Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Alex, is that online? I will read it. Biochemist Michael Behe coined the term after studying a bacterial flagellum. The one he studied contains 40 functioning nano-parts including a rotor. He called it nothing less than an outboard motor. He is not alone in his amazement.
Irreducible complexity is very testable. Take any one of the 5 parts of a mousetrap away and it will cease to work. The concept is that simple.
The point is that many things would have to evolve simultaneously and obviously fit and /or work together. That is a fact. In other words, if only part of the system evolved by mutation it would be useless and NS would work to eliminate it. There is no way to explain it away.
For instance if only females evolved we would die. If one part of the 40 parts of a flagellum did not evolve at the same time it would have never worked. If the enzymes in the golgi apparatus had not been coded for at the same time as the ribosomes and the mRNA and the tRNA and rRNA for thousands of proteins, the proteins in our body would be improperly shaped and we would be extinct. (But how are you going to create enzymes without enzymes, which are made up of proteins?)
I will read the article, but I'm sure it will be full of straw men.
I spent a LOT of time thinking about, and writing, the following so please take the time to read it and consider it before responding to it.
Lets explore the logic of IC.
P1: Some complexly designed systems are only functional when they contain all of their parts in working order, and lose said function when any part is removed.
P2: Systems that are not designed will still have some function after a part is removed.
C: Anything that loses all function after a part is removed must be designed.
On the surface, P1 looks pretty solid; however, within it lies an assumption that the system has a specific function designated by its architect. So we can restate premise 1 as:
P 1: Some complexly designed systems only carry out their designated function when they contain all of their parts in working order, and lose said function when any part is removed.
This, then, becomes a statement that I can find no argument against.
-Now for P2.
Firstly, P2 operates on another logical fallacy; the assumption that all naturally occuring systems with observable (empirical) functions are formed by a gradation of sequential addition of parts - and thus cannot be "irreducibly complex."
-The embedded premise (P2p1), "sequential addition," is clearly wrong. Natural processes are capable of adding, removing, altering, or any number of variable actions. Therefore the conclusion (P2c) is also wrong, invalidating the underlying assumption of P2.
Furthermore - P2 refers to the "function" of a naturally occuring system; whereas, P1 is clearly referring to a designed function.
-If a function is observable in a natural system, it is merely the subjective interpretation of its observer - I name it "empirical function". There can be no "purpose" assumed in a naturally occuring system, merely an observable relationship or result.
--Take, for example, Earth's meteorological phenomena of interdependent cycles such as ocean currents, jet streams, ice caps, lunar orbit, and solar and terrestrial energy input. Some may say that the "purpose" is to maintain a homeostatic condition. That may be the result, or "empirical function," but there is no logical way to assert that it is the purpose or designated function.
-It is illogical to compare a "designated function" with an "empirical function." This makes P2 not only illogical, but irrelevant.
As P2 fails to hold water, the conclusion is similarly invalidated.
I know I will be accused of constructing a straw man. To pre-empt this, I challenge my accuser to present the "true" IC logical argument which I've so horribly butchered in constructing my straw man.
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
No, AFJ, it is irreducible complexity that is full of straw men. Read the book (it's a book, not an online article) I indicated and you'll realize that. Every single example of IC you have proposed has already been disproven. For example, take away two parts from a mouse trap and you've still got a perfectly good spitball launcher.
#2 Total Post Count
So what would you have Alex if you remove say the mitochondria from the cell? What do I have if I remove the alternator from my car? It will function but I will have to push it. Anyway when I do I'll disprove irreducible comp. Say hypothetically the car was not designed but evolved--I would still have to push it. The only difference is the car is not alive, cells are.
I understand what you are saying Mr. Arastus. And I understand what you are saying Alex. In plain English, if there's no designer then whatever random mutation produces is what the product does. Whatever it does it does. It just so happens to share characteristics of an outboard motor. And then everything in life just so happens to do what it does and it all just happens to work together pretty darn good. It just appears to be designed.
I think we need to remember that
1) One of the greatest safety nets for evolution is the vast amount of time--the very reason is the incredible odds that life would come from whatever the latest theory is now--lipids? The mathematical improbability increases with each new interdependent system or new component, but more time helps its plausibility. Whether one agrees with IC or not, the fact remains that you have many interdependent systems which keep life from falling victim to NS.
a)What did the cell have for energy before the mitochondria came along if it did not evolve together with the cell?
b)What about the many enzymes the cell has to have or it will cease to function--they all had to evolve at the same time to make the proteins which form the cell itself, as well as the enzymes which make the proteins for the enzymes--how did that happen??????
2)Man does not have the capability to mimic such a result as life, though he has tried. It seems to me that if life was so possible to produce from molecules simply bonding together, then by now chemists should have produced at least a reproducing cell by now. Let alone many blind random mutations just so happening to produce a interdependent system which earthly intelligence can not reproduce in the lab.
I think you need to remember that
a) bacteria do not have mitochondria and are able to use quite a lot of diverse source of energy (light, chemicals, etc...)
b)Life evolved in an abiotic environment. That might seem trivial, but saying that means that the competition for nutrients was not as intense as it is now: leave some energy rich molecule abiotically formed in water, it now get used by organisms that had billions of year to be very good at scraping every bit of energy available, it was not so at the beginning. So even very poorly efficient self-replicating mechanisms had a fair chance to multiply and prosper, that would not be the case anymore.
2) It took hundreds of millions of year for life to appear on earth, in a test tube the size of a planet. Science has had around 50 years in a limited numbers of test tubes, do you see the difference? And how many planets had the conditions to create life and how many did? When you really think about it, the probability are just not so small.
I would add that this is only because those tiny probabilities lead to a sentient life that you can ask those questions. But in how many planets are there where there is no-one to wonder about natural selection? This is just like lottery, the odds of winning are small but there are winner nonetheless.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
AFJ, Canalon has answered your questions well enough, so I'll just comment that from what I've seen, you really don't seem interested in a scientific discussion at all. Science requires a person to examine an idea based on evidence. The fact that you would dismiss Dr. Miller's book as "full of straw-men" without ever having read it tells me that you have no desire to look at evidence that does not fit your already-decided viewpoint. This is not how science is supposed to work. You can't start with an idea and then only accept evidence that fits it while rejecting everything else. You're supposed to look at the facts first, then decide on a theory. You seem to have this process backwards.
Furthermore, you have yet to give me a simple yes or no answer as to whether or not you are willing to pursue a private discussion about some of the theological questions that have arisen in these discussions. Every time I ask you for an answer, you ignore me. I don't see what's so difficult about a simple yes or no answer, but this only reinforces my opinion that you are not interested in discussion anything that might conflict with what you have already decided to believe. This is, I believe, very unfortunate, and not a good attitude to have in a science forum.
#2 Total Post Count
If it makes you feel better, even if AFJ didn't read it, I did!
#2 Total Post Count
It makes sense to me. Hopefully AFJ will decide to read it, too.
#2 Total Post Count
Sorry I took so long. Been busy. I do appreciate what you wrote. I shows that you gave it alot of thought. In the frame of hypothetical thinking--that is attempting to be objective--everything sounds logical. I understand your comments on empirical and designated function. But P1 you say, and I agree can not be argued with, so to say it doesn't exist is too strong.
I must be honest, I did not get to your example of weather. I just got to it.
I'm not sure, I must think about this--that is-- can we compare weather with a biological component? The original idea came from Michael Behe's research on a flagellum, who incidentally, is not a creationist. I'm not sure if he is ID, but I know he is not a creationist.
My first thoughts are that weather is probably a more open system than a cell say. Though the cell is an open system it is much more in control of what it let's in. It is predictable and programmed. Weather is dependent on many things and is a result of the atmosphere, the sun and the earth's rotation-it is not as protected, and it is not programmed.
Alex, please be patient. My time is limited--I have a family and I work 60 hours a week. Yes I do want to talk about science. I am not close minded as I have spoken on a hypothetical plane many times on this thread and have even been misunderstood as though I was contradicting myself. I found Ken Miller online and there is an answer to IC on it. I read the first part about the I believe TTSS molecule. Give me some time here please.
As for your comments about bacteria and mitochondria--how did I already know you were going to say that (lol)?? Bacteria and Archaens are in two different domains than eukaryotes, and if I may quote the Berkley geologic timescale site "are as different from us genetically as night is from day."
We're talking a major gap, and since the fossil record shows cyano bacteria--then nothing transitioning to eukaryotes, alot of components happened mysteriously, if evolution is true.
My wife is now home and has accused me of making science study my life (lol) so I must go.
Dawkins will explain all your misunderstandings,
Take it away Dawkins...
(watch in order)
See the trend here? People say "Oh wow that is a miracle, no evolution could produce that" then someone sits down and thinks about it for a while and comes up with several valid possibilities, t'has happened many times before and as we learn we will uncover any new mysteries the creationists throw upon us.
A wise man once said to me:
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Only the fittest chickens cross the road.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests