Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 9:32 AM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,633 Year: 3,670/19,786 Month: 665/1,087 Week: 34/221 Day: 5/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Irreducible Complexity
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 382 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 31 of 59 (291616)
03-02-2006 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 8:43 PM


Old posts
You may want to pay a little more attention to the dates of posts you are replying to.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:43 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 59 (291620)
03-02-2006 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 8:43 PM


Irreducible delusion
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:43 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 33 of 59 (291675)
03-03-2006 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 8:43 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:43 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by inkorrekt, posted 03-04-2006 6:23 PM ReverendDG has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 59 (291809)
03-03-2006 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 8:43 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:43 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 35 of 59 (291838)
03-03-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 8:43 PM


heh
quote:
Can I ask you this? How do you qualify yourself as a critique of Dr. Behe?

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:43 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 5:41 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 36 of 59 (292191)
03-04-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ReverendDG
03-03-2006 3:09 AM


Re: Irreducible complexity
"Reverend" you know very well that you cannot prove a negative. Can you?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ReverendDG, posted 03-03-2006 3:09 AM ReverendDG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ramoss, posted 03-04-2006 7:32 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded
 Message 38 by ReverendDG, posted 03-05-2006 12:07 AM inkorrekt has not yet responded

ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 37 of 59 (292210)
03-04-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by inkorrekt
03-04-2006 6:23 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity
Then you are admitting that 'irreducible complex' is nto a scientific concept, and is worthless.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by inkorrekt, posted 03-04-2006 6:23 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 38 of 59 (292268)
03-05-2006 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by inkorrekt
03-04-2006 6:23 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by inkorrekt, posted 03-04-2006 6:23 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 39 of 59 (292491)
03-05-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Chiroptera
03-03-2006 1:57 PM


Re: heh

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Chiroptera, posted 03-03-2006 1:57 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ReverendDG, posted 03-05-2006 11:28 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 15 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 40 of 59 (292508)
03-05-2006 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by inkorrekt
03-02-2006 8:43 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity
quote:
How do you qualify yourself as a critique of Dr. Behe?

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:43 PM inkorrekt has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 9:16 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2190 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 41 of 59 (292561)
03-05-2006 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by inkorrekt
03-05-2006 5:41 PM


Re: heh
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by inkorrekt, posted 03-05-2006 5:41 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 4161 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 42 of 59 (293484)
03-08-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Chiroptera
03-05-2006 6:25 PM


Re: Irreducible complexity
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2006 6:25 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by AdminNosy, posted 03-08-2006 9:30 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 43 of 59 (293489)
03-08-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by inkorrekt
03-08-2006 9:16 PM


Nothing of consequence for the topic
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by inkorrekt, posted 03-08-2006 9:16 PM inkorrekt has not yet responded

HellboundGreaser
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 59 (354251)
10-04-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by God is Love
11-28-2001 11:05 PM


irreducible complexity
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by God is Love, posted 11-28-2001 11:05 PM God is Love has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 10-04-2006 6:51 PM HellboundGreaser has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 45 of 59 (354266)
10-04-2006 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by HellboundGreaser
10-04-2006 5:36 PM


Re: irreducible complexity
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.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by HellboundGreaser, posted 10-04-2006 5:36 PM HellboundGreaser has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by HellboundGreaser, posted 10-05-2006 10:32 AM RAZD has responded

Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019