Ok so here is the basis of the irreducible complexity of life issue.
You have a turning thing in bacteria for example. It has various parts that work together to make it spin. Now I understand evolution once you get a certain something, how it proves to something else. I even understand systems improving and getting more complex as possible. However, it seems to be that it's impossible for a system to get there by direction of random mutations and natural selection.
Take example a car. Once you have a car, we can improve upon that model. Keep making it better. And better. But without essential components of the car, it's not like those essential components are going to be useful without coming together.
Even if they were useful separately, them coming to form a system, a complex system of various parts, still has no direction by natural selection and mutations.
If fact we can talk hypothetically or we can look at nature, and nature suggests a lot of things, the various components, work together with purpose of a being a part of a machinery (system).
There is more to it. If you have to completely type of machines, for example, wheels aren't going to be turning into computer screens evolution wise...(analogy)....engineers improve upon wheels, makes wheels better, and improve on computers and laptops but they are two different functions....
The same is true of many things in nature. Evolution will make it improve in that function primarily. At the very least, it's very unlikely to be heading towards another function completely.
For example, eyes to be moving towards becoming arms. This is not logical. Or eyes heading towards becoming a heart or digestive system.
Or a tree heading towards having legs and arms, and one day moving.
All this doesn't seem plausible to me.
Yes an animal can become a different animal. Gliding can turn into flight. Stuff like that can happen. But it's through improving in something...not a system that was headed towards a direction becoming something completely different or unrelated to what it was.
Tongues won't turn into brains for example. It's just not logical. They will become better tongues. They will not become something entirely different then a tongue as far natural selection and mutations go.
This is the argument from irreducible complexity.
So you have machinery that has various parts, that have a function, and would not function without various essential components. Those essential components have no direction of coming together through the process of evolution naturalism wise.
You have a turning thing in bacteria for example. It has various parts that work together to make it spin. Now I understand evolution once you get a certain something, how it proves to something else. I even understand systems improving and getting more complex as possible. However, it seems to be that it's impossible for a system to get there by direction of random mutations and natural selection.
Take example a car. Once you have a car, we can improve upon that model. Keep making it better. And better. But without essential components of the car, it's not like those essential components are going to be useful without coming together.
Even if they were useful separately, them coming to form a system, a complex system of various parts, still has no direction by natural selection and mutations.
If fact we can talk hypothetically or we can look at nature, and nature suggests a lot of things, the various components, work together with purpose of a being a part of a machinery (system).
There is more to it. If you have to completely type of machines, for example, wheels aren't going to be turning into computer screens evolution wise...(analogy)....engineers improve upon wheels, makes wheels better, and improve on computers and laptops but they are two different functions....
The same is true of many things in nature. Evolution will make it improve in that function primarily. At the very least, it's very unlikely to be heading towards another function completely.
For example, eyes to be moving towards becoming arms. This is not logical. Or eyes heading towards becoming a heart or digestive system.
Or a tree heading towards having legs and arms, and one day moving.
All this doesn't seem plausible to me.
Yes an animal can become a different animal. Gliding can turn into flight. Stuff like that can happen. But it's through improving in something...not a system that was headed towards a direction becoming something completely different or unrelated to what it was.
Tongues won't turn into brains for example. It's just not logical. They will become better tongues. They will not become something entirely different then a tongue as far natural selection and mutations go.
This is the argument from irreducible complexity.
So you have machinery that has various parts, that have a function, and would not function without various essential components. Those essential components have no direction of coming together through the process of evolution naturalism wise.
