Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[Esquilax]

This complaint was already addressed: "However, if you'd like to move forward in the timeline, that's fine."

Yeah, that's cool and all, just don't pretend there's a problem with my answer because it doesn't address things that weren't present in the initial question.

You can't have it both ways. What did you mean when you said that circadian rhythms are very easily obtained? Are those rhyttms inaccurate? If so, why would you say they're easily obtained?

Circadian rhythms aren't necessarily exacting, 24 hour clocks. That varies depending on the complexity of the organism's sense organs. They don't require light and dark- again, fetuses have them- but the presence of a detectable light/dark cycle allows for a more accurate rhythm to emerge. Multiple sensory inputs lead to a rhythm more in tune with what's actually happening in the environment, but you don't need sight to be able to have one, which is the answer to your initial question. Heat and cold could also work, since it gets colder at night, heats up during the day, etc etc... It's not a very sophisticated process.

No, I'm saying that I could have light sensitive cells on my elbow, but unless they're sending signals to my brain, and my brain can do something useful with that information, then those cells are of no advantage to me. You speak of predators - a predator could be coming at me from behind, and my elbow could detect its shadow. But, since my elbow isn't wired to vision centers of my brain, that does me no good.

First of all, if you have cells that can detect light but aren't wired to your brain, it's a moot point. They aren't light sensitive without sensing light.

Second, you are now looking at this process exactly the wrong way, when you start talking about brains and vision centers. Remember, this isn't very complex life we're talking about here, they don't have brains, and visual cortices and neural connections are things that evolved in tandem with the eye.All it would need to start out with is a simple motion response to light. It's not nearly as complicated as you're trying to characterize it, and again, only those organisms that had that response would derive any benefit from that trait. The ones that didn't died off.

This scenario is apparently inaccurate, as the organism has survived to this point without vision of any sort.

Which would be just fine, were its descendants not living in an environment where every other organism is evolving new traits. Stasis only works if everything remains static, but that's not the case.

And it's not a matter of just surviving, either. The point is that those organisms that developed visual acuity survived more often than those that didn't. Getting along just fine without eyes doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

Interesting choice of words.

Cheap shots are cheap.

I understand that you get nasty and use the dodgy emoticon when you can't answer a question.

It's very hard to answer a question about what an extinct animal without a brain or consciousness as we understand it was thinking. Don't try to blame your ill formed questions on me.

I understand the mechanics of the cup. The question is, how does the organism know what to do with that information?

Evolved response. Those that could use that information, that had the simple reflexive process attached to their light detection capabilities survived, and those that didn't... did not.

A cup on my elbow is no more useful that a patch or single cell on my elbow, because the cell/patch/cup isn't wired to a part of my brain which can interpret the information, then direct other parts of my body to react in a certain way to that information.

Still looking at it backwards.

Then you won't mind quoting it.

There's a whole section on it, called "early eyes," that deals with that.

First, as noted above, they already had ways of avoiding predators, or they wouldn't have been there to begin with. Second, the thing blocking the light could be a food source, and by avoiding it where others don't, they starve. IOW, your predator scenario is simplistic.

But they could avoid predators better with light detection. It's about increasing the odds. And if I'm being simplistic, it's because this is a simple process to begin with. Yes, it gets more complex, especially as things develop, but I'm not going to be able to cover every eventuality as a layman, especially not in single posts.

So, it refutes the remark it responded to, unless you're merely hanging your hat on "after one generation."

Are you aware that individual mutations can arise multiple times, across multiple generations and species?

If you're going to overcome the irreducible complexity argument, I expect you to show step by step, with each step being sufficiently advantageous to be selected by natural selection.

Again, the fact that the ID folks don't understand evolution isn't my problem. Neutral mutations get selected for too, lethality is the only criteria for being selected against.

Not to mention the shameless shifting of the burden of proof in "overcoming the irreducible complexity argument." I know that whole thing is just an argument from incredulity, but the fact that it's impossible to provide evidence for doesn't mean we should just presume that it's true until evolution proves it wrong. Quit it with the fallacies.

I quoted the wikipedia definition, and wiki is no friend of creationism.

So are you actually telling me that you think that irreducible complexity, the position that something could not have evolved because to reduce it renders it non-functional, means that this thing could have evolved with a few neutral steps? Is that actually what you're telling me, that you think "irreducible complexity," means "reducible complexity."?

I quoted TO, an evolutionist source, on the fate of neutral mutations. You're angry that that doesn't fit with your understanding, but that's not my problem.

And the fact that TO also accepts that the eye evolved doesn't hint to you that maybe you've misunderstood something along the way? I fully accept that many mutations wither and fade, but "many" is not "all," repetitions happen, and so on and so forth.

I'm not debating with a real scientist.

You're also not debating real science, if your every response is just going to be to poke holes, with no positive evidence for your position at all.

seems to be your way of saying, Oh crap, I'm trapped, better go on the offensive to hide it.

Not at all. It's a simple, accurate statement: I don't need to make things up to prove my point, and I find it interesting that your first response was to expect that this would be an obvious tactic.

If you really read up on these things, you'd know that scientists have had differing views on the role of genetic drift over the years. They really don't know how much of a role it plays.

Sure, and that's fine. But there's always data points behind those differing views, observations and tests that led the science on that. What data can you produce to support irreducible complexity that isn't some variation on "I don't see how evolution could produce this, therefore designer"?