Question for Evolutionists

dunamis3 · Feb 26, 2007

irreducible complexity

The way I see it every living organism has parts that need each other. A human just like a living cell has a organ that takes food in (mouth) and organ(s) that converts the energy to use it, and organs that get rid of wate. If all the systems are not in place at the same time the living entity could never exist ! Also a organ such as a brain would have be there from the begining to controll all the systems.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Feb 26, 2007

Okay, what is the objective standard for determining when you have an irreducibly complex system?

Aron-Ra · Feb 26, 2007

dunamis3 said:
irreducible complexity

The way I see it every living organism has parts that need each other. A human just like a living cell has a organ that takes food in (mouth) and organ(s) that converts the energy to use it, and organs that get rid of wate. If all the systems are not in place at the same time the living entity could never exist ! Also a organ such as a brain would have be there from the begining to controll all the systems.

The mouth evolved first -from the most stunningly-simple of all adaptations; the earliest animals were literally hollow tubes!

The brain also had very humble beginnings. The mammalian cerebral cortex is biult on the reptile brain, which developed over the [red] amphibian brain, which developed on the [pink] fish brain, which originally began as little more than a knot of notochord.

FishFace · Feb 26, 2007

dunamis3 said:
irreducible complexity

The way I see it every living organism has parts that need each other. A human just like a living cell has a organ that takes food in (mouth) and organ(s) that converts the energy to use it, and organs that get rid of wate. If all the systems are not in place at the same time the living entity could never exist ! Also a organ such as a brain would have be there from the begining to controll all the systems.

Of course, if you think that a human being popped out of a bacterium with nothing in between, then evolution is not going to make sense. You need to study how these systems evolved - what simpler but working versions there were before you pass judgment, since otherwise you'll just look a bit... well... silly.
No-one says that one day a human being with brain, mouth, digestive tract and so on poofed into existence.

RedAndy · Feb 26, 2007

FishFace said:
No-one says that one day a human being with brain, mouth, digestive tract and so on poofed into existence.

Creationists do.

Aron-Ra · Feb 26, 2007

FishFace said:
No-one says that one day a human being with brain, mouth, digestive tract and so on poofed into existence.

Actually, Dr. Periannan Senapathy, (a geneticist formerly with the human genome project) is saying exactly that.

I know; its hard to believe, but there is a legitimate professional, peer-reviewed scientist, -who is not religious, and who does work in a relevant field- yet still proposes a completely crack-pot challenge to evolution; one which actually does posit that all of today's life-forms accidentally fell together molecule-by-molecule and walked out of primordial soup fully-developed and unrelated to anything else.

Now, is he a respected scientist? I hardly think so anymore. How could he be? What he proposes is both extremely ignorant and absurd. In fact I think he's a worse loon than the zealots who usually propose this kind of stuff. But he's really out there, and I thought you should know that.

Danhalen · Feb 26, 2007

^
That's [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]' scary.

FishFace · Feb 26, 2007

Well, I never... I'll eat my words! I presume, however, that his crackpot "science" hasn't been peer-reviewed, however? May be nonetheless interesting.

Tiberius · Feb 26, 2007

dunamis3 said:
irreducible complexity

The way I see it every living organism has parts that need each other. A human just like a living cell has a organ that takes food in (mouth) and organ(s) that converts the energy to use it, and organs that get rid of wate. If all the systems are not in place at the same time the living entity could never exist ! Also a organ such as a brain would have be there from the begining to controll all the systems.

Please read this page and this page. Hopefully they will show you how irreducible complexity is a fundamentally flawed idea.

ReverendDG · Feb 26, 2007

dunamis3 said:
irreducible complexity

The way I see it every living organism has parts that need each other. A human just like a living cell has a organ that takes food in (mouth) and organ(s) that converts the energy to use it, and organs that get rid of wate. If all the systems are not in place at the same time the living entity could never exist ! Also a organ such as a brain would have be there from the begining to controll all the systems.

I don't see how you can believe this, we have examples of animals that have no brains, life that doesn't have a mouth or even organs and can survive
organisms have those parts purely because they work, not because they need them, you seem to only see the end result of this not the progression of the events.

You are making the argument from incredulity, sorry but something isn't wrong or impossible because you can't believe it.
now things can be impossible if they defy reality

Sleeker · Feb 26, 2007

Example of irreducibly complexity:

Step 1: Find human.
Step 2: Remove heart.
Step 3: Watch human die.

See, irreducibly complex. It must've been created with a heart.

Last time I checked, sperm and eggs don't have hearts.

Irreducible complexity debunked.

Upisoft · Feb 27, 2007

Sleeker said:
Example of irreducibly complexity:

Step 1: Find human.
Step 2: Remove heart.
Step 3: Watch human die.

See, irreducibly complex. It must've been created with a heart.

Last time I checked, sperm and eggs don't have hearts.

Irreducible complexity debunked.

I'm not willing to reproduce your experiment!

Schroeder · Feb 27, 2007

aerophagicbricolage said:
There have been no instances of irreducible complexity ever brought forth. Every single instance brought up has been explained. Claims that bacterial flagella, blood clotting, the human eye, etc., are irreducibly complex have all been disproved.

not true.

tocis · Feb 27, 2007

Schroeder said:
not true.

Hic Rhodos. Hic salta.

Schroeder · Feb 27, 2007

tocis said:
I've yet to see any "irreducible complexity". All the examples I've seen so far turned out, upon closer inspection, to be based on either ignoring important facts or misrepresentations of the facts.

Maybe you've got an example of the real thing?

i would view it the other way around. maybe not with all of the examples but some or most. Most of the rebuttals seem very vague. the flagellum uses the TTSS system which is said to have evovled AFTER the flagellum. And then they dont seem to go into much detail of it either. more matter of fact dont need to show actual proof or go into detail.

Aron-Ra · Feb 27, 2007

aerophagicbricolage said:
Claims that bacterial flagella, blood clotting, the human eye, etc., are irreducibly complex have all been disproved.

Schroeder said:

not true.

Click to expand...

Yes it is true. The evolution of the eye was explained in intricate detail on the PBS documentary / biography of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and both the blood-clotting and bacterial flagellum claims were officially refuted on trial in Kitzmiller v Dover.

Schroeder · Feb 27, 2007

Aron-Ra said:
Yes it is true. The evolution of the eye was explained in intricate detail on the PBS documentary / biography of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and both the blood-clotting and bacterial flagellum claims were officially refuted on trial in Kitzmiller v Dover.

well seeing how your the smart one here could you go to trueorigins.org and look up flagellum and the rebuttal they give. I do not know how to bring up th e site address. iused to my sister showed me but i have since forgotten. the address is http://naturalselection.Ocatch.com/files/flagellum.html well maybe i did do it.

Aron-Ra · Feb 27, 2007

Schroeder said:
The evolution of the eye was explained in intricate detail on the PBS documentary / biography of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and both the blood-clotting and bacterial flagellum claims were officially refuted on trial in Kitzmiller v Dover.

Schroeder said:

well seeing how your the smart one here could you go to trueorigins.org and look up flagellum and the rebuttal they give. I do not know how to bring up th e site address. iused to my sister showed me but i have since forgotten. the address is http://naturalselection.Ocatch.com/files/flagellum.html well maybe i did do it.

Click to expand...

That link didn't work. But if it did, how could that dispute a US District court ruling on the arguments for & against irreduceable complexity being carried out by the scientists behind either side themselves? Here is an excerpt from Judge Jones ruling: (emphasis;mine)

Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor missing a part is by definition nonfunctional, what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system. (19:88-95 (Behe)). As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by irreducible complexity renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means. Exaptation means that some precursor of the subject system had a different, selectable function before experiencing the change or addition that resulted in the subject system with its present function (16:146-48 (Padian)). For instance, Dr. Padian identified the evolution of the mammalian middle ear bones from what had been jawbones as an example of this process. (17:6-17 (Padian)).

By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behes claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning: ~~tructures and processes that are claimed to be irreducibly complex typically are not on closer inspection.~~ For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the history of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. P-192 at 22.76

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behes assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.

First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8-20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). None of this research or thinking involves ID. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: were looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And its a legitimate scientific inquiry. (38:16 (Minnich)).

Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins and whales blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17-854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. (1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behes predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behes redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peerreviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition. (20:26-28, 22:112-25 (Behe)).

The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwins Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behes claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not good enough. (23:19 (Behe)).

Ironically, Behe admitted in a separate statement that he literally judged all these books by their covers, assuming them all to be hand-waving speculation. Somehow he was unaware that in so doing, it was he, -and not the scientific community- who was guilty of hand-waving speculation.

We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Behe and Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-one inside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted it. (P-718; 18:125-27 (Behe); 22:102-06 (Behe)). Professor Behe conceded that the proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could, Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design. (22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)).

We therefore find that Professor Behes claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)).

Now, what could "true"Origins possibly say to rebut that?

RedAndy · Feb 27, 2007

Aron-Ra said:
Now, what could "true"Origins possibly say to rebut that?

I predict the words "atheistic" and "conspiracy" may be inferred from any "rebuttal" of your citation.

Aron-Ra · Feb 27, 2007

RedAndy said:
I predict the words "atheistic" and "conspiracy" may be inferred from any "rebuttal" of your citation.

I wouldn't doubt it -despite the fact that the judge and leading evolutionary scientist are both Christians.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Question for Evolutionists

Active Member

Scientist

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Teapot agnostic

Senior Veteran

Healing

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Defeater of Dad and AV1611VET

DON'T PANIC

CEO of a waterfal

Veteran

Warrior of Thor

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Teapot agnostic

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency