Irreducible Complexity
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
MikeM

Los Angeles, CA

#1 Mar 9, 2014
My take on the issue of Irreducible Complexity

http://youtu.be/1xeQMlWUu1Q#aid=P82jevNDD_A

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2 Mar 9, 2014
I watched your video, but its not really convincing.

Making the "burden of proof" for evolution the requirement that every single step in a particular structure be known is not credible. We do have fossil evidence for similarly complex transformations, such as the gradual development of the 3-boned middle ear from the jaw bones of reptiles. Thus from the limited examples we know of, we can still generalise that in principle, the process of evolution can cause profound transformations.

So while you are correct that complexity was a problem that evolution was supposed to answer, its only necessary to provide an example, as proof of concept, not to explain every single feature of modern animals and plants down to the finest detail.

You also underestimate genetic drift as a factor. Mutations providing variation that at the time is neither advantageous or deleterious can potentially provide a basis for some advantage in the future. e.g., with Lenski's citrate digesting E coli, the ability was a result of 2 mutations many generations apart. Now, the first one would be neutral and look like pure drift, having no positive or negative effect. But when the second mutation occurred independently, the old and new mutations together offered an advantage.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#3 Mar 9, 2014
Added to the above, sexual recombination in more advanced creatures can make up for the "dramatic slowing" you cited for creatures with longer lives and lower populations.

In Lenski's experiment, only the clonal offspring of the first mutation could ever benefit from the second one. But with sexual recombination, genetic changes from any of the ancestral stock can recombine. This dramatically increases opportunities for symbiotic novel gene combinations to come together. It also tends to weed out deleterious mutations more actively (truncation).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
I watched your video, but its not really convincing.
Making the "burden of proof" for evolution the requirement that every single step in a particular structure be known is not credible.
Indeed. IC is a *positive* claim made by the IDCers, claiming that a particular pathway to a particular function isn't possible. Since they'd have to do this for every conceivable pathway to every conceivable function along with every conceivable (and INconceivable) DNA configuration, I imagine the IDCers would have their work cut out for them. Especially when one takes into consideration that something like cytochrome C has 10^93 potential functional configurations alone.

IC = Fundie's wet dream.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#5 Mar 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. IC is a *positive* claim made by the IDCers, claiming that a particular pathway to a particular function isn't possible. Since they'd have to do this for every conceivable pathway to every conceivable function along with every conceivable (and INconceivable) DNA configuration, I imagine the IDCers would have their work cut out for them. Especially when one takes into consideration that something like cytochrome C has 10^93 potential functional configurations alone.
IC = Fundie's wet dream.
I think I have posted exactly what you just said about 400 times in the last 5 years. IC fails in principle unless every possible pathway has been ruled out. i.e. Behe thinks he is God.

The video presented took a slightly different approach though. He was claiming that since evolution made the positive claim that it can explain complexity, it had to explain step by tiny step every single development in a structure such as the mammalian eye, from the first eye patch. As in, mutation by mutation from start to finish.

So his approach was to demand an unreasonable standard of proof for evolution, not explicitly to endorse ID.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#6 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I have posted exactly what you just said about 400 times in the last 5 years. IC fails in principle unless every possible pathway has been ruled out. i.e. Behe thinks he is God.
The video presented took a slightly different approach though. He was claiming that since evolution made the positive claim that it can explain complexity, it had to explain step by tiny step every single development in a structure such as the mammalian eye, from the first eye patch. As in, mutation by mutation from start to finish.
So his approach was to demand an unreasonable standard of proof for evolution, not explicitly to endorse ID.
It took me a while to realize that IC is essentially like immortality. You can never know if it is in fact occurring. Your posts have been very helpful in coming to that realization. Thanks.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#7 Mar 10, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I have posted exactly what you just said about 400 times in the last 5 years. IC fails in principle unless every possible pathway has been ruled out. i.e. Behe thinks he is God.
The video presented took a slightly different approach though. He was claiming that since evolution made the positive claim that it can explain complexity, it had to explain step by tiny step every single development in a structure such as the mammalian eye, from the first eye patch. As in, mutation by mutation from start to finish.
So his approach was to demand an unreasonable standard of proof for evolution, not explicitly to endorse ID.
To be honest I didn't watch the video, as as soon as he mentioned IC (an undemonstrable anti-evolution argument with zero science behind it) I knew there was no point. IC tends to be automatically linked to ID however, although you're right that IC only really talks about evolution and as an argument makes no support for ID unless ID is assumed by default.

It certainly is an unreasonable standard of proof however. The fundies want a step by step, organism by organism, mutation by mutation account for every single species lineage that has ever lived for the entire history of this planet (which spans almost 4 billion years) before they would be convinced. By that standard we could demand they tell us every meal that Jesus had for 33 years and say he never existed unless they can do that. We can't even do that for Julius Ceasar and he was a real guy. What they don't understand is that while evolution can't provide the unreasonable level of detail they demand (no theory can in any field) it CAN make the prediction that what is found should be consistent with evolutionary hierarchies, and that is something it does successfully. So far no other theory has been proposed that can do that.

So no, evolution can't provide countless trillions of steps over 3.8 billion years, but it can provide with enough steps through which biology can make successful predictions. By comparison, IDCers can't provide even ONE step.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#8 Mar 10, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
To be honest I didn't watch the video, as as soon as he mentioned IC (an undemonstrable anti-evolution argument with zero science behind it) I knew there was no point. IC tends to be automatically linked to ID however, although you're right that IC only really talks about evolution and as an argument makes no support for ID unless ID is assumed by default.
It certainly is an unreasonable standard of proof however. The fundies want a step by step, organism by organism, mutation by mutation account for every single species lineage that has ever lived for the entire history of this planet (which spans almost 4 billion years) before they would be convinced. By that standard we could demand they tell us every meal that Jesus had for 33 years and say he never existed unless they can do that. We can't even do that for Julius Ceasar and he was a real guy. What they don't understand is that while evolution can't provide the unreasonable level of detail they demand (no theory can in any field) it CAN make the prediction that what is found should be consistent with evolutionary hierarchies, and that is something it does successfully. So far no other theory has been proposed that can do that.
So no, evolution can't provide countless trillions of steps over 3.8 billion years, but it can provide with enough steps through which biology can make successful predictions. By comparison, IDCers can't provide even ONE step.
I do watch some of these videos just as I have gone to the sites recommended by guys like Urban Cowboy. That whole battle over thermodynamics was based on me reading the actual source and taking him to task on it. But anyway, I guess the point I try to get to is not refuting at a level they will reject anyway, but to go down to the basic suppositions. For example, I think many opponents argue from consequences, ie evolution means society falls apart. So argue the science all we want, they will reject it if they fear it will - to use a recent example - make their kids commit suicide. Of course. We keep arguing the facts of the case but forget the real fears that we are arguing against....

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#9 Mar 10, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It took me a while to realize that IC is essentially like immortality. You can never know if it is in fact occurring. Your posts have been very helpful in coming to that realization. Thanks.
My latest efforts at immortality are based on the paleolithic ( evolutionary) diet. Not the one juiced up in the media and then attacked, of course. Enough to say that saturated fat is good, vegetable oils and whole grains and sugar not, etc. What we evolved eating, is probably better, and bread is not the staff of life.

I will of course, fail. We all do.
defender

London, KY

#10 Mar 13, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>I do watch some of these videos just as I have gone to the sites recommended by guys like Urban Cowboy. That whole battle over thermodynamics was based on me reading the actual source and taking him to task on it. But anyway, I guess the point I try to get to is not refuting at a level they will reject anyway, but to go down to the basic suppositions. For example, I think many opponents argue from consequences, ie evolution means society falls apart. So argue the science all we want, they will reject it if they fear it will - to use a recent example - make their kids commit suicide. Of course. We keep arguing the facts of the case but forget the real fears that we are arguing against....
When taken to task on the issues the evolutionist free falls into a bout of strange dodge ball... They wish to claim that ID is held as a theory... No.. Simply put even if every bit of your wild ass speculation held true it requires design.. Now you can babble on about how this isn't true and how it also isn't random either... But to make those arguments valid you guys have can up wanting.. Every time...

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#11 Mar 13, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
When taken to task on the issues the evolutionist free falls into a bout of strange dodge ball... They wish to claim that ID is held as a theory... No.. Simply put even if every bit of your wild ass speculation held true it requires design.. Now you can babble on about how this isn't true and how it also isn't random either... But to make those arguments valid you guys have can up wanting.. Every time...
Does this ramble have a point or is it like all your previous posts?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#12 Mar 14, 2014
MikeM wrote:
My take on the issue of Irreducible Complexity
http://youtu.be/1xeQMlWUu1Q#aid=P82jevNDD_A
Watched a few minutes and the buzzword bingo card filled up so I jumped to the conclusion slide there.

Since irreducible complexity has been refuted, retreating to "semi-irreducible" complexity is the counter for Evolution?

Doesn't that strengthen the "God of the Gaps" argument against creationism?

Oh, and the eye argument? Creationists still try to use that?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#13 Mar 14, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
When taken to task on the issues the evolutionist free falls into a bout of strange dodge ball... They wish to claim that ID is held as a theory... No.. Simply put even if every bit of your wild ass speculation held true it requires design.. Now you can babble on about how this isn't true and how it also isn't random either... But to make those arguments valid you guys have can up wanting.. Every time...
Oh right. THAT must be why even the guys who invented ID still can't explain the "scientific theory" of ID then. It's only been over 20 years.(shrug)

Or a few thousand, depending on how you look at it...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#14 Mar 14, 2014
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Watched a few minutes and the buzzword bingo card filled up so I jumped to the conclusion slide there.
Since irreducible complexity has been refuted, retreating to "semi-irreducible" complexity is the counter for Evolution?
Doesn't that strengthen the "God of the Gaps" argument against creationism?
Oh, and the eye argument? Creationists still try to use that?
All ID arguments are merely restatements of long refuted creationist arguments. Just put into more big "sciencey-sounding" words to trick the gullible fundie rubes, like our Defender here.

Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "What good is half an eye?"
defender

United States

#15 Mar 14, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>All ID arguments are merely restatements of long refuted creationist arguments. Just put into more big "sciencey-sounding" words to trick the gullible fundie rubes, like our Defender here.

Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than a fancy way of saying "What good is half an eye?"
Complexity is a huge problem for your goofiness ... As is dependency ... You have debunked nothing...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#16 Mar 15, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
Complexity is a huge problem for your goofiness ... As is dependency ... You have debunked nothing...
Oh, that must be why you can't address anything then.(shrug)

By the way, name the experiment that Behe did that demonstrated irreducible complexity in the lab. Betcha can't. Know why?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#18 Mar 15, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
First off Behe hasn't even scratched the surface of complexity... Now speaking of experiments I'd love to see one (and not one of these fly by night wannabes that kong loves to believe) that demonstrates one kind of species morphing into a completely different organism... Something that is claimed by you nut jobs but never been observed... Know why?
There is more than one way to observe events. To observe the sort of change that you requested you would look in the fossil record.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#19 Mar 16, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
When taken to task on the issues the evolutionist free falls into a bout of strange dodge ball... They wish to claim that ID is held as a theory... No.. Simply put even if every bit of your wild ass speculation held true it requires design.. Now you can babble on about how this isn't true and how it also isn't random either... But to make those arguments valid you guys have can up wanting.. Every time...
Never, defender. I have squarely addressed every issue that creationists have presented on these threads. Right in your face.

However in this case, the whining creatard was complaining about consequences, inferring that the increase in suicides of recent years could at least partially be blamed on evolution.

Notwithstanding the fact that statistics show there has not even been an increase in said suicides (so the creatard was just offering more of this everything-is-shit-thanks-to-e volution baloney)...even if there had been, its NOT a valid argument.

The truth of something is not established by its potential consequences. This is just another basic logical error your bunch continue to make. In between your straw-man fallacies, sharpshooter fallacies, quote mines, selective ignorance of evidence, and other tactics, its obvious that you have no leg to stand on.

And the title of this thread is just one more creationist logical fallacy. Even in principle, its impossible to establish something is irreducibly complex unless you can know and discount every possible, conceivable pathway including those that had far more complex intermediate stages than the one evident today. In other words, its a question only God could answer, not Behe or you. You lose again.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#20 Mar 16, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
First off Behe hasn't even scratched the surface of complexity... Now speaking of experiments I'd love to see one (and not one of these fly by night wannabes that kong loves to believe) that demonstrates one kind of species morphing into a completely different organism... Something that is claimed by you nut jobs but never been observed... Know why?
Yes, we know exactly why. Because selection and drift take a long time before the members of one population cannot successfully interbreed with another population, something that occurs when there are too many accumulated differences between the respective populations' genomes.

Yet we observe adaptation, drift, random mutation, changes in alleles frequencies, and in the wild degrees of speciation from different but compatible, to faltering interfertility, to no cross fertility, among species as we would expect from an evolutionary standpoint. Ring species are a particularly good example. All showing that what we can directly observe, given long enough, will lead to speciation.

We also see gradual changes over time in species and genus, such as the well established continuum of fossils from bipedal ape to human, and almost seamless continuum that evolution predicted before the first prehuman was even found, but that creationism neither predicted nor can explain.

Evolution explains real phenomena observed in the real world, and creationism merely tries to nitpick after the fact. We enjoy your nitpicking, as it merely serves to strengthen the robustness of the theory in the end.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#21 Mar 16, 2014
defender wrote:
<quoted text>
First off Behe hasn't even scratched the surface of complexity... Now speaking of experiments I'd love to see one (and not one of these fly by night wannabes that kong loves to believe) that demonstrates one kind of species morphing into a completely different organism... Something that is claimed by you nut jobs but never been observed... Know why?
Evolution is not weakened by complexity.

On the contrary, evolution both predicts and explains complexity, and does so according to some tight constraints that we find are validated in the fossil record and the genome research.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Critical Eye 93,361
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Aunty Christ 167,886
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 13 hr was auch immer 13
News Intelligent Design's One Valid Scientific Point 13 hr Aunty Christ 97
What's your religion? (Sep '17) 14 hr was auch immer 1,147
Did we evolved from Canadians? 15 hr Simon 2
Womans Birth Cycle absolutely Proves Design and... 18 hr Rose_NoHo 70