Irreducible Complexity

[♦ ficino ♦]

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling

 

O my Zeus. I can't take this any more. Irreducible stupidity is surely a proof that there is no Intelligent Designer.

 

Sorry, Daniel. You have to get real and get some education. Life is short. Don't fuck up your mind, please. When the darkness comes, are you going to lie there looking back and wondering whether you've thrown away your one chance for a myth?

[Mr. Neil]

Maybe by "a-PAUL-ing", he means etymologically that our ignorance is without Paulian (and thus Christian) influence. You see, his ignorance is very much influenced by Paul, which is why he appeals to it as though it proves something. Our ignorance is a-PAUL-ing, because we don't believe in Paul's word. Our ignorance stands as it is, without any attempt to derive inferance from it.

 

We are a-Paulians.

 

 

I think this ranks as one of my all-time corniest posts.

[Mr. Neil]

Correct me MrSpooky if I misunderstood your premise and argument.

That's pretty much a good example of the appeal to ignorance that I've been talking about, yes. The apologist is saying, "This doesn't appear to have an evolutionary explanation, therefore my explanation wins by default.", and they try to pass off ignorance as evidence. Then, of course, when an explanation does emerge, we see that ignorance was never evidence of anything. It's just a stalling game played by apologists.

 

Of course, the apologist might fire back, saying that "evolutionists" faithfully hold out for such explanations, believing in advance that they are forthcoming. In other words, in the ignorance of the moment, the "evolutionist" opts to believe that there's a natural cause, even when the cause itself has not been explained, thus relying on ignorance as well.

 

One problem with irreducible complexity is that it blatantly ignores change of function. Basically, photo-sensative cells in nature are not always used for sight. There are other applications for these cells found in more primative species.

 

So basically, their analogy of the mousetrap is a strawman, because it says that once you take away one component from the mousetrap, it's no longer a mousetrap. Well, that's true, but in biology, adding or taking away a feature may alter the use of a physical feature entirely.

 

Another problem with this is that we know evolution to be true anyway. We know what this process is, and we know what causes it. The survival mechanism lf adaptation is observable. We have morphological and genetic evidence demonstrating an irrefutable link between species. The archeology of extinct species holds up and shows common ancestors precisely where you'd expect to find them.

 

So even if we didn't have way of showing how the eye could be reduced, we do have enough inference to say that this hole in our knowledge is an insignificant one, and while an answer should certainly be sought, there need not be too much concern over a small gap in our overall knowledge. Of course, as you've pointed out, in the example of the eye, it's simply not the case. The eye has certainly been shown to be reducible.

 

There are probably lots of other insignificant examples of physical features that appear to defy an evolutionary explanation, but should that be enough to abandon evolution? Certainly not. The genetics, morphology, and fossil evidences are way too strong to just abandon the whole theory.

 

The point here is that negatives don't prove positives.

 

Hey, maybe that should be the meme. Or at least a framework for its stucture.

[MrSpooky]

Of course, the apologist might fire back, saying that "evolutionists" faithfully hold out for such explanations, believing in advance that they are forthcoming. In other words, in the ignorance of the moment, the "evolutionist" opts to believe that there's a natural cause, even when the cause itself has not been explained, thus relying on ignorance as well.

 

Thing is of course that I pointed out in my first post that the Burden of Proof lies on the IDer to demonstrate that there exist Irreducibly Complex systems and hence a designer. The problem of course lies in the fact that IC systems are by definition UNVERIFIABLE because as stated numerous times, they are appeals to ignorance which in effect tells us nothing. If the issue were neutral, sure, maybe we could remain agnostic on the issue of ID VS Evo in terms of Irreducible Complexity, but the issue isn't neutral. Once the IDer postulates that there must exist an additional entity (i.e. a designer) all bets are off and the Burden of Proof lies on his side.

 

Ergo, once must reject all Irreducible Complexity arguments because they are ultimately unverifiable when it is the responsibility of the IDer to provide verification.

[Saviourmachine]

Avida is an auto-adaptive genetic system designed primarily for use as a platform in Digital or Artificial Life research. In lay terms, Avida is a digital world in which simple computer programs mutate and evolve.

 

Avida allows us to study questions and perform experiments in evolutionalry dynamics and theoretical biology that are intractable in real biological system.

 

What is your point? Just because we understand stuff, doesn't mean the designer goes away.  Nor does it mean God goes away.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's why I asked these two questions: "Do you consider the self-replication process as something that has to be designed? Or do you consider the material/informatical building blocks to have to exist beforehand?" Look, if you say subsequently that the chemical building blocks have to be designed, or even further down the road, that the physical building blocks or the environment on this planet had to be designed, we'll never stop arguing.

In e.g. neural networks the network can be the same multilayer perceptron using backpropagation to calculate its gradients. The function that this network will fulfill does depend of the investigators wishes. He creates an environment in which he awards some function above others (and malfunction). The environment 'an sich' is just so intelligent as the natural environment of biological systems. It only does select certain behaviour (and in Avida's case: computer virus like entities) above others. The equivalent in biology is called: Natural Selection.

Of course intelligence plays a role, but it's wrong to assign it to other parts of the equation than where it belongs. If you question that a natural/digital world can arise spontaneously, pose that as your question. And don't ask about abiogenesis.

If you have the opinion that god created a world in which life could arise, that's something I can agree with. Only I think that there is an altogether other explanation called Planetary Evolution that handles that very topic.

[Vulgaris Prime]

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling, so I'm done.  Maybe we can all have another fruitless battle another day, but for now I'll just let you think you know what you're talking about. lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

For every fool I face, an image to face them with:

 

[Mr. Neil]

I can't believe I almost let that one slip by.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

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.

 

Daniel announced his departure, so maybe this is all moot now. Anyway, this understanding of irreducible complexity reduces Daniel's argument either to circularity or to vacuity. By the above, irreducible complexity is a property of any and all living things. If Daniel supposes that an organism cannot be irreducibly complex and the product of evolution, and then concludes that the TOE is false, his conclusions are already contained in his premises. If, on the other hand, he stops short of circularity, he still needs to show that an organism B cannot acquire any characteristics by mutation, which were not present in the genetic material of its parents. If all organisms are irreducibly complex, it does not follow that B cannot be different from its parent in a way that gives B's offspring a survival edge over the offspring of B's siblings. After millions of years, lots of genetically different, but all "irreducibly complex" organisms can have speciated further from B. Daniel's "irreducibly complex" just collapses into "alive," so that what he says is trivially true.

 

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...

 

 

 

There's no point replying to this.

[Mr. Neil]

There's no point replying to this.

No shit. It's really sad how poorly people like this understand biology. They seem to blissfully unaware of phenomena such as asexuality, where the "drive to reproduce" is all but irrelevent. And then you have the simplest of cells that can't help but divide.

 

His questioning reveals his ignorance.

[crazy-tiger]

His questioning reveals his ignorance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know... here in the UK we used to have the tradition of the village idiot. It gave us all something to laugh at, but they couldn't help being morons.

Now it seems that tradition is being revived on the internet, and every web forum now has it's own idiot.

 

Maybe that's why there's been so many recently. Dave hung out the "idiot wanted" sign and they've all been applying for the job.

 

 

 

 

If only they weren't all so over-qualified...

[Saviourmachine]

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.

I was thinking about this. IMHO Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are different things. Firstly, what I understand as the definition of Irreducible Complexity is not exactly "that what cannot be explained by natural means". It's the existence of a system that couldn't have been evolved because some intermediate stage wouldn't have survived (or been inherited).

However, when something is Irreducible Complex from the viewpoint of Evolution Theory, it maybe isn't from the viewpoint of Stochastic Processes. So, IMHO the idea Irreducible Complexity doesn't necessarily involve the existence of an Intelligent Designer.

If entities that are Irreducible Complex ánd Stochastical Improbable need an Intelligent Designer is entirely another question. Even then is it possible to believe in the "Big Improbable Event" instead of an "Intelligent Designer".

Besides, it's also possible that we are living in a "Virtual World" and who knows what rules that world? Maybe the real physical world - of which this virtual world is a part - has been evolved on a way that is Stochastic Probable and influences this world in a way that seems Stochastic Improbable. And right there are we back with the original statement: Who knows?

[Caretaker]

Honestly, the willful ignorance you guys display is appauling, so I'm done.  Maybe we can all have another fruitless battle another day, but for now I'll just let you think you know what you're talking about. lol.

Willful ignorance? You consider our serious skepticism ignorance? You consider it ignorant to ask serious questions, and remain skeptic when the answers are not answered sufficiently?

 

 

[Kryten]

Thing is of course that I pointed out in my first post that the Burden of Proof lies on the IDer to demonstrate that there exist Irreducibly Complex systems and hence a designer.  The problem of course lies in the fact that IC systems are by definition UNVERIFIABLE because as stated numerous times, they are appeals to ignorance which in effect tells us nothing.  If the issue were neutral, sure, maybe we could remain agnostic on the issue of ID VS Evo in terms of Irreducible Complexity, but the issue isn't neutral.  Once the IDer postulates that there must exist an additional entity (i.e. a designer) all bets are off and the Burden of Proof lies on his side.

 

Ergo, once must reject all Irreducible Complexity arguments because they are ultimately unverifiable when it is the responsibility of the IDer to provide verification.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, you are correct. The burden of proof does lie with them. However, Christians are taught to have faith and not to be wise. They already know the truth because it was written for them thousands of years ago. From their perspective, all they need is to figure out a way to justify how all they believe could be true. Once they achieve that, they can remain convinced that they own the truth and all this other evidence and logic is from the enemy, who is just trying to confuse them-- or we're just a bunch of sinners running from God and who cares what we say.

So while a rational person cares about logic and evidence and burden-of-proof, it is not required in the mind of the faithful. But I'm sure we all knew that.

[Vigile]

Yes, you are correct.  The burden of proof does lie with them.  However, Christians are taught to have faith and not to be wise.  They already know the truth because it was written for them thousands of years ago.  From their perspective, all they need is to figure out a way to justify how all they believe could be true.  Once they achieve that, they can remain convinced that they own the truth and all this other evidence and logic is from the enemy, who is just trying to confuse them-- or we're just a bunch of sinners running from God and who cares what we say.

So while a rational person cares about logic and evidence and burden-of-proof, it is not required in the mind of the faithful.  But I'm sure we all knew that.

 

You are soooo wise.

[Ouroboros]

Right on! *thumbs up*

[Kryten]

But once in a while things get through to them and they see the the real truth.

 

The biggest enemy of Christianity has GOT to be the internet. The more people know the worse it is for them...

[txviper]

"he still needs to show that an organism B cannot acquire any characteristics by mutation"

 

 

1) Aren't mutations extremely rare?

 

2) Aren't mutations almost exclusively associated with destructive alteration?

[Caretaker]

1) Aren't mutations extremely rare?

No. What may be rare are mutations that cause obvious physiological change.

 

2) Aren't mutations almost exclusively associated with destructive alteration?

102504[/snapback]

No. If that were the case, I don't think we'd be here today.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

[txviper]

"No. What may be rare are mutations that cause obvious physiological change."

 

There seems to be good reason to question whether or not this response was adequate:

 

" "Mutation" is generally envisaged to be a permanent, extremely rare, random, unpredictable, spontaneous error in inheritance"

http://www.ess.ucla.edu/huge/mutation.html

 

"Mutations are rare events"

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/.../Mutations.html

 

"Not only are mutational events extremely rare, but also most mutations are not advantageous to the cell. They are either silent and cause no effect or are lethal to the cell. In most circumstances, DNA damage will result in cessation of replication in order to complete a reparative process, or if the damage were severe enough the cell would signal its own destruction (apoptosis). The accumulation of the correct set of advantageous mutations in the appropriate order, known as genetic instability is therefore extremely unlikely to occur."

http://www.fascrs.org/displaycommon.cfm?an...barticlenbr=109

 

 

What is not rare, is to find the word "rare" used in regards to mutations. Mutation is supposedly a mechanism for change in living organisms. Actually the only mechanism available for beneficial alterations.

 

"Rarity" is not exactly what you would expect to associate with the singular device that evolution supposedly used to produce millions of living and extinct species. Even if mutations are common, but just don't "cause obvious physiological change", there is a plausibility problem here.

[Mr. Neil]

"No. What may be rare are mutations that cause obvious physiological change."

 

There seems to be good reason to question whether or not this response was adequate:

 

" "Mutation" is generally envisaged to be a permanent, extremely rare, random, unpredictable, spontaneous error in inheritance"

http://www.ess.ucla.edu/huge/mutation.html

 

"Mutations are rare events"

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/.../Mutations.html

Oh, Jesus H. Christ. Doesn't anyone actually read the pages they quote from?

 

From the very same page...

 

It has been estimated that in humans and other mammals, uncorrected errors (= mutations) occur at the rate of about 1 in every 50 million (5 x 107) nucleotides added to the chain. (Not bad — I wish that I could type so accurately.) But with 6 x 109 base pairs in a human cell, that mean that each new cell contains some 120 new mutations.

It's saying that mutation is rare in the genome. Not in general. You are abusing the context of what is being said on these pages. Quote-mining!

 

Mutations happen in every generation.

[txviper]

Mr Neil,

 

1 in 50,000,000 is 1 in 50,000,000. Whether you apply the numbers to the genome, or "in general", the premise stands. Mutations are extremely rare. What you see as quote mining was actually just providing several secular sources which ackowledge this premise.

 

I understand your (somewhat reactionary) exasperation. To account for all the claims of evolution, with a process as tepid as mutation, is quite a chore. But you seem confident in spite of the odds. Perhaps you could list a few documentable beneficial mutations? If they happen in every generation, and you have millions of years and millions of species, this should be an easy task. A few really spectacular ones should not be a problem. And I'm okay with quotes.

[Mr. Neil]

1 in 50,000,000 is 1 in 50,000,000. Whether you apply the numbers to the genome, or "in general", the premise stands. Mutations are extremely rare. What you see as quote mining was actually just providing several secular sources which ackowledge this premise.

 

I understand your (somewhat reactionary) exasperation. To account for all the claims of evolution, with a process as tepid as mutation, is quite a chore. But you seem confident in spite of the odds. Perhaps you could list a few documentable beneficial mutations? If they happen in every generation, and you have millions of years and millions of species, this should be an easy task.  A few really spectacular ones should not be a problem. And I'm okay with quotes.

You are guilty of equivocation. I said mutations happens at every generation. I did not say that beneficial mutations happen at every generations. That little twist was an invention of your own.

 

Besides, you still seem to have missed the very obvious refutation to be found in one of the links that you provided, which clearly stated that each new cell contains some 120 mutations. Each new cell. Do the math.

 

And actually, I do know of one documented beneficial mutation. Not spectacular, but a beneficial mutation, nonetheless.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/informatio...ipoprotein.html

 

For more evidence of beneficial mutations, you're going to have ask a molecular biologist. Fortunately for you, I just happen to know one. His name is Zach Moore. In fact, he'll be featured on a radio program soon, and you can ask him all about it.

 

http://www.freethoughtmedia.com/evolution101/gbook.php

 

Actually, since I've had 0 luck getting apologists to ask questions for that show, I decided to ask the question for you. Shall I PM you when the show premieres?

 

Nice attempt at a bluff. Your tenacious inventiveness will do you no good here, I'm afraid.

[MrSpooky]

Hey Neil, did you see my new thread outlining the "Primary Dilemma of Irreducible Complexity?"

[Mr. Neil]

Why, no. I'll have to go check it out.

[MrSpooky]

Please do. Zach also posted it on "GoosetheAntithesis."