Theoretical physics shows "irreducible complexity" arguments invalid.

[Heywood]

There is no such thing as irreducible complex. There is only complexity which appear to have low probabilities of arising within the time and number of tries thought to be available through paths and mechanisms we have yet conceived of.

If you underestimate the time available, or underestimate the number of ties that could have been made, or overestimate how completely you have enumerated all available paths and mechanisms, even the simplest thing can seem irreducible complex, hell, simpler than simplest, even the mind of a creationist can seem irreducible complex to overconfident simpletons like creationists.

Btw, artificially inserted watermark is not irreduceavly complex. You just have to know which path involving multiple reducible complex steps was taken to get to it. Humans are reducible complex. The works of humans are therefore reducible complex. So insertion of watermark is therefore reduce ably complex.

Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. It is a bad name choice because even if humans were intelligently designed by God, they could still be reducible.

I think your criticism here is a bit nitty.

[Rampant.A.I.]

There is no such thing as irreducible complex. There is only complexity which appear to have low probabilities of arising within the time and number of tries thought to be available through paths and mechanisms we have yet conceived of.

If you underestimate the time available, or underestimate the number of ties that could have been made, or overestimate how completely you have enumerated all available paths and mechanisms, even the simplest thing can seem irreducible complex, hell, simpler than simplest, even the mind of a creationist can seem irreducible complex to overconfident simpletons like creationists.

Btw, artificially inserted watermark is not irreduceavly complex. You just have to know which path involving multiple reducible complex steps was taken to get to it. Humans are reducible complex. The works of humans are therefore reducible complex. So insertion of watermark is therefore reduce ably complex.

Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. It is a bad name choice because even if humans were intelligently designed by God, they could still be reducible.

I think your criticism here is a bit nitty.

Look, you presented the irreducible complexity argument, and have yet to given an example of irreducibly complex organisms that could only have been intelligently designed by God.

This is quickly developing into a Hand Banana argument, ignoring how modern bananas were human cultivated as produce.

[Minimalist]

It has, but you still hear the same 20 year old arguments ("the eye is irreducibly complex") being flopped out like the hundreds of years old cosmological arguments.

Surely you don't expect facts to dissuade religious assholes?

[Heywood]

Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. It is a bad name choice because even if humans were intelligently designed by God, they could still be reducible.

I think your criticism here is a bit nitty.

Look, you presented the irreducible complexity argument, and have yet to given an example of irreducibly complex organisms that could only have been intelligently designed by God.

This is quickly developing into a Hand Banana argument, ignoring how modern bananas were human cultivated as produce.

Negative Rampant....I did not present the irreducible complexity argument.

I did two things.

1)I challenged your accusation that theoretical physics renders all irreducible complexity arguments invalid.
2)I backed my challenge by showing irreducible complexity exists in some biological systems.

[Chas]

Which ones? Why do theists throw out statements like this without supporting them? Claims about "The eye being irreducibly complex" have been debunked decades ago, and theists still try to convince people they are.

The genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium contains water marks that were designed by intellects which are of sufficient complexity that it would be unreasonable to ever think they evolved sans intellect.

The water marks contained in the genome of Mycoplasma Laboratorium are as follows:

watermark 1 an Html script which reads to a browser as text congratulating the decoder with an email link ([email protected]) to click to prove the decoding.

watermark 2 contains a list of authors and a quote from James Joyce: "To live to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life".

watermark 3 contains more authors and a quote from Robert Oppenheimer (uncredited): "See things not as they are, but as they might be".

watermark 4 contains yet more authors and a quote from Richard Feynman: "What I cannot build, I cannot understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoplasma_laboratorium

It's synthetic, man-made. You are conflating this with what is meant by irreducible complexity. Show something not man-made.

---

I did two things.

1)I challenged your accusation that theoretical physics renders all irreducible complexity arguments invalid.
2)I backed my challenge by showing irreducible complexity exists in some biological systems.

You did not succeed with #2. First, you dishonestly equate a man-made artifact with a natural one - the ones that IC actually refers to.

Second, you have not shown that those watermarks could not have occurred by natural processes.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Look, you presented the irreducible complexity argument, and have yet to given an example of irreducibly complex organisms that could only have been intelligently designed by God.

This is quickly developing into a Hand Banana argument, ignoring how modern bananas were human cultivated as produce.

Negative Rampant....I did not present the irreducible complexity argument.

I did two things.

1)I challenged your accusation that theoretical physics renders all irreducible complexity arguments invalid.

No, you merely sidestepped, and provided a laboratory experiment as a red herring, after you yourself defined Irreducibly Complex arguments:

Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations. It is a bad name choice because even if humans were intelligently designed by God, they could still be reducible.

You claimed to have a litany of such arguments to present, showing irreducible complexity. When asked to present one, you offered the equivalent of "Coke cans do not appear in nature, and are therefore intelligently designed: Therefore cans of Coke are evidence of Intelligent Design."

More semantic sleight of hand, not a single irreducibly complex argument I n the way you define it to be seen.

2)I backed my challenge by showing irreducible complexity exists in some biological systems.

Yes. In organisms modified in a laboratory, but not in the way you defined irreducible complexity arguments.

[Heywood]

It's synthetic, man-made. You are conflating this with what is meant by irreducible complexity. Show something not man-made.

Negative Chas,

Irreducible complexity isn't an idea about how something is made. It is an idea about how something isn't made. This is an important distinction. I believe the eye evolved but I will use it as an example.

The claim the eye is irreducibly complex doesn't say that God made the eye. To say the eye is irreducibly complex is to say the eye didn't evolve. It could have been designed by aliens.

Rampant AI made a claim that theoretical physics invalidates irreducible complexity arguments. His claim is false because it is trivially easy to show that irreducible complexity exists. If his claim was true then our scientific achievements with Mycoplasma_Laboratorium violated the laws of physics.......which is silly.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Oh come on, you're equivocating two entirely unrelated concepts, when you yourself stated what the "irreducible complexity" argument ACTUALLY states:

Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your definition:

Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.

What I actually said:

Arguments[/b] Are fundamentally invalid.

Notice the change to the straw-man "Irreducible complexity does not exist," compared to "Irreducible complexity arguments are fundamentally invalid."


And the first example you throw out is the "irreducible complexity of the eye"?

Really? Go back one page, note the reference to how that "argument" was refuted two decades ago.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...11_01.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://m.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail....79a061fff7

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...le/eyes_01

[Heywood]

Oh come on, you're equivocating two entirely unrelated concepts, when you yourself stated what the "irreducible complexity" argument ACTUALLY states:

Irreducible complexity
Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.
Irreducible complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your definition:

Irreducible complexity is the name given to the argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.

And the first example you throw out is the "irreducible complexity of the eye"?

Really? Go back one page, note the reference to how that "argument" was refuted two decades ago.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...11_01.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

http://m.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail....79a061fff7

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...le/eyes_01

I said the eye evolved. If the eye was irreducibly complex then it could not have evolved. Irreducible complexity is a "theory" about how something is not made....not how it is made(which you seem to think is the case).

[Anomalocaris]

The problem is biological "irreducible complexity" as it has been used to argue for divine intervention is strictly a phenomenon in the realm of classical physics. Trying to disprove it via quantum mechanics is barking up the wrong tree.

The so called irreducible complexity is itself a gross misnomer. What is being argued is there exists "harder to reduce than I would like" complexity, not "irreducible" complexity. For there is nothing about any complexity put forth as examples by proponents of "irreduciable complexity" that can't in principle be reduced given sufficient time, sufficient number of tries, and some original thinking about how to go about trying. It's just that its proponent thinks there hasn't been enough time, there hasn't been enough number of tries, and they haven't figured out how many more ways can be utilized in the trying, for the outcome to seem probably in the timeframe in question.

So irreducible is a poor argument put forth by people of intentionally limited imagination, intentionally misnamed to achieve an effect.