Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 30540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12577
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #406 on: October 23, 2013, 01:02:48 PM »
I'm pretty sure humans need more energy...

You have no idea of what animals or humans require in terms of energy, so you didn't bother to look it up.  Congratulations on being ignorant, lazy and unimaginitive.  I presume you are also a republican?


Also, isn't the food chain  beneficial in comprenhensive way , although not so much for the ones who are consumed.

This was my point in the first place.  Congratulations.  You have fumbled onto the very point you have been trying to prove wrong.


More rhetoric,  possibly meant to obscure my logical posts in addition to my information defending Behe's reputation.

No, that's not rhetoric.  That is an assessment of you.  Also, your posts have no connection to logic.  This is not a slam.  You make claims, but you do not use logic.  Sorry, you just don't.

lol just means "laugh out loud".   It is common internet jargon.  You must be a novice on the internet.   Does laughing offend you?

I know what it means.  Just because I do not like it does not mean I am ignorant of its meaning.  No, I am not a novice.   

Laughing does not offend me.  Using "lol" in adult conversations does. 

You don't think that a biblical and theoretical God who designed/created lifeforms is  powerful enough...

Stop right there.  It is not a matter of what I think about this god.  I'm not the one who called it "omnipotent".  That was done by religious people long before I was born.  It has been done for about 2000 years.  So that was not me.  All I did, which clearly escaped you, was extrapolate what omnipotence meant. 

But yes, I can see that a being need not be omnipotent to create life. But then, it would also not necessarily be a god.  You would have to take that argument up with religious people.

My point is ...

Your point is wrong.  Completely and thoroughly.  I am not doing what you say I am doing.  It is the religious who say god is x, y, z.  I am saying x, y, z has certain repurcussions they have overlooked or ignored.   

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #407 on: October 23, 2013, 01:08:13 PM »
If I may...


One, it's a human artifact; two, it's not self-replicating; three, as it happens, it is potentially reducible

Ok, but an irreducibly complex system can apply to both human artifacts and biological systems.  The defintion is that if you remove a part to the system, then the system becomes non-functional.   This has noting to do with is it biological or non-biological.  We are just talking about functionality of a system.

What do you mean by self replicating?

It can't be potentially reducible.   You cannot argue a mousetrap can work if you remove the parts, and the individual parts have no function outside of something unrelated to catching mice,  like a paper weight or a toothpick.


Quote
Saying "it's complicated" is nowhere near enough to say that something is irreducibly so.   

That's true, I've made that clear in prior posts but I just have asked it this way:

Do you deny that there are no systems in the body that are not irreducibly complex given a simple mechanism like a mousetrap is irreducibly complex?
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5092
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #408 on: October 23, 2013, 01:10:34 PM »
Let's try to avoid these rhetorical skirmishes although I excel in rhetoric.
I'm not worried about your prowess at rhetoric at this point.  And you really should take the time to look at the evidence that other people provide, rather than continuing to try to blow it off.  Well, unless you don't mind being exposed as an ignorant hypocrite, anyway.

Quote from: DrTesla
Ok, let me try it this way.

Do you deny that a mousetrap is an irreducibly complex system, ie without one of its parts, it does not function like a mousetrap.
Yes, in fact, I do - you do not need the wooden base of a mousetrap in order for it to function as a mousetrap.  Not only that, but you can use the individual components of a mousetrap in other ways (which would be represented in evolution as precursors to a more complex organ being used in other areas by an organism).  The point being that this "irreducibly complex" argument that you're so fond of just simply does not apply to reality when it comes to biology.

Quote from: DrTesla
Do you deny that a mousetrap is a relatively simple mechanism.
Of course not, it is a relatively simple mechanism.

Quote from: DrTesla
Do you deny that many systems/organs in the body are at least as complicated as a mousetrap?
Of course not, but this is irrelevant.  Stop using complexity as an excuse to claim that evolution is impossible.  It's long since gotten old to hear you repeat the same arguments over and over again, while you blithely ignore anything that anyone presents that contradicts those arguments.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2278
  • Darwins +415/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #409 on: October 23, 2013, 01:11:43 PM »
since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.
Nonfunctional as a mousetrap maybe, but hardly non-functional period.  Behe's analogy fails because it predetermines a highly specific function to evaluate success or failure against.  Let's consider his humble mousetrap.

There are:
(1) a flat wooden platform
(2) a metal hammer
(3) a wire spring
(4) a sensitive catch
(5) a metal bar

And each of those piece would certainly make for a poor mousetrap, or, as Behe would put it, a non-functional mousetrap.  But what if you started with needing to just get start congregating mice to a specific location?  You have a mouse infestation, but for purposes of the party you're throwing tonight, you really just need to make sure that there are fewer mice running around your living room in random directions.  A wooden platform would serve as an adequate landing point to put bait, say, cheese, without messing up the carpet.  So you put a wooden platform with a few hunks of cheese in another room, in hopes that the mice will have a greater tendency to hang out in the room with cheese so that your guests don't see so many of them bumming around the living room.

The night of the party...

Success!!!  There were only, like, 20 mice running around the living room as opposed to the normal 50 or so that typically happen.  But, as it happens, some people are still turned off by the presence of mice, and you've noticed that attendance to your shindig is still steadily going down.  Well, hell, in order to keep people coming to the party, perhaps you should do something to not just lure mice away but to keep them away.  So an easy solution is, when the mice are congregating around the wooden platform with the cheese, you just kill them.  Those bastards aren't going to be bugging people in the living room after that!  So you grab a metal hammer and put it in the room so that, when you're in there, you can kill the little buggers without messing up your shoes.

And that works, but you're kinda tired of the whole polling process of having to periodically pop into the room and see if there were any mice to kill.  A-ha!  You'll just put a little sensitive trigger there that will make a noise whenever a mouse grabs himself some cheese.  That way, you'll know when you need to pop into the room to kill some mice.  Easy-peasy.

Unfortunately, while a few weeks of this has improved party attendance, you realize that if attendance doesn't significantly improve anytime soon you're going to have to cancel these parties.  The mice numbers are down, but it's apparently not enough.  You've got to seriously reduce these mice numbers so that they just plain don't show up at the party.  But, you just don't have enough time to go mouse killin'.  Besides, it's not like you're home 24 hours a day and always within earshot of the room.  You need a way to have this wooden platform kill the little buggers for you, so you don't have to be such an active participant.

So you start experimenting, trying out a few things here and there.  Maybe you can give the mice a heart attack or something by scaring them with a really loud noise!  You attach a spring to your sensitive trigger to make a much louder "Thwap!" sound.  You try this for a few weeks, but the mice population hasn't really been positively or negatively affected by it (upon observation, you notice that the mice just don't pay any attention to the noise).  Well, that little spring isn't really reducing the efficacy of your device, and you're sorta lazy so you don't bother to get rid of it.

Then, one day, quite by accident, you leave your hammer on the end of the spring.  Providence has shined down upon you!  Much to your amazement, you witness a greedy mouse eat some cheese and "Bam!" the catch triggers, the spring disengages, taking the hammer with it and smacking the mouse on the head!  Of course, your repeatability of this result is...lacking, to say the least.  About 99% of the time the spring just goes "Thwap!" without taking the hammer with it.  So you attach a string to the spring and hammer via hooks so that the hammer goes with it every time.

98.5% failure rate.  That sucks.  The hammer just lands at random locations, occasionally making contact with the head of a mouse.  You fiddle around with string length, attaching strings to random locations on the wooden platform, spring, and hammer until the hammer lands roughly in the same place every time, i.e. the vicinity of a mouse's head.  Ah...success.  And then you notice that, with all of the hook placements you've put on that wooden platform, you now have a pretty easy place to put a metal bar for the hammer to rest against that is in close enough proximity to the spring to allow for direct coupling!  You slap a metal bar on there, get rid of the strings, and now you're good to go!

...

So, my little storytelling exercise is not without fault, and many, many aspects of that can be picked at, or possibly refined to better match with an actual reality.  But I think I've shown the idea that an irreducibly complex system like a mouse trap cannot be created through small, iterative, successive implementation is simply false.  Maybe some of those intermediate steps couldn't be considered a mouse trap (e.g. wooden platform with a hunk of cheese on it), and so some of those intermediate steps could be considered as non-functional as a mousetrap, but hardly non-functional, period.

I didn't even have to talk about scaffolding.

P.S. Holy crap-in-a-hat, 18 new replies while I was typing this one out.  I spent way too much time typing this drivel not to hit 'Post', but now I'm afraid that bunches of what I typed are just invalid or redundant.  Apologies all around.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12701
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #410 on: October 23, 2013, 01:13:10 PM »
Jaime,

My comment was much better. He can understand it. Yours, I'm afraid it'll blow by him.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #411 on: October 23, 2013, 01:23:13 PM »
What do you mean by self replicating?

lol  &)
Git mit uns

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5092
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #412 on: October 23, 2013, 01:23:21 PM »
Do you deny that there are no systems in the body that are not irreducibly complex given a simple mechanism like a mousetrap is irreducibly complex?
Are you seriously trying to show your ignorance off?  Because I have a hard time believing that you could do so by accident.  Deus gave an example of how the mousetrap is not irreducibly complex.  It's obvious you didn't even bother to look at the link he provided, because you're repeating the same tiresome, rebutted argument again.

All you're accomplishing by now is to make people think worse and worse of you, and by extension the things you're expounding on.  Even if intelligent design and irreducible complexity were actually valid, your efforts would put them in such a negative light that you'd make your own job much harder than it needed to be.  And since they've not been validated, you're making them look ridiculous to boot.

For your own sake, you should really stop and reevaluate what you're actually accomplishing here, and how ineffective your arguments really are.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #413 on: October 23, 2013, 01:30:21 PM »
So, my little storytelling exercise is not without fault, and many, many aspects of that can be picked at, or possibly refined to better match with an actual reality.  But I think I've shown the idea that an irreducibly complex system like a mouse trap cannot be created through small, iterative, successive implementation is simply false.  Maybe some of those intermediate steps couldn't be considered a mouse trap (e.g. wooden platform with a hunk of cheese on it), and so some of those intermediate steps could be considered as non-functional as a mousetrap, but hardly non-functional, period.


Holy wall of text.  That hurt my eyes.

I appreciate your analogy but your analogy actually describes intelligent design.  You have a 3rd party to a process planning improvements (you even use the word experimenting) and thus bringing about gradual change and a more complex approach.   

In Darwin evolution theory,  there is no 3rd party planner who observes that something can be improved.    Therefore,  a function needs to be selected, and in this case it needs to be something deriative of catching a mouse.  And then as this function is beneficial for survival,  it is selected by natural selection and over time beneficial random mutations of this basic function  via the evolution process leads to a higher complex part    But we see with the mouse trap example there is no functionality of the parts by themselves, nor is there functionality with a few of them combined.    All parts have to be there and assembled in a specific way for it to work.   
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #414 on: October 23, 2013, 01:34:40 PM »
It is self evident that cells are self replicating, otherwise Darwin evolution could not occur.   Even if there is an intelligent designer, there is still cellular replication,  so that is irrelevant to the issue of irreducible complexity. 

Self replication doesn't explain how a natural process of gradual change can lead to a system that does not work if even 1 part is removed and the parts themselves are non-functional in terms of the goal   function of the system of which it is apart.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 01:42:30 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11140
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #415 on: October 23, 2013, 01:38:31 PM »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2120
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #416 on: October 23, 2013, 01:38:52 PM »
Tesla, I'm still waiting for an example of an irreducibly complex biological structure. I see we're talking about the concept, the idea- but I'd appreciate an actual example of this type of biological structure.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #417 on: October 23, 2013, 01:40:52 PM »
DrTesla,

I, for one, want to thank you for posting in this thread, and for attempting to give everyone your evidence that the ToE is false. I really, really appreciate your participation.

Now, any fencesitters/lurkers with an open mind to the truth of the matter can read about it here, and see quite clearly, to anyone with a rational, intelligent mind, that the IC is easily blown out of the water as a scientific hypothesis.

Evolution works, and requires no gods.

Thanks again!
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #418 on: October 23, 2013, 01:41:13 PM »
Tesla, I'm still waiting for an example of an irreducibly complex biological structure. I see we're talking about the concept, the idea- but I'd appreciate an actual example of this type of biological structure.

Do you reject the bacterial flaggellum,  the eye, and blood clotting cascade examples usually given?   

If so, why?   Do they work if one part is missing?  I'm not talking about the part being there but damaged or just old age.    Does a partial eye allow vision?   
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2278
  • Darwins +415/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #419 on: October 23, 2013, 01:43:53 PM »
So, my little storytelling exercise is not without fault, and many, many aspects of that can be picked at, or possibly refined to better match with an actual reality.  But I think I've shown the idea that an irreducibly complex system like a mouse trap cannot be created through small, iterative, successive implementation is simply false.  Maybe some of those intermediate steps couldn't be considered a mouse trap (e.g. wooden platform with a hunk of cheese on it), and so some of those intermediate steps could be considered as non-functional as a mousetrap, but hardly non-functional, period.


Holy wall of text.  That hurt my eyes.

I appreciate your analogy but your analogy actually describes intelligent design.  You have a 3rd party to a process planning improvements (you even use the word experimenting) and thus bringing about gradual change and a more complex approach.   

In Darwin evolution theory,  there is no 3rd party planner who observes that something can be improved.    Therefore,  a function needs to be selected, and in this case it needs to be something deriative of catching a mouse.  And then as this function is beneficial for survival,  it is selected by natural selection and over time beneficial random mutations of this basic function  via the evolution process leads to a higher complex part    But we see with the mouse trap example there is no functionality of the parts by themselves, nor is there functionality with a few of them combined.    All parts have to be there and assembled in a specific way for it to work.
You didn't actually read my wall of text[1], did you?
 1. Wall-of-text that had logical paragraph separation, complete with added whitespace.  If this hurts your eyes I challenge you to read a book.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #420 on: October 23, 2013, 01:47:06 PM »
I think we've just discovered a prime specimen of Irreducible Stupidity! :blank:
Git mit uns

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #421 on: October 23, 2013, 01:52:00 PM »
Do you reject ... <snip>  ... If so, why? 
Go back and read the responses already given, and the links provided.

Do they work if one part is missing? 
They are an end-product of a process of evolution which includes processes such duplication, redundancy, acquisition, and even DELETION.

Stop being such a nong!
Git mit uns

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #422 on: October 23, 2013, 01:52:55 PM »
So, my little storytelling exercise is not without fault, and many, many aspects of that can be picked at, or possibly refined to better match with an actual reality.  But I think I've shown the idea that an irreducibly complex system like a mouse trap cannot be created through small, iterative, successive implementation is simply false.  Maybe some of those intermediate steps couldn't be considered a mouse trap (e.g. wooden platform with a hunk of cheese on it), and so some of those intermediate steps could be considered as non-functional as a mousetrap, but hardly non-functional, period.


Holy wall of text.  That hurt my eyes.

I appreciate your analogy but your analogy actually describes intelligent design.  You have a 3rd party to a process planning improvements (you even use the word experimenting) and thus bringing about gradual change and a more complex approach.   

In Darwin evolution theory,  there is no 3rd party planner who observes that something can be improved.    Therefore,  a function needs to be selected, and in this case it needs to be something deriative of catching a mouse.  And then as this function is beneficial for survival,  it is selected by natural selection and over time beneficial random mutations of this basic function  via the evolution process leads to a higher complex part    But we see with the mouse trap example there is no functionality of the parts by themselves, nor is there functionality with a few of them combined.    All parts have to be there and assembled in a specific way for it to work.
You didn't actually read my wall of text[1], did you?
 1. Wall-of-text that had logical paragraph separation, complete with added whitespace.  If this hurts your eyes I challenge you to read a book.

ok, well you are missing the point, that the parts of a irreducibly complex system are by definition non-functional  in terms of having a useful function related to the overall function of the system, like catching mice.   They may function as a paper weight or something, but something benign like that would not be "selected" via natural selection.   

You are basically admitting that a direct evolution of function is not possible but that a non-direct evolutionary path might exist.   Behe says in his book that indirect evolution is possible but improbable.   We are getting somewhere if you concede Behe won the argument on direction evolution.   I will post more on indirect evolution and why this improbable shortly. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 01:55:21 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5092
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #423 on: October 23, 2013, 01:58:09 PM »
Holy wall of text.  That hurt my eyes.

I appreciate your analogy but your analogy actually describes intelligent design.  You have a 3rd party to a process planning improvements (you even use the word experimenting) and thus bringing about gradual change and a more complex approach.
How convenient.  Someone provides an example of how a mousetrap is absolutely not irreducibly complex...and you claim that it's actually an example of intelligent design (this is moving the goalposts, which is against the forum rules).  Which misses the point entirely.  Haven't you said repeatedly that you don't understand how something can gradually change over time to be more and more efficient?  Yet this is just such an example.  Sure, in this case, it was a person who was providing the gradual changes, but the point is that you can have incremental improvements of a supposedly "irreducible" system.  Which destroys the entire "irreducible" argument.

Now that you've been shown that a supposedly "irreducible" system or structure can, in fact, be reduced and still be fully functional, all that remains is to show that it can happen by natural processes.  Which is downright easy.  All it takes is showing that a species can evolve something beneficial and then later on modify the beneficial trait somehow.  Which, in fact, has been shown repeatedly. 

Quote from: DrTesla
In Darwin evolution theory,  there is no 3rd party planner who observes that something can be improved.    Therefore,  a function needs to be selected, and in this case it needs to be something deriative of catching a mouse.  And then as this function is beneficial for survival,  it is selected by natural selection and over time beneficial random mutations of this basic function  via the evolution process leads to a higher complex part    But we see with the mouse trap example there is no functionality of the parts by themselves, nor is there functionality with a few of them combined.    All parts have to be there and assembled in a specific way for it to work.
Wrong.  As jdawg showed, there is nothing at all saying that they have to be assembled in a specific way in order for it to function, or that they all have to be there at the same time.  The individual parts have their own functionality, and don't require the other parts to be present in order to function.  The cheese would be bait for the mice regardless of whether or not any components of the trap were present, for example.  The wooden base of the trap doesn't need to be present either; the floor (part of the environment) can substitute instead.  The hammer could simply be held, or placed next to a wall so that vibrations in the wall (such as by a mouse going through its hole) would dislodge it.  The catch could simply be very noisy, or possibly injurious.  The spring could be shaped differently and act like a noose.  And the bar could be used as something to scare or hurt the mice as well, similar to the catch.

The point is, it is absolutely not irreducible.  Not one of the parts of the trap requires any other part to be present in order to function (however ineffectively) to trap, hurt, or kill mice.  And there is no requirement that they be all put together at the same time, or that they be put together in that specific configuration, or that other parts couldn't be added, or that they couldn't be modified somehow.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2120
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #424 on: October 23, 2013, 01:58:54 PM »
Do you reject the bacterial flaggellum [...]
Yeah, it's been explained.

[...] the eye, [...]
What are you calling an eye? That may seem like a silly question but there are ancient organisms that had (and have) flat photoreceptive "eyes" which could sense light, but not the direction of the light. Then there are slightly more complex organisms (which show up around the Cambrian era) that had (and have) cupped or rounded "eyes" and can sense which direction the light is being emitted from. You can pretty much track the evolution of aquatic eye. So what is it about the eye that impresses you so much? The development of photoreceptive cells isn't unknown territory. We know how they developed.

and blood clotting cascade examples usually given?
I'm unaware of this argument. Do you have a link?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1563
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #425 on: October 23, 2013, 01:59:23 PM »
Tesla, I'm still waiting for an example of an irreducibly complex biological structure. I see we're talking about the concept, the idea- but I'd appreciate an actual example of this type of biological structure.

Do you reject the bacterial flaggellum,  the eye, and blood clotting cascade examples usually given?   

If so, why?   Do they work if one part is missing?  I'm not talking about the part being there but damaged or just old age.    Does a partial eye allow vision?   

This shows that you do not read other people's posts.

You do such a wonderful job of showing your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Any reader can see from your posts the personification of pseudo science. You can turn more people away from irreducible complexity than the rest of us together. I hope you stay here until everyone is sick of your nonsense.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #426 on: October 23, 2013, 02:23:33 PM »
Tesla, I'm still waiting for an example of an irreducibly complex biological structure. I see we're talking about the concept, the idea- but I'd appreciate an actual example of this type of biological structure.

Do you reject the bacterial flaggellum,  the eye, and blood clotting cascade examples usually given?   

If so, why?   Do they work if one part is missing?  I'm not talking about the part being there but damaged or just old age.    Does a partial eye allow vision?   

They can work as something else and that is exactly the point you keep missing. It is irrelevant whether a flagellum doesn't work as a flagellum if you remove specific parts. Functioning "as" and functioning "period" are two entirely different things. You are moving the goal-post. Once again, you should get a smite for this.  For the sake of argument, though, we could grant IC and this still gets your argument nowhere b/c IC does not exclude gradual evolutionary change.

Quote

Behe's flawed argument

Behe claims that irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced directly by gradual evolution. But why not? Behe's reckoning goes like this:

(P1) Direct, gradual evolution proceeds only by stepwise addition of parts.
(P2) By definition, an irreducibly complex system lacking a part is nonfunctional.
(C) Therefore, all possible direct gradual evolutionary precursors to an irreducibly complex system must be nonfunctional.

Of course, Behe's argument is invalid since the first premise is false: gradual evolution can do much more than just add parts. For instance, evolution can also change or remove parts (pretty simple, eh?). In contrast, Behe's irreducible complexity is restricted to only reversing the addition of parts. This is why irreducible complexity cannot tell us anything useful about how a structure did or did not evolve.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 02:37:21 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3049
  • Darwins +271/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #427 on: October 23, 2013, 02:26:47 PM »
Do you deny a mousetrap, which is a relatively simple mechanism, is irreducibly complex?   If you take away one of the parts, does it still function as a mousetrap?

I can think of several mouse-unfriendly uses for the individual parts.  I could asphyxiate mice by collecting the little wooden boards and setting fire to them at the front door of the nest; I could drop a bucketful of metal bits and pieces on a mouse; or I could just plain hit the mouse with the base.

I could also use the parts for other things -- Paint tarot cards on mousetrap bases, or make paperclips out of the springs.  There isn't a 1:1 correlation between the parts and the whole.  So it is with evolution:  A species often diverges from its ancestral line when it finds a novel use for something in its environment.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #428 on: October 23, 2013, 02:27:10 PM »
.. and blood clotting cascade examples usually given?

A few minutes of google (but with an open mind and some training to know what to look for) reveals this:

Quote
The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes

The blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes, has been reconstructed on the basis of orthologs of genes for mammalian blood clotting factors being present in its genome. As expected, clotting follows the same fundamental pattern as has been observed in other vertebrates, even though genes for some clotting factors found in mammals are absent and some others are present in more than one gene copy. All told, 26 different proteins involved in clotting or fibrinolysis were searched against the puffer fish genome. Of these, orthologs were found for 21. Genes for the ``contact system'' factors (factor XI, factor XII, and prekallikrein) could not be identified. On the other hand, two genes were found for factor IX and four for factor VII. It was evident that not all four factor VII genes are functional, essential active-site residues having been replaced in two of them. A search of the genome of a urochordate, the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis, did not turn up any genuine orthologs for these 26 factors, although paralogs and/or constituent domains were evident for virtually all of them.
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527.full

Notice how evolution has jerked the system around.  In comparison there are indeed parts missing :o  Other parts added :o  And a bunch of gene duplications and redundancy :o

Already with one little bit of research done by genuine scientists (unlike Behe) we can see evidence of the process by which complex sytems change and evolve.

More excitement to follow  ;)
« Last Edit: October 23, 2013, 02:29:42 PM by William »
Git mit uns

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1563
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #429 on: October 23, 2013, 02:33:00 PM »

Things can be complex but not irreducibly complex.  In other words, they could have originated by gradual incremental change via Darwin evolution.   

 We must examine how they were built, not simply are they complex or not.

Tesla, do you understand what you have written here?

The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1563
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #430 on: October 23, 2013, 02:58:48 PM »
What we are saying is the structure needs all its parts to work.  If one part were removed, then the structure/sysem would not work.   Thus, the eye could not have developed in a piecemeal, incremental way that Darwins propose that it could via evolution.     It has to evolve directly into the complex system with all the parts there at once and arranged in a way that allows them to fullfill the function of vision, or whatever,  which would mean that it wasn't the gradual incremental change proposed by Darwins.

Who is this WE ? Are there two of you writing this rubbish or have you been instructed to come here and write it?

It does not have to evolve directly. Small animals such as an amoeba do not need complex organs. Every complex organ in your body had either a different form or simpler function in small animals.

One of the ways nature works is by changing the function of organs. An easy example is your tongue. Many animals use their tongue for tasting food. Cats also use their tongue for cleaning their fur. Humans also use their tongue for speaking.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12462
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #431 on: October 23, 2013, 03:03:29 PM »
If you take away one layer from the stratigraphic column, all of the earth above it would collapse.  Plus, it couldn't have been inserted in there because of the rest of the rock pressing above it.

Clearly, the stratigraphic column must have been designed as-is, rather than that heretical sedimentary theory...It's irreducible!
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #432 on: October 23, 2013, 03:06:21 PM »
Evolution of blood clotting:
Quote
No doubt about it - clotting is an essential function and it's not something to be messed with. But does this also mean that it could not have evolved? Not at all. The key to understanding the evolution of this intricate system, as Russell Doolittle has pointed out, is the fact that the clotting factors share an exquisite and revealing similarity.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html

Important concepts in link above:
1) Existing signal molecule = cAMP finds a new use  ;)
2) Protein-cutting enzymes (unrelated to clotting) find a new use. ;)
3) Duplication of existing gene and mutations play a key role ;)
4) Accidental gene splicing gets a run = more reuse and recycling ;)
5) The basic system evolves additions ;)
6) The system evolves controls ;)

End result the godiditbrigade are denied one more "example" of irreducible complexity. 

Git mit uns

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #433 on: October 23, 2013, 03:10:43 PM »
Whew, it's hard to keep up with this thread. Numerous new replies since I started writing my response to DrTesla, followed by several unexplained 403 Forbiddens. Very frustrating. Clearly there's something in the post that's messing up the form submission.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #434 on: October 23, 2013, 03:15:19 PM »
Sorry for the multiple posts but the forum software is giving me trouble... :(

If I may...

One, it's a human artifact; two, it's not self-replicating; three, as it happens, it is potentially reducible

Ok, but an irreducibly complex system can apply to both human artifacts and biological systems.

To claim that it can apply to biological systems would appear to be a case of assuming a specific conclusion.

Quote
The defintion is that if you remove a part to the system, then the system becomes non-functional.

I'm aware what the definition is. However, think about that you're saying here: the system becomes non-functional, period. Let's note that one down for later.

Quote
What do you mean by self replicating?

Reproductive.

Quote
It can't be potentially reducible.

You can remove one part from a mousetrap and the remainder may still perform a function, as jdawg70 notes.

Quote
You cannot argue a mousetrap can work if you remove the parts, and the individual parts have no function outside of something unrelated to catching mice,  like a paper weight or a toothpick.

Straw man. As per the definition above, "reducible" does not mean "it'll still work if you disassemble it entirely".

Quote
Quote
Saying "it's complicated" is nowhere near enough to say that something is irreducibly so.   

That's true, I've made that clear in prior posts

Ok.

Quote
but I just have asked it this way:

Do you deny that there are no systems in the body that are not irreducibly complex

Treble negative... your English teacher would be having a fit somewhere. I'm not sure if you meant to say what you said, under all that.

Let's unpack your sentence. "Not irreducibly complex" = reducible, or simple. "Do you deny that there are no" = "Do you assert that there are". So your question becomes: "do you assert that there are systems in the body that are reducible, or simple?"

No, but I'd say that not only could there by systems in the body that are either reducible or simple, but that it's possible that they all are.

So, do you assert there are systems in the body that are irreducibly complex? Given that you are not an expert, by your own admission, on what basis do you assert them?

Quote
given a simple mechanism like a mousetrap is irreducibly complex?

One is not obliged to grant that without it first being established.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.