|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Irreducible Complexity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2331 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
You may want to pay a little more attention to the dates of posts you are replying to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Finally, prove to us that irreducible complexity does not exist. Why would someone try to prove that something which has never even been observed doesn't exist? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Ok then explain what complexity is, much less how we detect IC, much less decide which is not IC and which is
Finally, prove to us that irreducible complexity does not exist.
prove it does exist, other than inferrence and cop-out
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
inkorrekt
There are many more mysteries inside the tiny cell we are trying to understand. Can I ask you this? How do you qualify yourself as a critique of Dr. Behe You seem to think that the education of a person grants an immunity to his ideas and this is most certainly not the case. Let us see what Behe has to say about this irreducible complexity.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. {italics mine} And from wikipedia we have the following
In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe testified under oath that irreducible complexity did not rule out known evolutionary mechanisms and that there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex." [2] So let us check the sentence in italics.
.An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. In the trial he had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that he was indeed correct in his hypothesis and yet this idea which he claimed "would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution" was not shown by anyone among his peers to be valid. Not one single paper was presented to show support. You also fail to grasp that it is the duty of the person making the claim that they produce the evidence. It is the quality of the evidence that supports the validity of a concept.Michael Behe himself failed to accomplish this perhaps you can?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Let me ask you this: how do you qualify yourself as a "critique" [sic] of the theory of evolution? "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6110 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
"Reverend" you know very well that you cannot prove a negative. Can you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Then you are admitting that 'irreducible complex' is nto a scientific concept, and is worthless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
i'm trying to get something to go on other than IC exists!
you have yet to show how to detect IC you said you want people to prove that IC doesn't exist, i'm not the one making faulty reasoning I guess the idea of the quotes around reverend is sarcasm?, some how i just don't feel the cleverness This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 03-05-2006 12:09 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6110 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
Any one can question and critique the theory of evolution. Even ahigh school kid can do. Yes, there was a kid by name Williams who challenged his teacher on Evolution. It became anational news.All the Priests of the Church of Evolution brought their attack machinery and shot him not on the basis of Science, but nonsense. Unfortunately, the City council members who are not smart took the wrong side. But, to criticize a well recognized Scientist like Dr. Behe, one must have even a part of his credentials and must be in a better position intelluctually and academically. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-05-2006 04:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Since your first response to my reply was judged to be off-topic, let me reply again. Anyone is qualified to critique Dr. Behe because the only qualification is to be able to recognize the fallacy of personal incredulity. His sole argument is to point out a biological system and say, "Gosh, that's so complicated that I can't figure out how it might have evolved. Since I can't figure it out, God must have designed it!" "Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4139 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
But, to criticize a well recognized Scientist like Dr. Behe, one must have even a part of his credentials and must be in a better position intelluctually and academically.
since the other crap is purely OT and nonsense, i'll answer this part, all of the things behe claims show ID is purely unsupported by evidence, and its not about the PHD but about whether what the guy says can be backed up by evidence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
inkorrekt Member (Idle past 6110 days) Posts: 382 From: Westminster,CO, USA Joined: |
When I studied for my exams, I used to be a very strong believer in Evolution.I did not have any idea of the intricate mechanisms. Many many years after my studies, I took a realistic look inside the organization of the cells, the synthetic, transportation mechanisms and the marvellous nervous system, the next question I had was how could such complex system evolve by itself.The basic process of self assembly of proteins does not occur.If this is true, how could more complex systems come into existenc e by themselves. I cannot understand this. In my studies, negative results were equally valuable.Dr. Behe is not alone. I am sure there are many more who believe as him, but are not willing to make public statements for the fear of retribution. Well, this where Science of the 21st century is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
inkorrekt,
This post does nothing to support irreducibly complexity. It appears that you, in spite of your training, are unable to understand the discussion. May I suggest that, until you do, don't post on this thread anymore. Thank you. This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 03-08-2006 09:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
HellboundGreaser Inactive Member |
I love how the ID advocates concentrate on “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” at the molecular level, and especially in regard to how these matters might be involved in the origin of life, their authors have avoided discussion of major implications of their ideas for the prehistory of life on earth.
The proponents of ID, of course, avoid, at all costs, any elaboration of a “model” or “models” compatible with their views. The excuse that they are hindered by the scientific establishment’s refusal to publish their (nonexistent) research in refereed mainline scientific journals won’t hold water. There is nothing, for example, to keep a formal proof of the supposed revolutionary “law of conservation of information” from being published in a legitimate journal”if, in fact, it made sense. Besides, the ID proponents could incorporate their “model” in their essays or, like the unabashed Bible-Science Creationists, found their own journals with themselves as reviewers and editors. Anyways the argument for irreducible complexity is essentially is just a rehash of the famously flawed watchmaker argument advanced by William Paley at the start of the 19th century.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray HellboundGreaser.
The Discovery Institute does have it's little "journal" for publishing IDology. btw -- the post you replied to is 5 years old and was posted by a one post wonder. Enjoy your stay. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024