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

[Goatboy]

To add to that, the first mention that "the natural course of evolution is that creatures become less complex" is Pittguy in post #146.

Actually post #127

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

(this was a response to "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.")

Also post #134
After the answer "Occasionally" was given to the question in 127 we had it again;

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

(in response to "No such thing as "superior" or "end" in evolution.")

I can't find anyone answering YES to this question, or claiming a direction for evolution (aside from better adapted).

 

[Tomk80]

I am not doing extra work for anyone. The point was already addressed. No one is avoiding anything.

Where?

I am not working for someone else. Will you send me money if I do it? Then I may have the desire to go back through the multiple pages of the thread.

People asked you to provide the point where anyone stated that evolution it's natural course is to become less complex. You wouldn't provide it, so Pseudopod and I searched for it. It doesn't exist. We did your work on this one, how about an exchange?

Otherwise I, for one, can only think one thing. That the post in which you allegedly addressed the issue of why arches can't be used as examples is just as non-existant as the other post you claimed existed.

edited to add: Ah, Goatboy entered in the task of doing your work for you also. How about you return the favor to the three of us and do some of your own work?

 

[caravelair]

I am not doing extra work for anyone. The point was already addressed. No one is avoiding anything.



I am not working for someone else. Will you send me money if I do it? Then I may have the desire to go back through the multiple pages of the thread.

i have already been through the pages of the thread, and done the work myself. i am not asking you to do the work for me, i have already done it! and what i found was nothing. no post at all where you addressed those points. no other participant on this thread has been able to find such a post either.

your refusal to show us where you posted is basically admittance that you never actually addressed the points anywhere on this thread. and the fact that you are playing this game is proof that you have no arguments that can address these points.

so you don't want to go back and search through the thread? fine, then just respond to this post right now instead:

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?

that should take, what, 4 or 5 lines maybe to respond to? that's not too hard is it? and it would certainly prove us all wrong.

oh course, i won't be surprised when that doesn't happen!

we should all thank you, because every post you do further proves the vacuous nature of ID.

 

[pittguy579]

have already been through the pages of the thread, and done the work myself. i am not asking you to do the work for me, i have already done it! and what i found was nothing. no post at all where you addressed those points. no other participant on this thread has been able to find such a post either.

You couldn't have done that because it was already addressed in a previous post.

your refusal to show us where you posted is basically admittance that you never actually addressed the points anywhere on this thread. and the fact that you are playing this game is proof that you have no arguments that can address these points.

Those points were already addressed.

 

[Tomk80]

You couldn't have done that because it was already addressed in a previous post.



No, my refusal is because I am conservative and don't like to give handouts to lazy people such as yourself who are demanding I go back and redo work.
Those points were already addressed.




Nope, the only thing it proves is I don't do work for lazy people.

We do the work. We find that the posts you claim to exist, do in fact not exist. Four posters have done your work now, the evidence is there. Nobody could come up with anything.

That we are not lazy is evidenced by the last four posters who have reread the thread for specific points/posts you made and came up empty handed. It's there for all to see that the posts you claim to be there are in fact non-existant. No amount of personal smear or accusations by you is going to solve that, Pittguy. We can't find it, because it ain't there.

 

[pittguy579]

We do the work. We find that the posts you claim to exist, do in fact not exist. Four posters have done your work now, the evidence is there. Nobody could come up with anything.

Cleary you haven't done the work because those specific points were addressed

That we are not lazy is evidenced by the last four posters who have reread the thread for specific points/posts you made and came up empty handed

Well maybe they need glasses or maybe they didn't really do the work. The specific points were addressed

. It's there for all to see that the posts you claim to be there are in fact non-existant. No amount of personal smear or accusations by you is going to solve that, Pittguy. We can't find it, because it ain't there]

No, they are there. You just choose not to find it

 

[caravelair]

You couldn't have done that because it was already addressed in a previous post.



No, my refusal is because I am conservative and don't like to give handouts to lazy people such as yourself who are demanding I go back and redo work.
Those points were already addressed.




Nope, the only thing it proves is I don't do work for lazy people.

big surprise!

we all know why you refuse to show us where you addressed the points. it's because you can't. it's because nowhere on this thread did you address the points, and you know it!

 

[pittguy579]

big surprise!

we all know why you refuse to show us where you addressed the points. it's because you can't. it's because nowhere on this thread did you address the points, and you know it!

No they are there. It's not my fault you can't read or are too lazy

 

[Edx]

Man, even if I believed in Intelligent Design, I would be embarrassed by Pittguy. If someone was arguing for evolution the way he did, I'd tell him to stop playing games and just answer the damn question or shut the hell up and stop embarrassing us.

 

[Goatboy]

‘kay, best I can find is post #117

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 #119

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

So this counter to a refutation of irreducible complexity basically consists of Pittguy going

You are comparing apples and oranges.

(which, incidentally, is a quote from him in post #127)

Still not sure how that covers the mousetrap example, the mammalian inner ear, or is in any respect a valid objection to the arch example, when analogous irreducibly complex systems are being discussed.

 

[Edx]

No they are there. It's not my fault you can't read or are too lazy

Do you seriously think you have been doing a good job arguing for ID on this thread? What do you think lurkers will think when they witness your behaviour?

 

[pittguy579]

Do you seriously think you have been doing a good job arguing for ID on this thread? What do you think lurkers will think when they witness your behaviour?

I did a better job arguing for ID than you have done against it.

 

[Edx]

I did a better job arguing for ID than you have done against it.

Then you are deluded. Since every single point you raised has had a rebuttle you have simply ignored totally and without comment.

Yes, an arch man-made or natural is not comparable to biological systems. But neither is a mousetrap.

Any lurkers can see this is true, since clearly if you truly think you addressed this point it must be so uttely wrong no one even knows it was related. So are going to show us lowely idiots how exactly you addressed this point? Please Im sure if you can manage pages and pages of telling us you arent going to repeat yourself or do any work you can spare a few sentences. I dont even care if you did or didnt already address this, just as long as you do it now. Your replies for I think 5 pages now has simply been to insult everyone like I remember kids at school used to, there is absolutely no other content you have provided. If you can do that, you can address this point again unless you are lazy or have no point.

 

[pittguy579]

Then you are deluded. Since every single point you raised has had a rebuttle you have simply ignored totally and without comment.

Nope, you are deluded and maybe need a shrink
None of my points has had a valid rebuttal.
Someone tried to say the arch was a valid example of a commensurate system because it was "Evolving" from a hunk of rock into an arch. If that is the best you have, that is laughable

Yes, an arch man-made or natural is not comparable to biological systems. But neither is a mousetrap.

Any engineer will tell you that any system such as a mousetrap is more akin to life than a hunk of rock.

Any lurkers can see this is true, since clearly if you truly think you addressed this point it must be so uttely wrong no one even knows it was related

No, it was right and it was there

If you can do that, you can address this point again unless you are lazy or have no point.

I am lazy. I don't do other people's work

 

[Baggins]

Any engineer will tell you that any system such as a mousetrap is more akin to life than a hunk of rock.

That's why engineers are glorified grease monkeys and shouldn't be allowed in the same debate as real scientists



humour quotations on

Seriously are you going to answer anything here?

You have totally avoided all points about parasites, along with just about everything else.

Or are you just going to continue to weasle your way around claiming to ahve answered everything when it is obvious to everyone that you haven't?

I don't like to bandy the word liar around freely but....................

 

[caravelair]

alright, let me document all of pittguy's posts in this thread to show that he has never addressed these points (as if he wasn't making it painfully obvious all by himself).

specifically, i am looking for a response to the following points:

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?

that was post #124 on page 13, but pittguy started posting on page 12, so we will start there...

He didn't fail to understand. It is others who have failed to understand the example of the arch prove absolutely nothing, at least in terms of biological systems. The best examples of irreducibly complex systems unfortunately come with intelligence being involved i.e. manmade systems.

nope, doesn't address the points in question. let's move on...

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

Well if you want to believe that, that is fine. But it is clear it proves nothing regarding biological systems

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

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.

nope, doesn't address the points either. it must be in a later post!

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

Regardless, some of those early mousetraps are so highly inefficent that the organism would probably die out long before it could sustain itself with mice.

.

Listen, use logic here. What area of science are Behe and Dembski speaking about and involved in? Astronomy? Geology? No, biology. Just because it wasn't EXPLICITLY stated doesn't mean they were trying to say it applied to everything. So no, it wasn't explicitly stated but you have to put everything into context They certaintly weren't talking about rocks, stars, etc.

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.

I wasn't insulting anyone's intelligence. I was simply stating that his posts are on the money. That is all.

the bolded sentence seems to be the closest thing to an answer, but many of us have since pointed out that a mousetrap is not equivalent to a biological organism either, so how is that any different? that is the point that must be addressed, and since you claim that it has been done, it must have been some time after this post... let's see...

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

nope, that doesn't address the point in question. let's keep looking...

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

well what do we have here! page 14, and already pittguy is claiming he has responded to the arguments in question. next post...

Show me this reverse evolution

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

See above

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.

not on the topic in question. next post...

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

See above

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

doesn't address the point that a mousetrap is also not equivalent to a biological organism. next post...

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

not on the topic in question. next post...

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.

No I don't

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.

not on the topic in question. and the last sentence is false, by the way. next post...

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

mostly personal insults. certainly does not address the argument in question...

Cleary it is you.

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

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

I didn't need to learn anything today.

same as above...

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

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

not on the topic in question. next post...

I know and you sound like all of the other ignoramuses on the thread

next post...

I never said inantimate objects. I said systems. A mouse trap has moving parts and has function. A hunk of rock is a hunk of rock, no more, no less.

this is the closest thing i can find to an answer, but as we have pointed out, a mousetrap is not equivalent to a biological organism any more than a rock is, despite the fact that it has moving parts...

And once again, they were already addressed.
I am not going to repeat myself
It's not my fault you have failed to pay attention

this is the very next post on the thread, after the one quoted above. it is responding to an earlier post, and claims that the point has already been addressed prior! where was that done, i wonder...

I never said the arch was not technically irreducibly complex, but such an example proves nothing regarding life and ID theory.

Nope the other side lost this one

doesn't address the point in question...

And if you don't see the differnce, I feel bad for you.

claims a difference in the analogies, but doesn't state what that difference is...

I am not James, but that is besides the points

Reread the thread.

I was simply referring to a post someone else had made

not on topic...

And no one every said the system was not technically IC, but the systems are not equate
So it doesn't prove ID is false when it comes to life systems.

another claim, which doesn't address the fact that a mousetrap does not equate to an organism either...

It is clear I was responding to someone
I am not going to page back through this thread.

another claim that the point was already addressed...

Correlation doesn't mean causation. I don't know James. I am not James

No because I am not going to waste my time going back though the thread. No mistake was made.

more of the same...

Well maybe we could get together and maybe go out on a date lol. No, I don't know him and at least from what he read, he is an underwriter. I am a full time engineering student/TA/Researcher.

not relevant...

It was not ignored. It was addressed already
I am not going to repeat myself

And all I have said is the primary engine of evolution has been towards organisms of greater complexity

Someone said that the arch is an example of IR because it evolved in reverse? An arch can evolve? That is why it is a ridiculous example

Nope, someone else said it

Nothing has contradicted my assertions

It is not for the reasons I have said over and over
It is not my fault people are too dense or too blind to see that the arch proves nothing[/QUOTE]

more naysaying, and claims that the points were already addressed. nothing else...

You really know nothing about me. It's not arrgoance.
It's pointing out the errors others are making

Yes it is. And what we are debating has nothing to do with my engineering experience. I am using simple logic.

I am not ignorant of biological systems. You are the one that is ignorant of biological systems and lack logic and debating skills

Actually everyone knows you're wrong. It is clear the arch example is nothing but a bunch of rubbish and is clear to anyone with an IQ of 75, a dolt, that the systems are not equate and that the arch proves nothing.

nothing of substance once again. next post...

Actually if you don't think the claim is in reality, then you may want to come back to reality

I was COMMENTING about another posted

not relevant. next post...

Nope, already addressed

In previous post.

another claim to have addressed the points...

You aren't being honest. You are bearing false witness by accusing me of something I haven't done.

Nope, no falsehood and no false witnessing
You are desperate and it's showing, stopping to the level of personal attacks

No, I have been truthful and you are the one that is lying and you are bearing false witness

If you can't be honest, avoid replying to my posts


No you have not. You are lying and are totally desperate and are grasping for straws.

Maybe I will send you hooked on phonics and maybe some glasses

Those points were addressed already

I am not going to repeat myself if you can't read

more claims that the point was addressed...

I have not ignored it. It was already addressed. I am not going to go back through the many pages of this thread. If you want to go look for it, be my guest.

Go find my previous post. My response is there.

more of the same...

I am not sure what the post # is. If I knew that, I wouldn't have to spend time searching for it would I?

It was in a previous post
I am not playing kids games. You are playing kids games by saying I didn't do something that I did[/QUOTE]

and more of the same...

I am not doing extra work for anyone. The point was already addressed. No one is avoiding anything.

I am not working for someone else. Will you send me money if I do it? Then I may have the desire to go back through the multiple pages of the thread.

still more...

 

[Baggins]

Actually, is there any logical reason why a mousetrap is moke akin to life than a rock arch?

 

[caravelair]

You couldn't have done that because it was already addressed in a previous post.

No, my refusal is because I am conservative and don't like to give handouts to lazy people such as yourself who are demanding I go back and redo work.
Those points were already addressed.

Nope, the only thing it proves is I don't do work for lazy people.

the same thing again. big surprise! next...

Cleary you haven't done the work because those specific points were addressed

Well maybe they need glasses or maybe they didn't really do the work. The specific points were addressed

No, they are there. You just choose not to find it

next...

No they are there. It's not my fault you can't read or are too lazy

more of the same, but this time, with insult! at least this post will prove that i am not lazy.

I did a better job arguing for ID than you have done against it.

next...

Nope, you are deluded and maybe need a shrink
None of my points has had a valid rebuttal.
Someone tried to say the arch was a valid example of a commensurate system because it was "Evolving" from a hunk of rock into an arch. If that is the best you have, that is laughable

Any engineer will tell you that any system such as a mousetrap is more akin to life than a hunk of rock.

No, it was right and it was there

I am lazy. I don't do other people's work

which brings us totally up to date.

there you have it. documented prood that pittguy has not responded to the points in question.

 

[pittguy579]

That's why engineers are glorified grease monkeys and shouldn't be allowed in the same debate as real scientists

Well if real scientists think what you do, that a rock formation proves something, then I feel bad for the state of science. Engineers may be grease monkeys, but at least they are not fairy tale writers and spin doctors.

You have totally avoided all points about parasites, along with just about everything else.

Those were addressed. Did I say that EVOLUTION WORKS IN A FORWARD MANNER EVERY SINGLE TIME?
No I did not. I said the general progression has been towards creatures of greater complexity.

I don't like to bandy the word liar around

I know because you have it written on your forehead. It must be hard to look into the mirror

 

[Baggins]

Those were addressed. Did I say that EVOLUTION WORKS IN A FORWARD MANNER EVERY SINGLE TIME?
No I did not. I said the general progression has been towards creatures of greater complexity.

Then how do you adrress the point ( that has also been made alreday in this thread at least once ) that bacteria, by any measure, are the most numerous and successful organisms on earth?

There has been no drive towards greater complexity on earth, that is just a fallacy dictated by your humancentric ( or multi-cellular-life-centric ) view on the world.

Again you look at the world as an engineer. You look at the big complex life forms in wonder, you ignore all those tiny insignificant organisms that are the bulk of life on earth.

Perhaps if you'd had a better scientific education you'd be able to see why your arguments are not valid.

Sadly you don't really know what you are talking about and you are too arrogant to admit error.

But carry on you make science look good and ID look bad to all the lurkers out there and that is a valuable job you're doing, cheers