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

[Baggins]

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.

It is neither, why is this so difficult for you to grasp

In other words, more complex

Wrong wrong wrong.

Better adapted to the environment does not mean more complex.

A good example of this are parasites, often far simpler than free living organisms of the same type, but better adapted to their environment.


It is not a difficult concept, surely you can grasp it.

As with many people who seem to have religious objections to evolution you are stuck on this idea that evolution is a drive toward greater complexity, but that patently isn't the case, the most succesful organisms on earth, by almost any measure, are bacteria.

 

[Split Rock]

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

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.

In other words, more complex

The question has been answered a number of times. Evolution can either add or subtract; it can make structures simpler or more complex. There is no "direction." A good example of this is the evolution of parasites. Parasites have simpler digestive and sensory systems compared to the species they evolve from. Yet, they often have more complex reproductive systems. Are they more "complex," as a species or are they "simpler?"

If you look at the history of life, yes there is an overall trend toward the evolution of multicellular life. However, that is only because life started out as unicellular and therefore had only one way to expand... in the multicellular direction. On the other hand, there are as many, if not more unicellular species today as in the past.

So, is there a direction for evolution today, now that we have mulitcellular life? The answer I would say is no. Life is not necessarily getting any more complex over time.

 

[Baggins]

I do know what I am arguing about thank you

No you don't, you are pretty clueless.

The fact that you ask to be shown examples of reverse evolution rather proves it, I mean what is that supposed to be?

read the 2 posts above

I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make, but you have a very basic misunderstanding of what the Theory of Evolution states.

Don't be ashamed many people share this same fallacy about an increase in complexity.

But I hope we have sorted that out for you now.

 

[michabo]

Show me this reverse evolution

As has been said, there is no "reverse" evolution. As selection may add or remove features, organisms may get simpler or more complex (no matter how you define this). Because there is a fixed lower limit in terms of complexity, random changes will tend to create a long right-hand tail in terms of complexity, but this is the extent of it.

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.

If an arch meets all of the necessary and sufficient criteria for IC, then it is very relevant. It demonstrates that these criteria are an inadequate tool to probe for intelligent design.

You are just saying "the arch isn't designed". I agree. And yet Behe's criteria would say that it is designed. When using a method leads to incorrect conclusions, we must abandon the method.

 

[BVZ]

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

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

A system does not need to be dynamic to be an IC system. Certain IC systems only work when they DO NOT move, like the arch. Structural support systems are IC quite often, like scaffolding, buildings, and of course, arches.

I dont know where you got the idea that only dynamic systems can be irreducibly conplex. If you are a supporter of ID, maybe you should know what it actually sais? (Since you are a supporter of it?)

See above

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

OK. Im going to explain this SLOOWLY.

It says the following: Certain systems are IC, which means that they cannot evolve naturally.

For this argument to work, IC needs to IMPLY intelligent design. It has to be shown that it is impossible for an IC system to come into existence WITHOUT intelligence guiding it.

It is important that there be no exceptions, since if exceptions exist, how would you know if a newly discovered system is an exception or not?

In other words, lets say you discover a new system. You determine that it is irreducibly complex. Now, you would like to come to the conclusion that it has been intelligently designed based on the fact that it is irreducibly complex. But if there are known irreducibly complex systems that ARE NOT INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED, how would you know the system you have discovered is not one of these?

You wont.

And guess what, IC systems that are NOT INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED have been found. Like the inner ear example provided by Loudmouth earlier.

Even if the arch does not adress the 'primary thrust' of ID, the inner ear example sure does. And the arch does explain it, by the way, even if you don't understand it.

So, this is what you will have to do to win this argument. Its very simple.

Adress the inner ear example.

Thats it. Just adress it.

If you don't everyone here, including the lurkers, will have no other option that coming to the conclusion that you don't really have an argument.

 

[pittguy579]

No you don't, you are pretty clueless.

Sorry you are the one that is clueless.

The fact that you ask to be shown examples of reverse evolution rather proves it, I mean what is that supposed to be?

I don't know. Ask the person who first said the natural course of evolution is that creatures have become less complex. I thought that was a pretty stupid statement myself I simply wanted examples. It appears to me that the natural course of evolution is creatures have become more complex over time. If I am wrong. show me how I am wrong.

I don't know what sort of point you are trying to make, but you have a very basic misunderstanding of what the Theory of Evolution states.

No I don't

Don't be ashamed many people share this same fallacy about an increase in complexity.

He said creatures evolved by taking FEATURES AWAY.
Are you saying that is the case? That defies common sense and logic. In order to adapt, features need to be changed or added.

 

[Baggins]

Sorry you are the one that is clueless.

I don't know. Ask the person who first said the natural course of evolution is that creatures have become less complex. I thought that was a pretty stupid statement myself I simply wanted examples. It appears to me that the natural course of evolution is creatures have become more complex over time. If I am wrong. show me how I am wrong.

He said creatures evolved by taking FEATURES AWAY.
Are you saying that is the case?

I fear you are rather out of your depth in this argument aren't you?

If you think someone posted that the natural course of evolution was to the less complex why don't you post a quote.

I think what people are trying to tell you but you seem unable to grasp is that evolution can lead to simpler forms, and that evolution can remove features, not that it always proceeds this way


You have been told a few times now that there is no one path of evolution to either greater or lesser complexity, that both things happen because evolution is not about complexity but about fitness to environment.

Can you aknowledge that you have inderstood that point?



The thing that shows you you are wrong about evolution moving always to greater complexity is:

parasites, simpler , usually, than free living forms

The thing that proves that evolution can remove utility/features is:

cave species, which often lose pigmentation and eyes becaus ethey have no utility in total darkness

Do you understand that?

That defies common sense and logic. In order to adapt, features need to be changed or added.

It may defy your common sense and understanding of logic, but it doesn't defy reality or the theory of evolution.

Perhaps you don't know as much about this subject as you thought you did

 

[pittguy579]

]I fear you are rather out of your depth in this argument aren't you?

You are the one that doesn't have a clue.

If you think someone posted that the natural course of evolution was to the less complex why don't you post a quote.

I guess you have problems reading and comprehending. It is pretty clear. Go read the thead.

I think what people are trying to tell you but you seem unable to grasp is that evolution can lead to simpler forms, and that evolution can remove features, not that it always proceeds this way

Are you saying the direction of evolution is not towards greater complexity? And evoltution primarily works by taking things away? Don't be so dense.




Can you aknowledge that you have inderstood that point?

The thing that proves that evolution can remove utility/features is:

cave species, which often lose pigmentation and eyes becaus ethey have no utility in total darkness

Do you understand that?

Does that mean they have become less complex? No, it means they have changed some of their features. They are still there. If I have a red crayon or a blue crayon, I still have a crayon. Color is irrelelvant. Do they lose any functionality or lose entire appendages?

It may defy your common sense and understanding of logic, but it doesn't defy reality or the theory of evolution.

I was simply stating the natural course of evolution has not gone in a reverse direction by taking features away. It has worked by adding features. Whether that is required by evolution or not is irrelevant, but to deny that evolution hasn't resulted in creatures of greater complexity and to say that has occured by taking features away is pretty stupid.

Perhaps you don't know as much about this subject as you thought you did

I know more than you do

 

[Baggins]

You are the one that doesn't have a clue.



I guess you have problems reading and comprehending. It is pretty clear. Go read the thead.



Are you saying the direction of evolution is not towards greater complexity? And evoltution primarily works by taking things away? Don't be so dense.




Can you aknowledge that you have inderstood that point?



Does that mean they have become less complex? No, it means they have changed some of their features. They are still there. If I have a red crayon or a blue crayon, I still have a crayon. Color is irrelelvant. Do they lose any functionality or lose entire appendages?



I was simply stating the natural course of evolution has not gone in a reverse direction by taking features away. It has worked by adding features. Whether that is required by evolution or not is irrelevant, but to deny that evolution hasn't resulted in creatures of greater complexity and to say that has occured by taking features away is pretty stupid.



I know more than you do

I'll let others be the judge of that, I think most people here will be able to see who is clueless.

And no I never said evolution is primarily about the removal of features, anyone with normal reading comprehension reading my post could tell that.

Have you grasped the point that evolution is not about the loss or gain of complexity? No one has told you evolution is about the loss of complexity or its gain, they've told you that both happen and it doesn't matter

If you've managed to grasp that one point, you'll have learnt something today

A novel experience I'll wager sorry couldn't resist


If you don't think this is true try to explain the the loss of complexity in parasitical organisms

I notice you didn't address that point, no answer for it?

 

[pittguy579]

I'll let others be the judge of that, I think most people here will be able to see who is clueless.

Cleary it is you.

And no I never said evolution is primarily about the removal of features, anyone with normal reading comprehension reading my post could tell that.

Then tell others in the thread who seem to think that.

Have you grasped the point that evolution is not about the loss or gain of complexity? No one has told you evolution is about the loss of complexity or its gain, they've told you that both happen and it doesn't matter

Are you seriously that dense? I never said evolution necessitates complexity, but that is what we have seen. Evolution has not worked primarily by taking features away. Rarely have we seen a regression in complexlity. You don't see genetic code being erased in the more complex creatures. It can become suppressed, but it is still there

If you've managed to grasp that one point, you'll have learnt something today

I didn't need to learn anything today.

 

[Edx]

pittguy579, following another page of your replies you have still failed to address the post below.

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?

 

[Split Rock]

Are you seriously that dense? I never said evolution necessitates complexity, but that is what we have seen. Evolution has not worked primarily by taking features away. Rarely have we seen a regression in complexlity. You don't see genetic code being erased in the more complex creatures. It can become suppressed, but it is still there

Would you please define complexity? Are you claiming that DNA has to be lost for a decrease in complexity to occur? Are you further claiming that if a gene becomes none functional, that there is no change in complexity?

Snakes evolved from lizards that lost their legs and one lung. Is this a decrease in complexity?

Arabidopsis has a genome smaller than more primitive plants, such as ferns and mosses. Is that a decrease in complexity?

Frogs have larger genomes than humans do... does this mean they are more complex?

I didn't need to learn anything today.

That is a poor attitute to have

 

[Tomk80]

This:

Cleary it is you.

followed by:

Then tell others in the thread who seem to think that.

Nobody in this thread has stated or thought that evolution is primarily about losing features. You are the only one who did, Pittguy579. I'll repeat it. You are the only one who did.

Are you seriously that dense? I never said evolution necessitates complexity, but that is what we have seen. Evolution has not worked primarily by taking features away. Rarely have we seen a regression in complexlity. You don't see genetic code being erased in the more complex creatures. It can become suppressed, but it is still there

Nobody said so. But as Gould has pointed out, if starting from a certain point in evolution we often see an equal amount of creatures gaining features and losing features. Many creatures in the fossil record evolve toward a parasitic lifestyle, where many features are often not necessary and hence, lost.

I didn't need to learn anything today.

You really, really need to learn quite a lot. Maybe if you started by accepting that you really don't know as much as you think you do? And reading carefully? Reading carefully seems a good place to start, as you have serious miscomprehensions on what other people have said here.

 

[Edx]

Anyone else think pittguy sounds an awful lot like jamesrwright?

 

[Tomk80]

Anyone else think pittguy sounds an awful lot like jamesrwright?

Ignorance all sounds alike

 

[Edx]

Ignorance all sounds alike

Im refering to his attitude.

 

[Kripost]

How is 'complexity' measured?

 

[Baggins]

I didn't need to learn anything today.

You are a spoit brat what ever age you are and you are going on ignore.

You are arrogant, ignorant, and are only here to bait people into arguing with you.

Goodbye

 

[michabo]

I don't know. Ask the person who first said the natural course of evolution is that creatures have become less complex. I thought that was a pretty stupid statement myself I simply wanted examples.

Judging by the context of your statements, I can think of several examples of creatures becoming smaller, losing features.

- shrimp or spiders or fish in caves who lose their eyes

- whales and snakes and some lizards who have lost their legs

- any of the flightless birds who have attrophied or non-existant wings (dodos, emus, ostriches, etc.)

- any number of hoved animals who have lost toes to fuse into a single hoof or a cloven hoof. Also see dogs with their dew claw

- most birds who have lost their teeth, or retain teeth only to break out of their shells.


These are macroscopic examples and you should be familliar with many of them.

BTW: don't say that I was talking about "reverse evolution". I've repeatedly said that there is no such thing, so it is dishonest to pin that on me. It was you that thought up the term, presumably to ridicule me.

It appears to me that the natural course of evolution is creatures have become more complex over time. If I am wrong. show me how I am wrong.

As I said, since there is a fixed lower limit in terms of complexity, any random changes will tend to shift the peak of the complexity curve (however it is defined) to the right and create a very long right-hand tail. So from our perspective, living well into the right-hand tail, things do like like they are getting bigger and more complex. This is an illusion.

That defies common sense and logic. In order to adapt, features need to be changed or added.

Features are expensive for organisms to build and maintain. When no longer useful, evolution will favour organisms that have atrophied features so that energy and resources are not wasted producing them.

 

[pittguy579]

Nobody in this thread has stated or thought that evolution is primarily about losing features. You are the only one who did, Pittguy579. I'll repeat it. You are the only one who did.

LOL I am arguing against it. I am not the one who said it. Your statement is in error.

You really, really need to learn quite a lot. Maybe if you started by accepting that you really don't know as much as you think you do? And reading carefully? Reading carefully seems a good place to start, as you have serious miscomprehensions on what other people have said here.[

Nope, don't need to learn anything. I do know what I am talking about.

I think you should read carefully. I was simply responding to the absurd notions of others in the thread