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

[Mocca]

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.

 

[fromdownunder]

Yes, Paley has a lot to answer for. And Dawkins did.

Norm

 

[shinbits]

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.

While this is a good argument against IC for stone, it fails as an analogy for the brain, eye, DNA molecule, etc., etc.

 

[Mocca]

While this is a good argument against IC for stone, it fails as an analogy for the brain, eye, DNA molecule, etc., etc.

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

 

[USincognito]

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

I think this really is the heart of the failure of IC (well, apart from it's inherent God of the Gaps basis). It doesn't take into account that a system with say 10 steps, developed from a system of 9 steps, etc. Or that a system at one time had 11 steps, but evolved a way to only use 10, thus creating the appearance of IC.

My example is the evolution of the mousetrap.

1. A board with splinters.
2. A board with splinters and a nail in it.
3. A board using the nail as a support/trigger.
4. A board supporting a box with a vestigial nail.
5. The board becomes the base with the nail supporting/triggering the box.
6. The box is replaced with just a frame.
7. A spring is added to the frame.
8. You've evolved a mousetrap.

 

[Mocca]

I think this really is the heart of the failure of IC (well, apart from it's inherent God of the Gaps basis). It doesn't take into account that a system with say 10 steps, developed from a system of 9 steps, etc. Or that a system at one time had 11 steps, but evolved a way to only use 10, thus creating the appearance of IC.

My example is the evolution of the mousetrap.

1. A board with splinters.
2. A board with splinters and a nail in it.
3. A board using the nail as a support/trigger.
4. A board supporting a box with a vestigial nail.
5. The board becomes the base with the nail supporting/triggering the box.
6. The box is replaced with just a frame.
7. A spring is added to the frame.
8. You've evolved a mousetrap.

That example is awesome. It really demonstrates a few of the things I've been talking about: how dependencies can develop, and how uses can change.

Pwnz0r.

 

[jamesrwright3]

8. You've evolved a mousetrap.

Yes, but intelligence was involved in every step of its evolution

 

[Mocca]

Yes, but intelligence was involved in every step of its evolution

If mousetraps were imperfect replicators, where its usefulness to humans increase the chance of reproduction, then no intelligence would be involved.

As you may be able to see, every step along the chain exhibits usefulness.

 

[jamesrwright3]

If mousetraps were imperfect replicators, where its usefulness to humans increase the chance of reproduction, then no intelligence would be involved.

As you may be able to see, every step along the chain exhibits usefulness.

That's great. I guess a stick could evolve too. I could tale it off the tree and use it to trip people or make it into a bat to beat people or put a hook and some string on it it so that I can catch some fish. Every step along the way exhibits usefulnesss

To compare a mousetrap in which intelligence would be involved at every step of the formation process to the life process is ridiculous.

 

[Mocca]

That's great. I guess a stick could evolve too. I could tale it off the tree and use it to trip people or make it into a bat to beat people or put a hook and some string on it it so that I can catch some fish. Every step along the way exhibits usefulnesss

To compare a mousetrap in which intelligence would be involved at every step of the formation process to the life process is ridiculous.

You are ignoring my posts or failing to understand them.

If a stick was an imperfect replicator, where usefulness resulted in a higher reproduction rate, then yes, a stick would evolve.

However, sticks are not imperfect replicators. Usefulnses does not result in a higher reproduction rate.

Organisms are. The usefulness of their parts does result in a higher reproduction rate.

 

[jamesrwright3]

You are ignoring my posts or failing to understand them.

I understand them. It's just a ridiculous analogy as I have indicated. You are literally comparing apples and oranges. The mousetrap example is a little better than the first one, the arch caused by erosion which was utterly ridiculous.

 

[Mocca]

I understand them. It's just a ridiculous analogy as I have indicated. You are literally comparing apples and oranges. The mousetrap example is a little better than the first one, the arch caused by erosion which was utterly ridiculous.

You fail to respond to the rest of my post.

I'll state it again. Sticks and mousetraps are not imperfect replicators. Usefulnses does not result in a higher reproduction rate.

Organisms are. The usefulness of their parts does result in a higher reproduction rate.

Also, would you care to explain why my example of an arch which is completely dependant on all its parts yet still resulted from erosion is completely rediculous?

 

[fromdownunder]

To compare a mousetrap in which intelligence would be involved at every step of the formation process to the life process is ridiculous.

But Behe was arguing that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex in it's present form. Therefore, Behe went on to argue, there is such a thing as irreducible complexity, and some things (manufacured rather than evolved) cannot be made more simple. His conclusion is that certain parts of the body are "irreducibly comples" because a mousetrap is "irreducibly complex"

Since you seem to agree that there is a more simple mouse trap available, you have just refuted Behe. Congratulations! See? It is easy to demolish a creationist argument the way you just did.

Norm

 

[jamesrwright3]

I'll state it again. Sticks and mousetraps are not imperfect replicators. Usefulnses does not result in a higher reproduction rate.

I have never seen a stick replicate other on than a tree or a mousetrap replicate other than in a mousetrap factory.

Organisms are. The usefulness of their parts does result in a higher reproduction rate.

Yes, if I didn't have my arms, legs, or other appendages it would be hard to reproduce.

Also, would you care to explain why my example of an arch which is completely dependant on all its parts yet still resulted from erosion is completely rediculous

It is pretty apparent. If I have to explain, it would be really sad.

 

[Mocca]

I have never seen a stick replicate other on than a tree or a mousetrap replicate other than in a mousetrap factory.

Yes, if I didn't have my arms, legs, or other appendages it would be hard to reproduce.

Exactly. That's my point, yet you fail to see how it applies to my argument.

If sticks and mousetraps worked that way, like organisms do, evolution would happen, like USIncognito stated.

It is pretty apparent. If I have to explain, it would be really sad.

Okay, it's sad. Now explain why it doesn't work.

 

[Mocca]

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.

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 arch is a simple counter-example. It depends on every stone. Remove one, and it falls. Yet, it developed from natural processes.

Therefore, the argument is false.

 

[USincognito]

But Behe was arguing that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex in it's present form. Therefore, Behe went on to argue, there is such a thing as irreducible complexity, and some things (manufacured rather than evolved) cannot be made more simple. His conclusion is that certain parts of the body are "irreducibly comples" because a mousetrap is "irreducibly complex"

Thanks for getting my back while I was AFK, James is missing the forrest for his stick.

My point about the mousetrap wasn't made in a vacuum, it was to refute Behe's IC assertion that mousetraps are an example of irreducable complexity. I wasn't suggesting that mousetraps, or any other mechanical device "evolved." Try and stay on topic will you.

Mocca's point about how, if non-living things imperfectly replicated they would evolve too, like bacterial flagellum and blood clotting sequences, as shown by my mousetrap example and ironically your stick example, is spot on and shows why Behe's IC argument fails both by analogy and by example.

 

[fromdownunder]

Thanks for getting my back while I was AFK, James is missing the forrest for his stick.

My point about the mousetrap wasn't made in a vacuum, it was to refute Behe's IC assertion that mousetraps are an example of irreducable complexity. I wasn't suggesting that mousetraps, or any other mechanical device "evolved." Try and stay on topic will you.

Mocca's point about how, if non-living things imperfectly replicated they would evolve too, like bacterial flagellum and blood clotting sequences, as shown by my mousetrap example and ironically your stick example, is spot on and shows why Behe's IC argument fails both by analogy and by example.

Huh? Where did I say mousetraps evolved, and I did not even mention James' stick.

My argument was that James, in refuting Behe's irreducable complexity (by admitting that a simpler mousetrap is possible, as you pointed out in your original post, makes Behe's argument look silly.

Norm

 

[USincognito]

Huh? Where did I say mousetraps evolved, and I did not even mention James' stick.

You didn't, and sorry for not putting a break in there somewhere. Below the first sentence I was replying to the posts that were made during the hour I was away from my keyboard, not you specifically. I quoted you since you explained the point I was making with the mousetrap example.

The rest was me addressing the topic at large.

 

[Dale]

Shinbits in post #3:
"While this is a good argument against IC for stone, it fails as an analogy for the brain, eye, DNA molecule, etc., etc."

Take the eye. A one celled organism, the paramecium, has an eye spot that detects light and dark. Why can't that be a primitive precursor of the eyes that we have?

Why can't eyes that see black and white evolve into eyes that see color?

Memory and intelligence are of value even when they fall far short of the human level. A mouse has a brain far smaller than a human's but mice remember what does and doesn't work, to a considerable extent. A small amount of intelligence has value and raises the survival rate, which can result in evolving more intelligence.