Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Bugeyedcreepy]

But a tie clasp isn't a mouse trap.

So?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Er, no. Only after parts were removed did it become a 'tie clasp'.

It was likely a tie clasp before it became a mouse trap. That's evolution in action, building on what's already there...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

The subject is "irreducible complexity" to rebut evolution.

But that's exactly the point, it ISN'T Irreducibly complex. Took bits out of the mouse trap yet it's still perfectly useful doing other things. Again, this is how evolution works! When working in the other direction, it adds bits that make it useful for other thing.... like trapping mice! it might take a hundred thousand mutations to get those successively better increments to do the job, but it could easily do that over the millions upon millions of generations available to do it in.

 

[Kylie]

Your article didn't prove it's point at all. The author simply constructed a different mousetrap. What he did was no different than removing the door from a structure, then tearing down the structure, rebuilding it smaller, and using some of the leftover lumber to make a new door. Any observer would see that while it's made of the same lumber it isn't the same building.

Wow, you really didn't pay attention at all.

It shows how a mousetrap can be built up piece by piece.

You know, the way irreducible complexity says is IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wow, you really didn't pay attention at all.

It shows how a mousetrap can be built up piece by piece.

You know, the way irreducible complexity says is IMPOSSIBLE.

I don't think you understand the premise, which is not whether an effective mousetrap can be made from the remains of the original one if a part is removed, but that that particular design no longer functions as originally intended if any of it's parts are removed.

Also the diagrams in your link showing different ways to get around the IC theme are vague and confusing, so I reject them as support of your position.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So?

You can use a baseball bat to stir the soup, but that doesn't make it spoon.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It shows how a mousetrap can be built up piece by piece.

Like the way a fish becomes a horse?
(Mmmm, I wonder what it was before it was a fish?)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks AV. I appreciate that.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think you understand the premise, which is not whether an effective mousetrap can be made from the remains of the original one if a part is removed, but that that particular design no longer functions as originally intended if any of it's parts are removed.

Also the diagrams in your link showing different ways to get around the IC theme are vague and confusing, so I reject them as support of your position.

The problem is that you are approaching this from the wrong end.

The page I linked to was not showing how one can remove parts from a mousetrap and still keep it as a functional mousetrap, but to show how a very simple beginning can, with small changes, lead to a complex result.

In any case, your inability to understand does not change the fact that it supports my position.

 

[Kylie]

Like the way a fish becomes a horse?

Over a great long stretch of time with many small changes over many generations, yes.

(Mmmm, I wonder what it was before it was a fish?)

No you don't. If you really did want to know, you would go and look up the answer for yourself. All you are trying to do is belittle science with questions that you seem to think are difficult, but are actually just childish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks AV. I appreciate that.

My pleasure!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think you understand the premise, which is not whether an effective mousetrap can be made from the remains of the original one if a part is removed, but that that particular design no longer functions as originally intended if any of it's parts are removed.

That's not the irreducible complexity argument - in fact, it's no more than stating the obvious. If you remove a part from some collection of parts, it's no longer the same collection of parts; if you remove a functional part from a functional collection of parts, it won't function as before...

The irreducible complexity argument is that certain biological systems cannot evolve by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection.

 

[Larniavc]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Argument from incredulity.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Like the way a fish becomes a horse?

More accurately, the way a population of fish evolved into populations of numerous species, including horses, over 380 million years...

(Mmmm, I wonder what it was before it was a fish?)

Fish evolved from soft-bodied invertebrates (i.e. with no backbone) in the Cambrian (about half a billion years ago).

You're welcome

 

[Larniavc]

God doesn't have to design each snowflake, the 'law of snowflakes' works on autopilot.

So God could have set it all up ages ago and left it on autopilot and we see this auto pilot as nature?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The living world is so complex and interdependent that it is almost impossible to frame coherent questions about it. When asked science presents simple answers that can't begin to address these complexities. Perhaps the only answer is indeed that we were "fearfully and wonderfully made", by God. Psalm 139:14

Eum....

It seems to me that you have it completely backwards...
It's creationists that don't understand the complexity of things and are baffled by it... which is why they use it in an argument from incredulity, as if that justifies the assertion that "god dun it".

A biologist and geneticists, understands perfectly what the complexity of living things is about and, more importantly, how this complexity is an inevitable result of the process known as biological evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

A biologist and geneticists, understands perfectly what the complexity of living things is about and, more importantly, how this complexity is an inevitable result of the process known as biological evolution.

That's because higher academia teaches biologists and geneticists how to play connect-the-dots.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Over a great long stretch of time with many small changes over many generations, yes.



No you don't. If you really did want to know, you would go and look up the answer for yourself. All you are trying to do is belittle science with questions that you seem to think are difficult, but are actually just childish.

Many 'adults' are unable to answer 'childish' questions, not because they are childish but because they have no answers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem is that you are approaching this from the wrong end.

The topic is irreducible complexity, not evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Argument from incredulity.

An argument nonetheless.