Irreducible complexity and Evolution

Hi ATS,


For those interested, i'd like to get you acquinted with irreducible complexity, and the way in which it seems to contradict the, i'll say, mainstream theory of evolution, and i'll get into selection a little bit.

Lets say we have a Woodpecker. This Woodpecker can only operate and survive with its unique features that it has, it cannot survive without them. When the woodpecker cuts wood, its brains are protected so as not to get concussed. Its claws are shaped in a particular way that it acts as a counter-balance to deal with the impact of woodpecking. Now these are only two features of the woodpecker that enables its survival, it has alot more that i fail to remember. The point is that if one of these features were missing, it would not be able to survive. So these features, the attributes would have to have been there from the beginning, it could not have come through evolution.

Here is a video of irreducible complexity, its 15 minutes and well worth the time.

www.youtube.com...

'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.

'Irreducible complexity means that the system is so complex, that removing one part, would make the system non-functional. A system moving from zero parts up would be non-functional until all parts are formed and are present, and there is no other reasonable use for the essential parts individually'.


So the theory of evolution puts forth that with every generation, new parts get introduced, and so, species evolve. This seems not to be the case. A case can be made for selection. Within the pool of genes, a selection is made, the genes that are most suitable for the cause get picked to serve, and so the physical appearance of the animal reflects the selection that is made. There are an x amount of combinations possible within a genepool. These can grow exponantially once there are new genes introduced to the genepool.

So on one side there is irreducible complexity on a cellular level, and arguably on a macro level (the woodpecker), and regarding evolution, species seem to only evolve when there are new genes artificially introduced into the genepool of that species.

originally posted by: cyberjedi
Hi ATS,


For those interested, i'd like to get you acquinted with irreducible complexity, and the way in which it seems to contradict the, i'll say, mainstream theory of evolution, and i'll get into selection a little bit.

Lets say we have a Woodpecker. This Woodpecker can only operate and survive with its unique features that it has, it cannot survive without them. When the woodpecker cuts wood, its brains are protected so as not to get concussed. Its claws are shaped in a particular way that it acts as a counter-balance to deal with the impact of woodpecking. Now these are only two features of the woodpecker that enables its survival, it has alot more that i fail to remember. The point is that if one of these features were missing, it would not be able to survive. So these features, the attributes would have to have been there from the beginning, it could not have come through evolution.

Here is a video of irreducible complexity, its 15 minutes and well worth the time.

www.youtube.com...

'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.


So the theory of evolution puts forth that with every generation, new parts get introduced, and so, species evolve. This seems not to be the case. A case can be made for selection. Within the pool of genes, a selection is made, the genes that are most suitable for the cause get picked to serve, and so the physical appearance of the animal reflects the selection that is made. There are an x amount of combinations possible within a genepool. These can grow exponantially once there are new genes introduced to the genepool.

So on one side there is irreducible complexity on a cellular level, and arguably on a macro level (the woodpecker), and regarding evolution, species seem to only evolve when there are new genes artificially introduced into the genepool of that species.

Woodpeckers could have started off by drilling bark for bugs and stuff. Maybe they picked out the bugs in rotten wood. Then those with a bit more tolerance for hard wood would have an advantage. Then that is taken forward to carving out nests.

Not to mention the irreducible complexity of that apparently weightless, massless, non-material ability that is unequivocally responsible for all of civilization's accomplishments and achievement: Consciousness.

Which came first; Consciousness or the Egg?

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: cyberjedi
Hi ATS,


For those interested, i'd like to get you acquinted with irreducible complexity, and the way in which it seems to contradict the, i'll say, mainstream theory of evolution, and i'll get into selection a little bit.

Lets say we have a Woodpecker. This Woodpecker can only operate and survive with its unique features that it has, it cannot survive without them. When the woodpecker cuts wood, its brains are protected so as not to get concussed. Its claws are shaped in a particular way that it acts as a counter-balance to deal with the impact of woodpecking. Now these are only two features of the woodpecker that enables its survival, it has alot more that i fail to remember. The point is that if one of these features were missing, it would not be able to survive. So these features, the attributes would have to have been there from the beginning, it could not have come through evolution.

Here is a video of irreducible complexity, its 15 minutes and well worth the time.

www.youtube.com...

'You have multi-component parts, all of which are neccesary for function, if you remove one part, you lose function of that system'.


So the theory of evolution puts forth that with every generation, new parts get introduced, and so, species evolve. This seems not to be the case. A case can be made for selection. Within the pool of genes, a selection is made, the genes that are most suitable for the cause get picked to serve, and so the physical appearance of the animal reflects the selection that is made. There are an x amount of combinations possible within a genepool. These can grow exponantially once there are new genes introduced to the genepool.

So on one side there is irreducible complexity on a cellular level, and arguably on a macro level (the woodpecker), and regarding evolution, species seem to only evolve when there are new genes artificially introduced into the genepool of that species.

Woodpeckers could have started off by drilling bark for bugs and stuff. Maybe they picked out the bugs in rotten wood. Then those with a bit more tolerance for hard wood would have an advantage. Then that is taken forward to carving out nests.

'Then those with a bit more tolerance for hard wood would have an advantage'. This indicates selection taking place. So the Woodpeckers with a bit more tolerance carry forth the species, and every woodpecker from there on contains that feature.

Your entire argument is thrown out the window at the acknowledgement of other creatures existing without those characteristics. There are birds that can't do what the woodpecker does. There are creatures that can't fly. There are creatures without brains or hearts. There are single-celled organisms and bacterium...
So, if you're claiming evolution can't be real because the woodpecker can't exist without its unique characteristics, I'll say you're wrong. We just don't call the other birds woodpeckers.

a reply to: cyberjedi

This makes a lot more sense to me than anything you are talking about. There's a natural progression to complexity over millions and millions of years:



"Those are some of the things molecules do given 4 billion years of evolution."

Fish have 2 eyes, a mouth, 2 nostril holes, a backbone, and a poop hole might be a clue as to where we came from!

originally posted by: trollz
Your entire argument is thrown out the window at the acknowledgement of other creatures existing without those characteristics. There are birds that can't do what the woodpecker does. There are creatures that can't fly. There are creatures without brains or hearts. There are single-celled organisms and bacterium...
So, if you're claiming evolution can't be real because the woodpecker can't exist without its unique characteristics, I'll say you're wrong. We just don't call the other birds woodpeckers.

Different creatures have different genepools and different origins. Im not putting forth the notion that all creatures orginate from one creature, which you seem to be doing.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: cyberjedi

This makes a lot more sense to me than anything you are talking about. There's a natural progression to complexity over millions and millions of years:

"Those are some of the things molecules do given 4 billion years of evolution."

Fish have 2 eyes, a mouth, 2 nostril holes, a backbone, and a poop hole might be a clue as to where we came from!

Yes the assumptions made in the video are quite pleasing. But how do you argue against irreducible complexity?

Ever read about the Bacterial flaggelum motor? Its a bacterial motor. It has 50 parts or so. It needs every part to operate. If one part i missing, the motor cannot operate.

Irreducable complexity is the *belief* that something started out as its end point to begin with. The Bacterioal flaggelum motor specifically is used to demonstrate why IC is bunk. It requires the 50 or so parts in order to operate...as Bact Flag..otherwise it wouldn't spin and float, etc..fine, but that function might have come later, previously its little tail could have served as feelers, etc.

Here is a good article on New Scientist that discusses this specifically: Flaggelum

a snippet:

The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.

What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.

I would recommend its best not to keep trying to debunk evolution. Its a ongoing process of examination and evidence and only gets stronger and stronger through the years. Best to spend your time learning the system and progressing society instead demand we still live in the dark ages where "god did it" was the go-to answer for all things not understood.

originally posted by: cyberjedithe motor cannot operate.

As a motor..but it can serve other functions.

originally posted by: trollz
There are creatures without brains or hearts.

but enough about politics....



(zing)

a reply to: SaturnFX

In your "belief" system how did non-material consciousness evolve. It's rhetorical don't hurt yourself.

About the only science getting us closer to real answers it seems is in the quantum fields. Possibly plasma physics as well and they start sounding more metaphysical all the time.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Irreducable complexity is the *belief* that something started out as its end point to begin with. The Bacterioal flaggelum motor specifically is used to demonstrate why IC is bunk. It requires the 50 or so parts in order to operate...as Bact Flag..otherwise it wouldn't spin and float, etc..fine, but that function might have come later, previously its little tail could have served as feelers, etc.

Here is a good article on New Scientist that discusses this specifically: Flaggelum

a snippet:

The best studied flagellum, of the E. coli bacterium, contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins, however, are common to all the other bacterial flagella studied so far. Either a “designer” created thousands of variants on the flagellum or, contrary to creationist claims, it is possible to make considerable changes to the machinery without mucking it up.

What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.

I would recommend its best not to keep trying to debunk evolution. Its a ongoing process of examination and evidence and only gets stronger and stronger through the years. Best to spend your time learning the system and progressing society instead demand we still live in the dark ages where "god did it" was the go-to answer for all things not understood.

Thanks for the snippet, as of yet it does not swey my mind towards your point of view. As for the debunking of evolution, this is very much neccesary for debate and research.

And yes, God is the answer to all things understood and all things not understood. God is All that is. Everything is made of God. And so you could argue that we are God experiencing itself.

a reply to: cyberjedi

And yes, God is the answer to all things understood and all things not understood. God is All that is. Everything is made of God. And so you could argue that we are God experiencing itself.

Yet there's a mountain of evidence for evolution and a great big nothing for your particular god.

ETA: Sonething I've never understood from the religious. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn't your flavour of god create the first atoms and let everything take its course?

a reply to: SaturnFX

It requires the 50 or so parts in order to operate...as Bact Flag..otherwise it wouldn't spin and float, etc..fine, but that function might have come later, previously its little tail could have served as feelers, etc.

In order for a function to appear it has to have the proper programming already installed for it to appear at all.

a reply to: The GUT

Yes sir. Metaphysics in time will yield us a tremendous amount of knowledge. At some time we will know for a fact that all consiousness is vibrating, and that all matter is consiousness expressing itself in a variety of different ways, and that consiousness resides in the non-physical and in different dimensions aswell.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi

And yes, God is the answer to all things understood and all things not understood. God is All that is. Everything is made of God. And so you could argue that we are God experiencing itself.

Yet there's a mountain of evidence for evolution and a great big nothing for your particular god.

ETA: Sonething I've never understood from the religious. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why couldn't your flavour of god create the first atoms and let everything take its course?

I am not religious in the classic sense at all. My definition of God differs greatly from the ruling religious groups.

At some point, this unseen, unheard and unobserverd energy decided that it wanted to experience all that it knew itself to be. But in the absence of anything else beside itself, this energy was not. There was no point of reference outside of itself. So it decided that it has to create a reference point within, it had to split itself, and this it did. It split itself in innumerable parts, so that it could look back unto itself, and experience itself. The greatest gift came forth from this, relativity, and from this, relationship. For the first time, this and that existed apart from eachother, as did all that was neither, and the time it took to get from here to there was measurable.

Enough about god, back to irreducible complexity!

a reply to: cyberjedi

back to irreducible complexity

OK. It's nonesense because not every mutation is beneficial and adaptations originate from changes in function.

Want an example of changes in function?

I give to you, the lungfish!

a reply to: SaturnFX

Irreducable complexity is the *belief* that something started out as its end point to begin with.

I don't quite think that is a valid definition, it simply means you cannot reduce the complexity of a system without having it fail, thus irreducible complexity. IC has gotten a bad reputation as pseudo-science but I actually think it's a perfectly valid scientific principle. I think in most cases things do evolve gradually but there are also cases where several different systems evolve at the same time and they just happen to form a more complex system when put together.

The best example of this is probably the very first single celled organisms, there are many parts required for a cell to have reproductive capabilities, and the very first self-replicating cell would have come together based on pure chance because there wasn't yet any evolutionary pressure. And unless the exact right parts came together in exactly the right way, the replication process would fail or not work at all. It is possible for complex systems with multiple irreducible components to spontaneously arise, it's why we see a punctuated equilibrium in the fossil records.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cyberjedi

back to irreducible complexity

OK. It's nonesense because not every mutation is beneficial and adaptations originate from changes in function.

Want an example of changes in function?

I give to you, the lungfish!

Could you elaborate on your rather mysterious argument?