Irreducible Complexity

[crazy-tiger]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it? There are many parts of the human body that can be removed from this "irreducibly complex" organism, yet the "irreducibly complex" organism keeps on going as though nothing was wrong.

 

The human body, like ALL organisms, is not irreducibly complex... since the complexity of it CAN be reduced.

 

 

Maybe you would like to explain why it is that there are documented cases of women who have managed to reproduce with only their ovaries? If, as you say it's irreducibly complex, why can the complexity be reduced from the entire reproductive system down to just ONE organ?

 

How about people who are able to live when they have no colon? Or when they have no small intestine? No rectum? No coccix? No appendix? No hair? (it's part of the human organism, so it must be needed... if it's truely irreducibly complex) No testicles? No legs? No arms? No sense of smell?

 

Now, you're going to say "what about the heart, the brain, stuff like that?" well, we have evidence that the organs WE have are not the only ones around. There are cardio-vascular systems that don't use a heart... the heart is needed now, but not always. Same with the brain... there are living organisms that have no brains. Heck, there are some that have no nervous system...

Proof that those organs are NOT needed for life.

 

Find any organ in the human body, and there's proof that it's not the only choice. THAT is the mistake that IC makes... the assumption that the organs we have now are the ONLY one's that will do.

 

 

Which is one reason you don't get that many scientists who belief in IC... if any.

[MrSpooky]

Daniel, my main qualm is that my VERY FIRST POST was a philosophical argument as to why ALL propositions of "irreducibly complex" systems must inevitably fail a priori.

 

And instead of addressing that, you post an example of an "irreducibly complex" system.

 

I've been fairly tolerant of threads going off on different tangeants, but it would be much more fruitful if such superficial issues as you propose end now.

[MrSpooky]

Okay, I just continued reading your posts, Daniel.

 

Is there any point in which you will actually address a post instead of ignoring the proposed counterargument by changing the topic entirely?

[Fweethawt]

I've been fairly tolerant of threads going off on different tangeants, but it would be much more fruitful if such superficial issues as you propose end now.

 

Please, MrSpooky, please give him a chance to explain this:

Dead life does not reproduce.

 

I'm dying to find out what in the fuzzy freakin' assnuts this statement means!

[daniel_1012]

Please, MrSpooky, please give him a chance to explain this:

 

I'm dying to find out what in the fuzzy freakin' assnuts this statement means!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless you claim that the rock(s), which after coming from nothing (assuming you believe in the Big Joke, er, Big Bang...), covered the earth, and created life that already had the ability to reproduce... only after an uncountable number of UNEXPLAINABLE MYSTERIES AND LEAPS OF FAITH (lol@Big Bang and the thought life came from it) -- What the heck is this magical broth of life anyways that was the beginning of life in this baseless fairytale of the Big Bang, lol? I love how people who think they're smart just say things like, "it's complex broth of chemicals." NO IT WASN'T. YOU WERE NOT THERE *knock knock* anyone home up there? OH, how I can't wait for the foolishness of this world to be confounded by God. The utter, complete, and total foolish silly thoughts men have and think they are wise!

 

What exactly is a "complex pool of life," that those who talk about the Big Bang talk about. It's hideous to believe in God, but believing that a rock came from nowhere nonexistent matter, and then all life just kinda happened -- OVER A LONG TIME (lol).

 

I'm not the one who has to come up with explanations, really. If I say something about a dumb theory like evolution or the Big Bang, it's not surprising. There is nothing intelligible to be found in it at all.

[woodsmoke]

Unless you claim that the rock(s), which after coming from nothing (assuming you believe in the Big Joke, er, Big Bang...), covered the earth, and created life that already had the ability to reproduce... only after an uncountable number of UNEXPLAINABLE MYSTERIES AND LEAPS OF FAITH (lol@Big Bang and the thought life came from it) --  What the heck is this magical broth of life anyways that was the beginning of life in this baseless fairytale of the Big Bang, lol?  I love how people who think they're smart just say things like, "it's complex broth of chemicals."  NO IT WASN'T.  YOU WERE NOT THERE

 

Newsflash: Neither were you. You're just as ignorant about the formation of the universe and the beginnings of life as we are.

 

*knock knock* anyone home up there?  OH, how I can't wait for the foolishness of this world to be confounded by God.  The utter, complete, and total foolish silly thoughts men have and think they are wise!

 

This would be in direct contrast to the foolishness of theistic fundamentalists who think they've got it all figured out because they can quote a few favorite verses from an ancient book of unimpressive fairy tales, correct?

 

I'm not the one who has to come up with explanations, really.  If I say something about a dumb theory like evolution or the Big Bang, it's not surprising.  There is nothing intelligible to be found in it at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bull shit!

 

You are making the claim that God exists, that he created the universe according to the Christian creation myth. Therefore, the burden of proof rests entirely upon you.

 

Both the theory of evolution and the Big Bang have supporting scientific evidence. At the very least, no one has come along with a better explanation, and both theories are always subject to scrutiny with the possibility of being disproven or changed in the face of new information.

 

The Christian myth of biblical creation is supported by nothing external. You may point to the bible as evidence/proof, however since it is from the bible that this "theory" is derived, it does not quality as legitimate evidence. The only supporting force behind it is the collective will and ignorance of Christian faithful.

[♦ ficino ♦]

The very point is, that any organism that can reproduce, is irreducibly complex.  They are one in the same.

 

You are building your conclusions into your premises. Your argument is circular.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Danny boy, what created your god? What created the creator? What created the creator of the creator?

 

Until you can answer this question to a satisfactory degree, I suggest you shut your filthy lying mouth and study.

[narcissist]

NO IT WASN'T.  YOU WERE NOT THERE *knock knock* anyone home up there?  OH, how I can't wait for the foolishness of this world to be confounded by God.  The utter, complete, and total foolish silly thoughts men have and think they are wise!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Daniel, your unmitigated pride and your astounding lack of humility demonstrate how little you know of your own faith, let alone anything regarding science. (Ps 18:27, Pr 16:18.19, Matt 5:5, Ph 2:3, etc.)

 

You had better be careful with what you say and how you say it or else you risk being left behind with the rest of us when God returns in His glory to confound us.(Matt 23:12)

 

The "Theory" of Evolution as proposed by Darwin and his contemporaries has subsequently been and continues to be proven by the discovery of evidence that creationists such as yourself choose to ignore. Perhaps if you humbled yourself enough to consider some of that evidence, you might see just how amazing your God's creation really is.

[Ouroboros]

Unless you claim that the rock(s), which after coming from nothing (assuming you believe in the Big Joke, er, Big Bang...), covered the earth, and created life that already had the ability to reproduce... only after an uncountable number of UNEXPLAINABLE MYSTERIES AND LEAPS OF FAITH (lol@Big Bang and the thought life came from it) --  What the heck is this magical broth of life anyways that was the beginning of life in this baseless fairytale of the Big Bang, lol?  I love how people who think they're smart just say things like, "it's complex broth of chemicals."  NO IT WASN'T.  YOU WERE NOT THERE *knock knock* anyone home up there?  OH, how I can't wait for the foolishness of this world to be confounded by God.  The utter, complete, and total foolish silly thoughts men have and think they are wise!

According to you God created the Universe from Nothing, so why do you criticize the idea that the Universe came from Nothing? The only difference between Big Bang and Creationism is that Big Bang only explains what happened, not why, while creationism explains (to the believer) they "why", but not the "how". If God exists, he could have used Big Bang and Evolution to create us, and you deny God to use that venue for Creation, not because of evidence, but because of trust and faith in an old book, and also against evidence. There's evidence of a Big Bang, but there's NO evidence for Creationism.

 

What exactly is a "complex pool of life," that those who talk about the Big Bang talk about.  It's hideous to believe in God, but believing that a rock came from nowhere nonexistent matter, and then all life just kinda happened -- OVER A LONG TIME (lol).

Isn't God complex? It's hideous to think that God is less than complex, so he must be complex, and if he is, how come your "complex pool of life" couldn't exist? What are you getting at? Rocks came from non-existing matter... but that's exactly what YOU BELIEVE!!! Besides, Big Bang doesn't not claim the Universe came from Nothing, but from a "Something", a singularity, white hole or a multiverse brane collision. You're so far from the knowledge of the theories that your arguments won't hold water for a second with us. You have to go back and study the things you criticize, since you show complete lack of understanding and knowledge about it. You can't prove anything wrong with strawmen and red-herring arguments. Study, and come back... please!!!

 

I'm not the one who has to come up with explanations, really.  If I say something about a dumb theory like evolution or the Big Bang, it's not surprising.  There is nothing intelligible to be found in it at all.

You don't know what you're talking about. So your arguments are completely 100% moot!

[Kuroikaze]

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: ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LOL now you understand how we feel when we discuss theology with you

[Kuroikaze]

I'm not the one who has to come up with explanations, really.  If I say something about a dumb theory like evolution or the Big Bang, it's not surprising.  There is nothing intelligible to be found in it at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nothing intelligible huh? (Insert pot calling the kettle black remark here)

 

Its kinda like your religion isn't it, nothing intelligible, aren't you supposed to believe because of your faith, not because of proof?

 

If so, why do you get so mad at us for apperently (according to you) believing in evolution based of faith?

[Kuroikaze]

doh, double post

[Dhampir]

Oy. I'm glad you haven't run off, Daniel.

 

Firstly, our friend said something about the big bang, and stuff coming from nothing. To which I must reiterate the first law of thermodynamics: Energy can neither be created nor destroyed (Through ordinary means [i have heard of matter being destroyed, as through a nuclear explosion, but never have I heard of energy being destroyed through any process]). It is therefore possible that according to the big bang theory, the universe as was prior to it was an infinitely small and dense mass of potential energy, that is to say, it existed. It didn't exist as it does now, but it existed.

 

Second, I believe Daniel is of the school of thought that states that each component part of an organism would have had to evolve separately, and individually, to satisfy the theory of evolution. He put forth an analogy of a car engine or something like that to correlate that each individual part is absolutely essential to proper function.

 

I would like to add to that analogy thusly: consider the model T. Consider... I don't know, I'm not a car buff... a '94 Grand Am. Now the model T, being among the first of all cars, is by nature less advanced than most if not all cars that have been created since. However, the engine model, and the increased number of working vital parts which compose the engine of the Grand Am, are not essential to the function of the model T, or rather the function of a car at all, simply because there are cars with the same basic engine layout, but which have fewer vital parts that run just the same.

 

Now, if you wanted to talk about speed, and acceleration, handling, fuel economy, and so forth, one might more effectively posit that the more complex composition of the Grand Am is the cause of greater output.

 

Additionally, I don't think Ol' Ford was like : 'I'm going to put these wheels together, and mabe a steering wheel, and hope I get a powered mechanism out of it.' Then failing that said 'maybe I'll put an engine in and it'll run.' Then still failing to get a moving vehicle out of the pile said 'Oh, right, it needs a fuel source. I was trying to make a combustion engine. Shoot.' Riding around on wheels, an engine, a gas tank and a steering wheel, he then thought 'This looks kinda stupid. Maybe I oughta put a frame around all this stuff.'

 

My point is that Just as the makers of the first cars had to concieve of and construct their devices with a mind for having the parts be created somewhat relative to each other before the final construction, So to did each organism have to slightly add to what was extant in order to layer complexity. Layering, you could call it. Like lifting weights, when you break down muscle, the body realizes that you are trying to make it do tasks which tax it's abilities, and therefore needs more muscle to more effectively do the job.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Nothing intelligible huh?  (Insert pot calling the kettle black remark here)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can use this:

[crazy-tiger]

You can use this:

What about this...?

[daniel_1012]

Dhampir

 

My point and the difference between the anology I made about the car (or anything we can build reall) is that when we see something wrong with the car... we have time to change it. We can mold new parts, think up new ideas, make it more efficient, faster, more powerful... however we need. I mean, that's how we have arrived at the cars we have today.

 

However, this is not so for biological life. Unlike unintelligible life that must reproduce if it even has *hopes* of passing on any genetic advancements (by which a countless number of beneficial mutations must occur) -- it must survive, and it must reproduce. Unless this living matter has a means by which it will reproduce, it will not survive. So, among countless other assumptions and beliefs a person must take on in order to accept the Big Bang theory... we must accept that when life formed, it formed with a fully hooked up, ready to reproduce organ system.

 

Which, I suppose if we are assuming that life came from non-life... maybe that's not to great of an assumption after all. However... again, even if I were not a Christian and did not know Jesus Christ... I still could NEVER accept the Big Bang theory as an explaination. I would settle better for the honesty of, "I don't know, and nobody does."

[daniel_1012]

What about this...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually... the kettle looks to be more of a brownish grey, than what I would call black. So, the pot is wrong, or is color blind and can only see in black and white... or can make no distinction between shades of color.

[Ouroboros]

Which, I suppose if we are assuming that life came from non-life... maybe that's not to great of an assumption after all.  However... again, even if I were not a Christian and did not know Jesus Christ... I still could NEVER accept the Big Bang theory as an explaination.  I would settle better for the honesty of, "I don't know, and nobody does."

And that's what we do. But we can still have theories how we think it might have happened. No theory is written in stone or in a 2000 year old book that we have to follow zealously. If ekpyrotic or brane theories are proven to uphold to scrutiny, we might see modifications to the old Big Bang theory in the future.

 

The "I don't know" stance is the foundation for the Agnostic person. And an agnostic claims that we don't know if there is a God, or not, but furthermore that we can't currently prove either or, and maybe never.

[crazy-tiger]

Actually... the kettle looks to be more of a brownish grey, than what I would call black. So, the pot is wrong, or is color blind and can only see in black and white... or can make no distinction between shades of color. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since the pot is representing you in this case, I'd say it was spot on...

[Samurai Tailor]

However, this is not so for biological life.  Unlike unintelligible life that must reproduce if it even has *hopes* of passing on any genetic advancements (by which a countless number of beneficial mutations must occur) -- it must survive, and it must reproduce.  Unless this living matter has a means by which it will reproduce, it will not survive.  So, among countless other assumptions and beliefs a person must take on in order to accept the Big Bang theory... we must accept that when life formed, it formed with a fully hooked up, ready to reproduce organ system.

What sort of reproductive system would you expect to see in a protocell or a nucleic acid chain? Rudimentary replication can be accomplished through enzyme action, and guess what molecule can act as its own enzyme? Yep, RNA.

[crazy-tiger]

So, among countless other assumptions and beliefs a person must take on in order to accept the Big Bang theory... we must accept that when life formed, it formed with a fully hooked up, ready to reproduce organ system.

Why? What says that any IDer cannot have used a big bang to start things off?

Which, I suppose if we are assuming that life came from non-life... maybe that's not to great of an assumption after all.  However... again, even if I were not a Christian and did not know Jesus Christ... I still could NEVER accept the Big Bang theory as an explaination.  I would settle better for the honesty of, "I don't know, and nobody does."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good grief... you're using Abiogenesis and a caracature of Evolution to show that BBT is wrong. Now, I know that ID'ers just love to mix and match scientific theories, but that's just a little extreme.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, you are saying you'd settle for the honesty of "I don't know, and nobody does" but also saying "I know how it was done"

Again it's something that ID'ers just love to do... contradicting themselves on a regular basis...

 

That picture I posted was more correct than I first thought...

[Fweethawt]

Please, MrSpooky, please give him a chance to explain this:

Dead life does not reproduce.

I'm dying to find out what in the fuzzy freakin' assnuts this statement means!

Unless you claim that the rock(s), which after coming from nothing (assuming you believe in the Big Joke, er, Big Bang...), covered the earth, and created life that already had the ability to reproduce... only after an uncountable number of UNEXPLAINABLE MYSTERIES AND LEAPS OF FAITH (lol@Big Bang and the thought life came from it) -- What the heck is this magical broth of life anyways that was the beginning of life in this baseless fairytale of the Big Bang, lol? I love how people who think they're smart just say things like, "it's complex broth of chemicals." NO IT WASN'T. YOU WERE NOT THERE *knock knock* anyone home up there?

 

What exactly is a "complex pool of life," that those who talk about the Big Bang talk about. It's hideous to believe in God, but believing that a rock came from nowhere nonexistent matter, and then all life just kinda happened -- OVER A LONG TIME (lol).

 

I'm not the one who has to come up with explanations, really. If I say something about a dumb theory like evolution or the Big Bang, it's not surprising. There is nothing intelligible to be found in it at all.

 

God damn!!!

 

I just wanted to know what you meant when you said, "Dead life does not reproduce." When I first asked the question, I asked in jest because I really did think that you made a typographical error or something.

 

But now, I'm really starting to think that you think, that statement actually makes some sort of sense.

 

I have a little secret for you. It doesn't.

 

There is no such thing as dead life, and there is no such thing as living dead.

 

OH, how I can't wait for the foolishness of this world to be confounded by God.  The utter, complete, and total foolish silly thoughts men have and think they are wise!

It looks to me like you've already experienced this firsthand.

 

The way that you typed out your post does indeed make you look like a raving lunatic.

 

 

Cognitive Dissonance <---- Learn what it is, learn to recognize it, then defeat it.

[MrSpooky]

However, this is not so for biological life. Unlike unintelligible life that must reproduce if it even has *hopes* of passing on any genetic advancements (by which a countless number of beneficial mutations must occur) -- it must survive, and it must reproduce. Unless this living matter has a means by which it will reproduce, it will not survive. So, among countless other assumptions and beliefs a person must take on in order to accept the Big Bang theory... we must accept that when life formed, it formed with a fully hooked up, ready to reproduce organ system.

 

Actually, Daniel, you are very very much in error in this statement. I'm not a fan of your other arguments, but this one appears to be the cornerstone of your argumentation and is just wrong.

 

You have to remember that biological systems are simply aggregates of chemical systems. Biology is chemical in nature... it's just chemical components that have migrated together to a very powerful structure determined by natural selection.

 

When you go down the chain of development, the most basic critter is the single-celled organism... a prokaryote. "Well how did prokaryotes come about?" you ask.

 

Now it's very true that we're still working on the problem, but it's by no means insoluble. Self-replication is quite a simple process in chemistry, quite contrary to your claims. Crystals self-replicate... clays self-replicate. Polymers are everywhere in natural chemistry, even outside of biology. What the big question is is HOW a slightly more complex polymer (such as RNA) piggybacked on this process and was able to become the basic precursors to biotic life.

 

So your argument that "reproduction is something complex that must first come about" is just wrong. Self-replication is a process seen all across chemistry even before biological processes can develop. The only problem is how simple chemical processes can work step-by-step to biotic processes, and we've already made some good first few steps.

[daniel_1012]

Accept by faith, life does not come from nonlife. Accept by faith, this "life" cannot procreate. Understanding how a micro organism reproduces, does not give proof that this is where it all starts... small steps of life, until we eventually get bigger, stronger... Without the original having the ability to recreate, it will not be able to recreate. Who put the "mind" into this "life" that it would recreate anyways, or even know what recreating is? We don't even have to argue other levels of evolution, because we will never get past the very beginning, when life came into existance. I have never been given a good explaination for how life "knew" to create itself... or even where the nonlife, that life came from... came from what? Where did this nonlife material come from? We witness in all forms of both life and nonlife, material deteriorates (this is a law of thermodynamics). How long did this material (if it always existed and didn't just come from nothing) exist, deteriorating over time... it must have had a beginning. If it didn't, then why is everything working towards chaos? If it has always existed, then I don't see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics could be true, as everything is effected by entropy. If it came into existance at some point... where did it come from? The way I see it, all of these things and countless many other things point to a creator. Who is that creator? That's another story.