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

[Tomk80]

No. Every step in USIncognito's mouse-trap evolution would have a use. Not necessarily a use for catching mice, but a use for something, and as shown with biological examples, the function of systems can change.

Just as in biological systems (note the analogy), the function of a system can change, as shown in biological systems. So these "early mousetraps" didn't have to be used as mousetraps.


If IC didn't apply to all systems, as you put in Behe's mouth, then why do Behe and Dembski USE non-biological examples?

Why do Behe and Dembski apply IC to non-biological cases if IC is a solely biological concept?!

If it is so clear that Behe is referring to non-biological systems, then why does he apply IC to arrowheads and mousetraps himself?
I and others have said this so many times: Behe applies IC to non-biological cases himself. Why would he do this if "it is clear that he was referring to biological systems?"

I'll say it again, just for the emphasis: Why would Behe apply IC to non-biological cases such as mousetraps if "it is clear Behe was referring to biological examples?"

In fact, Behe and Dembski say ID can be used by comparing primitive arrowpoints to arrowpoint-shaped rocks. They claim that, because we can distinguish the two, we can distinguish non-biological systems from biological ones. But in order for their comparison to work, the method of comparison (in this case, IC) has to be valid for both non-biological systems and biological systems.

So in order for Behe's and Dembski's concepts to work and help distinguish ID, they have to be generic. They need to be applicable to both non-biological and biological systems.

So the comparison is completely valid, because of the premises Behe and Dembski themselves use.

 

[caravelair]

the analogy is valid because it demonstrates a flaw in the original argument, which states that you can't build up an IC system by the successive addition of parts.

this is true, take a look at the arch. it could not have been built by the addition of parts, because it would collapse if it wasn't fully complete.

but the arch wasn't built up by the addition of small parts. it was built by removing parts.

the reason this is a valid analogy is because evolution can also work by removing parts, and this is one way it can arrive at an IC system.

IC only works as an argument against a strawman version of evolution, that can only add parts. this is not the case at all. removal of parts can arrive at IC, and that is not the only way evolution can do the job. evolution can also work by changing or co-opting parts for a different function, and that can also result in IC systems.

 

[caravelair]

=Listen, use logic here. What area of science are Behe and Dembski speaking about and involved in? Astronomy? Geology? No, biology.

actually, dembski is a mathematician and philosopher, not a biologist.

 

[caravelair]

I will even say it again. It is clear that he was referring to biological systems.

yes, he was doing it by using an analogy to something that was not a biological system, mousetraps. how is that any different from what we are doing with the arch example?

You can't take a hunk of rock and try to say it proves the concept is wrong because the evidence you are using is not equivalent to the system you are comparing it with.

neither is a mousetrap equivalent to biological organisms. so how is that any different?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

actually, dembski is a mathematician and philosopher, not a biologist.

Guess What, Behe isn't a biologist either, apparently he wasn't even a biochemist originally but got into it about the time he came up with irreducible inanity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because that is the case. Even the mousetrap example someone had to build the mousetrap.

Were you built in a lab or are you the product of sexual reproduction, a completely biological process? Does your body contain IC systems? Were those systems also the product of sexual reproduction?

Well you didn't do it because your analogies don't disprove anything regarding ID which deals with biological systems, not hunks of rock.

Then why does Behe use chunks of metal and wood (ie mousetrap) to support his argument?

That is fine. I would glad to be on the same level as James. He appears to be smarter than most others on this board.

Then why aren't you or James able to deal with the evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian ear?

I will even say it again. It is clear that he was referring to biological systems. You can analogize items created with intelligent design i.e. mousetraps to life processes or any other dynamic/functional system that is similar to a machine. You can't take a hunk of rock and try to say it proves the concept is wrong because the evidence you are using is not equivalent to the system you are comparing it with.

Why not directly challenge the idea with the observation of an IC system in the fossil record (mammalian middle ear)?

Well to begin with that is a poor example as well. That assumes that some part at least has some function to begin with. There is no guarantee that would occur in a biological system. You are assuming the functionality of the system in that example

Behe makes an even bigger mistake. He assumes that precursors would have not funciton at all, never, nada. When it is shown that precursors could have function, and therefore selectable through natural selection, Behe's argument falls apart. Going back to the mammalian middle ear, the bones if the IC middle ear were once functional as bones in the jaw as support for teeth and as hinges for the jaw.

 

[pittguy579]

the analogy is valid because it demonstrates a flaw in the original argument, which states that you can't build up an IC system by the successive addition of parts.

this is true, take a look at the arch. it could not have been built by the addition of parts, because it would collapse if it wasn't fully complete.

but the arch wasn't built up by the addition of small parts. it was built by removing parts.

the reason this is a valid analogy is because evolution can also work by removing parts, and this is one way it can arrive at an IC system.

IC only works as an argument against a strawman version of evolution, that can only add parts. this is not the case at all. removal of parts can arrive at IC, and that is not the only way evolution can do the job. evolution can also work by changing or co-opting parts for a different function, and that can also result in IC systems.

Analogy is not valid for the reasons I have stated before
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Are you really saying life has become less complex over the eons and that complex systems have become less complex?
So man is really at the end of evolution and every creature before was was superior?
Sure evolution could potentially go in reverse in some instances, but to say the primary engine of evolution works by going in reverse is ridiculous.


The arch is not a v alid analogy

 

[michabo]

Are you really saying life has become less complex over the eons and that complex systems have become less complex?

Occasionally.

So man is really at the end of evolution and every creature before was was superior?

No such thing as "superior" or "end" in evolution.

Sure evolution could potentially go in reverse in some instances, but to say the primary engine of evolution works by going in reverse is ridiculous.

No reverse, but evolution may add as well as remove.

The arch is not a v alid analogy

It isn't an analogy. The arch, as with anything else, may be analyzed to determine if it is IC. This is an essential feature of IC. It's curious that you don't seem to understand this.

 

[random_guy]

No really not joking
I am a theist, but the points people are trying to make in this thread are really quite laughable. I am an engineer by trade and the systems are not equate, not even by a long shot.
James is the only one that has pointed that out

So if you want to hold the arch up as some kind of example. be my guest, but don't be all giddy over it. It proves nothing.

Are they really laughable? What about the point that you said, Dembski was a biologist, when in fact, he's a mathematician? What about the fact that Dembski and Behe both use non-living entities to prove points about ID, but when evolutionists use it, it's not valid? The only thing I find laughable is the refusal to address these points.

 

[BVZ]

The defense for ID has two parts so far.

1) The arch is not a good example. This argument boild down to the fact that the arch is not made up of smaller parts.
2) The arch is not a good example because it is not as complex as, for instance, a biological IC system.

These arguments both indicate a lack of understanding.

Argument 1:
The arch is in fact made up of smaller parts. This is easily testable. If you take ANY object, and you are able to divide it, it is made up of smaller parts. You can take the arch, and remove a chunk of it. This means it is made up of smaller parts. If it was NOT made up of smaller parts, you would be unable to break it apart, or damage it at all.

These parts interact. The topmost part of the arch exerts a force on the parts beneath it. The parts beneath it exerts a force upward, kepping it up there. This force is propogated through the entire structure, kepping it stable, and in balance. This is, in fact a structural support system, and an IC system too, since the removal of some of the parts causes the support system to collapse.

Argument 2:

The arch is IC, as well as unintelligently designed. Thus we have one example of soemthing that is IC, but not designed with intelligence. This destroys one of the pillars of intellegent design theory. The counter argument is this: There are more complex IC systems, like biological ones.

Lets say we have a scale, with the arch on one end, (0) and a biological IC system on the other (10). At complexity level 0, it is IC but not designed, and at complexity level 10 it is IC but designed.

Where exactly on this scale does the one blend into the other? And on that point, is it both, or neither? Basically it is YOUR OPINION that such a point exist, since you have not shown ANY proof for you claim. Before you can show us where this point lies, and how you have calculated its position, we will be forced to keep on explaining to you why you are talking rubbish.

Even if an unintelligently designed biological IC system DID NOT exist, your arguments would mean nothing.

But guess what, an unintelligently designed biological structure DOES exist, and HAS BEEN DEMOSTRATED ON THIS VERY THREAD.

Here it is AGAIN.

Now, you have two choices, either adress the example, or stop defending ID.

 

[b*unique]

Mod hat on

Closed for review

Mod hat off

 

[b*unique]

Mod hat on

Only had time to review the reported posts,so please if you see anything more needing to be dealth with,do not respond,press report button.

I deleted offensive posts,please stop name calling and
IQ remarks,its not clever

Mod hat off

 

[pittguy579]

Are they really laughable? What about the point that you said, Dembski was a biologist, when in fact, he's a mathematician? What about the fact that Dembski and Behe both use non-living entities to prove points about ID, but when evolutionists use it, it's not valid? The only thing I find laughable is the refusal to address these points.

I have addressed them. The only thing I find laughable is your inability to comprehend them. The systems are not equate. That is obvious.

 

[pittguy579]

Occasionally.

Show me this reverse evolution

No such thing as "superior" or "end" in evolution.

Well you are saying evolution works by making the more complex less complex. Are you saying that is the overall direction?

No reverse, but evolution may add as well as remove

See above

It isn't an analogy. The arch, as with anything else, may be analyzed to determine if it is IC. This is an essential feature of IC. It's curious that you don't seem to understand this.

And as I have said, you can call the arch technically IC, but it proves nothing regarding the validity or invalidity of the theory when it comes to dynamic systems which resemble machines and aren't merely chunks of rock.

 

[Edx]

I have addressed them. The only thing I find laughable is your inability to comprehend them. The systems are not equate. That is obvious.

Show us where you have addressed the fact that "Dembski and Behe both use non-living entities to prove points about ID"

Since this has been said several times now, and each time you have replied you have ignored this fact, what you are doing now can only be called dodging. Now can you show us where you have addressed this or not?

 

[pittguy579]

These arguments both indicate a lack of understanding.

Actually your points indicate lack of understanding and a lack of care in reading the posts

Argument 1:
The arch is in fact made up of smaller parts. This is easily testable. If you take ANY object, and you are able to divide it, it is made up of smaller parts. You can take the arch, and remove a chunk of it. This means it is made up of smaller parts. If it was NOT made up of smaller parts, you would be unable to break it apart, or damage it at all.

It is clear that being made up of small parts does not mean it is a dynamic system more akin to a machine than a hunk of matter. That has been our argument. Sothe fact it is made up of small parts doesnt' mean it is a dynamic system

These parts interact. The topmost part of the arch exerts a force on the parts beneath it. The parts beneath it exerts a force upward, kepping it up there. This force is propogated through the entire structure, kepping it stable, and in balance. This is, in fact a structural support system, and an IC system too, since the removal of some of the parts causes the support system to collapse.

See above

The arch is IC, as well as unintelligently designed. Thus we have one example of soemthing that is IC, but not designed with intelligence. This destroys one of the pillars of intellegent design theory. The counter argument is this: There are more complex IC systems, like biological ones.

Doesn't destroy anything. A hunk of rock is not akin to the primary thrust of ID theory

 

[Adriac]

Show us where you have addressed the fact that "Dembski and Behe both use non-living entities to prove points about ID"

Since this has been said several times now, and each time you have replied you have ignored this fact, what you are doing now can only be called dodging. Now can you show us where you have addressed this or not?

QFE

 

[Baggins]

Well you are saying evolution works by making the more complex less complex. Are you saying that is the overall direction?



.

He isn't and if you knew much about what you are arguing about it would be obvious to you.

Evolution doesn't have an overall direction, it can make complex organisms less complex, it can make simple organisms more complex.

All it does make an organism better suited, biologically, to it's environment through differential reproductive success working on mutation.

 

[pittguy579]

He isn't and if you knew much about what you are arguing about it would be obvious to you.

I do know what I am arguing about thank you
His point is grasping for straws.

Evolution doesn't have an overall direction, it can make complex organisms less complex, it can make simple organisms more complex.

So just have him answer my question
Is the overall direction of the evolution adding to complexity or decreasing complexity? You won't answer it because you know the answer is not in your favor.

All it does make an organism better suited, biologically, to it's environment through differential reproductive success working on mutation.

In other words, more complex

 

[Mystman]

I just read about a 100 posts in this thread...

*head explodes*