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

[Goatboy]

Any lurkers looking to skip to the meat of all this would be well served by going to posts 116 & 117.

The kernel of the problem can be seen there.

Mocca #116 -

Our analogy didn't attempt to "say anything about biological systems." The point of the analogy was to refute Behe's and Dembinski's claims about Irreducible Complexity.

Pittguy #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.

So showing IC objects can arise, by subtraction, without intelligence disproves nothing about ID…

apparently…

according to Pittguy, anyway.

M‘kay.

(Y'all have a fun evening, I'm off for some beer )

 

[pittguy579]

]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?

Are you saying that the general direction of evolution has not been towards creatures of greater complexity?
The fact that creatures evolved further after that doesn't mean the older creatures necessarily were replaced. They are still there. So the fact that bacteria are still alive prove nothing. It would be like saying well since monkeys are still alive, it doesn't mean we evolved from them

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.

I will tell that to the protocells in the primoridal soup

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.

That is not the case. I see the big picture

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

Actually it's sad that others with supposedly greater education in science don't see the points they are making are invalid or erroneuous

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

Actually it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about. You may be too dense to admit error

 

[Split Rock]

The fact that creatures evolved further after that doesn't mean the older creatures necessarily were replaced. They are still there. So the fact that bacteria are still alive prove nothing. It would be like saying well since monkeys are still alive, it doesn't mean we evolved from them

As I and others have stated earlier, because life started as unicellular, it had no way to produce less complex organisms (if we define complexity on the basis of number of cells, or cell types), so there was a trend over time toward an increase in complexity. However, this was not directed since there was only way to go. Now that multicellular organisms have evolved, we do not even see a trend toward increased complexity anymore.

Do you see the difference between a directed progress toward complexity and an undirected process that starts simple and is constrained to go in only one direction (toward complexity)?

If there is a directed progress toward increasing complexity, shouldn't we see a reduction in the number of less complex organisms?

 

[Edx]

Nope, you are deluded and maybe need a shrink

Im not the one hand waving away points and playing silly childish games just so I dont have to do any work.

You did also say this:

"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. "

When replying to caravelair, who never said evolution could go in reverse. Yet instead of admitting your error you just pretend someone did say it, but cannot even provide a name. Creatures loosing features (like cave species) is not evolution going in reverse.

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

If you put it like that, it is laughable. But I commend you on actually trying to discuss the subject instead of following your same pattern you have been on for pages. See below.

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

An "engineer", as you pointed out earlier in the thread is not a biologist and that is the field that Behe and Dembski are in, which is what you said.

Now, also according to you, the reason why the arch is not a valid argument against ID is, and I quote you...

"The only thing I find laughable is your inability to comprehend them. The systems are not equate"

The systems, IE, life and a mousetrap "DO NOT EQUATE" either.

Mousetraps are not living organisms and cannot be compared to a living organism, remember my toaster analogy?

Reading back on the thread, I see you dont really understand the point of calling systems Irreducibly complex. An IC system is just that. You cant take parts away from it in its currect state. Thats all it means. Its what Behe and Dembski do with this idea that matters.

Behe and Dembski say the system had to be created all at once or the system fails. But even man-made systems werent created all at once. The modern car wasnt always that complex, if you keep going back further and further the car had a very simple design. So clearly their argument cannot use human machines as comparable with living systems.

Behe and Dembski say that IC systems are a HALLMARK of design. So they say, if we find any system that is irreducibly complex, it must have been designed. Thats why IC is so important to them. So they compare living systems to mousetraps and other man-made machines in order to illustrate this point. The problem with this as I have already pointed out above is many man-made machines DIDNT get created "all at once".

And so that brings me onto the most important point of all: The fact is living things evolve, they are not static machines that do not reproduce. So the issue is that the IDists claim that we can look at a living system that seems to be "irreducibly complex" and conclude that it must have been designed.

Because thats the reason for them coming up with Irreducibly Complexity in the first place, thats what they want to be able to say we can do when looking at a living system. But there is no logical basis for their assumption.

 

[michabo]

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

Because a moustrap is intelligently designed and a rock arch is just a hunk of rock, of course.

 

[Edx]

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.

And bacteria are hardly insignificant either! Without bacteria we would all die!

 

[pittguy579]

As I and others have stated earlier, because life started as unicellular, it had no way to produce less complex organisms (if we define complexity on the basis of number of cells, or cell types), so there was a trend over time toward an increase in complexity. However, this was not directed since there was only way to go. Now that multicellular organisms have evolved, we do not even see a trend toward increased complexity anymore.

All depends by what you mean by more complex now
Supposedly U Chicago is saying brains are getting larger over time and hence the trademark of greater complexity, intelligence, is increasing.

If there is a directed progress toward increasing complexity, shouldn't we see a reduction in the number of less complex organisms?

Not necessarily, not if the pressures on those creatures do not cause them to become extinct.

 

[Edx]

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

Yes, I think so.. A mousetrap is a machine, a very simple machine but a machine. The rock arch is rock molded out of the elements.

pittguy says is that since a mousetrap is closer to a life system therefore it is a valid comparison. What he doenst seem to understand, or want to understand, is that just because it is closer to a living system doesnt mean it is in any way comparable, since:

1. Man-made machines dont reproduce themselves as imperfect replicators.
2. Because of 1, they are not subject to selective process'.
3. IC as logic was developed by Behe for the sole reason of being able to say, look, this system is also IC therefore we can assume it is very likley designed.

IDists ignore point 1 and 2, so they have no reason to make their assumption in point 3.

That is the reason why mousetraps are not a valid comparison.

Now, I dont think a rock is akin to life, but I do think it is akin to the ID argument.

It is irreducibly complex, in that if you remove part of it it will all fall apart. If you ignore the process of how the rock formed, you would have to say it must have been created all at once. Which sounds absurd but that is what IDists do with life! But even if they were correct, their assumption is not based on sound scientific reason but on flawed unsupported logic. IC is not a way to detect design, but that is what Behe and Dembski say it can do.

 

[Baggins]

All depends by what you mean by more complex now
Supposedly U Chicago is saying brains are getting larger over time and hence the trademark of greater complexity, intelligence, is increasing.




Not necessarily, not if the pressures on those creatures do not cause them to become extinct.

It's painful watching you try to think.

I don't think your brain has got any larger

Does anyone else have the monty python sketch about the witch brought to mind?

"What else floats ?"

"a duck! "

By what bench mark do you want to measure and increase in complexity of the planets life?

Biomass
Number of species
breadth of habitat?

How would you measure this supposed increase in complexity?

You can't just say, there were simple organisms and then there were more complex ones, because that is a one time increase, it happened once. Where is this continued drive towards complexity that you claim to see?

 

[pittguy579]

]It's painful watching you try to think.

I don't think your brain has got any larger

It's certainly larger than yours. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about

You can't just say, there were simple organisms and then there were more complex ones, because that is a one time increase, it happened once. Where is this continued drive towards complexity that you claim to see?

I guess you see no drive towards greater complexity. Hominids are no more complex than a lizard or a protocell. What was a I thinking LOL Whether it was directed or not is irrelevant.

 

[Split Rock]

All depends by what you mean by more complex now
Supposedly U Chicago is saying brains are getting larger over time and hence the trademark of greater complexity, intelligence, is increasing.

Are they claiming that human brains are geting larger? Do you have a link or reference?

Yes, a definition of complexity would be helpful here. You seem to be saying that intelligence is a measure of complexity, and therefore human evolution shows this direction toward complexity you are talking about. Yet, you are focusing on one group of animals... the primates. What about all the rest?

 

[steen]

With all the incredibly stupid denials from this court jester, I feel we should leave the village fool for those who like futile arguments.

 

[OdwinOddball]

WARNING!​

This thread has been declared a No Logic Zone

Readers are warned that prolonged exposure can cause drastic reduction in brain cell count. Symptoms include sudden urges to smash your forehead into your desk, wall or other hard surface; and flashbacks to childhood R2-D2 fights.

In case of cerebral hemmorage, immediately throw your monitor through the nearest availible window, and contact your local mental health professional for a full frontal lobotomy.​

 

[pittguy579]

Are they claiming that human brains are geting larger? Do you have a link or reference?

Here is a link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9258970/

Yes, a definition of complexity would be helpful here. You seem to be saying that intelligence is a measure of complexity, and therefore human evolution shows this direction toward complexity you are talking about. Yet, you are focusing on one group of animals... the primates. What about all the rest?

Well if you believe in evolution, every animal had a common ancestor, early life. Whether they are in the same species or class is irrelevant for all intents in purposes. Life itself has grown more complex.

Intelligence would be a good measure, but not the only measure. We went from cells with no brain, to smaller creatures.. to large lizards with small brains and then mammals and then here we are. That is a oversimplification but that is the general idea. I would argue that the evolution of mammals has yielded creatures of greater intelligence overall. If you are looking at a specific physiciological feature, look at brain development and possibly the ration of brain size to body size.

 

[pittguy579]

With all the incredibly stupid denials from this court jester, I feel we should leave the village fool for those who like futile arguments.

Well if I am stupid, you are definitely stupider
Have a nice day

 

[random_guy]

Are you saying that the general direction of evolution has not been towards creatures of greater complexity?
The fact that creatures evolved further after that doesn't mean the older creatures necessarily were replaced. They are still there. So the fact that bacteria are still alive prove nothing. It would be like saying well since monkeys are still alive, it doesn't mean we evolved from them

Yet you make the same mistake. Bacteria, humans, bananas have all been evolving the same amount of time. You continue to think that evolution has some sort of ladder of progression with humans on top, when in fact, it's a tree. That's my point. You continue to think that humans have evolved more than bacteria, but this isn't true at all.

 

[pittguy579]

]Yet you make the same mistake. Bacteria, humans, bananas have all been evolving the same amount of time.

So humans have been on the planet the same amount of time as single celled organisms? I didn't know that. I must have missed that in my biology class.

You continue to think that evolution has some sort of ladder of progression with humans on top, when in fact, it's a tree. That's my point. You continue to think that humans have evolved more than bacteria, but this isn't true at all

Fine, its a tree with humans on top.
Maybe the right word isn't complex, but advanced
Either way it's still the same. Humans are more advanced than baceteria, dinosaurs, sloths, apes dogs, cats, goats, manatees, and even earthworms.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Fine, its a tree with humans on top.
Maybe the right word isn't complex, but advanced
Either way it's still the same. Humans are more advanced than baceteria, dinosaurs, sloths, apes dogs, cats, goats, manatees, and even earthworms.

 

[pittguy579]

And as I said, it is a tree with humans at the top
To deny that is ridiculous

 

[michabo]

And as I said, it is a tree with humans at the top
To deny that is ridiculous

Paramecium are also at the top. All species who are still alive are at the top.


You know, it has been pointed out why there appears to be a direction to evolution towards complexity, but why this is a false impression created by random changes with a fixed lower limit. I've never seen you respond. Why not?