irreducible complexity

S

Silent Bob

Guest
Design101 said:
No I have never seen a bridge built. If there was no record of the builder, I would still conclude based on what I know about designed systems, the bridge was caused into existence by intelligent agency.

So if a tree trunk falls in the right way to bridge a gap it was actually just put there by an inteligent designer?

Isn't the tree trunk bridge an irreducibly complex system? You need to have a tree in the right distance from the gap. A wind blowing in the right direction. The trunk must be long enough. And the force of the impact must be just right so the tree doesn't split in two. Therefore a tree falling to form a bridge has an inteligent designer. Isn't that what ID says? If you take out one part of the system the rest will colapse therefore aliensdidit.
 
Upvote 0

Design101

Member
Oct 21, 2005
8
0
49
✟118.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
notto said:
You just keep asserting this. You are no closer to actually showing it than you were when you said it a hundred times ago.

This is a logical assertion that can be drawn from empirical evidence. All you have to do to falsify my statement would be to find me a code that can be formed by natural processes alone, without intelligent agency. Stop for a moment, and please show me a code that has been observed to be produced without intelligent agency. What purely naturalistic conditions are going to produce a code, please enlighten me on this point. I will continue to hammer this point to you until you realize intelligent causation is the key to solving the origin of the code, any code.
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
61
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
Design101 said:
This is a logical assertion that can be drawn from empirical evidence. All you have to do to falsify my statement would be to find me a code that can be formed by natural processes alone, without intelligent agency. Stop for a moment, and please show me a code that has been observed to be produced without intelligent agency. What purely naturalistic conditions are going to produce a code, please enlighten me on this point. I will continue to hammer this point to you until you realize intelligent causation is the key to solving the origin of the code, any code.
Except that DNA isn't a code at all, in that sense.
 
Upvote 0

Design101

Member
Oct 21, 2005
8
0
49
✟118.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
Cronic said:
So if a tree trunk falls in the right way to bridge a gap it was actually just put there by an inteligent designer?

I as a scientist would examine the area around the bridge and gap. Since I know of some naturalistic forces such as wind that could carry the potential of downing a said tree, then in order to say that the bridge may have been put there by intelligent causation, I would have to look to the splintering in the bend/break. If the bend/break in the tree possessed random, jagged splintering, then it was most likely the result of a natural force. Upon further examination in the lab, by testing the splintered parts I would most likely then check for any kind of disease, which would then make the cause both intelligent causation (pestilence), and blind random force (wind, rain). Still another possibility may be that you find fine-grained wood shavings in piles under the bend/break in evenly distributed mound piles. This would lend great credibility to intelligent agency as the cause behind creating a bridge-over-gap function.

You need to have a tree in the right distance from the gap. A wind blowing in the right direction. The trunk must be long enough. And the force of the impact must be just right so the tree doesn't split in two. Therefore a tree falling to form a bridge has an inteligent designer. Isn't that what ID says? If you take out one part of the system the rest will colapse therefore aliensdidit.

In your example however, the tree, is an example of an irreducibly complex biological metabolic machine, which would become evident as you investigate and unlock the visiblility at the molecular level, quite possibly being defined as the biochemical systems' 'irreducible core', that being the genetic code and subsequent machinery. To sum this up, intelligent causation may have been behind the bridge function, or it may not, depending on the 'empirical evidence' which I gave examples of, but not limited to those. Ultimately however, the bridge is intelligently designed because I can examine the tree and find ordered cells which contain a coded sequence that stores the information which produces all of the characteristics in biological organisms. Throughout all of observable history (including all devices that allow observation into things that are not readily visible) information in the form of a specified sequence that expresses meaningful chracteristics, has only been known by humans to be created or produced into existence through intelligent causation, not any unguided process or natural law.


Isn't the tree trunk bridge an irreducibly complex system?
Yes. A code requires intelligent causation. The chemical genetic code of each subsequent organism would likewise require such an event in the past.

Genetic Code- The sequence (order) of DNA bases in a gene, which make up the instructions for a particular characteristic.


A coded sequence of chemical instructions that provide informational meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Design101

Member
Oct 21, 2005
8
0
49
✟118.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
Electric Sceptic said:
Except that DNA isn't a code at all, in that sense.

In what sense is it a code then? Please compare the DNA molecule or the mRNA molecule to any other object/thing in this whole universe. If you cannot think of anything, then are they unique?
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟20,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Design101 said:
Genetic Code- The sequence (order) of DNA bases in a gene, which make up the instructions for a particular characteristic.


A coded sequence of chemical instructions that provide informational meaning.
And this code provides information to who, exactly? Itself? What are the encoding, storage, retrieval, and decoding mechanisms being employed?
 
Upvote 0

Design101

Member
Oct 21, 2005
8
0
49
✟118.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
Tomk80 said:
I don't need to read further than this. You are telling me that there is no peer reviewed research, apparantly basing your statement only on the abstract, when the peer reviewed research is all referenced below the paper (chapter six, appropriately called 'references'.

"a link to a peer reviewed paper instead, which shows a working model that provides change in molecular machines such as the flagellum. There are none that show any increase in complexity or function." This is what I said.


"However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion."


Look at what they had to admit to you in the top middle of the abstract. Vagueness and inconsistency are the key here.


You sir, are a joke

Flame.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
42
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟11,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Design101,

Since you seem to be such an expert. How come ID is just the same thing as creationism except for instead of limiting it to god you can include space aliens?

ID basically says the following:

  1. We do not know how something got here
  2. But look how amazing it is
  3. It must be magic!!!
  4. We can't understand it!!!
  5. So therefore an alien or a god did it!
Instead, shouldn't ID follow this course of logic?

  1. We do not understand how an organism got here
  2. Let's look for the fossil evidence and genetic evidence
  3. If we do not find a solution, we do not make up the solution
  4. We keep looking for evidence until we find a natural cause
  5. When we do find the evidence, we end up usually with evolution
Now 4 and 5 of the last example (not the first) would only be consistent with ID if we were shown things magically appering out of nowhere with no possible genetic or physical relatives of any kind anywhere near the time frame where they lived.

Now we simply do not find things magically appearing out of nowhere with no hint at common ancestry, and most claims that there are are generally GROSS misrepresentations of the evidence, or outright lies.
 
Upvote 0

Matthew777

Faith is the evidence of things unseen
Feb 8, 2005
5,839
107
38
Spokane, WA
✟6,496.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
3Amig(o)s said:
Hello all evolutionists out there. Could someone please tell me in as few words as possible, what irreducible complexity is, and why you believe it to be wrong.

thanks,

J.M.N.W.

Appeal to Ignorance:
Scientists have not been able to explain how a particular trait evolved. Therefore, it must be unevolvable.

Peace.
 
Upvote 0

Dragar

Like the root of -1
Jan 27, 2004
5,557
230
39
✟14,331.00
Faith
Atheist
Hello all evolutionists out there. Could someone please tell me in as few words as possible, what irreducible complexity is, and why you believe it to be wrong.

Irreducible complexity is the idea that some parts of organisms are too complex to have been produced in tiny, probable steps, as the tiny steps along the way do not provide useful evolutionary advantages. Instead they can only have been advantageous if they came in one, huge incredibly unlikely step. So incredibly unlikely, that it seems doubtful evolution is capable of producing certain organisms without some help from another mechanism (usually attributed to a deity).

I don't think this idea is wrong. But I have yet to see any evidence to back up this idea. And so I do not believe it is true, by virtue of having no reason to do so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

IntelligentDesigner2

Active Member
Oct 22, 2005
29
0
47
✟139.00
Faith
Christian
notto said:
Have you ever seen anybody build a bridge?



No I have never seen a bridge built. If there was no record of the builder, I would still conclude based on what I know about designed systems, the bridge was caused into existence by intelligent agency.



I your world, it would be impossible.



Ad Hominen.



Are you simply ignoring the examples of the evolution of IC that you have been shown already?


Please point out the flaws in the following:

talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html





"However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion."



This sentence is very important. Please show me or provide me with a link to a peer reviewed paper on a working model that shows change in molecular machines such as the flagellum. There are none. Engineering diagrams are now an excellent way to study the flagellum.



"A new model is proposed based on two major arguments."



The very next sentence of that paper is now trying to tell you--even though we don't have any peer reviewed working models of evolution taking place at the molecular machine level, we will now tell you how we at talkorigins think it happened (with no testing of any change that actually takes place in reality). It is pointless to even propose a model such as the one presented because ultimately the driving force behind biochemical systems is the code. Where did you get this chemical code from?--And why is there informational pathways built into the circuitry of the cell? Hmm...Something is afoot here.



By the way, thank you for deleting all of my posts and deleting my accounts and continually allowing people to flame me. I notice a lot of people are replying to my posts which are no longer there. Itis rather interesting to notice the viewpoint discrimination in this forum. I will now have to save all of my posts to my computer so that when they get deleted for absolutely no reason other than you do not like my ideas, I can keep reposting them to defend what I have to say.
 
Upvote 0

KerrMetric

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2005
5,169
226
63
Pasadena, CA
✟6,671.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
IntelligentDesigner2 said:
No I have never seen a bridge built. If there was no record of the builder, I would still conclude based on what I know about designed systems, the bridge was caused into existence by intelligent agency.







Ad Hominen.







"However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion."



This sentence is very important. Please show me or provide me with a link to a peer reviewed paper on a working model that shows change in molecular machines such as the flagellum. There are none. Engineering diagrams are now an excellent way to study the flagellum.



"A new model is proposed based on two major arguments."



The very next sentence of that paper is now trying to tell you--even though we don't have any peer reviewed working models of evolution taking place at the molecular machine level, we will now tell you how we at talkorigins think it happened (with no testing of any change that actually takes place in reality). It is pointless to even propose a model such as the one presented because ultimately the driving force behind biochemical systems is the code. Where did you get this chemical code from?--And why is there informational pathways built into the circuitry of the cell? Hmm...Something is afoot here.



By the way, thank you for deleting all of my posts and deleting my accounts and continually allowing people to flame me. I notice a lot of people are replying to my posts which are no longer there. Itis rather interesting to notice the viewpoint discrimination in this forum. I will now have to save all of my posts to my computer so that when they get deleted for absolutely no reason other than you do not like my ideas, I can keep reposting them to defend what I have to say.


Hey look. It's TheRealSkeptic/IntelligentDesigner back again after banning.

Hi.

Still haven't answered where the designer was when the bacterium changed its genome via frame shift to allow nylon consumption.
 
Upvote 0

IntelligentDesigner2

Active Member
Oct 22, 2005
29
0
47
✟139.00
Faith
Christian
Dragar said:
To which an IDist would simply say 'Ah-ha! You see! It required an intelligence - humans - to create New York City."

Whereas you think that mechanistic processes can be the cause for a code and its subsequent machinery, I think that it required an intelligent causation. You think the first cell evolved, whereas I believe the first cell was designed. You come up with a story on paper that shows that it evolved, I point out 'critical characteristics' all coming together to provide function, which is a hallmark of designed objects. Codes require intelligent causation, not naturalistic causation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

IntelligentDesigner2

Active Member
Oct 22, 2005
29
0
47
✟139.00
Faith
Christian
KerrMetric said:
Hey look. It's TheRealSkeptic/IntelligentDesigner back again after banning.

Hi.

Still haven't answered where the designer was when the bacterium changed its genome via frame shift to allow nylon consumption.

I did answer that, but it got deleted. I get banned a lot because my ideas do not conform to yours.
 
Upvote 0