Irreducable complexity

[ydoaPs]

how simple does something have to be to not need a designer?

[AzurePhoenix]

cytoplasm and RNA? I can all too well imagine an IDiot saying something along the lines of "the structure of the plasma membrane is far too complex to have come about due to ridiculously random chemical hijinks. Random random random. My little brain brain can't comprehend the natural order of such things, so it must be random."

 

Ope, here's some strong support for my hypothesis that not even a simple cell-membrane is safe

[ydoaPs]

yea, i've never heard of chemistry or physics, so it's random. ranom random random Bob Dole...er, random.

[JPQuiceno]

http://www.talkorgins.org

[Hellbender]

yea, i've never heard of chemistry or physics, so it's random. ranom random random Bob Dole...er, random.

It's their objection to materialism, basically. Science doesn't say whether or not god is responsible for natural laws, and this pisses the IDers off for some reason. Any idjit knows that chemical reactions and natural selection aren't random, but because we don't run around saying "god did it! god did it!" I guess they think it might as well be random.

[Kleptin]

I can see where you're going with that point...I think...

 

If you think "christian" for a second, Cytoplasm and RNA are still too complicated. The fact that anything physically exists is enough for an IDer to say "God did it!" On that note, it doesn't really matter how simple something has to be because if something exists in ANY form, it still serves some purpose, remember the mousetrap argument?

[AzurePhoenix]

I should've realized, I mean, there are idiots who think there are no gluons, just the Force of God Exerting His Will upon quarks

[bascule]

It means they're too unintelligent to wrap their brains around the concepts behind evolution/natural selection...

[starbug1]

...so you're saying that God really isn't exerting force on quarks!

[AzurePhoenix]

Actually, mountains of empiracle evidence suggests that the Easter Bunny is responsible for that little trick.

[swansont]

Actually, mountains of empiracle evidence suggests that the Easter Bunny is responsible for that little trick.

 

I thought that was the Aether Bunny.

[mezarashi]

Although, there are other fallacies in the IC claim, the "random" part isn't what it's about. It's not about something too complicated for your little brain to handle either. Irreducibly complex structures are structures that work only and only if ALL parts of the system are present. If just one part is removed, the system becomes broken. Take roughly the human body, if you didn't have a heart, or lungs, or your eyes, you would be "broken" if not dead.

 

The problem is that evolution cannot build irreducibly complex structures (this is the brunt of the issue). Because evolution works in steps. Suppose evolution was working to develop my heart, how am I suppose to be alive without one while I wait for evolution? Does it make any sense here? How is it then that we observe "irreducibly complex" structures in nature even down to the bio-molecular level.

[swansont]

Although' date=' there are other fallacies in the IC claim, the "random" part isn't what it's about. It's not about something too complicated for your little brain to handle either. Irreducibly complex structures are structures that work only and only if ALL parts of the system are present. If just one part is removed, the system becomes broken. Take roughly the human body, if you didn't have a heart, or lungs, or your eyes, you would be "broken" if not dead.

 

The problem is that evolution cannot build irreducibly complex structures (this is the brunt of the issue). Because evolution works in steps. Suppose evolution was working to develop my heart, how am I suppose to be alive without one while I wait for evolution? Does it make any sense here? How is it then that we observe "irreducibly complex" structures in nature even down to the bio-molecular level.[/quote']

 

 

It boils down to agrument from incredulity, since you haven't, and can't, observe all possible pathways that could get you to some point. It is the same objection they have to abiogenesis, and I do think it ties into the though that all things are random, and misunderstanding what that means. (it doesn't mean that all results are equally probable)

 

 

Say I cross a stream by walking on a fallen log, and in the process, the log cracks and shortly after a cross, it gets washed away. And IDjit or creationsist that sees me, dry, on the other side, concludes I was created over there, because the stream system represents something that is "irreducibly complex."

 

There's nothing that compels evolution to work in a straight line from point A to point Z.

[ydoaPs]

The problem is that evolution cannot build irreducibly complex structures (this is the brunt of the issue). Because evolution works in steps. Suppose evolution was working to develop my heart, how am I suppose to be alive without one while I wait for evolution? Does it make any sense here? How is it then that we observe "irreducibly complex" structures in nature even down to the bio-molecular level.

that argument is fundamentally flawed, becuase, in our current form, we evolved to rely on such organs.

[bascule]

Irreducable complexity makes a good (did I say good? I meant specious) argument against ambiogenesis at least... I mean, how exactly would a replicator form spontaneously? It boggles the mind...

[ydoaPs]

can't RNA be made out of simple organic molecules in a lab.....like pour some simple organics in an airtight vessel and spark it for a while?

[AL]

Irreducibly complex structures are structures that work only and only if ALL parts of the system are present. If just one part is removed, the system becomes broken. Take roughly the human body, if you didn't have a heart, or lungs, or your eyes, you would be "broken" if not dead.

A biological construct can only be characterized as "irreducibly complex" if you assume what it was designed for. There is no reason to assume design. To use the infamous mousetrap analogy, a mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" only if you assume its purpose is to catch mice. But unfortunately, this ignores the fact that an organism will tend to make do with what nature has provided it. If, instead of receiving a full blown mousetrap, an organism had just the spring, it wouldn't be able to catch mice, but there's still plenty that can be done with a spring such as using it to jump, or absorb shock, or whatever else have you. All other things equal, this may give the organism an evolutionary advantage over organisms that don't have springs, and now the species is one step closer to the complete mousetrap.

[Mokele]

AL's completely correct: exaptation (what he described) basically squashes any "irreducible complexity" garbage.

 

An excellent example is the IDiot's own claimed "irreducibly complex" mechanism of the bacterial flaggelum. It seems too complex and interdependent, until you look at other bacteria and see the same mechanism, in a simpler form, used to inject poisons into cells.

 

What good is half a wing? A lot, if it's being used a courtship/territorial display or thermoregulatory device.

 

Mokele