It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Irreducible Complexity Theory - Was nature designed?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Using the Scientific Method I wrote this VERY simplified Theory. There are better more in depth theories describing this. This is for example only.

Irreducible complexity is basically any system that depends on all of it's parts to function. If one part is removed, it will cease to function. Sort of like a mousetrap.


I know you Evolutionists won't like this, and you'll be quoting Talk Origins left and right, but hey, that'll just create more discussion.



en.wikipedia.org...
The bacterial flagellum is driven by a rotary engine made up of protein (Mot complex), located at the flagellum's anchor point on the inner cell membrane. The engine is powered by proton motive force, i.e., by the flow of protons (hydrogen ions) across the bacterial cell membrane due to a concentration gradient set up by the cell's metabolism (in Vibrio species there are two kinds of flagella, lateral and polar, and some are driven by a sodium ion pump rather than a proton pump[17]). The rotor transports protons across the membrane, and is turned in the process. The rotor alone can operate at 6,000 to 17,000 rpm, but with the flagellar filament attached usually only reaches 200 to 1000 rpm.




Observation - Bacterial Flagellum is irreducibly complex, meaning if one part were removed they would cease to function.

Hypotheses - Natural Systems that are irreducible complex could not have been formed by Evolution through Natural Selection because until they were completed they would give the organism no advantage, in fact this would give them useless parts and a big disadvantage.

Prediction - There are other Natural Systems that are irreducibly complex.

Testing Prediction:
- Eyes are irreducibly complex.
- Cells are irreducibly complex.
- Proteins are irreducibly complex.
- Wings
- respiratory systems

This list can go on forever.

Conclusion: Natural Systems that are irreducibly complex could reasonably be thought to have been designed.


Does this mean everything is irreducibly complex? No, of course not, but it is enough to provide something to discuss.


Designed by who? God, Aliens, etc. That's up to you to decide.....

For more info on this topic check this out: www.arn.org...




[edit on 27-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 




I thought this topic had been covered .

Though , i am certainly no expert


Edit to add: This scientist is a theist .

[edit on 27-3-2009 by UmbraSumus]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Was it covered on this board? If so, sorry for being redundant. Nothing showed up in my search.

Thanks for providing the video though


The explanation given in the video is the equivalent of saying a Car is still functional without the driveshaft, transmission, or engine, because it's lights still work. Not a very compelling argument. Is the flagellum still functional if parts are taken away, NO.




[edit on 27-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I admire your thinking on this. I think that the FACTS are beginning to rear their ugly heads, and now the evolutionists are being forced to admit things. Where it is going, IMHO, is the big lie that Revelations says will be so good, that even the Called might buy into it, if it were possible. It is starting to appear that they will now claim that man did not evolve on earth, but was genetically modified from apes, by aliens, to serve them and do the hard work while mining gold from Earth. What they will fail to acknoledge is that nothing else evolved here, either. And they will continue to assert that radio-carbon dating 'proves' the big ages. Even when it only does if they ASSUME it is a big age. It also 'proves' a short age, if you assume a short age. It is meaningless, just like statins are. Big hype, useful to get what they want, and totally false.
Also, second LAW of Thermodynamics states that 'all things go from an ordered state, to a disordered state'. With occasional exceptions. But 'evolution' would have to be an incredible amount of exceptions, and it takes more 'faith' to believe in evolution, than in creation by an intelliegent being.
You also may find it interesting that I read recently that UFOs seem to appear right after any seances. IE occult related. They would seem to be here, all right, but IMHO they are demonic. There are reports of a 'treaty' being signed with the 'aliens' in the 1950s up at Edwards AFB. Two groups of 'aliens'. One wanted us to stop using nukes. The other didn't care. We ostensibly signed with the latter, providing that they would reduce the amount of 'alien abductions', which they did not honor. Purportedly. Also, supposedly, they provided us with advanced tech, like a Star Gate, that we used to set up a base on Mars, and the moon. Maybe it is all sci-fi. But they say 'truth is stranger than fiction.' I can't wait to find out!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Awww, how cute. BAC's playing scientist. One response to the ID zombie.

Need a better hypothesis, this was predicted nearly 100 years ago by Hermann Muller.


Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the “reaction system” that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. (p463-463)

Muller, H. J. (1918). Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids, and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors. Genetics, 3, 422-499.

Your science is pretty naff. Firstly you would actually need to show that IC is not possible by evolution, and even if you did, it wouldn't support the sort of 'design' you have in mind, lol. It is framed as a test of evolution and is little more than 'what use is half a wing/eye/fac blag/banana?' that has been spouted by YECers for decades. Nice for you to show that evolution is potentially falsifiable, but ur doin it wrong.

Indeed, as shown above, you have nothing more than an incorrect assertion, as this sort of complexity is not an issue for evolution. However, if you want to say that evolution is the blind watchmaker, few would complain. Ken Miller has no problem with the notion of 'design', even Dawkins accepts 'designoid', but for both evolution was the 'designer'.



[edit on 27-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
How the Eye Evolved


The sequence of rather simple changes ,how possibly a patch of light sensitive cells could evolve into a camera type eye, is rather compelling .

Definitely worth a watch .



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Awww, how cute. BAC's playing scientist.

Need a better hypothesis, this was predicted nearly 100 years ago by Hermann Muller.


Most present-day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the “reaction system” that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous different elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters and factors which, when new, were originally merely an asset finally became necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. (p463-463)

Muller, H. J. (1918). Genetic Variability, Twin Hybrids, and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors. Genetics, 3, 422-499.

Your science is pretty naff. Firstly you would actually need to show that IC is not possible by evolution, and even if you did, it wouldn't support the sort of 'design' you have in mind, lol. It is framed as a test of evolution and is little more than 'what use is half a wing/eye/fac blag/banana?' that has been spouted by YECers for decades. Nice for you to show that evolution is potentially falsifiable, but ur doin it wrong.

Indeed, as shown above, you have nothing more than an incorrect assertion, as this sort of complexity is not an issue for evolution. However, if you want to say that evolution is the blind watchmaker, few would complain. Ken Miller has no problem with the notion of 'design', even Dawkins accepts 'designoid', but for both evolution was the 'designer'.



Aww shucks mel, I try


Yes, I am aware of the Muller's work, although he is just giving an explanation as well, also of the other theories floating around about this like Behe's.

Why is it an incorrect assertion? Because it doesn't agree with Evolutionary Theory or Muller?

You still don't address according to Evolutionary Theory where the information to form these complex systems comes from. How does Evolution see it's means has an end (IC system)? Or if it doesn't see it's means has an end (IC system) why would the organism continue to evolve? What would tell it to stop evolving?

I see what you are saying, that as each piece evolved they had some sort of function, but without even 1 of these pieces the overall function of the complex system would fail. How does evolution see into the future as it evolves an organism, so it knows all these pieces will form a complex system?

I'd like your thoughts on this.






[edit on 27-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by UmbraSumus
 


Yup, I've seen most of the videos related to this. It still doesn't explain where knowledge comes in. How did Evolution know sight existed in the first place? Sure maybe certain photoreceptor proteins that sense light formed, but that would be a simple light/dark sensing. Why would they form in the first place? All the organism could sense before that would be heat or cold possibly, how would it know sight even existed? Also, without all of it's parts even a basic photoreceptor wouldn't work.

Keep in mind I do believe in Evolution, just depends what part of it you're talking about. I believe in species changing and evolving. I don't believe in say a bird becoming a reptile through evolution. We may be able to switch genes on and off artificially to induce changes that appear this may be true, but it's artificial and we've never observed this happening in nature.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why is it an incorrect assertion? Because it doesn't agree with Evolutionary Theory?


Because evolution has no issue with such complexity. These arguments have been eviscerated since Behe squeeked in 1996. The Muller quote clearly outlines why it is not a problem. You're several years too late for this discussion and are just parading a corpse (ABE:....yeah, Brandish[ing] A Corpse, lol).

I know, I know, creobull really is zombie-like.


You still don't address according to Evolutionary Theory where the information to form these complex systems comes from.


Not chasing your shifting goalposts, sorry.


What would tell it to stop evolving?


Nothing. It would still be open to evolutionary change.

I was determined to give you only one reply, you got two. But one suggestion - next time try to form a test of ID, rather than evolution. If you do so, let the bigwigs at the disco institute know, as over a dozen years after Bozo Behe's first book they are still in need of one.

Have fun.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why is it an incorrect assertion? Because it doesn't agree with Evolutionary Theory?


Because evolution has no issue with such complexity. These arguments have been eviscerated since Behe squeeked in 1996. The Muller quote clearly outlines why it is not a problem. You're several years too late for this discussion and are just parading a corpse.

I know, I know, creobull really is zombie-like.


You still don't address according to Evolutionary Theory where the information to form these complex systems comes from.


Not chasing your shifting goalposts, sorry.


What would tell it to stop evolving?


Nothing. It would still be open to evolutionary change.

I was determined to give you only one reply, you got two. But one suggestion - next time try to form a test of ID, rather than evolution. If you do so, let the bigwigs at the disco institute know, as over a dozen years after Bozo Behe's first book they are still in need of one.

Have fun.


mel,

Muller doesn't provide any facts for his explanation. It's just that an explanation. No better than any other I've heard, or that anyone can come up with.

I'm not really trying to prove ID, much better than me with actual credentials can try that. I'm trying to raise discussion.

I don't want you to chase goalposts, I wanted to discuss where Evolution gets it's knowledge from? The designoid? Nature? It takes knowledge for these things to happen in the right way IMO, or we'd have some weird, barely functioning (if at all) organisms on this planet. Why symmetry for instance?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Using the Scientific Method I wrote this VERY simplified Theory.


Are we using the same Scientific method?
* propose a question
* research all sides of the problem
* form a hypothesis
* offer a test for your hypothesis
* evaluate the results
* rinse, lather, repeat.



Irreducible complexity is basically any system that depends on all of it's parts to function. If one part is removed, it will cease to function. Sort of like a mousetrap.



Who knew? So since humans can cut and remove hair and they won't cease to function because of this loss, therefore humans are not irreducibly complex. People have parts of their colon removed all the time, so colons are not irreducibly complex organs. My cat, who was neutered and declawed, seems to function as a kitty so he's not irreducibly complex. Cells and DNA can function with parts removed, so they are not irreducibly complex.

I suppose it's comforting to know that mathematical formulas, computer programs, carburetors, computer chips, synthetic nylon, aspirin (natural and synthetic), batteries, and the like are all irreducibly complex and must have had a creator -- while my drawing pencils and eraser and brain and hands and my cat and a lot of other things aren't.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   
DOESN'T the story of Noah's Ark [if it's true] prove that evolution is real, if not then how did marsupials end up in Australia?

Also about the "eye" the eye only appeared later according to fossil records, meaning it took time to develop.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Using the Scientific Method I wrote this VERY simplified Theory.


Are we using the same Scientific method?
* propose a question
* research all sides of the problem
* form a hypothesis
* offer a test for your hypothesis
* evaluate the results
* rinse, lather, repeat.



Irreducible complexity is basically any system that depends on all of it's parts to function. If one part is removed, it will cease to function. Sort of like a mousetrap.



Who knew? So since humans can cut and remove hair and they won't cease to function because of this loss, therefore humans are not irreducibly complex. People have parts of their colon removed all the time, so colons are not irreducibly complex organs. My cat, who was neutered and declawed, seems to function as a kitty so he's not irreducibly complex. Cells and DNA can function with parts removed, so they are not irreducibly complex.

I suppose it's comforting to know that mathematical formulas, computer programs, carburetors, computer chips, synthetic nylon, aspirin (natural and synthetic), batteries, and the like are all irreducibly complex and must have had a creator -- while my drawing pencils and eraser and brain and hands and my cat and a lot of other things aren't.


No we aren't using the same Scientific Method, because your take on Scientific Method isn't correct. First you observe before any question is formed.



wilstar.com...
Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:
* Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
* Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
* Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
* Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
* Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
* Theory: All swans are white.


I don't even know what you're talking about. Irreducibly complex means you can't remove a part without the IC system ceasing to function.

Math Formula - remove part of the formula will it function? NO
Carburetor - remove a part, will it function correctly (i'm not exactly an expert on carbs)? NO
Computer chip - burn a circuit, will it function? NO

Cut your hair - will you still function? Yes.
Remove your brain - will you still function? No.

Did you not see where I stated not everything is by any means IC? So if you take comfort in that all the more power to you. Still don't see what your point is though, as usual.




[edit on 27-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
No we aren't using the same Scientific Method, because your take on Scientific Method isn't correct. First you observe before any question is formed.


Actually, that's not entirely correct. The "Development of a simple theory..." is sort of a "here's how to do it" for high school students.


I don't even know what you're talking about. Irreducibly complex means you can't remove a part without the IC system ceasing to function.



Math Formula - remove part of the formula will it function? NO
Carburetor - remove a part, will it function correctly (i'm not exactly an expert on carbs)? NO
Computer chip - burn a circuit, will it function? NO

Exactly. So those are "irreducibly complex."


Cut your hair - will you still function? Yes.
Remove your brain - will you still function? No.

Actually, you can remove parts of the brain (and it happens all the time either by natural causes (blood vessels bursting, etc.) and you still function.


Did you not see where I stated not everything is by any means IC? So if you take comfort in that all the more power to you. Still don't see what your point is though, as usual.


Well, it means that humans aren't irreducibly complex, brains aren't, cells aren't, life forms aren't. You were trying to prove some sort of ID, I believe, by using "irreducibly complex" argument. But the thing is, if stuff like DNA can function with parts missing then it's not irreducibly complex... and therefore "nature" can't have been designed since it's not irreducibly complex.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

UPFRONT Personal Disclosure: I also believe in ID but NOT from an Abrahamic Faith POV. I also come from a highly scientific POV and as yet see NO inconsistencies. For example I accept the current scientific theory and the evidence provided for it that the universe is 13.7 [+/- 1%] billion years old and that the earth is about 4 billion years old and I agree with Paul Davies version of creation as laid out in his book "SUPERFORCE" which basically says that the "LAWS" of quantum mechanics WERE in place BEFORE the "BIG BANG" and were acting in reverse! and when you follow this "theory" you quickly realize that the "LAWS" existed without any physical foundation!!! I would allege that this is the core of all ID theories regardless of religious or scientific origins!

Explanation: The OP states and I quote "The explanation given in the video is the equivalent of saying a Car is still functional without the driveshaft, transmission, or engine, because it's lights still work. Not a very compelling argument. Is the flagellum still functional if parts are taken away, NO.".... Well I would have to say that the explanation given in the video is NOT equivalent of saying a Car is still functional AS A Car without transmission, or engine BUT because it's lights still work IT IS very functional as a set of variable lux output stereo lights! Therefor when the functional rotational motor component of the flagella is removed the flagella is no longer functionally a flagella but IT IS still a very functional spike and can be functionally used as such. Functionality can be found at all currently observable scales from quarks to galaxies e.g. are not atoms functional as individual atoms and also as building blocks for larger scaled functional objects?

Personal Disclosure: I would posit that if something is not functionable i.e has no function, and therefor is not functioning then it would cease to exist because base existence is itself a function!


P.S. Lets take humans and assess their IC. Should entities who don't conform to this very narrow and confined pigeon hole be exiled from humanity. For example if an IC human requires 2 hands, 2 arms, 2 feet and 2 legs then what happens to those unfortunate entities who by design or consequence end up with more or less? Are they suddenly NOT human? What if they remove extra limbs or replace lacking limbs with technological intervention [surgery/prosthetics/robotics]? Are they suddenly more or less human. What if we could keep peoples heads alive in a jar like on futurama. Would these disembodied talking heads be not human??? Where do we draw the line. Is a fully healthy and complete but totally DEAD cadaver more human than a LIVING Thalidomide deformed and disfigured homo sapeins???



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: As to brains NOT being IC I forward you this info....

People with half a brain! No#1
People with half a brain! No#2
People with half a brain! No#3
People with half a brain! No#4

Personal Disclosure: So where's that IC line again???
:shk:

[edit on 28-3-2009 by OmegaLogos]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Actually, that's not entirely correct. The "Development of a simple theory..." is sort of a "here's how to do it" for high school students.


You never ask questions until you observe something. What's there to question if nothing has been observed?



Exactly. So those are "irreducibly complex."


Yup



Actually, you can remove parts of the brain (and it happens all the time either by natural causes (blood vessels bursting, etc.) and you still function.


Who said anything about removing part of the brain? I said if you removed your brain you wouldn't function.



Well, it means that humans aren't irreducibly complex, brains aren't, cells aren't, life forms aren't. You were trying to prove some sort of ID, I believe, by using "irreducibly complex" argument. But the thing is, if stuff like DNA can function with parts missing then it's not irreducibly complex... and therefore "nature" can't have been designed since it's not irreducibly complex.


I never stated humans were IC, I did say parts of them are though. Also I made it very clear in my OP that I didn't think everything in nature was IC, did you read the OP?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by B.A.C.
 
Disclaimer: I'm a theist but not of the Abrahamic faiths. I have minor biblical scholar and scriptural skills. Also I am not a scientific/legal or medical expert in any field. Beware of my Contagious Memes! & watch out that you don't get cut on my Occams razor.All of this is my personal conjecture and should not be considered the absolute or most definitive state of things as they really are. Use this information at your own risk! I accept no liability if your ideology comes crashing down around you with accompanying consequences!

Explanation: As to brains NOT being IC I forward you this info....

People with half a brain! No#1
People with half a brain! No#2
People with half a brain! No#3
People with half a brain! No#4

Personal Disclosure: So where's that IC line again???
:shk:

[edit on 28-3-2009 by OmegaLogos]


Again, who said anything about people with pieces of brain? Ever hear of a lobotomy? Of course people can function with part of their brain removed, who said any different?

I said if you remove the brain you can't function. You disagree?



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
Personal Disclosure: I would posit that if something is not functionable i.e has no function, and therefor is not functioning then it would cease to exist because base existence is itself a function!



No, we are talking about Irreducibly Complex systems dependent on their parts. Can you take the spring out of a mouse trap and use it for something else? Yes. Will the mousetrap still function without the spring? No. Will it still exist as non - functional? Yes.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
stomatopod species can see in full polarisation this i would say is more evoled or designed by superinterlect much how i belive they would intererate the world here a good link to grasp full polarisation alien visonwww.opfocus.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">www.opfocus.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join