Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree4Likes
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: A Beautiful! argument about "irreducible complexity"

  1. #1 A Beautiful! argument about "irreducible complexity" 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Lots of people find themselves locked into arguments with family or friends - or inside their own heads - about evolution. One path in this labyrinth finishes up at the "irreducible complexity" dead end.

    How do you explain this to yourself or to other people?

    Try this article on for size. I'd quote it, but you really need all the text and all the pictures. So I'll just give the link.

    Irreducible complexity, again? – Pharyngula


    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I don't think I could use that one conversationally without PowerPoint.


    LuciDreaming and dan hunter like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Depends who you're talking to. Though I think the talking most people have in mind is ye olde chain email or facebook.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    I agree with the author on his statement that he is irreducibly complex because when you take out a major organ, ex. heart or brain, from his body, he would not function. But that's false analogy in comparison to the evolution of the eye. Because he is taking out the major components, in this case the "battery" or the "light bulb" and not a switch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Quote Originally Posted by thulium_gal View Post
    I agree with the author on his statement that he is irreducibly complex because when you take out a major organ, ex. heart or brain, from his body, he would not function. But that's false analogy in comparison to the evolution of the eye. Because he is taking out the major components, in this case the "battery" or the "light bulb" and not a switch.
    The entire batter/circuit is to be analogous to the eye components. So it fully works as presented.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thulium_gal View Post
    I agree with the author on his statement that he is irreducibly complex because when you take out a major organ, ex. heart or brain, from his body, he would not function. But that's false analogy in comparison to the evolution of the eye. Because he is taking out the major components, in this case the "battery" or the "light bulb" and not a switch.
    The entire batter/circuit is to be analogous to the eye components. So it fully works as presented.
    I am aware of that. But he didn't have to mention his other bodily organs to the analogy even after admitting that he himself is irreducibly complex. The IC argument on the evolution of the eye is not really a good argument to use against evolution, I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    When using irreducible complexity argument in this case is a weak example to use against the logic of evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,627
    Are you suggesting there are times that IC is a good argument to use?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Are you suggesting there are times that IC is a good argument to use?
    No I'm pointing out the analogy stated by the author as fallacious. Here I will break it down.

    He said: I am personally irreducibly complex

    Now this statement proves that he agrees with the concept of Behe's definition.

    Then he says: because I would stop functioning if you cut out my heart or gave me a brainectomy or deleted a big chunk of my immune system

    Now if that statement is analogous to the circuit board example, the heart or brain should be represented by a major component, in this case the light bulb.

    But he used the circuit board to be analogous to the IC in the evolution of the eye by saying this:

    It also fits Behe’s description of an irreducibly complex system, because removing any part, the battery, the first switch, or the second switch, produces a pathway that cannot light up the bulb. It’s a dead system.

    See, the heart or the brain or the immune system of a human being cannot be represented with the first or second switch or the battery in this example because its a major component, as major as a light bulb. So if you take away the major component, it won't work. I find his statement inaccurate because it's a false analogy.

    He also said:

    But does that mean it could not have evolved by the incremental addition or subtraction of parts, with every step retaining the full capability of lighting up the bulb?

    Adding a brain or heart in the human body is not incremental addition or subtraction of parts. In this example he is referring to the switch as 'parts.' He did not add or take away a light bulb, did he?

    Then he goes on to use this logic to say this:

    So naive creationists will look at the fact of the organization of the eye, that you cannot remove the optic nerve or the retina and still have a functional eye, and fallaciously argue that that means it could not have evolved.

    He just contradicted himself because the optic nerve or retina is analogous to a heart or the brain in his example, a major component like a light bulb.

    However, this statement is the only logical thing he mentioned:

    but that fact is not sufficient to demonstrate that evolution couldn’t have done it.

    I agree with this, because Behe's argument in irreducible complexity is a weak argument to use against the logic in evolution. Because the theory of evolution does not say which part evolved first, or if it was a major part or a minor part. Therefore I would conclude that Behe's argument is weak and that he does not see the logic or understand the theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    155
    To add humor to this:

    If a person is composed of two major light bulbs, which is brighter? lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 27
    Last Post: July 1st, 2013, 09:16 AM
  2. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 01:31 AM
  3. Irreducible Complexity - Genetic Algorithm
    By Golkarian in forum Biology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 01:50 PM
  4. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 06:37 AM
  5. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 11:35 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •