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

[OdwinOddball]

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?

Of course he will, he does in every single thread. NO actual argument, just "It's Apples and Oranges!"



Apple's and Oranges I tell ya, its all about the apples and the oranges and how they don't get along over in happy sunny Frtuitville. The apples are hard and red and the oranges are soft and well, orange.

Its APPLES and ORANGES all the way down.

 

[Baggins]

. If you do a google search on Dawkins, you find some interesting stuff. He has used his infuence to censor critisism of evolution, to the extent that arcticles have been stopped going to print. In my opinion, he is as much an evangelical for his beliefs as any religious zealot. He has linked his evolutionary thoughts to an atheist ideal.

Unless you have some evidence to back this up this is a libel and makes you and this site liable for being sued.

But I'm sure you do have evidence that would stand up in a court of law don't you?

 

[Tomk80]

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?

It is clear enough to me that there is only one thing ID-ists will see as analogous to life, which is life itself. Instead of looking at the analogies for what they are, imperfect examples that show a certain aspect of the problem, not the complete problem.

 

[OdwinOddball]

It is clear enough to me that there is only one thing ID-ists will see as analogous to life, which is life itself. Instead of looking at the analogies for what they are, imperfect examples that show a certain aspect of the problem, not the complete problem.

It's part and parcel of having the literalist mindset needed to have a 100% literal Bible. Creationists in general do not seem able to grasp analogy or metaphor. Everything written must be taken as meaning exactly what it says.

I honestly am not sure if its just something they chose to do anymore. I think it may actually be a defeciency either in education, experience, or genetics that does not allow their brain to form abstract conections. It seems too prevasive a problem to be fully voluntary.

Must make for a pretty dull world. Can't exactly enjoy much literature if you cant grasp literary devices.

 

[Goatboy]

Unless you have some evidence to back this up this is a libel and makes you and this site liable for being sued.

10 to 1 – a Richard Milton reference.

He claims to be apposed to “Darwinism” on scientific grounds and denies being a creationist.

Basically Dembski for new age fluff bunnies.
(coz, you know believing the earth is a few thousand years old and using ad-hoc, mysterious intelligence at work explanations doesn’t make you a creationist – Oh wait).

Still, unlike a lot of the ID crowd Milton is deluded enough to get into the occasional debate with a proper scientist.

Hilarity generally ensues.

 

[jamesrwright3]

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.

Clearly the people saying this is a valid example of irreducible complexity and positing it as an example that the same concept applies to life are providing a much sloppier analogy. Clearly it is a stretch.

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

And yes, there was intelligence involved at every step of the way.

The only thing it does need is imperfect replicators, and we have shown in experiments that those can arise spontaneously in the right circumstances.[

Show me the evidence that these processes form functional machines that can evolve.

 

[michabo]

I don't get this invalid analogy remark that James keeps making. Here's how Dembski defines IC:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)
​

The arch is a very clear and simple challenge. It is obviously IC because if we remove any part, then the system collapses and ceases functioning as an arch. This is exactly the initial condition that Dembski talks about. However, the conclusion does not follow!

Why not?

The answer is obvious. Because the system built up through small, successive additions and then pieces were removed. The exact same argument applies to any other system, including living ones. It doesn't matter if we cannot reach a given system by slowly adding elements; it only matters if we can get there by slow, successive changes (not necessarily additions) where, at each point, the system is functional and useful.

By picking the arch, the fallacies in this argument can be exposed to people with no training in biology.

This is a brilliant example. Nothing wrong here, nothing at all.

 

[Kahalachan]

I've seen this so many times.

A system is composed of several components. The system cannot function if one component is missing. Therefore this system cannot have evolved.

It's the common boilerplate argument for Irreducible Complexity, and it reveals the black-and-white thinking of many creationists. For the creationists, a system either has a component or it doesn't. These components can't change.

So it follows logically from these premises that these so called irreducibly complex system cannot evolved.

Riiiiiight.

So, on to logic and reasoning. Parts can change. Dependancies can develop. Even the use of a system can change.

For example, this arch:

If you remove any chunk of stone, it'll fall.

Yet it still arose from natural processes, namely, erosion.

This argument for IC is absurd: because the removal of any components from the system will result in the failure of the system, the system must have been designed as it is.

Excellent post.

Also, I've seen examples of a Coke can and that couldn't have evolved. However we have a reference point for intelligent design to compare with natural design. We couldn't know something is intelligently designed if there was no reference point to compare to non-intelligent design.

To suppose that the universe was hand crafted in every aspect doesn't provide the reference to say something can or cannot be designed intelligently.

 

[caravelair]

Clearly the people saying this is a valid example of irreducible complexity and positing it as an example that the same concept applies to life are providing a much sloppier analogy. Clearly it is a stretch.

even if you don't like the analogy, there are other facts that put the nail in the coffin of IC as an argument against evolution. we have directly observed the evolution of systems that are IC under dembski's definition. his arguments only works against a strawman version of evolution, one that can only change things by successive addition of parts. that is not how evolution works. evolution can delete parts, or it can change and co-opt parts for a different function. these allow for the evolution of 'IC' systems.

 

[Loudmouth]

One can observe the evolution of an IC structure in the fossil record. The mammalian middle ear is composed of three bones. If one is removed then the function of the system (ie hearing) ceases. What we see in the fossil record is that two of the bones of the "irreducible system" actually started out as jaw bones. Each step is functional and selectable, and the final product is an IC system.

It is this example and others (eg intermediates for eye evolution) that led Behe to focus on molecular systems which did not leave a fossil record.

Behe makes two leaps of faith. First, that IC systems can't evolve. He tries to stack the deck by claiming that direct evolutionary pathways can not result in IC systems. So what? Indirect pathways can. So what does Behe do? Claims that indirect pathways are improbable which he quickly conflates with impossible. Behe has yet to supply any evidence to support his incredulity.

The second leap of faith is the very historic characteristics of his IC systems. Was the first flagellum irreducibly complex, or did it have redundant parts that were removed through mutation later on? Without this answer Behe can not claim that the system is unevolvable.

Indirect evolutionary pathways, in theory, can produce IC systems. For Behe to claim that IC systems can not evolve he must show how these indirect pathways are impossible, outside of his own incredulity.

 

[jamesrwright3]

]I don't get this invalid analogy remark that James keeps making

.

Well it's really quite clear

Here's how Dembski defines IC:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function,​

What are the well matched parts that give the arch function? It appears to me to be one part that was molded by erosion. There are not several parts interacting. It is also clear that an arch is not analogous to the machine like process that takes place in a cell.

wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

There is only one part to an arch, a single part that has been shaped by erosion, but it has no function. It is merely a shapen piece of material matter, no more, no less.

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.

What is the precursor system to the arch? A hunk of rock? Is a hunk of rock functional? DOes a hunk of rock in any way resemble a machine or even any kind of process for that matter?

An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)

The arch is a very clear and simple challenge. It is obviously IC because if we remove any part, then the system collapses and ceases functioning as an arch. This is exactly the initial condition that Dembski talks about. However, the conclusion does not follow!

An arch is a poor example. Remove the heart from a mammal. See if the functions. Remove a CPU from your xbox 360, see if it functions. You can't compare a hunk of rock to the functioning of a complex oranism.

By picking the arch, the fallacies in this argument can be exposed to people with no training in biology.

By picking an arch, you are being misleading. Arches are not equivalent to life processes.

This is a brilliant example. Nothing wrong here, nothing at all.[

It is a ridiculous example and absurd as usual.

 

[jamesrwright3]

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?

I guess rain is an example of a shower that arrived by naturalistic processes. Ice is a refrigerator that arrived by naturalisic processes. I am perfectly content to have a nuclear reactor arrive by naturalistic processes. I guess the sun is a giant furnace that arrived by naturalistic processes. I am fine with that. That is a better example than an arch.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Of course he will, he does in every single thread. NO actual argument, just "It's Apples and Oranges!"

I do have an actual argument. I am sorry if I have to call people out on their absurd comparisons by trying to say since rock formations are formed it somehow proves that ID is false. I will try not to point out absurdities any longer.

 

[Mocca]

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.

In evolution, Irreducible Complexity actually develops from "taking stuff away," so this example actually shows much validity.

 

[Mocca]

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?

Wow. I haven't seen that before. I am so bookmarking that.

Thanks, dude.

 

[jamesrwright3]

In evolution, Irreducible Complexity actually develops from "taking stuff away," so this example actually shows much validity.

No it really doesn't.

 

[michabo]

What are the well matched parts that give the arch function? It appears to me to be one part that was molded by erosion. There are not several parts interacting. It is also clear that an arch is not analogous to the machine like process that takes place in a cell.

Your talk of cells is a red herring. Dembski never mentions cells in his definition. He can't. The whole point is to ostensibly develop a theory which covers all forms of "intelligent design", and then infer that cells are intelligently designed. One can hardly define cells to be intelligently designed and then conclude that they are.

Whenever you say that the analogy to a cell is invalid, you are completely misunderstanding Dembski's claims, as well as ours.


Anyway, what are the interacting parts? The rocks! You say that it's just a hunk of rock. That's like saying humans are just a hunk of flesh. It is true, but ignores the reality that the flesh is made up of cells, and that the rock is made up of smaller particles.

There is only one part to an arch, a single part that has been shaped by erosion, but it has no function. It is merely a shapen piece of material matter, no more, no less.

You miss Dembski's arguments, because you have assumed the conclusion. He claims to be able to start with any structure and then infer design.

Here, the arch has every bit as much function as any human arch. It may be aesthetics, or it may be to hold up the rock on top, or to form a bridge. This arch is free standing, but there are many rock bridges.

And, as before, though it acts as a whole, it has many parts. Just as a cell acts as a whole, but has many parts. If you apply your argument equally, you would dismiss anything in the body as well.

What is the precursor system to the arch? A hunk of rock? Is a hunk of rock functional? DOes a hunk of rock in any way resemble a machine or even any kind of process for that matter?

Yes, the precursor is a hunk of rock. Just like the precursor to other alleged IC objects are hunks of stuff. They don't have to resemble machines. That is no where in his definition or requirements.

Place a hunk of rock over a stream, and you have a bridge. It clearly has enough of a purpose to fulfill requirements.

An arch is a poor example. Remove the heart from a mammal. See if the functions. Remove a CPU from your xbox 360, see if it functions. You can't compare a hunk of rock to the functioning of a complex oranism.

You know perfectly well that Dembski would not be stupid enough to say that a mammal is IC because you can't take out its heart!

He says that some processes (blood clotting) are IC because they need all the intermediates. But what the arch clearly shows is that you can have a situation where, to remove a single piece would be disastrous, and yet still have a natural pathway (without intelligent design) to achieve this.

All of your talk about CPUs are just red herrings. If you understand Dembski's theories, then please do so.

 

[Mocca]

I do have an actual argument. I am sorry if I have to call people out on their absurd comparisons by trying to say since rock formations are formed it somehow proves that ID is false. I will try not to point out absurdities any longer.

You forget to point out your own.

I merely refute Behe's claims about IC (or at least one of them; considering how often the goal posts switch). I'm not attempting to refute ID. (Yet another example of black-and-white thinking.)

But anyway, as apparently you aren't satisfied with any counter-examples, as we apparently are always comparing "apples and oranges," I will attempt to explain this without using an example.

Basically, I have three flaws I'd like to point out with the argument that IC systems cannot have evolved.

Ah, never mind, I like examples too much.

But think of New York City. New York is dependant on electricity. If you remove electricity, New York will not function correctly. All clear so far? Agree with me on this?

So, does this mean that New York has always been this way, with electricity and what-not ever since New York was created by God?

No. New York developed a dependancy on electricity after electricity was made. We got rid of most of our kerosene lamps. We got rid of using horses to drive stuff... you know? New York City developed its current dependancy on electricity.

Basically, IC is the same thing. Behe claims that in a system where the removal of any part results in failure, the system cannot have evolved. My example with New York and electricity also works for biological dependancies. Say, for example, a symbiotic relationship, where two populations depend on the other. Group A performs Function A for Group B, and Group B performs Function B for Group A. This seems like a catch-22 for evolution. However...

A simple scenario in which this dependancy could have evolved:

Group A performs Function A and Function B. Group B performs Function B and Function A. However, Group A performs Function A better than Group B does, and vice versa. So Group B performs Function B for Group A and vice versa. Eventually, Group A doesn't need to perform Function A as Group B already performs it, and vice versa.

Voila, dependancies.

Another thing that creationists forget is the fact that the function of a system can change. I don't remember the paper or the subject very well, but there was quite a bit of buzz about it: it was shown how a certain receptor and its hormone could evolve, or summat like that.

Basically, the receptor needs the hormone to have any function, and the hormone needs the receptor to have any function. Catch-22, can't have evolved, right? No, the paper has shown otherwise. Basically, a similar hormone which was used for something else had a small change, making it useful for the new receptor or summat like that. Sorry for not having details, but this is merely an example for my point: the function of a system can change.

And the last creationist fudge concerning IC is forgetting that parts can change. The argument for IC goes: "If you take any part away, the system doesn't work." But they forget that parts can change, and instead, in the trademark black-and-white style of thinking many famous creationists are known for, assume either a part exists or it doesn't. No change. They forget the: "If you change a part by a slight amount, the system still works." This shoots a huge hole in Behe's claim.

Alright, I tried not to use examples, as apparently you didn't like them. Good enough?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Your talk of cells is a red herring

No it is not. You are comparing a freaking hunk of rock to a machine for all intents and purposes and are saying hey, this proves that irreducibly complex systems can evolve which is a total crock. You are grapsing for straws.

So me where a bunch of little rocks form into a moving, functional, and dynamic system that has some sort of intelligence or programmability then you have have a leg to stand on.

Anyway, what are the interacting parts? The rocks! You say that it's just a hunk of rock

No, it is one large hunk of rock. Plain and simple. You are comparing the machine of the human body to a freaking hunk of rock with its many types of cells, interacting at one time in a precise nature? Totally ludicrous
The arch proves absolutely nothing

Here, the arch has every bit as much function as any human arch. It may be aesthetics, or it may be to hold up the rock on top, or to form a bridge. This arch is free standing, but there are many rock bridges.

Well that is great. I am glad we have discovered that there are many wonderous things in nature. To say that this example somehow proves ID is false is ludicrous. It ia a hunk of rock, not a machine.

All of your talk about CPUs are just red herrings. If you understand Dembski's theories, then please do so.

I was just using those as examples of things that are potentially irreducibly complex. Take one part away, it doesn't function. They are better examples than a hunk of rock.

 

[Mocca]

No it really doesn't.

Dependancies can develop, which is one reason why IC exists, as I explained in my previous post.

Wouldn't a dependancy developing be considered taking something away? System A didn't use to rely on Component A, however, it developed a dependancy on Component A and now cannot function without it.

You know, taking something away causing IC?

Hmm?