When I was taught evolution in high school, they didn't even tell us anything about the issue of irreducible complexity and how evolutionist tempt to solve them.

It was like it was total non-issue. Before we get into actual details in nature... you have to understand what the irreducible complexity problem is to evolution.

A complex system has many parts. What makes a complex system possibly irreducible is dependency on certain parts on others.  That is without certain parts, other parts wont be useful. 

The problem of irreducibility, is that, it could not by mechanism of small mutations, have evolved because the irreducible complexity suggests that many parts are needed for them to work together for it to work at all.

Of course, you can always take about a more simple version of that system evolving to more complex version of that system.....

But the very first time the system rose, is it possible to go the route of gradual changes? That's the question.

I've realized there is many complex systems that this is not possible.

It's not "I don't know how it's possible so it's not", it's more I know how it's impossible.

Aside from this something are binary. That is they in or they out. One thread I don't know if you guys remember was the binary nature of consciousness. Some thing is either consciousness or not. To go from non-consciousness to consciousness at whatever degree of any degree of consciousness, cannot happen by a mere mutation or a few. It has to be a lot and so many that it cannot be due to random type in naturalism way. 

The reason is because of the binary nature of it.  You can imagine a million steps on the way, but then it make that transition, it's binary.

So aside form irreducible complexity of life of dependency issue, is binary design of things like consciousness.


Now certain things that we may think they are irreducible complex, but they are not, and evolutionary path might be possible for them. Other things not so much.


Sometimes it's not just a irreducible complex system, it's the need of several different type of irreducible complex systems working together... 

That's how easy it always been to see the design of the Creator.

(May 7, 2018 at 12:12 am)MysticKnight Wrote: When I was taught evolution in high school, they didn't even tell us anything about the issue of irreducible complexity and how evolutionist tempt to solve them.

It was like it was total non-issue. Before we get into actual details in nature... you have to understand what the irreducible complexity problem is to evolution.

A complex system has many parts. What makes a complex system possibly irreducible is dependency on certain parts on others.  That is without certain parts, other parts wont be useful. 

The problem of irreducibility, is that, it could not by mechanism of small mutations, have evolved because the irreducible complexity suggests that many parts are needed for them to work together for it to work at all.

Of course, you can always take about a more simple version of that system evolving to more complex version of that system.....

But the very first time the system rose, is it possible to go the route of gradual changes? That's the question.

I've realized there is many complex systems that this is not possible.

It's not "I don't know how it's possible so it's not", it's more I know how it's impossible.

Aside from this something are binary. That is they in or they out. One thread I don't know if you guys remember was the binary nature of consciousness. Some thing is either consciousness or not. To go from non-consciousness to consciousness at whatever degree of any degree of consciousness, cannot happen by a mere mutation or a few. It has to be a lot and so many that it cannot be due to random type in naturalism way. 

The reason is because of the binary nature of it.  You can imagine a million steps on the way, but then it make that transition, it's binary.

So aside form irreducible complexity of life of dependency issue, is binary design of things like consciousness.


Now certain things that we may think they are irreducible complex, but they are not, and evolutionary path might be possible for them. Other things not so much.


Sometimes it's not just a irreducible complex system, it's the need of several different type of irreducible complex systems working together... 

That's how easy it always been to see the design of the Creator.

You should try that suicide vest sooner rather than later.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:07 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: You should try that suicide vest sooner rather than later.

Really?

What kind of shit human says stuff like that.

Only one on the internet, I guess.

Put the stupid fucking koran down and learn something.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/d...ticle.html

Quote:When anti-evolutionary arguments featuring the bacterial flagellum rose into prominence, beginning with the 1996 publication of Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a), they were predicated upon the assertion that each of the protein components of the flagellum were crafted, in a single act of design, to fit the specific purpose of the flagellum. The flagellum was said to be unevolvable since the entire complex system had to be assembled first in order to produce any selectable biological function. This claim was broadened to include all complex biological systems, and asserted further that science would never find an evolutionary pathway to any of these systems. After all, it hadn't so far, at least according to one of "design's" principal advocates:

Quote:There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. (Behe 1996a, 185)

Quote:As many critics of intelligent design have pointed out, that statement is simply false. Consider, as just one example, the Krebs cycle, an intricate biochemical pathway consisting of nine enzymes and a number of cofactors that occupies center stage in the pathways of cellular metabolism. The Krebs cycle is "real," "complex," and "biochemical." Does it also present a problem for evolution? Apparently yes, according to the authors of a 1996 paper in the Journal of Molecular evolution, who wrote:

Quote:"The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality? (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Quote:Where intelligent design theorists throw up their hands and declare defeat for evolution, however, these researchers decided to do the hard scientific work of analyzing the components of the cycle, and seeing if any of them might have been selected for other biochemical tasks. What they found should be a lesson to anyone who asserts that evolution can only act by direct selection for a final function. In fact, nearly all of the proteins of the complex cycle can serve different biochemical purposes within the cell, making it possible to explain in detail how they evolved:

Quote:In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. . . . the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘‘evolution by molecular tinkering,’’ stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells." (Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

ID is creatardism in a new package.  Your phony god had nothing to do with any of it and you had best accept reality and move on.

(May 7, 2018 at 1:11 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(May 7, 2018 at 1:07 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: You should try that suicide vest sooner rather than later.

Really?

What kind of shit human says stuff like that.

Only one on the internet, I guess.

The kind that knows the power of ignorance encouraged by religion, and wish that power spent with as little harm to others as possible.

MK, as you know, I was never religious. But that doesn't mean that I understood stuff either.
I asked these questions (but only half jokingly) in the early days here.

I was encouraged to check out "real" docos on youtube which I did. And did. And did.
I couldn't get enough! It's all out there man. But you need to WANT to learn about evolution.
There is no arguments from the experts as to whether evolution is 100% fact or not.
(please don't waste your life trying to find a gotcha against nature, there isn't one)
The ultimate nail in the coffin was the dna profiling of the tree of life. A few surprises but no crocoducks...

By experts I don't mean creationists or your Imam... Are you prepared watch real docos?
That is the real question, isn't it.

(May 7, 2018 at 12:12 am)MysticKnight Wrote: When I was taught evolution in high school, they didn't even tell us anything about the issue of irreducible complexity and how evolutionist tempt to solve them. <Guff snip>

That's because there is no issue of irreducible complexity.
IC is an invention of this dishonest creationist wanker:

Quote:Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity.

A good read for you Here. You might even learn something.

(May 7, 2018 at 12:12 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Of course, you can always take about a more simple version of that system evolving to more complex version of that system.....

But the very first time the system rose, is it possible to go the route of gradual changes? That's the question.

I've realized there is many complex systems that this is not possible.

The problem is that you cannot just extrapolate backwards from a complex system to a simpler version of it. That rarely ever happens. The earlier version is likely to have been radically different. It might not even have been any less complex.

It's also not just the system that you have to take into account, but it's environment and what it has to do to persist in that environment. This makes extrapolating backwards even more difficult.

When there is a new addition or change to a system, the rest of the system can come to depend on it. Take away that change and the rest of the system may collapse.

Classic example adding an invasive species to a new ecosystem.

Simple. No irreducible complexity required.

Quote:When I was taught evolution in high school, they didn't even tell us anything about the issue of irreducible complexity and how evolutionist tempt to solve them.

I think it's important for you to know two things:

1. EVERY claim made or 'problem' raised by irreducible complexity has been successfully refuted/solved by those, whaddyacallem, scientists.

2. NO informed person takes IC seriously.

Boru

It's all just incredulity, anyway. It's sooooo complex that I can't believe it could happen without a designer.

The thing is, the rules of reality acted as a kind of non-sentient designer. Whether someone set up those rules in the first place is another question, and is irrelevant to ID/IC.