(M.H-35)"Standard" Argument for Irreducible Complexity

jamesrwright3 · Jun 5, 2006

I will explain why the arch example is a good example and refutes the particular argument I refer to in the OP, as you have failed to explain why the arch example is so wrong.

It is not a good argument, maybe for a simpleton, but to try to say they are equivalent is ridiculous. Whether you are a creationist or evolution, you have to concede that even the simplest organism is a complex machine. You are trying to compare something that is static such as a rock formation to a dynamic system. It simply doesn't work

The argument I'm refuting is: because a system depends on every component, it must have been created as-is. This is Irreducible Complexity.

The analogy doesn't work

The arch is a simple counter-example.

Maybe if you are stretching credulity

Therefore, the argument is false.[

It may be false. Certainly is not proven by the example of a rock formation.

David Gould · Jun 5, 2006

It is true - dynamic systems don't change. 'Unchanging' is the definition of 'dynamic' isn't it?

Hydra009 · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
It is not a good argument, maybe for a simpleton, but to try to say they are equivalent is ridiculous. Whether you are a creationist or evolution, you have to concede that even the simplest organism is a complex machine. You are trying to compare something that is static such as a rock formation to a dynamic system. It simply doesn't work

The point is that you can go from something that isn't IC to something that is IC through gradual, natural processes. So claiming that because something is IC it could not have happened naturally is bogus.

Garnett · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
It is not a good argument, maybe for a simpleton, but to try to say they are equivalent is ridiculous. .... You are trying to compare something that is static such as a rock formation to a dynamic system...

The analogy doesn't work.

LOL. Perhaps the simplest analogy possible and you still don't get it, and, even when missing the point all together you still have the temerity to include a phrase like "maybe for a simpleton".

shinbits · Jun 6, 2006

Mocca said:
Whyever does it fail? It's merely an example of dependancies developing.

There are definately things such as rock formations that can arise from undirected process. Really, all that would need to be done is to explain the mechanisms for it came to be. Some people feel that there can be no explanation apart from intelligent involvement, however. But if the mechanisms for how a system came to be can be explained, then that's that.

jamesrwright3 · Jun 6, 2006

Garnett said:
LOL. Perhaps the simplest analogy possible and you still don't get it, and, even when missing the point all together you still have the temerity to include a phrase like "maybe for a simpleton".

Of course I get it However, it is perhaps the most ridiculous example I have ever seen. It is comparing apples and oranges.

jamesrwright3 · Jun 6, 2006

shinbits said:
There are definately things such as rock formations that can arise from undirected process. Really, all that would need to be done is to explain the mechanisms for it came to be. Some people feel that there can be no explanation apart from intelligent involvement, however. But if the mechanisms for how a system came to be can be explained, then that's that.

In order for it to be a valid comparison, it would need to be a dynamic system. It may make evolutionists feel good, but it proves nothing.

jamesrwright3 · Jun 6, 2006

Hydra009 said:
The point is that you can go from something that isn't IC to something that is IC through gradual, natural processes. So claiming that because something is IC it could not have happened naturally is bogus.

It doesn't prove anything regarding life. And really it's a poor example. Show me an example where something was "built" and just didn't occur from processes eroding or taking stuff away, then it may have more validity.

Tomk80 · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
It doesn't prove anything regarding life. And really it's a poor example. Show me an example where something was "built" and just didn't occur from processes eroding or taking stuff away, then it may have more validity.

Why? I serously don't see why that would have more validity. So if there first was an upheaval of rock, followed by erosion, leading to a structure like in the picture of the OP, that would qualify?

Tomk80 · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
In order for it to be a valid comparison, it would need to be a dynamic system. It may make evolutionists feel good, but it proves nothing.

How is it not a dynamic system?

pompuspom · Jun 6, 2006

Irreducible complexity is covered in 'Darwin's Black Box' The chemical challenge to evolution, by Michael J. Behe. The mouse trap example is described there. It's an interesting book.

jamesrwright3 · Jun 6, 2006

Tomk80 said:
Why? I serously don't see why that would have more validity. So if there first was an upheaval of rock, followed by erosion, leading to a structure like in the picture of the OP, that would qualify?

If you want to compare a static object that is formed by removing material to life, which was "upward or building process" , then be my guest. I
But it clearly is a poor analogy.

jamesrwright3 · Jun 6, 2006

Tomk80 said:
How is it not a dynamic system?

Does it have any moving parts? Any chemical reactions going on? Can it evolve/adapt? Is it's process upward towards greater complexity or downward to destruction?

Tomk80 · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
Does it have any moving parts? Any chemical reactions going on? Can it evolve/adapt? Is it's process upward towards greater complexity or downward to destruction?

When looking at the structure of the picture of the OP, it is part of dynamic system. The weather and the seasons are having there effect on it and are dynamic. Chemical processes are going on inside it, also dynamic. Something does not have to evolve or adapt to be a dynamic system, neither does it have to move to greater or smaller complexity, neither does it have to have moving parts. The weather is a dynamic system, and hasn't got any of those characteristics.

jamesrwright3 · Jun 6, 2006

Tomk80 said:
When looking at the structure of the picture of the OP, it is part of dynamic system. The weather and the seasons are having there effect on it and are dynamic. Chemical processes are going on inside it, also dynamic. Something does not have to evolve or adapt to be a dynamic system, neither does it have to move to greater or smaller complexity, neither does it have to have moving parts. The weather is a dynamic system, and hasn't got any of those characteristics.

The item itself is static.
Now you are talking about a static system interacting with a dymanic environment. The item itself is not dynamic, but it is being affected by a dynamic environment. Clearly it doesn't prove anything regarding life. That is the bottom line.

Tomk80 · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
The item itself is static.
Now you are talking about a static system interacting with a dymanic environment. The item itself is not dynamic, but it is being affected by a dynamic environment. Clearly it doesn't prove anything regarding life. That is the bottom line.

So are the proteins of the bacterial flagellum. Those are also parts of a dynamic system, but not dynamic systems in and of themselves.

And it doesn't 'prove' anything. Of course not, it's an analogy. What it does do is show that irreducibly complex structures can arise without intelligence, which is Behe's central thesis regarding irreducible complexity. It also give hints as to how irreducible complex structures can arise through gradual processes. It shows us that just noting that something is irreducible complex tells us nothing in and of itself, and using irreducible complexity as evidence in favor of an intelligent designer is not a valid logical inference. That applies to life just as much as to the structures of the OP.

edited to add: What you are in fact doing, is saying that irreducible complexity can arise through gradual, unguided processes unless such irreducible complexity is present in life. Next, you are telling us that life cannot arise through an natural, unguided process because it is irreducible complex. And the circle goes round and round and round.

Garnett · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
Of course I get it However, it is perhaps the most ridiculous example I have ever seen. It is comparing apples and oranges.

For someone criticising a choice of comparison your post shows certain hypocricy - to compare the comparison of ID and rock formations with a comparison of two fruits which can be quite easily compared is foolish and flawed since your own argument works against you.

jamesrwright3 · Jun 6, 2006

And it doesn't 'prove' anything. Of course not, it's an analogy. What it does do is show that irreducibly complex structures can arise without intelligence, which is Behe's central thesis regarding irreducible complexity. It also give hints as to how irreducible complex structures can arise through gradual processes. It shows us that just noting that something is irreducible complex tells us nothing in and of itself, and using irreducible complexity as evidence in favor of an intelligent designer is not a valid logical inference. That applies to life just as much as to the structures of the OP.

Just show me a machine that can arive via naturalistic processes and then we have a valid analogy.
It is clearly not equate with life processes.

So yeah, something can arrive via naturalistic processes, but it is not "building" upward towards greater complexity and in no way resembles a life process and has nu functionality. So it's basically irrelevant and pointless.

USincognito · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
Just show me a machine that can arive via naturalistic processes and then we have a valid analogy.
It is clearly not equate with life processes.

How about a nuclear reactor arrived at via naturalistic processes or will you red herring and shift the goalposts on us again like you did with Behe and his mousetrap example as IC?

Tomk80 · Jun 6, 2006

jamesrwright3 said:
Just show me a machine that can arive via naturalistic processes and then we have a valid analogy.
It is clearly not equate with life processes.

So yeah, something can arrive via naturalistic processes, but it is not "building" upward towards greater complexity and in no way resembles a life process and has nu functionality. So it's basically irrelevant and pointless.

And a machine is? If anything, a machine is less a part of dynamic processes than a rock is. A machine does none of the thiings you mention above, except that it has functionality. But that is only because we create it that way. For someone talking about valid analogies, you sure pick sloppy ones.

And we already gave an example of how a machine could develop gradually from simpler mechanistics, eventually forming something that is irreducible complex.

So we can develop functional irreduble complexity gradually with intelligence, and naturally but not with a specific function. The only thing that is special about life is that the both are combined, but that is in no way a reason to posit that it would require some sort of intelligence. The only thing it does need is imperfect replicators, and we have shown in experiments that those can arise spontaneously in the right circumstances.

(M.H-35)"Standard" Argument for Irreducible Complexity

jamesrwright3

Guest

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

bel esprit

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

jamesrwright3

Guest

jamesrwright3

Guest

jamesrwright3

Guest

Titleless

Titleless

Active Member

jamesrwright3

Guest

jamesrwright3

Guest

Titleless

jamesrwright3

Guest

Titleless

Well-Known Member

jamesrwright3

Guest

a post by Alan Smithee

Titleless

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency