Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Noinden

I'm surprised micro vs macro hasn't popped up yet. I'm also surprised "emperical evidence" hasn't been asked for.

2 more things they don't understand

a reply to: Noinden

straight out of the time machine...

Good movie too... i prefer the new one to the old but none the less

a reply to: Akragon

But it does seem a little prophetic Because some people really really are getting lest able to live with modern society. Ironic given they use interwebs to communicate.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Those two (and thermodynamics) might be beyond CyberJedi's ability to ask We shall see

a reply to: cyberjedi

Having browsed through this thread again, I arrived at the conclusion that barely anyone actually watched the video you linked.

Maybe they don't have the courage to do so and cognitive dissonance, disallows them to apply common sense and logic when presented with such evidence. Here is another opportunity.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TerryDon79

Oy no evolutionist here

Scientist! SCIENTIST. Also Religious, just not Abrahamic or creationist.

Stop using evolutionist guys, it makes us seem like idiots. Its not a real word to describe what people are using it for. Its for Creationists to seem special .... they are not.

An evolutionist?? Isn't that like a quantum mechanic who wears a tool belt with screw drivers, hammers and nut bolts?

a reply to: Phantom423

Or perhaps its a Psionic prestige class? That would mean we could have at least Kineticists

I guess an evolutionist in the sense you describe would carry around a DNA sampling kit, and a very small sequencer

a reply to: kennyb72

No many of us reject the fallacies contained in the video. The entire Irreducible complexity argument is fallacious If the argument is to hold true, that something (God, God like aliens etc) created life. Then something must have designed the designer. That is the logical and honest answer. If you answer no to that, then life must have been able to begin, with out a creator.

a reply to: kennyb72

 Faulty assumption #1: Evolution can only proceed by adding parts, never by removing them
 Faulty assumption #2: Biological systems never change function.
 Faulty assumption #3: Helpful parts cannot become required parts.


IC has never predicted anything , and is unfalsifiable. Thus not scientific. Thus a load of dingoes kidneys.

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'.

'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.

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. It's bad science by Behe. All DNA breaks down into particles that follow the same laws of chemistry.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: cyberjedi

Having browsed through this thread again, I arrived at the conclusion that barely anyone actually watched the video you linked.

Maybe they don't have the courage to do so and cognitive dissonance, disallows them to apply common sense and logic when presented with such evidence. Here is another opportunity.

Or the fact that irreducible complexity has been brought up in multiple threads, is not a new concept, and can be easily debunked as bad science. Not much reason to watch another nonsense you tube video.

a reply to: kennyb72

This proves nothing since we can explain how evolution may have occured. But it does show that its not irreducibly complex. Every protein exists in cells and has other functions. Now we cant say with 100 percent certainty this is what happened but evidence is leaning towards this is what happened as we examine other bacteria. And see tbis protiens being used in diffrent ones.

a reply to: Cypress

Oh I get it, some of you biologists and scientists are in disagreement on how it all works, no surprise there then.

In which case, I will leave you all to run around in circles, in your attempts to understand reality.

At some point, if it all gets too much for you (all), I will explain it to you again.

a reply to: Noinden

Hello Noinden, you of all people, with your knowledge of unseen entities, surely must see, that for them to exist anywhere at all in the non physical, means that intelligent consciousness exists outside of this density. It is not a quantum leap to make the connection with what I have explained.

I have every respect for your knowledge, none of you have attained your level of understanding without a great deal of hard work. You are just missing the part that makes it all make sense. Until you discover it, you will continue to make up fictitious stories to explain it. Until you understand what life is.

When I was a kid, I decided to cross a field as a shortcut home, The electric fence surrounding it wasn't used all year round, so I tested it by quickly flicking it with my hand, tried and tested, I new it would tell me if it was live.

I tested it three times so as to be sure, obviously, I had coincidently touch the wire between pulses and it led me to believe and make an assumption that I was safe to proceed, well you can guess how that worked out.

a reply to: dragonridr

And this is how preconceptions lead you astray, you get an idea based on different snippets of unproven science and become heavily biased. If the coin is gonna drop, you gonna be sure it falls in line with your preconception.

Its like you are making your way by your fingertips along a cliff edge, too scared to look down, but if you did, you would see a path just inches below your feet. Problem is, you are never gonna look down, because you don't know the path exists.

a reply to: Noinden

If the argument is to hold true, that something (God, God like aliens etc) created life. Then something must have designed the designer. That is the logical and honest answer. If you answer no to that, then life must have been able to begin, with out a creator.

Completely silly argument, unless you have difficulty getting your head around infinity, the source of energy lives outside of space-time.

a reply to: Noinden

I look forward to you dissecting irreducible complexity, surely your vast amounts of wisdom allowes you to do so. Well go ahead then, get on with it!

a reply to: cyberjedi

It's already been destroyed.

Lungfish.

A bird going from a woodpecker to a normal bird if you take away its ability to be a woodpecker.

Bacteria EVOLVING.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thank you for your input. Now you among others have claimed to hold good knowledge on evolution, then, explain it to us, in layman terms. And then, tell us your views on irreducible complexity.

But truly this thread is about the following,

I say, here's a video about irreducible complexity, and it puts forth a bacterial motor with alot of parts, and that motor could only work with all of its parts in that particular configuration, and all parts have to be present. Evolution would suggest (and correct me if im wrong) that this motor has developed itself among the ages, to finally reach its current configuration. So the current motor would have had to have had previous versions that worked, and from there on it would upgrade. But when taking the components from the motor, it would not work in any other configuration then the one it currently has.

So what is the solution to this question?

a reply to: TerryDon79

The arguments you have presented are as of yet not satisfying. Addressing the bacteria, indeed they are adapting to their environment. Could these adaptations of this bacteria lead us to believe that a hyena-like animal over time would be able to evolve into a whale?