Irreduceable Complexity

Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ?Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined
a step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other
then that something-or-other must have been designed.A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function.
That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet
less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring
trap design.So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show an
evolution of thinking behind the eventual object.And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was
designed.So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed
IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ?If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

I wont go so far as the ID guys to say that IC is proof etc. It's just obvious to most of us. If you don't buy it - it saddens me, I think you are kidding yourself, but it's your life. So don't drag me too deep into this one becasue I'm not making a claim beyond that.

---

Do you have an opinion on my suggestion that IC is just
an argument from incredulity ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:

Actually, you can remove the base of a mousetrap & nail it to the floor, & it still functions as a mousetrap (SLPx pointed this out, I believe). So the mousetrap isn't IC

---

Kind of not the point I was trying to get across Whether ANYTHING can be considered IC is my problem.I used the mousetrap since I've seen it put forward as an
explanation of what IC means.You could balance a sledge hammer on a stick tied to some bait
and call it a mouse trap ... and a pre-cursor of the modern
spring loaded mousetrap ... so what I was saying is that
taking part away from something as it is now, and braking
it, doesn't mean it couldn't have developed from something a little
different.My main quesiton was whether IC was an argument from
incredulity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I don't think IC is an arguement from incredulity. Of course, from a scientific POV, I allow for a .000000001% chance that it all evolved by some all encompassing Kaufmann-like principle of order from chaos - but I put design way ahead of that.

​

Also:

​

The sledge hammer cannot be incrementally changed to a mousetrap with a spring. As Behe puts it you have come up with an analogy not an homology. Also, it will only work at all (in a selection sense) after a certain efficiency - killing/stopping the mouse.

---

What if you reduce the mass of the hammer, and a compensatory
elastic material to pull the reduced weight down so that we
have similar momentum.Then increase the 'pull' further by coiling the elastic material
and reduce the hammer weight further.Is that an incremental change ... if it is does that make a
mousetrap not irreducibly complex ? Or do we just then
say that a hammer on a stick is irreducibly complex ?It seems that what IC is basically saying is::'I cannot imagine an incremental process that can lead to
this result.'That's an argument from incredulity, surley ?To validate it we would have to imagine every possible way that
something could hace come into being, and if we were certain that
we had expended ALL possibilities then perhaps we are left
with design.So we come down to 'have we expended all possible incremental
development scenarios or not ?'

So that means that they cannot exist if someone investigated
it ?

I think the trinity in the solar system is pushing it a little,
since there are planets with more than one moon, and there are
loads of stars ... and they aren't the ONLY bodies in the
solar system (comets pass through and there's this big
asteroid belt thingy).The DNA/RNA/Proteins is a little oversimplified too isn't it?I guess we could see three's in pretty much anything, after all
isn't 3 (along 7 and I think 11) common 'mystic' numbers
across most mythological writings ... maybe something to do with
them being prime numbers ... or craps in dice

I agree with mark24 on this.What you seem to be saying is that IC supports ID.But we cannot be sure that anything IS IC, becuase we have
not sufficiently investigated supposed IC in that context.That makes IC and argument from incredulity in my book.Also::Take a component from a working artifact, such that it
no longer works means the artifact is IC ...but doesn't that pre-suppose purpose ?Suppose we have an object that, should we remove one component, we cannot use it for its original purpose, but it can be used for
some other purpose.Does that invalidate IC as an argument for design ?I'm thinking of a simple spear at this point. Take away
the shaft and your left with a knife, take away the point
and you are left with a staff.They are in the same class of object (waepons) but serve
radically different functions in use (knife for stabbing,
staff for bludgeoning, spear for throwing).

When is a fairy story not a fairy story any more?And what makes an untested hypothesis a fairy story anyhow?Logic suggests that if we remove something (or replace a part
with something else) we may get a 'system' which has a different
set of emergent properties than the one we started with.At the 'system' level, the outcome is not a simple combination
of the parts, because we have features of the 'system' which
are only of relevence at the level of the 'system'.If we can, by substititions and deletions obtain some different
'system' from an existing one, then by substitutions and
additions we can get back again (barring hysterisis I guess).What IC seems to be saying to me is 'I cannot imagine a route,
but I haven't looked that hard at all of the possibilities.'That's an argument from incredulity.Discounting alternative function outright is just being stubborn Of course, alternative function poses a bigger problem in the
context if ID, which may be why its rejected.If a part of 'design' is 'intended use', then a function developing
from different functions refutes 'intent' ... and is an indicator
against design.... fairy story I guess ... but many fairy stories and myths do
have a basis in fact (even Noah's flood ... but that's another
story )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark et al

​

IC suggests non-natural, hence design.

---

I've already asked this, but I'll ask it here in isolation ::Does having a working anything, which will not work without
one part, automatically mean that there is no incremental
process that could have lead to it?I mean, my car won't run without it's engine manaement ECU, but that
doesn't mean cars have always had them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

IC is not a binary result - 'it is a degree of ICness'. It is not a QED.

---

Are you saying that something can be 'a bit irreducibly complex' ?Does that make any sense at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

IMO Behe is saying that if evoltuion were true the tell-tale signs of where biochemical systems came from would be evident. They are not. Go read Behe and he will take you through a half dozen examples of well known biochemical systems which have parts that 'have come out of thin air'.

---

Why would they be 'evident'?It's taken years of research to even find out that they
exist in the first place, so why assume that an incremental
development scheme (which few are actually looking for on a
case by case basis) would have been found yet?Everything you have said so far, in my opinion, supports the
view of IC as argument from incredulity.In the systems with 'parts out of thin air' ... are the
'parts' the irreducibly complex sub-systems?

I mentioned comets and asteroids too, but the answer seems
to be that it doesn't matter about them 'cause we don't
see 'em all the time, and they don't fit into a trinity red, green, and blue are the primary colours of light,
though. All the other colours are a mix. if two or more in
varying proportions/intensities.

I'm sure if you look hard enough, and manipulate the
scenario enough that you can find threes in anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mark

​

I thought I had answered this - sorry. If the system is IC then my first assumption is that it is designed. Like I said earlier, IC systems could potentially be natural but as IC seems to be a systematic feature of life I lean on the other view (). And, yes, ICness is not digital - something might look fairly IC or extremely IC. I personally believe that all of the cellular systems of life are designed and that natural selction has simply optimzed some of these for altered circumstances via point mutations. This belief is well supported but I can't prove it.

---

So how do you decide that something IS IC?... and how can something be 'a bit IC'?If it is a well supported belief, by what is it supported?

I thought I'd bump this since it seems that IC has reared
it's ugly head again

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozambu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Isn't irreduceable complexity just a fabcy kind of
argument from incredulity ?

​

Effectively it's saying that because no-one has imagined
a step-wise progression that could lead to something-or-other
then that something-or-other must have been designed.

​

A mouse trap, if you remove one component won't function.
That's true, but we can imagine a number of similar, yet
less complex alternatives that could have lead to the spring
trap design.

​

So, is a mouse trap irreducably complex if we can show an
evolution of thinking behind the eventual object.

​

And that's even with an object that we KNOW in advance was
designed.

​

So, is IC just an argument from incredulity, and can any claimed
IC be refuted by any feasible sounding route ?

​

If so, then it's not only about incredulity, but subjective too.

---

​

Is the credulity of darwinists any better?
Richard Dawkins, in is book "A River out of Eden" wrote this:

​

"There will be times when it is hard to think of what the gradual intermediates may have been. These will be challenges to our ingenuity, but if our ingenuity fails, so much the worse for our ingenuity."

​

If we cant see it, it doesn't matter because it's still there. Very scientific.

---

The point being made is, more or less, what I am saying about IC
arguments.Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean it isn't there.That's not assuming it is there, but 'not seeing' and 'not
existing' are very different.