Irreduceable Complexity

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?

You still have not answered the question. Assuming Chemical X which you believe to be IC, how do we test it? How do we know that it is IC and not merely too complex for us to describe with current knowledge? Until you can answer this, IC is dead in the water.A better question is "How do we know that it isn't another example of a protein built by scaffolding or change in function?"Since we know of several processes which automatically result in apparent irreducible complexity that aren't at all irreducibly complex, how do we distinguish between the two? How do we distinguish between extant proteins that just "look" irreducibly complex but are a result of such known and studied processes, and those that really are irreducibly complex?The claim if irreducible complexity only works if it is 100% certain. If it isn't certain, we have two possible alternatives, and we must then consider the full weight of the rest of the confirming evidence for evolution in determining whether it is more likely that a system is IC, or instead a result of an evolutionary process that results in "apparent" IC like scaffolding or change of function.The full weight of the evidence for Evolution (geologic, genetic, etc.) is quite convincing. This makes it much more likely that the unknown history of these systems are more likely to be scaffolding or change of function or another IC producing mechanism than miraculous creation by a designer.

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

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 only reason that "intermediates" would be hard to "imagine" is only becasue science has taken on the attitute that it must be 'partial differential equations" that model the space etc. Yes if one is a biologist and MUST think this way that is hard. Wolfram had to search billions of images to find his new PDEs but funny, I think me sees a lizard and snake in them such that I can now fancy many herp intermediates prior to WOlfram's search I could not.The problem is more that Gould was accepted in some circles prima facie but doing the thought/math to TRY to imagine any of these fancified intermediates was not supported by the same community. I do not know Gould's case by rote but my guess is that he talked to the "right" people at the not left time. I do not know how important the Russian connection was but there still is room for correcting that if that is wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
The only reason that "intermediates" would be hard to "imagine" is only becasue science has taken on the attitute that it must be 'partial differential equations" that model the space etc. Yes if one is a biologist and MUST think this way that is hard. Wolfram had to search billions of images to find his new PDEs but funny, I think me sees a lizard and snake in them such that I can now fancy many herp intermediates prior to WOlfram's search I could not.

​

The problem is more that Gould was accepted in some circles prima facie but doing the thought/math to TRY to imagine any of these fancified intermediates was not supported by the same community. I do not know Gould's case by rote but my guess is that he talked to the "right" people at the not left time. I do not know how important the Russian connection was but there still is room for correcting that if that is wrong.

---

I don't understand what you wrote, English is not my native language. But i felt arrogance in your reply. Maybe i'm wrong.

Mozambu,Welcome to the forum.I'm not sure an English speaker is qualified to tackle Brad's posts, let alone a someone who has English as a second language! There was no arrogance in Brads response, but he is hard to read sometimes.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Yes, MOZ welcome. Maybe when we get to ZOMI post #s we will be able to communicate. The web is prone to lead to so-called flame wars which is how it comes that I am begining to explore writing Haptic Mouse JavaScript ...That was Zarwa for those who didnt know (A trade language I needed at least some numbers in)which I used to buy fish for research purposes in Africa in 86-7. You are correct that I "hold a grudge" with elite taught evolutionary biology but I meant nothing against you. That said I am not sure I know how to think of Irreducible Complexity because this was something in C/E before Wolfram's book came out this year and yet Wolfram speaks of non-reducible complexity in terms of simple programs. Maybe Intelligent Design is slated for another C/E metamorphsis. But as to intermeidates there is a difference between imagining them in any fancy and showing that the classification claimed resultant to such change in prior taxonomy is more objetified than the subjetive confidence of the pheneticist, phlogenist, cladist or baraminologist etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Yes, MOZ welcome. Maybe when we get to ZOMI post #s we will be able to communicate. The web is prone to lead to so-called flame wars which is how it comes that I am begining to explore writing Haptic Mouse JavaScript ...

​

That was Zarwa for those who didnt know (A trade language I needed at least some numbers in)which I used to buy fish for research purposes in Africa in 86-7. You are correct that I "hold a grudge" with elite taught evolutionary biology but I meant nothing against you. That said I am not sure I know how to think of Irreducible Complexity because this was something in C/E before Wolfram's book came out this year and yet Wolfram speaks of non-reducible complexity in terms of simple programs. Maybe Intelligent Design is slated for another C/E metamorphsis. But as to intermeidates there is a difference between imagining them in any fancy and showing that the classification claimed resultant to such change in prior taxonomy is more objetified than the subjetive confidence of the pheneticist, phlogenist, cladist or baraminologist etc.

---

I guess your strange form of expression confused me. I bet i'm not the only one.

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.

---

Yeah, kinda like electrons and gravity.Can't see it, but it's still there.

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

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.

---

​

Yeah, kinda like electrons and gravity.

​

Can't see it, but it's still there.

---

You can "see" electrons because you see their effects wich can be measured. You can also "see" gravity because you can feel it. But you cant see the gradual process of speciation by natural selection just like you can't see a designer. There are no empirical proof of that. It's more speculation than science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozambu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

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.

---

​

Yeah, kinda like electrons and gravity.

​

Can't see it, but it's still there.

---

​

You can "see" electrons because you see their effects wich can be measured. You can also "see" gravity because you can feel it. But you cant see the gradual process of speciation by natural selection just like you can't see a designer. There are no empirical proof of that. It's more speculation than science.

---

Sure we can "see" speciation by natural selection. We have been observing speciation, both in the lab and in nature, for a long time.Wow, I didn't think anybody denied speciation any more. Even most creationists have given that one up.Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlHere is one of my favorites:"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mozambu:

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

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.

---

​

Yeah, kinda like electrons and gravity.

​

Can't see it, but it's still there.

---

​

You can "see" electrons because you see their effects wich can be measured. You can also "see" gravity because you can feel it. But you cant see the gradual process of speciation by natural selection just like you can't see a designer. There are no empirical proof of that. It's more speculation than science.

---

​

Sure we can "see" speciation by natural selection. We have been observing speciation, both in the lab and in nature, for a long time.

​

Wow, I didn't think anybody denied speciation any more. Even most creationists have given that one up.

​

Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

​

Here is one of my favorites:

​

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

---

The example you gave is "quantum speciation" through polyploidy. It's not a gradual process. A gradual process takes thousands of years. There is not empirical proof of that, just speculation.

quote:

---

The example you gave is "quantum speciation" through polyploidy. It's not a gradual process. A gradual process takes thousands of years. There is not empirical proof of that, just speculation.

---

Does this mean you don't believe in geological erosion either?PE