My Irreducible Complexity Challenge

[AV1611VET]

For those of you who like to argue against Irreducible Complexity, please post an emoticon of your expression if you are on a 747 and saw a part fall off while the plane is flying down the runway.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

For those of you who like to argue against Irreducible Complexity, please post an emoticon of your expression if you are on a 747 and saw a part fall off while the plane is flying down the runway.

Make it an F15, and I'll smile and wave even if a wing falls off...

Yay for fly-by-wire!

 

[mnorian]

Was wondering what it was:

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection.

 

[mnorian]

Why is it a "pseudoscientific argument"?

 

[Speedwell]

Why is it a "pseudoscientific argument"?

Because there is no evidence that there are any such systems.

 

[mnorian]

I like William A. Dembski's Definition:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

 

[mnorian]

If there was no one there; who built the watch?

 

[MasonP]

If there was no one there; who built the watch?

Santa Claus who else? sorry it was his Elves.

 

[mnorian]

From Wiki:

"While he did not originate the term, Charles Darwin identified the argument as a possible way to falsify a prediction of the theory of evolution at the outset. In The Origin of Species (1859), he wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."[24] Darwin's theory of evolution challenges the teleological argument by postulating an alternative explanation to that of an intelligent designer—namely, evolution by natural selection. By showing how simple unintelligent forces can ratchet up designs of extraordinary complexity without invoking outside design, Darwin showed that an intelligent designer was not the necessary conclusion to draw from complexity in nature."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it was the most logical.

 

[Speedwell]

I like William A. Dembski's Definition:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

Now demonstrate that such a system cannot, in principle, be produced by an iterative process of variation and selection.

 

[mnorian]

Now demonstrate that such a system cannot, in principle, be produced by an iterative process of variation and selection.

Now demonstrate that such a system cannot, in fact, be created by an all knowing God.

 

[Speedwell]

Now demonstrate that such a system cannot, in fact, be created by an all knowing God.

Why? I am satisfied that He designed the variation and selection process to work properly in the first place; I don't think He has to tinker with the product.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Now demonstrate that such a system cannot, in fact, be created by an all knowing God.

Firstly, show such a thing, in fact, exists. Then, prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars right now.

 

[bhsmte]

I like William A. Dembski's Definition:

A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system.

How does one test to determine, if IC is present, that is a falsifiable test?

 

[MasonP]

Now demonstrate that such a system cannot, in fact, be created by an all knowing God.

Do you believe it just because no one can demonstrate to you that it can't? can anyone demonstrate to you that Zeus or Thor is not doing it all? do you believe in them as well?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

If there was no one there; who built the watch?

No one built the watch if there was no one there. This is a fantasy scenario that couldn't exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No one built the watch if there was no one there. This is a fantasy scenario that couldn't exist.

That's true - but imagine if clocks could evolve from random assemblies of springs, gears, ratchets and hands...

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

For those of you who like to argue against Irreducible Complexity, please post an emoticon of your expression if you are on a 747 and saw a part fall off while the plane is flying down the runway.

Radiant JOY like Stephen. Perfect Peace.

 

[mnorian]

No one built the watch if there was no one there. This is a fantasy scenario that couldn't exist.

Right; His name is: Jesus.

 

[mnorian]

Do you believe it just because no one can demonstrate to you that it can't? can anyone demonstrate to you that Zeus or Thor is not doing it all? do you believe in them as well?

I know it because God is a fact to me; not a principle.