Irreducible Complexity

[MrSpooky]

A Criticism of Intelligent Design (Irreducible Complexity)

 

 

Intelligent design is often criticized in its potential as a scientific school of thought. Any affirmative scientific proposition is by its very nature a Positive, substantive position. As such, a scientific proposition bears the Burden of Proof. As such a proposition that bears the Burden has two basic requirements... the first is the principle of falsifiability as put forward by Hopper... a scientific theory must, in principle, be falsifiable. On the other end of the spectrum, the proposition must be verifiable. A proposition that bears the Burden and yet cannot be verified a priori is a useless one.

 

Intelligent Design has often been criticized on the grounds of being unfalsifiable, but here it is proposed that the second and perhaps most important requirement, verifiability, is not met in the methodologies of Intelligent Design.

 

One of the landmarks of Intelligent Design is the concept of irreducible complexity... that the intricacy of a particular element is so complex that it cannot possibly be explained by natural means.

 

There is then an immediate problem that arises. How does one establish that something is Irreducibly Complex a priori? How does one empirically establish that one CANNOT explain a supposedly Irreducibly Complex element via natural law, particularly when we have only begun a solid inquiry into the processes of nature? It is functionally impossible to declare something as inexplicable. At best, one can declare something as CURRENTLY UNEXPLAINED.

 

Suppose a scientist, wholly new to the field of biology, discovers a bombardier beetle. He is astounded by the complexity of the beetle's mechanism of mixing chemicals (a thermal compound and a catalyst) to result in an explosive mixture that is shot out of the beetle's butt. Is it unexplained? To the scientist, yes. Is this impossible to explain? This latter point is impossible to verify, and is in fact incorrect.

 

If the scientist would conduct a further inquiry into the matter by researching a good deal more biology and chemistry, he would discover that the issue is perfectly explicable.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

 

This is not to say that we have an explanation for everything that is complex, simply that it is IMPOSSIBLE to make affirmative judgements regarding a body of knowledge we remain definitively ignorant about (i.e. the laws of nature that are potentially currently unknown to us).

 

Thus:

 

1. The Burden of Proof lies on the position making an affirmative statement.

2. "Irreducible Complexity" is an affirmative statement (i.e. it is impossible to explain a particular element)

3. It is impossible to verify 2 due to the nature of human inquiry.

4. Ergo, Irreducible Complexity cannot be regarded as a scientific methodology.

 

QED.

[daniel_1012]

Irreducible complexity

What is it? Why does it make the generally accepted theory of evolution impossible?

Irreducible complexity is really pretty simple.

 

Which evolved first in the following:

 

The stomach-

The digestive system-

Acids in the stomach-

Chemicals in our own body to neutralize the acids from hurting us-

The lining in the stomach to keep the acid from eating away at it-

...

 

Irreducible complexity pertains to biological life. We are biological life.

 

We could go on. Irreducible complexity is simply an observation that something that must live in order to keep existing, cannot exist, nor come into existence without all parts being simultaneously present, because it is alive. It is good methodology, and it's used everyday.

 

A car. When we fix a car, there is a series of parts that feed one another, where if you break the chain it does not function. This exists throughout all creation -- both the things God has made, and the things we make using the things God has made. The difference with a car, and the irreducible complexity of life, is that for us to continue evolving *we had to stay alive in order to do so, and make it to the next generation* This is not so for dead material, unlike us, this is not necessary for a car.

 

We are alive.

 

Dead life does not evolve. Dead life does not reproduce. It goes back to the ground, and it's back to the drawing board. But it's not just back to the drawing board though, it's back to nothing. In fact, there is no drawing board at all. First you have to evolve a drawing board before you can begin to evolve. Dead life does not reproduce. That is what makes biological life, irreducibly complex. A car can exist, as the engine dies (because the engine never truly lived). As we work on it for years trying to get it to work, we have time to tweak and change until we get it right. Unlike us -- a car is an inanimate object, and unlike biological life such as us, a car does not dissolve into nothing when the engine stops. When an engine seizes, we still have the frame, we still have the body, we still have the entire system all hooked up, and we still have the drawing board. When a car's "heart" stops beating, it, along with its concepts, its design, its drawings, its *drawers* and anything that ever be known about it, doesn't dissipate into dust. Not so with biological life. Dead life does not evolve. Dead life does not reproduce. Dead life does not pass on its genes, and this makes life, unlike non-life, have a point of irreducible complexity.

 

God created life, and people are without excuse, because His creation is evident by the things He has made.

[Fweethawt]

God created life, and people are without excuse,....yahda-yahda-yahda

Since God created life, and we are without excuse (whatever that's supposed to mean), then there's probably a really good chance that you don't have an excuse for the following comment, correct?

 

Dead life does not reproduce.

 

[Fweethawt]

A car.  When we fix a car, there is a series of parts that feed one another, where if you break the chain it does not function.  This exists throughout all creation -- both the things God has made, and the things we make using the things God has made.  The difference with a car, and the irreducible complexity of life, is that for us to continue evolving *we had to stay alive in order to do so, and make it to the next generation*  This is not so for dead material, unlike us, this is not necessary for a car.

 

We are alive.

 

Dead life does not evolve.  Dead life does not reproduce.  It goes back to the ground, and it's back to the drawing board.  But it's not just back to the drawing board though, it's back to nothing.  In fact, there is no drawing board at all.  First you have to evolve a drawing board before you can begin to evolve.  Dead life does not reproduce.  That is what makes biological life, irreducibly complex.  A car can exist, as the engine dies (because the engine never truly lived).  As we work on it for years trying to get it to work, we have time to tweak and change until we get it right.  Unlike us -- a car is an inanimate object, and unlike biological life such as us, a car does not dissolve into nothing when the engine stops.  When an engine seizes, we still have the frame, we still have the body, we still have the entire system all hooked up, and we still have the drawing board.  When a car's "heart" stops beating, it, along with its concepts, its design, its drawings, its *drawers* and anything that ever be known about it, doesn't dissipate into dust  Not so with biological life.  Dead life does not evolve.  Dead life does not reproduce.  Dead life does not pass on its jeans, and this makes life, unlike non-life, have a point of irreducible complexity.

 

God created life, and people are without excuse, because His creation is evident by the things He has made.

 

Wow! I see it now! The Bible really is true, isn't it?

 

 

Dead life does not pass on its jeans,

I've passed on my jeans before. You see, I gained a bit of weight, and when I went to put them on, they just didn't seem to fit anymore, so I passed on them and picked another pair.

[daniel_1012]

Wow! I see it now! The Bible really is true, isn't it?

 

Well, what I said doesn't make the Bible true... so to speak... that's another argument altogether isn't it.

 

I saw that I spelled genes JEANS... and just as I corrected it... I saw you had already replied with a comment.

[Fweethawt]

Keep on editing, Danny.

 

Your post is getting better by the minute!!

[Fweethawt]

I saw that I spelled genes JEANS... and just as I corrected it... I saw you had already replied with a comment. 

 

Oh, please do continue.

I haven't read anything that good in a long time.

You've given me something to look forward to for later today.

 

Stick around.

Post much.

Make my day.

 

 

Oh shit!!!

[daniel_1012]

I'm glad it's getting better. It would be a pity if after all this AM editing actually made it worse.

 

I'm fortunate my posts are not subject to the same irreducible complexity you and I would be!

[trashy]

Irreducible complexity is really pretty simple.

 

Which evolved first in the following:

 

The stomach-

The digestive system-

Acids in the stomach-

Chemicals in our own body to neutralize the acids from hurting us-

The lining in the stomach to keep the acid from eating away at it-

I'd wager to say that all of those ingredients slowly evolved over eons. It's rarely a case of 1, then 2, then 3......

 

I used to view evolution the same way while never realizing that my basic understanding of evolution was flawed.

[Saviourmachine]

Irreducible complexity is simply an observation that something that must live in order to keep existing, cannot exist, nor come into existence without all parts being simultaneously present

I find "irreducible complexity" a cool but barely usable concept. Statistics should be taken into consideration. And like you maybe know evolutionary processes are difficult to examine in a reducible way. What is necessary and irreducible in one stage isn't so in another. The whole "product life cycle" has to be examined.

[MrSpooky]

Daniel, first of all, did you even read the philosophical argument I presented in the first post? It rejects the very methodology of presenting Irreducibly Complex elements a priori.

 

Second, have you actually ever made a cross-species analysis of stomachs? All you've done is made a "wow, it looks impossible!" statement without actually doing any genuine research. There is a scale of complexity in digestive tracts.

 

 

Cnidaria: Primitive critters that only have 3 tissue types... their stomach consists of a simple infolding that forms a body cavity. Glad cells secrete enzymes that break down food in the cavity and other cells absorb the nutrients.

 

Platyhelminthes: Flatworms. Stomachs are slightly better-developed sacs that suck in food and spit out waste.

 

Annelida: An actual GI tract is developed, with a very small crop and gizzard and a linear intestine.

 

And so on. Not all stomachs and stomach-like organs are sacs that secrete horrible acids and enzymes.

[bob]

Well, what I said doesn't make the Bible true... so to speak... that's another argument altogether isn't it.

Well...actually, it is another argument only if you can present scientific and historical evidence that the entire bible that you hold in your hand is without error...I think.

[Ouroboros]

God is irreducible complex, so he must have been created by a super intelligent designer.

[Vigile]

God is irreducible complex, so he must have been created by a super intelligent designer.

 

That's right. Isn't it ironic that many of us have become atheists because we recognize this about god while christians use it as an argument against the evolutionary theory? But, as MrSpooky so elequently presented, we can in fact find a progression of development starting from lower life forms. We can actually see this progression, making the evolutionary theory ultimately viable. Christians, on the other hand ask us to just accept that god in all his glory and his omnis just is.

[Brother Jeff]

Irreducible Complexity: The (Cosmic) Emperor's New Clothes

 

From http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/behe.html :

 

Michael Behe, an Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, published a book called Darwin's Black Box in 1996. Since that time he has been at the forefront of the Intelligent Design Movement.

 

* We will be looking at Behe's main argument for Intelligent Design, his concept of Irreducible Complexity in the complex processes of biochemistry.

* We will see that his argument is flawed for a number of reasons:

o Irreducible Complexity is a very slippery concept.

o His argument is untestable.

o His either-or logic between ID and Darwinism is a false dichotomy.

o His claim that biochemistry has stymied Darwinian evolution is demonstrably false.

o His claim that some complex processes, such a blood clotting, could not be produced by step-by-step Darwinian evolution is wrong.

o All the six major examples have possible evolutionary precursors and some are not even irreducibly complex.

o His "super Adamite" bacteria is an impossibility.

* We then provide some conclusions on irreducible complexity as an argument for God's existence.

 

Behe's Irreducible Complexity

Behe's argument starts by noting that advances in biochemistry in the twentieth century, with the aid of sophisticated tools and techniques such as X-Ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance and electron microscopy, have enabled the structure of the cell and its biochemical inner workings to be understood in detail for the first time. These complex processes were unknown to Darwin, who essentially treated the cell as a black box. With the advances mentioned above, the black box now stands open. Thus according to Behe, "biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin." and that "Now the black box of the cell has been opened, and the infinitesmal world that stands revealed must be explained." [1]

 

According to Behe, the main biochemical challenge to Darwin comes from irreducibly complex systems. He defines the term as such:

 

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.[2]

 

To familize his reader with the concept, he introduced the common contraption, the humble mousetrap. According to Behe, the mouse trap has five components, the wooden platform (the base), the hammer (to crush the mouse), the spring (to provide force for the hammer), the catch (to sense the mouse) and the holding bar (to hold the hammer back while waiting for the mouse). The mousetrap is irreducibly complex because every component is required for the system to work. Once any one part is missing, the trap will fail to catch the mouse. Thus there can be no physical precustor to the moustrap that is simpler, since any step by step improvement is impossible. The system must function with all five parts or it doesn't work at all.

 

Next Behe goes on to give in exquisite detail six examples of irreducibly complex systems in the black box:

 

* The mechanics of bacterial flagellum:

The system needs three separate components working together: namely the filament (the "oar" or "propellor"), the "M" Ring (the "rotor") and a motor that draws energy from a flow of acid through the bacterial membrane.[3]

 

* The Cilium:

The cilium, a "hairlike" looking structure that protrudes out of some cells, consists of microtubules (the strands that slide up an down), dynein (the motor that slides one set of microtubules over another allowing the cilium to bend) and nexin (which is the linker that keeps the adjacent microtubes together.) That way when dynein pushes one set of microtubules up against another, the movement is converted into a bending motion. This provides the cell with the capability to swim.[4]

 

* Blood clotting:

The mechanics of blood clotting is a cascade in that one reaction is required to trigger another (think falling dominos) until the final step-which is the "trimming" of the protein fibrinogen into fibrin. Fibrin forms a biological "wiremesh" that entraps blod cells and keeps them from flowing out of the body. Working backwards one requires the protein thrombin to "cut" fibrinogen into fibrin. But thrombin exists in the bloodstream as the inactive prothrombin. To activate prothrombin, we need an active "Stuart factor" to cleave prothrombin and accelerin to speed up the process so that it will happen quick enough to be of any help. What activates Stuart factor and accelerin? Still more proteins! [5]

 

* Cellular transport systems:

The mechanics of how proteins are transported within the cell is introduced next. Two forms of transport, gated transport and vesicular transport are required to get proteins from their origin in the cytoplasm [a] to the lysosome.

 

Gated transport is called thus due to it's similarity to our everyday experience of passing through a guarded (electronically or otherwise) gate. This system require three basic components to work: an identification tag, a scanner (to verify identification) and a gate (that is activated by the scanner). The system needs all three components to work otherwise it will not work. Thus in a cell, when a protein is to be manufactured, one of the first steps is for the mRNA [c] to be transported out from the nucleus into the cytoplasm. This requires gated transport of the mRNA at the nuclear pore. Proteins in the pore reads a signal from the RNA (the scanner reads the identification tag) and opens the pore (gate is opened).

 

Vesicular transport is even more complicated. Vesicular transport involves transporting the protein within a body (the vesicle) to another location (such as the lysosome). This requires six items to function properly, (1) an identification tag for the protein to be recognizable by the budding vesicle, (2) a transport vehicle(the vesicle), (3)a receptor or scanner in the vesicle to recognize the right protein, (4) an indentification tag for the vesicle itself, (5) a scaner on the lysosome and (6) a gate on the lysosome that it activated by the scanner.

 

* The immune system:

The immune system is introduced in a few separate sections. We will look at the "recognition" part-where the body's immune system recognizes a foreign invader and starts producing antibodies.

 

The "B" cells have protruding Y-Shaped fingers (the antibody), each with many different permutations of binding sites, that enable the cell to latch on to a foreign body. Thus there are many different flavors of B cells, each with it's own binding site combination. Once the correct B-Cell latches on, it takes a piece of the foreign cell's membrane into it. Here the foreign molecule is chopped up and is stuck to a protein called MHC. This is then returned to the membrane of the Cell. Now helper-T cells come along and binds to the B cell. If it confirms that this indeed is a foreign substance, it sends a message ( by secreting a substance called interleukin) to that particular B Cell to start to reproduce. (That's the major reason why the B cell is bound to the antibody, so that the system doesn't have to go around looking for the "right" B cell to reproduce.) Eventually they start to produce "free" antibodies (those not bound to the membrane of the B cell) which are released in large amounts into the plasma. According to Behe even here, the system is irreducibly complex- you need, as a minimum (1) the membrane bound form of the antibody, (2) the messenger (such as interleukin) and (3) the exported (free) form of the antibody. Without (1) you can't find the right cell that makes the particular antibody. Without (2), you can't send the message to the cell to reproduce. And without (3) there is nothing to send out to the bloodstream to fight the invasion.

 

How do the B-cells make so many flavours of itself? By a complicated procedure of gene splicing. Basically there are three clusters of genes that are varied. An example taken from Keith Rodison, would make this easier to understand [something Behe's seems to avoid doing in this section of his book] The genome for antibody schematically looks like this V1-V2-V3-V4-D1-D2-D3-J1-J2-C, with V, D and J being the variable clusters. To make a B-cell, one gene segment is drawn from V, one from D, one from J and a constant one from C. Thus a possible antibody genome would be V2-D1-J2-C and another may be V1-D1-J1-C. With the large number of gene segments in the human genome, these can lead to millions of combinations for the binding site-thus it is virtually certain to bind to any foreign molecule. Here is, according to Behe, another example of irreducible complexity-since a primitive system with only one or a few antibody molecules would be "like a propeller turning at one revolution a day". In other words, without the complicated gene splicing in clonal selection we would not have a functioning immune system at all.[6]

 

* Metabolic Pathways:

The final example is on metabolic pathways. Behe's example of this is the synthesis of AMP (adenosine monophosphate). Adenine (one of the four bases of DNA [d]) is derived from AMP. Thus to get adenine you must first get AMP. The synthesis of AMP in the cell requires 13 steps utilizing 12 different enzymes. The precursor molecules, the intermediate forms before AMP is reached, play no independent role elsewhere. Their very existence are purely as stepping stones towards AMP (or GMP). This process, according to Behe, is another example of irreducible complexity. Since there is no use of the intermediate molecules, the whole pathway could not have evolved in a Darwinian step by step fashion.[7]

 

One of Behe's central claims throughout all these examples is that there is nothing in the literature (in scientific journals) which comes close to explaining the possible evolution of these systems. Thus to him, nobody knows how these complex systems come to be.

 

It is important to note that Behe is not a young earth creationist. He also accepts the fact that all organisms share a common ancestor, i.e. they evolved. This is what he wrote in his book:

 

For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it.[8]

 

However if these irreducibly complex systems did not arrive here by evolution, how did these come to be? After summarily dismissing two other alternatives (Lynn Margulis' "symbiotic" theory of the origin of the eucaryotic [f] cells and Stuart Kauffman's "complexity theory") he concluded that the only option left is intelligent design. However, even to Behe, detecting whether something has been designed or not is not easy:

 

The upshot of this conclusion-that anything could have been purposely designed-is that we cannot know that something has not been designed. The scientific problem then becomes, how do we confidently detect design?...For discrete physical systems-if there is not a gradual route to their production-design is evident when a number of separate interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond it's individual components. The greater the specificity of the interacting components required to produce the function, the greater is our confidence in the conclusion of design.[9]

 

In other words, when a system is irreducibly complex, it is designed.

 

According to Behe, the designer made all the irreducibly complex systems discussed above and others in the first cell almost four billion years ago[e]:

 

Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many other. (one can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on."...) [10]

 

The above, in a (rather large) nutshell, is what Irreducible Complexity is all about. Now let us see what is wrong with it.

 

Back to the top

Slippery Irreducibility

Irreducible complexity is a concept that sounds clear enough, yet upon closer examination, it is hard to be certain if it can be applied in any meaningful way. Remember from Behe's definition above, there are two aspects to this concept; firstly an irreducibly complex system cannot be made any less simpler, i.e. it cannot have less components and still fulfil the same function, secondly, it is impossible to imagine a Darwinian step by step improvement from something simpler. There are problems with both aspects of this definition: it is very hard to be sure systems are irreducibly complex and it is always possible with enough ingenuity to come up with physical precursors for it.

 

Take the mousetrap example again. Behe claims that it is irreducibly complex and needs a minimum of five components (the hold down bar, the hammer, the platform, the spring and the catch), remove any one of these and the system will cease to function. Yet as John McDonald showed [11] the mousetrap can function with 4, 3, 2 or even only one part. Firstly, he removed the catch and bent the hold down bar a little. This hold down bar is placed at the end of the hammer that protrudes out from the spring. The cheese (bait) is attached to the end of this hold down bar. If a mouse tries to get to the cheese, the disturbance will remove the hold down bar from the protrusion of the hammer and, kapaam!!, down comes the hammer on the mouse. Viola, you have a fully functioning mousetrap with only four components! With ingenuity, McDonald was able to reduce the mousetrap to a single spring.

 

Thus a major example used by the supreme master of recognizing irreducible complexity is conclusively shown to be not irreducibly complex. This serves as a cautionary tale-recognizing systems as irreducibly complex is not easy.

 

The second facet of his definition, that it is impossible to think of a step by step improvement to this system, had also been shown to be wrong.

 

The rest of this glorious article is available here: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/behe.html

 

Other relevant articles:

 

Unintelligible Redesign

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2062009

 

Behe's Empty Box

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO.../box/behe.shtml

[Brother Jeff]

Why does it make the generally accepted theory of evolution impossible?

 

Asks the typically scientifically ignorant fundie creationist...

 

Irreducible complexity is simply an observation that something that must live in order to keep existing, cannot exist, nor come into existence without all parts being simultaneously present, because it is alive.

 

That's not the correct definition of irreducible complexity, even by creationist um, (cough)... standards (cough). How does Michael Behe define the concept?

 

We are alive.

 

No shit. Jesus isn't alive, though. He is Magically Undead! Glory!

 

God created life, and people are without excuse, because His creation is evident by the things He has made.

 

Zeus created life... Allah created life... Krishna created life... and so on ad nauseum for the thousands of gods that mankind has dreamed up, yours included.

[daniel_1012]

compiled 2 posts into 1.

[daniel_1012]

Cnidaria: Primitive critters that only have 3 tissue types... their stomach consists of a simple infolding that forms a body cavity. Glad cells secrete enzymes that break down food in the cavity and other cells absorb the nutrients.

 

Platyhelminthes: Flatworms. Stomachs are slightly better-developed sacs that suck in food and spit out waste.

 

Annelida: An actual GI tract is developed, with a very small crop and gizzard and a linear intestine.

 

And so on. Not all stomachs and stomach-like organs are sacs that secrete horrible acids and enzymes.

 

Stomachs such as those, are also irreducibly complex. Every form of life (every *organism*) is irreducibly complex. From the tiniest microscopic organisms, and seemingly less "complex" to our understanding, all the way up to the biggest and most seemingly complex.

 

What evolved first? The complete reproduction system, or the drive to reproduce?

 

If my body decides it is going to reproduce, that obviously means it presently *cannot reproduce.* Any changes I might get within myself, that I would like to pass on, can't be passed on because the thought that I would like to reproduce... is not reproduced... because I cannot reproduce...

 

Typical Evolutionist: Oh no you just don't understand it's a slow process!!!

 

Myself: Yes I do understand that fairytale, and is in fact, that slow process which makes it impossible. It is irreducibly complex.

 

Typical Evolutionist: No, but you don't understand the theory! It's slow, and it's change OVER TIME

 

Myself: Yes, I do understand that it would happen over a LONG... SLOW... TIME... and that's what is impossible.

 

Typical Evolutionist: NO, it's happens SLOWLY

 

Myself: I know this.

 

Typical Evolutionist: UGH

 

Myself: ...

[Ouroboros]

Stomachs such as those, are also irreducibly complex.  Every form of life (every *organism*) is irreducibly complex.  From the tiniest microscopic organisms, and seemingly less "complex" to our understanding, all the way up to the biggest and most seemingly complex.

This doesn't sound like Behe's arguments for Irreducible Complex... I think you've misunderstood what it means...

 

It sound more like "look it's pretty, and I don't understand evolution, hence it's irreducible complex!"

 

Prove to me that "every form of life" is irreducible complex, please.

[daniel_1012]

This doesn't sound like Behe's arguments for Irreducible Complex... I think you've misunderstood what it means...

 

It sound more like "look it's pretty, and I don't understand evolution, hence it's irreducible complex!"

 

Prove to me that "every form of life" is irreducible complex, please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Name for me an organism that reproduces, and I will show you it is irreducibly complex.

[crazy-tiger]

What evolved first? The complete reproduction system, or the drive to reproduce?

The drive to reproduce...

 

You're going to leap on that, aren't you? Well, allow me to head off that leap before you waste your energy on it.

 

The complete reproductive system is NOT needed for reproduction to occur. If it was, then there would never be instances of women giving birth even though they are missing wombs, falopien(sp?) tubes, vaginas, and there would not be cases where men have become biological fathers despite lacking prostates, peni, testosterone... In fact, there is nothing that is truely "vital" to reproduction.

 

You are making the common mistake of assuming that ALL of the system needs to be there for it to work... and that evolution works on single animals, rather than speices.

If my body decides it is going to reproduce, that obviously means it presently *cannot reproduce.*  Any changes I might get within myself, that I would like to pass on, can't be passed on becuase the thought that I would like to reproduce... is not reproduced... because I can not reproduce...

 

Typical Evolutionist: Oh no you just don't understand it's a slow process!!!

 

Myself: Yes I do understand that fairytale, and is in fact, that slow process which makes it impossible.  It is irreducibly complex.

 

Typical Evolutionist: No, but you don't understand the theory!  It's slow, and it's change OVER TIME

 

Myself: Yes, I do understand that it would happen over a LONG... SLOW... TIME... and that's what is impossible.

 

Typical Evolutionist:  NO, it's happens SLOWLY

 

Myself: I know this.

 

Typical Evolutionist: UGH

 

Myself: ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you understood it, you wouldn't be using such a foolish strawman caracature of evolution...

[crazy-tiger]

Name for me an organism that reproduces, and I will show you it is irreducibly complex.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SunY self-replicator...

 

 

Have fun.

[Ouroboros]

Name for me an organism that reproduces, and I will show you it is irreducibly complex.

Okay, streptococcus bacteria.

[daniel_1012]

The very point is, that any organism that can reproduce, is irreducibly complex. They are one in the same. You may, by great faith and belief, think that such an organ system can build itself up over a SLOW process over TIME. However, it is irreducibly complex no matter how much you want to believe it.

[Ouroboros]

The very point is, that any organism that can reproduce, is irreducibly complex.  They are one in the same.  You may, by great faith and belief, think that such an organ system can build itself up over a SLOW process over TIME.  However, it is irreducibly complex no matter how much you want to believe it.

Uuuhmm. That's not a proof... That's an opinion. Let me hear about a proof.

 

You still sound like you're saying "I don't understand how it happened. And that explains ID."

 

ID is a very loose hypothesis, and so far very few (or none?) falsifiable statements have been presented. What could be a test to falsify ID? Or falsify your opinion above?