. Wow. never mind.
This space for rent.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 11:36:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 11:25:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:01:11 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:52:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
I don't need you to tell me that ID has no basis in science, I'm working on my thesis for the equivalent of a MSc in molecular biology, I already know that.

So here we go, exhibit A of how evolution dogma get propagated. This is being trained to be a scientist, wagging your tail like a puppy? Pfffftttt.

I've noted your informed opinion on scientific education. Rest assured, I'm giving it all the weight it deserves.

I don't care what you think about what I think, and you shouldn't really care what I think about you. But if you want to act like a scientist, you should care about the difference between hard science and consensus opinion. This business of rejecting IC because somebody told you it's bunk is the exact opposite of being a scientist.

And where exactly did I say that I reject it because I was told to? That's quite the big assumption to make. Let's formulate a different hypothesis: let's say that I studied biology for 5 years in its various declinations, and I'm actually working in a lab in order to complete my formation, and that based on my experience I find ID to be at best useless and at worst dangerous for scientific research. Does this satisfy you?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:18:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 11:36:45 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:25:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:01:11 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:52:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
I don't need you to tell me that ID has no basis in science, I'm working on my thesis for the equivalent of a MSc in molecular biology, I already know that.

So here we go, exhibit A of how evolution dogma get propagated. This is being trained to be a scientist, wagging your tail like a puppy? Pfffftttt.

I've noted your informed opinion on scientific education. Rest assured, I'm giving it all the weight it deserves.

I don't care what you think about what I think, and you shouldn't really care what I think about you. But if you want to act like a scientist, you should care about the difference between hard science and consensus opinion. This business of rejecting IC because somebody told you it's bunk is the exact opposite of being a scientist.

And where exactly did I say that I reject it because I was told to? That's quite the big assumption to make. Let's formulate a different hypothesis: let's say that I studied biology for 5 years in its various declinations, and I'm actually working in a lab in order to complete my formation, and that based on my experience I find ID to be at best useless and at worst dangerous for scientific research. Does this satisfy you?

No, because it's nonsensical. Especially "useless" - even dyed in the wool evolutionists will talk about "the reason" for an organ, as if an organ had a deliberate purpose. So ID is obviously the more useful model for medicine, which is probably the most useful field of biology.

A wrong model, like Ptolemaic model of the planets, can be very useful. The irony here is that evolution, even if true, is pretty useless. What are we supposed to do with the knowledge that some random failures will occur at unknown points? Good to know, but we can't really deal with them until they happen, and then we typically fix genetic illnesses by presuming there is a "right" was for the body to function, which again, is the ID model.
This space for rent.
edomuc
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:30:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 12:18:24 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:36:45 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:25:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 11:01:11 AM, edomuc wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:52:55 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 10:44:52 AM, edomuc wrote:
I don't need you to tell me that ID has no basis in science, I'm working on my thesis for the equivalent of a MSc in molecular biology, I already know that.

So here we go, exhibit A of how evolution dogma get propagated. This is being trained to be a scientist, wagging your tail like a puppy? Pfffftttt.

I've noted your informed opinion on scientific education. Rest assured, I'm giving it all the weight it deserves.

I don't care what you think about what I think, and you shouldn't really care what I think about you. But if you want to act like a scientist, you should care about the difference between hard science and consensus opinion. This business of rejecting IC because somebody told you it's bunk is the exact opposite of being a scientist.

And where exactly did I say that I reject it because I was told to? That's quite the big assumption to make. Let's formulate a different hypothesis: let's say that I studied biology for 5 years in its various declinations, and I'm actually working in a lab in order to complete my formation, and that based on my experience I find ID to be at best useless and at worst dangerous for scientific research. Does this satisfy you?

No, because it's nonsensical. Especially "useless" - even dyed in the wool evolutionists will talk about "the reason" for an organ, as if an organ had a deliberate purpose. So ID is obviously the more useful model for medicine, which is probably the most useful field of biology.

A wrong model, like Ptolemaic model of the planets, can be very useful. The irony here is that evolution, even if true, is pretty useless. What are we supposed to do with the knowledge that some random failures will occur at unknown points? Good to know, but we can't really deal with them until they happen, and then we typically fix genetic illnesses by presuming there is a "right" was for the body to function, which again, is the ID model.

I explicitly stated that I wasn't interested in having a discussion on the merits of evolution vs. ID, so you keep believing in ID and I'll keep doing biology.
Now, since you clearly are a proponent of ID, would you care to answer to my first post in the topic?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:49:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 12:30:36 PM, edomuc wrote:
...

I explicitly stated that I wasn't interested in having a discussion on the merits of evolution vs. ID, so you keep believing in ID and I'll keep doing biology.

Heh, points for a clever insult.

Now, since you clearly are a proponent of ID, would you care to answer to my first post in the topic?

Nope, I don't think so. I'm with Roy on that - if you've got some point to make, just make it.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:51:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A little sign that you understood the point I was making in #8 would help. I might have the conversation if I got evidence you were serious.
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:27:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)

And what do you mean by IC?

To me, your first sentence is as strange as saying "I want to debate complexity".
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:28:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:27:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)

And what do you mean by IC?

To me, your first sentence is as strange as saying "I want to debate complexity".

I never said IC, I said irreducible complexity, which is the topic of this thread... So what I mean is pretty much in line with what intelligent design proponents talk about.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:34:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:28:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:27:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)

And what do you mean by IC?

To me, your first sentence is as strange as saying "I want to debate complexity".

I never said IC, I said irreducible complexity, which is the topic of this thread... So what I mean is pretty much in line with what intelligent design proponents talk about.

Yes, IC (not ID) = Irreducible Complexity. So what do you mean by Irreducible Complexity? How can somebody debate complexity that is not reducible? Do you think all complexity is reducible?
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:34:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:28:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:27:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)

And what do you mean by IC?

To me, your first sentence is as strange as saying "I want to debate complexity".

I never said IC, I said irreducible complexity, which is the topic of this thread... So what I mean is pretty much in line with what intelligent design proponents talk about.

Yes, IC (not ID) = Irreducible Complexity. So what do you mean by Irreducible Complexity? How can somebody debate complexity that is not reducible? Do you think all complexity is reducible?

Well I thought it would be obvious.

Biological irreducible complexity is used to demonstrate that life is intelligently designed...

Sorry if I was not specific with my language... But it's the same ballpark as 'evolution', which could mean a whole host of things that are not biological evolution. Given that we are in a thread regarding inch bioogical IC then... I thought it would be obvious...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 1:47:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:43:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:34:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:28:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:27:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)

And what do you mean by IC?

To me, your first sentence is as strange as saying "I want to debate complexity".

I never said IC, I said irreducible complexity, which is the topic of this thread... So what I mean is pretty much in line with what intelligent design proponents talk about.

Yes, IC (not ID) = Irreducible Complexity. So what do you mean by Irreducible Complexity? How can somebody debate complexity that is not reducible? Do you think all complexity is reducible?

Well I thought it would be obvious.

Biological irreducible complexity is used to demonstrate that life is intelligently designed...


How? How does IC demonstrate that life is intelligently designed? Come on, show me that you understand the concept (and it's ok to say you don't know)
This space for rent.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 2:14:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 1:47:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:43:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:34:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:28:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:27:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)

And what do you mean by IC?

To me, your first sentence is as strange as saying "I want to debate complexity".

I never said IC, I said irreducible complexity, which is the topic of this thread... So what I mean is pretty much in line with what intelligent design proponents talk about.

Yes, IC (not ID) = Irreducible Complexity. So what do you mean by Irreducible Complexity? How can somebody debate complexity that is not reducible? Do you think all complexity is reducible?

Well I thought it would be obvious.

Biological irreducible complexity is used to demonstrate that life is intelligently designed...


How? How does IC demonstrate that life is intelligently designed? Come on, show me that you understand the concept (and it's ok to say you don't know)

Well you have the following types of arguments:

P1. All IC structures are ID
P2. Life contains IC structures
C. Life is ID

You can also do a denying the contrary type of argument:

P1. Life was either produced naturally, or via. an ID
P2. Life contains IC
P3. Natural processes cannot produce IC
C. Life was produce via. an ID

Alternatively you could argue from purpose:

1. All IC structures have a purpose
2. Life has IC structures
C. Life has a purpose

And then you can follow up by arguing purpose from IC structures need to come via an intelligent designer.

You can also make the argument that IC structures requires specified information. There are many ways to make the argument valid, and appealing.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 2:17:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
More sophisticated arguments tailor it so it rules out evolution and only argues against abiogenesis, etc.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,493
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 2:40:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/30/2014 2:14:14 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:47:41 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:43:07 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:34:52 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:28:58 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 5/30/2014 1:27:32 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 5/30/2014 12:58:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
If anybody wants to debate me on irreducible complexity, I am game.

I can take either Pro or Con (I am personally Con)

And what do you mean by IC?

To me, your first sentence is as strange as saying "I want to debate complexity".

I never said IC, I said irreducible complexity, which is the topic of this thread... So what I mean is pretty much in line with what intelligent design proponents talk about.

Yes, IC (not ID) = Irreducible Complexity. So what do you mean by Irreducible Complexity? How can somebody debate complexity that is not reducible? Do you think all complexity is reducible?

Well I thought it would be obvious.

Biological irreducible complexity is used to demonstrate that life is intelligently designed...


How? How does IC demonstrate that life is intelligently designed? Come on, show me that you understand the concept (and it's ok to say you don't know)

Well you have the following types of arguments:

P1. All IC structures are ID
P2. Life contains IC structures
C. Life is ID

You can also do a denying the contrary type of argument:

P1. Life was either produced naturally, or via. an ID
P2. Life contains IC
P3. Natural processes cannot produce IC
C. Life was produce via. an ID

Alternatively you could argue from purpose:

1. All IC structures have a purpose
2. Life has IC structures
C. Life has a purpose

And then you can follow up by arguing purpose from IC structures need to come via an intelligent designer.

You can also make the argument that IC structures requires specified information. There are many ways to make the argument valid, and appealing.

Well, that's still not getting to the guts of the IC argument. The IC argument has nothing to do with purpose and it really doesn't have to do with 'natural'. Natural processes can conceivably produce IC structures, that's not the issue. It has to do with simultaneity. Darwinian evolution is a 'one thing at a time' sort of process - you have one mutation, it's selected or not, then you have another one, and so on. You can have multiple events, of course, but the basic process is sequential.

So, you can think of it like this - if you need an assistant in order to complete a task, it's probably irreducibly complex. You can put your pants on one leg at a time, so that's not IC. You can't balance a roof on four unsupported poles without help, though - you need several assistants to hold the poles while you place the roof on them. You can't, practically speaking, do the job one pole at a time, you need all the poles vertical in order to place the roof. Once the roof is in place it will hold the poles. Odd example, but chosen because it shouldn't have any emotional content to it. So again, it's not about intelligence or natural or any of that, it's about sequential vs. simultaneous. The premise of Behe's argument is that all evolved structures must be built sequentially - one mutation at a time, so some other process has to be responsible for any IC structure you find in life. The counter argument is that all the pieces of an IC structure serve some other purpose before becoming the IC structure, but still, one mutation has to simultaneously re-purpose them all at once, I guess.

But to me it's all thought experiment anyway. Nobody has done any actual lab recreations of flagellum evolution or anything remotely close to anything like that, so I fail to see how this is really a science argument at this point. It's angels dancing on the head of a pin stuff, just a bunch of speculation on both sides.
This space for rent.