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

[michabo]

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.

Show me where this is a criteria for IC.

Re-read Dembski's works. He seeks generalities so that we can have a general theory with which to probe the specifics of life.

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?

No, I'm not comparing it to humans at all. AFAIK, only you are doing that.

 

[Mocca]

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.

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

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.

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.

You don't understand the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is to show that an Irreducibly Complex system is not necessarily created as-is.

The arch is an Irreducibly Complex system. The removal of any stones in the arch will ensure the arch will fall. However, was that arch created as-is?

Erosion.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

You don't understand the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is to show that an Irreducibly Complex system is not necessarily created as-is.

The arch is an Irreducibly Complex system. The removal of any stones in the arch will ensure the arch will fall. However, was that arch created as-is?

Erosion.

Scaffolding.

 

[jamesrwright3]

You don't understand the point of the analogy. The point of the analogy is to show that an Irreducibly Complex system is not necessarily created as-is.

I understand it perfectly. To say it proves ID wrong when ID deals with functional systems such as life is ludicrous.

The arch is an Irreducibly Complex system. The removal of any stones in the arch will ensure the arch will fall. However, was that arch created as-is?

Fine, whatever, it's an irreducibly complex rock system, but it doesn't prove that ID is wrong when it comes to life systems.

 

[SteelEdge]

In some recent threads like this one, the debate is getting to the level of yes it is, no it isn't type responses, which reminded me of a funny Monty Python sketch.


M= Man looking for an argument
A= Arguer

M is walking down the corridor

M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

 

[BVZ]

jamesrwright3:

You claim that the arch is NOT made up of parts.

Yet, it is possible to remove part of the arch, so that it collapses. If there were no individual parts, you would have to remove the ENTIRE arch, or leave it there. Yet, it is possible to REMOVE A PART OF IT.

This means that the arch is made up of parts.

Lets say you have a piece of toffe that is a meter long. It is a single piece, so according to your argument it is not made up of individual parts. Does this mean you will have to put the WHOLE THING in your mouth at once to eat it? Will it come out in one piece after being digested? Of course not. Why? Because it is in fact made up of parts.

JUST LIKE THE ARCH.

 

[Maxwell511]

I understand it perfectly. To say it proves ID wrong when ID deals with functional systems such as life is ludicrous.

Is there a definition for a functional system?

 

[jamesrwright3]

.

Yet, it is possible to remove part of the arch, so that it collapses. If there were no individual parts, you would have to remove the ENTIRE arch, or leave it there. Yet, it is possible to REMOVE A PART OF IT.

That is a single piece of rock. There aren't multiple rocks in that photo. Hence, it is a hunk of rock.

It is also possible to use a jackhammer to destroy a block of concrete. I guess that means a hunk of concrete is also made up of parts then.

This means that the arch is made up of parts.

Clearly it is not.

Lets say you have a piece of toffe that is a meter long. It is a single piece, so according to your argument it is not made up of individual parts. Does this mean you will have to put the WHOLE THING in your mouth at once to eat it? Will it come out in one piece after being digested? Of course not. Why? Because it is in fact made up of parts.

No, I could break it into parts, but to say that taking a single piece of material and breaking it down into smaller ones is proof of IR being false is ridiculous.

 

[Tomk80]

.


That is a single piece of rock. There aren't multiple rocks in that photo. Hence, it is a hunk of rock.

It is also possible to use a jackhammer to destroy a block of concrete. I guess that means a hunk of concrete is also made up of parts then.

Yup. Just as a human body is made up of cells, concrete is made up out of crystals formed by dehydration of the mixture. After a (long) while, concrete falls apart. It is then that this becomes apparant, as the structure is easily seen than.

Clearly it is not.

But it is. In the same way that the human body is made up of cells.

No, I could break it into parts, but to say that taking a single piece of material and breaking it down into smaller ones is proof of IR being false is ridiculous.

But he hasn't drawn this conclusion. He addressed a specific part of Behe's reasoning, namely countering the IC can be arrived at by shunting (ie, first adding something, then removing something else). He already clarified this in a previous post. He addressed the reasoning of Behe and Dembski specifically, not IC in general. Neither Behe and Dembski ever specified that their concepts are applicable for life only. In fact, they specifically make the claim more general, for example by pionting out that their reasoning also applies to human artifacts like arrow points.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Yup. Just as a human body is made up of cells, concrete is made up out of crystals formed by dehydration of the mixture. After a (long) while, concrete falls apart. It is then that this becomes apparant, as the structure is easily seen than.

We are talking about functional parts, not the component parts as in a moving dynamic system. Not a hunk of rock that have have more than one type of material.

But it is. In the same way that the human body is made up of cells.

See above. Even concrete has no reasonable semblance to the machines inside of the human body.

But he hasn't drawn this conclusion. He addressed a specific part of Behe's reasoning, namely countering the IC can be arrived at by shunting (ie, first adding something, then removing something else). He already clarified this in a previous post. He addressed the reasoning of Behe and Dembski specifically, not IC in general. Neither Behe and Dembski ever specified that their concepts are applicable for life only. In fact, they specifically make the claim more general, for example by pionting out that their reasoning also applies to human artifacts like arrow points

And it is clearly erroneous. BEHE was clearly talking about life processes in which each part is essentially a mini machine, not hunks of rock. That is stretch to say this examples disproves anything.

 

[caravelair]

I understand it perfectly. To say it proves ID wrong when ID deals with functional systems such as life is ludicrous.

ID doesn't deal with anything. ID is nothing more than a single logical fallacy, argument from incredulity, dressed up to look like it's something more.

Fine, whatever, it's an irreducibly complex rock system, but it doesn't prove that ID is wrong when it comes to life systems.

but it is wrong, regardless of whether or not the analogy shows it.

 

[Tomk80]

We are talking about functional parts, not the component parts as in a moving dynamic system. Not a hunk of rock that have have more than one type of material.

See above. Even concrete has no reasonable semblance to the machines inside of the human body.

Which machines? Talk about bad analogies. The comparison of hunks of rock with hunks of meat is just as valid as the comparison of cells with machines, only on a different level. The structure of a hunk of meat is very much that of one of concrete, namely solid parts (cells) with a binder (collagen).

And it is clearly erroneous. BEHE was clearly talking about life processes in which each part is essentially a mini machine, not hunks of rock. That is stretch to say this examples disproves anything.

No, because he is using similar analogies himself. Look at his mousetrap example. It's his, not ours.

 

[Jet Black]

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

nor are mouse traps, so why does behe use them as examples?

 

[Mocca]

We are talking about functional parts, not the component parts as in a moving dynamic system. Not a hunk of rock that have have more than one type of material.

And it is clearly erroneous. BEHE was clearly talking about life processes in which each part is essentially a mini machine, not hunks of rock. That is stretch to say this examples disproves anything.

You don't even know what you're arguing about. Behe's quote referred to systems not necessarily living systems or dynamic systems.

Just systems.

 

[Mocca]

Okay, that arch doesn't have parts. Then what about a Roman Arch? That has parts.

 

[Mocca]

Fine, whatever, it's an irreducibly complex rock system, but it doesn't prove that ID is wrong when it comes to life systems.

Get this through your skull: we're not trying to "prove that ID is wrong" at all. We were trying to show that IC systems can arise without intelligence.

Capiche?

 

[Loudmouth]

What about the mammalian middle ear? The bones (incus, stapes, and malleus) are an IC system and the evolutionary steps towards this IC system are preserved in the fossil record. The pathway even involves a two hinged jaw as the dentary bones move into the middle ear.

 

[Mocca]

And it is clearly erroneous. BEHE was clearly talking about life processes in which each part is essentially a mini machine, not hunks of rock. That is stretch to say this examples disproves anything.

If Behe was referring to life processes only when he defined IC, then why does he use his mousetrap example? Remember, it was Behe who first used a mousetrap example; Behe stated that removing any part from a mousetrap would ensure the mousetrap's failure, therefore the mousetrap must have developed from intelligence.

What about using the IC concept on arrowheads? Are arrowheads living objects?

Find out what Behe said before making false claims about how "Behe was clearly talking about life processes."

Is a mousetrap or arrowhead a life process? Well, Behe brought it up, and since he was "clearly talking about life processes," mousetraps and arrowheads must be.

 

[JohnR7]

We were trying to show that IC systems can arise without intelligence.

How can you do that if there is no way to show if God created evolution or not?

 

[Edx]

I understand it perfectly. To say it proves ID wrong when ID deals with functional systems such as life is ludicrous

It simply shows IC's PREMISE is wrong.

And its always Creationists that use non-living examples in their arguments. The stupidest of which has to be the tornado in a junkyard.