Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[shinbits]

But it makes claims about the nature of reality. If it attempts to make claims about the nature of reality, but does not require itself to be constrained by the data, then it is completely worthless.

again, ID is just in the wrong field. it should not be considered as science. it's a fish out of water there. it should only be regarded as philosophy.

Clearly you have no knowledge of the history of the ID movement. The Intelligent Design name is a rebranding of the "Creation Science" movement whose specific purpose was to attempt to disprove evolution. It was in no way perverted: this is how the movement was born. You may wish to see that the concept should be applied to the basic laws of the universe instead of attempting to disprove certain scientific facts, but that perspective is already considered by deism and theistic evolution.

you're not saying anything that everyone and thier great-grandma doesn't know. the only ID that needs to be recognized is one free of personal agenda, like what the creationists are pushing.

 

[Chalnoth]

again, ID is just in the wrong field. it should not be considered as science. it's a fish out of water there. it should only be regarded as philosophy.

Then it's worthless.

you're not saying anything that everyone and thier great-grandma doesn't know.

Then why are you claiming it's been "corrupted" by fundamentalists?

 

[shinbits]

Then it's worthless.

philosophy is not worthless.

Then why are you claiming it's been "corrupted" by fundamentalists?

because it is. many of ID's arguments have existed long before creationism, in the minds of Plato and Aristotle.

 

[Chalnoth]

the luck needed for a universe to become what it is to day is beyond astronomical.

There's no possible way to know that without knowing:
1. The process by which regions of the universe like our own form.
2. How many times regions like our own form.
3. How big regions like our own are.
4. How many other possible universes are conducive to life.

If you could demonstrate that the region of the universe which we can observe is the only region in existence, and that the process which formed it is capable of many possible outcomes, and that it only happened once, and that the vast majority of other possible outcomes would not be conducive to life, then you might have a point.

But the problem is that at the current point in time, we know too little about the formation of our region of the universe to say much of anything about any of these points. We do have hints that the universe is very, very large, and that regions like our own can (and are) born all the time. But we don't yet have hard evidence.

dumb luck doesn't even begin to describe it. to the think the the symetry and cyclical nature of the universe, along with its intracy and interconnectedness, along with the many complex organisms, each with interconnected parts, both microscopic and not, each being part of an ecosystem in a biosphere.....and so on and so on.....to think all of that is just dumb luck, is to rape all shred of reasonabilty and honesty of logic and intellect.

Well, if you're talking about the interconnectedness of life and not of natural laws, then this simple argument from incredulity holds no water, as evolution is not a process of dumb luck, and we naturally expect this sort of interconnectedness as a result of the process of evolution.

 

[Chalnoth]

philosophy is not worthless.

It is worthless as a means of determining the nature of reality. Philosophy only has value in terms of how we approach reality. It has no value in actually doing the work of figuring out its nature, as the nature of reality is necessarily contingent upon observation.

because it is. many of ID's arguments have existed long before creationism, in the minds of Plato and Aristotle.

That isn't ID, though. ID is a specific creationist political movement designed to undermine science education.

 

[shinbits]

There's no possible way to know that without knowing:
1. The process by which regions of the universe like our own form.
2. How many times regions like our own form.
3. How big regions like our own are.
4. How many other possible universes are conducive to life.

If you could demonstrate that the region of the universe which we can observe is the only region in existence, and that the process which formed it is capable of many possible outcomes, and that it only happened once, and that the vast majority of other possible outcomes would not be conducive to life, then you might have a point.

if that could be known, that would only add the the utter ludicrousness of believing the universe exists through sheer luck.

But the problem is that at the current point in time, we know too little about the formation of our region of the universe to say much of anything about any of these points. We do have hints that the universe is very, very large, and that regions like our own can (and are) born all the time. But we don't yet have hard evidence.

ha, the starter of this thread has been arguing that we know everything in "exact" detail about the whole universe.

Well, if you're talking about the interconnectedness of life and not of natural laws, then this simple argument from incredulity holds no water, as evolution is not a process of dumb luck, and we naturally expect this sort of interconnectedness as a result of the process of evolution.

no...we're talking the fulllness of the universe. ALL of it. Living and non-living. and since all life as we know it is intrinsically connected to the universe, then yes---it's still DUMB LUCK that all these near infinite universal factors worked out so that life is even possible.

 

[shinbits]

It is worthless as a means of determining the nature of reality. Philosophy only has value in terms of how we approach reality. It has no value in actually doing the work of figuring out its nature, as the nature of reality is necessarily contingent upon observation.

dude, that's exactly what philosophy does. Ever heard of "I think, therefore I am?" Much of that meditation by Descartes deals with the nature of reality, and how we can whether or not we trully exist. And while this may not be much to you, there's a reason why every respected institution of higher learning offers classes on philosophy, and why one can get a masters in it.

That isn't ID, though. ID is a specific creationist political movement designed to undermine science education.

we've gone through this. ID doesn't have to be that. when separated from all religious and personal agenda, ID in a pure form is a worthwhile philosophy. And remember, ID uses many of the same arguments as the fathers of philosophy.

 

[Chalnoth]

if that could be known, that would only add the the utter ludicrousness of believing the universe exists through sheer luck.

Why should you think that?

ha, the starter of this thread has been arguing that we know everything in "exact" detail about the whole universe.

Well, either you've misunderstood him, or he's wrong. Either way, it doesn't matter to me.

no...we're talking the fulllness of the universe. ALL of it. Living and non-living. and since all life as we know it is intrinsically connected to the universe, then yes---it's still DUMB LUCK that all these near infinite universal factors worked out so that life is even possible.

Not at all. We can't observe the whole of the universe. Our vision is limited by the speed of light and the way in which our region of the universe has expanded. And it certainly isn't the whole of the universe that is conducive to life: so far we only know of a minuscule thin shell around one planet surrounding one star that is conducive to life. We don't yet know whether our region of the universe is the only way in which such a region can exist, or whether there are obscene numbers of different regions, many with entirely different sets of physical laws.

It is completely worthless to talk about how "special" we are without some knowledge of what else is possible, and what else happens.

 

[shinbits]

Why should you think that?

good point. I'll digress there.

Not at all. We can't observe the whole of the universe. Our vision is limited by the speed of light and the way in which our region of the universe has expanded. And it certainly isn't the whole of the universe that is conducive to life: so far we only know of a minuscule thin shell around one planet surrounding one star that is conducive to life. We don't yet know whether our region of the universe is the only way in which such a region can exist, or whether there are obscene numbers of different regions, many with entirely different sets of physical laws.

but what we do know about the universe has shown that (at least in our region of the universe) that the galaxy, galaxy clusters, stars, planets and satelites are interconnected in some way. The entire galaxy moves in a cluster of galaxies, and we've yet to discover what our cluster's connected to.

the more we learn about our earth, solar system, galaxy and universe, the more ludicrous it is to nurture the idea that it's all just unbelievably dumb luck.

It is completely worthless to talk about how "special" we are without some knowledge of what else is possible, and what else happens.

based on what we currently know about the universe, life on earth is very, very special.

 

[Chalnoth]

but what we do know about the universe has shown that (at least in our region of the universe) that the galaxy, galaxy clusters, stars, planets and satelites are interconnected in some way. The entire galaxy moves in a cluster of galaxies, and we've yet to discover what our cluster's connected to.

This is just the way structure formation works, though. It's a matter of the randomized initial conditions (laid down by inflation) as well as how matter interacts, mostly through gravity.

the more we learn about our earth, solar system, galaxy and universe, the more ludicrous it is to nurture the idea that it's all just unbelievably dumb luck.

What, specifically, do you mean by "dumb luck" here? Because it's certainly not dumb luck that, for example, stars are organized into galaxies, which are sometimes organized into clusters. This is, instead, due to initial conditions acted on by natural forces. The way in which these natural forces behave predicts certain sorts of outcomes, and the specific outcomes which do occur depend on the precise initial conditions.

based on what we currently know about the universe, life on earth is very, very special.

That depends upon what you mean by "very very special". If life only occurs in one out of 100,000 stars, for instance, it would be very very special. But it would still occur on over a billion stars in our galaxy alone, not even counting the other hundred billion galaxies we can see from Earth, let alone the unknown (though possibly absurdly massive) number of galaxies further out that we can't see.

So, how special, precisely, is a very important thing to clarify. I strongly suspect that we'll find that life isn't all that uncommon. But we'll see.

 

[Naraoia]

I think it would be you. the laws of nature that gives rise to soap bubbles round are the same laws that give rise to all natural occurring spherical phenomena. It is these laws that govern the solar system as well, along with the cells in our body and the symmetry of our bodies.

Um... at the deepest level, yes. But, for example, gravity doesn't play much of a role in making a soap bubble spherical, while it's a major force in planet-sized objects. And the (not-quite-)symmetry of our bodies is a complicated affair that has little to do with the "laws of nature" (I'm assuming you mean basic physics?) aside from being an adaptation to exploit said laws in a certain way. Living things, or even animals, need not be symmetrical (Trichoplax isn't, for example).

this is missing the point entirely. soap is intelligently designed.


no, that's exactly the point. just like with soap, bubbles made from other liquids such as water, are formed from something which was intelligently designed.

It seems you are missing a key point here. You don't know that those things are designed. Soap is a man-made thing, but what evidence is there that anything/anyone designed water?

 

[Naraoia]

1) it's ALREADY been explained to you: matter can niether be created nor destroyed. there is no "origin" of matter, it's always existed.

What is conserved is energy, not matter.

 

[Chalnoth]

What is conserved is energy, not matter.

Well, in a sense. Certainly matter is not conserved all the time, though. Energy conservation is a rather complex topic, and it's worth noting that it's not necessary that that always be conserved either (though it does depend upon what you mean by "energy"...there are ways of defining energy so that it is guaranteed to always be conserved).

But regardless, the matter that makes up our universe was produced during and shortly after the reheating that marked the end of inflation.

 

[Naraoia]

the luck needed for a universe to become what it is to day is beyond astronomical. dumb luck doesn't even begin to describe it. to the think the the symetry and cyclical nature of the universe, along with its intracy and interconnectedness, along with the many complex organisms, each with interconnected parts, both microscopic and not, each being part of an ecosystem in a biosphere.....and so on and so on.....to think all of that is just dumb luck, is to rape all shred of reasonabilty and honesty of logic and intellect.

... what Chalnoth said (darnit, I'm so late to this thread...):

If you could demonstrate that the region of the universe which we can observe is the only region in existence, and that the process which formed it is capable of many possible outcomes, and that it only happened once, and that the vast majority of other possible outcomes would not be conducive to life, then you might have a point.

But the problem is that at the current point in time, we know too little about the formation of our region of the universe to say much of anything about any of these points. We do have hints that the universe is very, very large, and that regions like our own can (and are) born all the time. But we don't yet have hard evidence.

Well, in a sense. Certainly matter is not conserved all the time, though. Energy conservation is a rather complex topic, and it's worth noting that it's not necessary that that always be conserved either (though it does depend upon what you mean by "energy"...there are ways of defining energy so that it is guaranteed to always be conserved).

But regardless, the matter that makes up our universe was produced during and shortly after the reheating that marked the end of inflation.

I defer to the physicist

I'd love to hear about non-conservation of energy. I seem to recall that quantum weirdness can happen on "borrowed" energy if it happens fast enough, but all I can think of in that area is virtual particles, and I'm not sure I really understand what's going on there.

 

[Chalnoth]

I defer to the physicist

I'd love to hear about non-conservation of energy. I seem to recall that quantum weirdness can happen on "borrowed" energy if it happens fast enough, but all I can think of in that area is virtual particles, and I'm not sure I really understand what's going on there.

Well, that's a different issue, as the way it works out it can't actually lead to an average non-conservation of energy.

What I was talking about was rather that conservation laws themselves stem from invariances in physical laws. For a detailed description, see Noether's theorem. For a few short examples, what this means is that if certain properties of a system are the same no matter where you go in space, then momentum is conserved. If certain properties of a system are the same no matter what point in time you pick, then energy is conserved. If certain properties of a system are the same no matter what the quantum-mechanical wave function's phase is, then electrical charge is conserved. And so on and so forth.

What this means, in the end, is that if you formulate your equations such that they are independent of time (which is always possible), then energy will be conserved. But often we don't do this. With the expanding universe described by the FRW metric, for instance, the time-dependence of the expansion breaks the time invariance, which causes energy to not be conserved.

You can rewrite the equations of an expanding universe in a different way to absorb the time dependence, however, in which case energy is conserved: any energy gain (or loss) in the matter fields is offset by a corresponding change in the gravitational potential energy. For a more detailed writeup on how this relates to General Relativity, see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

 

[MoonLancer]

but what evidence is there that anything/anyone designed water?

non. theirs no evidence. it simply is. And i do realize that a world compared to a bubble is more complex.

 

[Danyc]

Hey guys, here's an interesting bit from an essay I found here: http://www.detectingdesign.com/kennethmiller.html#Irreducible

So, has Miller actually found a subsystem with a potentially beneficial function? Obviously, he has - - or I wouldn't be writing this essay. Miller points out that if not just one or two proteins are removed from the flagellar system, but 30 of the around 40 structural proteins are removed, one would expect, if Behe were right, that what would be left would be as functional as a pile of junk. Yet, this isn't the case. Take away 30 or so particular parts of a flagellum and what's left (~10 homologous proteins) is a functionally beneficial toxin injector system known as the Type Three Secretory System (TTSS).

The TTSS system is actually used by certain kinds of disease-causing bacteria known as gram-negative pathogens that attack plants and animals. Obviously the TTSS system is quite beneficial to certain types of pathogenic bacteria. It is indeed a true survival/reproductive advantage to those bacteria that have and use it. Therefore, it seems quite reasonable that the TTSS system could be used as a viable stepping stone along the pathway toward the higher-level flagellar motility system. And presto, Miller has just devastated Behe's notion of irreducibly complexity. This is in fact one of the main points brought up to challenge Behe at the Dover trial. And, it certainly did seem to convince a great many people, including the presiding judge. What wasn't presented about at the trial though, or in the recent NOVA report on the trial (aired November 13, 2007), is an interesting question: ​

Given Miller's position as correct, which system is likely to have evolved first - - the much simpler TTSS system or the much more complex flagellar motility system? Given Miller's argument, it seems intuitively obvious that the TTSS system should evolve first followed by the more complex flagellar system - right? Of course . . .​

It is strange, then, that the TTSS system is thought to have evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar evolution. That's right. Many scientists believe that there is very good evidence to believe that the TTSS system arose from the fully formed flagellum - - not the other way round. Consider that the bacterial flagellum is found in mesophilic, thermophilic, gram-positive, gram-negative, and spirochete bacteria while TTSS systems are restricted to a few gram-negative bacteria. Not only are TTSS systems restricted to gram-negative bacteria, but also to pathogenic gram-negative bacteria that specifically attack animals and plants . . . which supposedly evolved hundreds of millions of years after flagellar motility had already evolved. Beyond this, when TTSS genes are found in the chromosomes of bacteria, their GC (guanine/cytosine) content is typically lower than the GC content of the surrounding genome. Given the fact that TTSS genes are commonly found on large virulence plasmids (which can be easily passed around between different bacteria), this is good evidence for horizontal transfer to explain TTSS gene distribution. Flagellar genes, on the other hand, are usually split into 14 or so operons, they are not found on plasmids, and their GC content is the same as the surrounding genome suggesting that the code for the flagellum has not been spread around by horizontal transfer. Additional evidence for this comes from the fact that the TTSS system shows little homology with any other bacterial transport system (at least 4 major ones). Yet, evolution is supposed to build upon what already exists. Since the TTSS system is the most complex of the bunch, why didn't it evolve from one of these less complex systems and therefore maintain some higher degree of homology with at least one of them? This evidence suggests that the TTSS system did not exist, nor anything homologous, in the "pre-flagellar era". It must therefore have arisen from the fully formed flagellum via the removal of pre-existing parts - and not the other way around. In fact, several scientists have actually started promoting this idea in recent literature.3-8​

Now, isn't that just most interesting? - totally unpredictable based on Miller's arguments. Rather, it seems much more in line with the predictions of intelligent design; that what is more functionally complex can indeed degenerate into something that has fewer structural requirements. But, is it just as easy to turn things around and go upstream; so to speak? Not at all. In other words, it is far easier to destroy a car's motility function and still have its headlights work than to go the other way around and get the motility function starting with working headlights. Yet, you won't hear this little interesting fact in Miller's books or lectures. It certainly wasn't brought up by NOVA in their coverage of the Dover trial. Even though the experts presented know of this fact, they probably don't want to present it for fear of confusing their intended audience.




I can't find anything immediately wrong with this; it seems logically correct to me. However, it is evidence against what Kenneth Miller said so I am obviously highly miffed >=(
:]



What do you guys think?
​

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, if you doubt whether a light sensitive cell could have formed or not that's a very valid question (I can assure you it can) but it goes one step beyond the point of most irriducible complexity arguments.

Now if you want to go into the absolute smallest detail then be my guest, there are plenty of good books on this subject out there.
I however am not going into full detail on a celluar level because it will take me too much time to explain to someone who doesn't fully understand the foundation of biology, ie: evolution.

I have explained to you the steps to go from just a single cell to something that closely resembles the eye we see today with just gradual steps AND with each of those steps having a benefit over the earlier step.
Can you at least admit the gradual steps I've posted are reasonable to assume and there is nothing irriducible about it concerning those steps?

If you have more questions regarding a complex biological system that at first hand seems irreducible I'll gladly answer those.

I guess you got my point (tracing the complexity all the way to genetics). Biological feature of any scale is irreducibly complicate. It is beyond me, also beyond you, and beyond any living person today.

The OP is answered.

 

[shinbits]

It seems you are missing a key point here. You don't know that those things are designed. Soap is a man-made thing, but what evidence is there that anything/anyone designed water?

water is vital to all life on earth. and it "just so happens" that water has properties which allow it fall to the earth as rain, to nurish vegation and refill lakes, rivers, and any other type of oasis. These rivers and lakes can run be miles long, with rivers running down stream, making it possible for a wide range of organisms to have water.

Water can become vapor which turns into clouds and can be pushed by wind in order to spread this water around when it rains again. The water cycle is a system. This system is interconnected with other systems, such as air pressure which causes wind, to form an even larger system, which accomplishes a vital role, in this case, spreading a vital substance around the earth.

Systems, especially complex ones such as this, imply design design. The fact that the single most vital substance on earth has rivers, lakes, and wind working together in an intricate system to spread this vital substance around, show design. We can compare this design to human designs, when we look at how dams and plumbing work in a complex system to provide water to homes.

It is then quite logical to conclude, that water shows evidence of design, having properties that allow it to change states, each of which is useful.

One of these states is is ice. Water "just so happens" to have the unique property of becoming less dense when frozen. For most matter, the opposite is true. This trait of water keeps iceburgs and frozen tundras afloat, rather than sinking and flooding much of the land on earth.

As you can see, there is plenty of evidence that water is designed.

 

[shinbits]

What, specifically, do you mean by "dumb luck" here? Because it's certainly not dumb luck that, for example, stars are organized into galaxies, which are sometimes organized into clusters. This is, instead, due to initial conditions acted on by natural forces. The way in which these natural forces behave predicts certain sorts of outcomes, and the specific outcomes which do occur depend on the precise initial conditions.

the problem with this post is that you assert that the mere presence of gravity will organize billions of stars, and thousands of galaxies, in an orderly fashion.

Your logic is that gravitational force + trillions of stars = organized systems of galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Here's a question: HOW does gravity ORGANIZE trillions of stars into galaxies and galaxy clusters, which are so organized, they move and even rotate in predictable patterns?

All you're doing is saying "pfft, this is all just do to gravity." Well sir, if an undirected force can result in galaxies which move as one through the universe in a predictable speed, that is DUMB LUCK.