Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain the origin of life and biodiversity in general. No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far. Eyery attempt, no exception, has failed. Why ? Because IC is a undeniable FACT, no matter what. And this FACT becomes obvious to the unbiased mind when we envision biological systems as complex molecular machines, that operate similar to man made machines, but far far more complex. Individual parts have no function by themself. This is a important point to highlight. What use does the wing of a airplaine have alone? None. The engineer has to envision a function for the wing, used as essential part of the design of the airplane as a whole in order to fly, and its use once the airplane is fully built with all parts in place. The wing must be made with the right specifications, size, materials, form, and placed and mounted at the right place in the right way. And the wing itself requires complex machines to be made. The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form. All this requires specific information. The precise same thing happens in biological systems. Even the most simple cell useses inumerous parts, that have no use by their own. For what reason would natural mechanisms create these parts , if there were no use for them individually ? This is a problem that stretches through all biology, from the simplest to the most complex. Biological systems do only achieve specific tasks, once a number of individual parts are made upon specific complex instructions, frequently through other specific machines or even factories and assembly lines, that have no other tasks than to build these specific parts, and all this through the instructions of the blueprint in the genome, and then other specific instructions provide the information of how, when , and where to mount the parts to form the complex machine. Same as done when building human made machines. And all these processes must be strictly controlled, with error check and feedback mechanisms, and if something is not build upon the right specification, complex repair machines fix the problem. These checking and repair systems must be fully operational from day one, otherwise, the organism dies. And energy in usable form must also be provided ,and the make of energy requires also complex machinery which by itself requires energy to be made ( chicken-egg problem ). Furthermore, internal and external communication networks must be established. Also all these machines are made to self replicate , which adds a hudge amount of further complexity into the picture. Self replication is far from simple. It demands the most complex molecular machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated , regulated and controlled manner. Why at all would natural unguided, non-intelligent chemical reactions have the need to produce living biological systems, and keep them existing through self replication?
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn’t have a creator, then you’re saying it’s logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn’t need a creator.
No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far.
No coherent description of what IC has ever been brought forward.
All the proposed examples of IC that I know of have been thoroughly refuted by demonstrations that they are indeed reducible.
Rather than rambling, how about presenting some specifics?
I'll show some of mine, if you show me yours. ;-P
Uploaded on Jun 23, 2009
Part 3 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and the Eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP3AY0iHEUA
Dr. Scott criticizes claims by proponents of creation science that the vertebrate eye is too complex a mechanism to have evolved by natural selection.
Darwin discussed the eye in the 'Origin of the Species', and found evidence of a step by step process consistent with evolution. Dr. Scott also discusses evidence from computer models that the eye cold have evolved over a period of 100 million years.
Recorded at the 'Biology of Genomes' meeting at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, June 1, 2009.
Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
Uploaded on Feb 28, 2007
In this video from a lecture about the Kitzmiller trial, Ken Miller debunks Michael Behe's pseudoscience, "Irreducible Complexity". This is one of the main Creationist arguments against Evolution. Miller shows that the common example, bacterial flagellum, is not in fact irreducibly complex.
If it were irreducibly complex, then removing parts should make them useless. However, this is not the case. The parts have functions of their own!
Thus, "IC" is proven to be false.
More on Michael Behe's false arguments here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Why IC is a God of the Gaps (unscientific) explanation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Even if there was a seemingly irreducibly complex system, that would not be a real argument against evolution as such. Just because science can't explain everything right now doesn't mean that it will be unable to do so in the future.
"There must be a God because we cannot explain this", or "God of the gaps", is a concept which does not hold water, since that God disappears more and more, the more science explains. God of the Gaps is not science, it is pseudoscience.
Adonai, if you were ever curious why folks like me can’t take folks like you, or more particularly this tribal fairytale you’re parroting, seriously is because we have so much more information available to help us reason through these questions.
It takes a long time, and science can be a mysterious exercise, but the picture keeps getting resolved a bit better, and it’s a coherent and fascinating (and emotionally, spiritually fulfilling even) story that’s been pieced together.
Here’s an excellent popular audience focused video sharing a look at today’s state of the science, regarding origins understanding.
This is the stuff of substance, whereas all you have is your incredulity and children’s tales to wave at us. Don’t be surprised if no one bites.
PBS NOVA 2016 Lifes Rocky Start
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2xeB5OKVt0
Published on Feb 9, 2016
Four and a half billion years ago, the young Earth was a hellish place—a seething chaos of meteorite impacts, volcanoes belching noxious gases, and lightning flashing through a thin, torrid atmosphere. Then, in a process that has puzzled scientists for decades, life emerged. But how? NOVA joins mineralogist Robert Hazen as he journeys around the globe. From an ancient Moroccan market to the Australian Outback, he advances a startling and counterintuitive idea—that the rocks beneath our feet were not only essential to jump-starting life, but that microbial life helped give birth to hundreds of minerals we know and depend on today. It's a theory of the co-evolution of Earth and life that is reshaping the grand-narrative of our planet’s story.
Four and a half billion years ago, the young Earth was a hellish place—a seething chaos of meteorite impacts, volcanoes belching noxious gases, and lightning flashing through a thin, torrid atmosphere. Then, in a process that has puzzled scientists for decades, life emerged. But how? NOVA joins mineralogist Robert Hazen as he journeys around the globe. From an ancient Moroccan market to the Australian Outback, he advances a startling and counterintuitive idea—that the rocks beneath our feet were not only essential to jump-starting life, but that microbial life helped give birth to hundreds of minerals we know and depend on today. It's a theory of the co-evolution of Earth and life that is reshaping the grand-narrative of our planet’s story.
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far.
No coherent description of what IC has ever been brought forward.
All the proposed examples of IC that I know of have been thoroughly refuted by demonstrations that they are indeed reducible.
Rather than rambling, how about presenting some specifics?
I'll show some of mine, if you show me yours. ;-P
Uploaded on Jun 23, 2009
Part 3 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, and the Eye.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP3AY0iHEUA
Dr. Scott criticizes claims by proponents of creation science that the vertebrate eye is too complex a mechanism to have evolved by natural selection.
Darwin discussed the eye in the 'Origin of the Species', and found evidence of a step by step process consistent with evolution. Dr. Scott also discusses evidence from computer models that the eye cold have evolved over a period of 100 million years.
Recorded at the 'Biology of Genomes' meeting at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, June 1, 2009.
Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU
Uploaded on Feb 28, 2007
In this video from a lecture about the Kitzmiller trial, Ken Miller debunks Michael Behe's pseudoscience, "Irreducible Complexity". This is one of the main Creationist arguments against Evolution. Miller shows that the common example, bacterial flagellum, is not in fact irreducibly complex.
If it were irreducibly complex, then removing parts should make them useless. However, this is not the case. The parts have functions of their own!
Thus, "IC" is proven to be false.
More on Michael Behe's false arguments here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Why IC is a God of the Gaps (unscientific) explanation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Even if there was a seemingly irreducibly complex system, that would not be a real argument against evolution as such. Just because science can't explain everything right now doesn't mean that it will be unable to do so in the future.
"There must be a God because we cannot explain this", or "God of the gaps", is a concept which does not hold water, since that God disappears more and more, the more science explains. God of the Gaps is not science, it is pseudoscience.
Please answer why natural forces would produce proteins and enzymes, or their respective subunits, that by themself have no use, only, if duly embedded in the respective biological molecular machine, or subunits only, when all subunits are present and fully mounted to form a functional proteino or enzyme.
Don't suppose you bothered to spend anytime with any of that.
okay have it your way.
The lord acts in mysterious ways.
Please answer why natural forces would produce proteins and enzymes, or their respective subunits, that by themself have no use, only, if duly embedded in the respective biological molecular machine, or subunits only, when all subunits are present and fully mounted to form a functional proteino or enzyme.
No answer to that question ?? thought so.......
Don't suppose you bothered to spend anytime with any of that.
okay have it your way.
The lord acts in mysterious ways.
Please answer why natural forces would produce proteins and enzymes, or their respective subunits, that by themself have no use, only, if duly embedded in the respective biological molecular machine, or subunits only, when all subunits are present and fully mounted to form a functional proteino or enzyme.
No answer to that question ?? thought so.......
Why should nature not be able to make proteins and enzymes? They are just chemical compounds. Watch this to see how easy it is to create bio-molecules, or cells or strings, that's not the problem. The problem is to bring the right chemicals together under the right conditions. This is called the bottleneck. But according to Hazen creating life of some sort in the vast resources available to the Universe is about a 50/50 probability given sufficient time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A (the actual lecture starts at 13:20) I sincerely recommend this to anyone who has questions about the origins of life.
Anyone else remember when we used to have intelligent discussions on these forums? Now all we seem to get are religious idiots and sanctimonious climate change deniers. I know the moderators don’t like to use a heavy hand, but this repetitive ignorance is ruining these forums.
Why should nature not be able to make proteins and enzymes? They are just chemical compounds. Watch this to see how easy it is to create bio-molecules, or cells or strings, that's not the problem. The problem is to bring the right chemicals together under the right conditions. This is called the bottleneck. But according to Hazen creating life of some sort in the vast resources available to the Universe is about a 50/50 probability given sufficient time.
Proteins: how they provide striking evidence of design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design#3552
Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid" from scattered letter type.1
– A. I. Oparin
The argument of the proteins specified complexity
1. The number and sequence of amino acids in proteins, such as enzymes, are crucial.
2. Only specially-shaped forms (left-handed configurations) of each amino acid are used to form proteins.
3. Amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds to form proteins.
4. To link together, each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme.
5. Multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end.
6. Out of many details even these few have specified complexity without which the proteins could not exist. Not even half of the functional proteins could survive without important function.
7. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned.
8. This is creation by an intelligent designer, and this is the dictionary meaning of the word God.
Why should nature not be able to make proteins and enzymes? They are just chemical compounds. Watch this to see how easy it is to create bio-molecules, or cells or strings, that's not the problem. The problem is to bring the right chemicals together under the right conditions. This is called the bottleneck. But according to Hazen creating life of some sort in the vast resources available to the Universe is about a 50/50 probability given sufficient time.
Proteins: how they provide striking evidence of design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2062-proteins-how-they-provide-striking-evidence-of-design#3552
So do snowflakes, daisies, spirals, etc. They appear designed because they are constructed by the Universal mathematical functions.
Even the simplest of these substances [proteins] represent extremely complex compounds, containing many thousands of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen arranged in absolutely definite patterns, which are specific for each separate substance. To the student of protein structure the spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as im- probable as would the accidental origin of the text of irgil’s “Aeneid" from scattered letter type.1
– A. I. Oparin
The argument of the proteins specified complexity
1. The number and sequence of amino acids in proteins, such as enzymes, are crucial.
2. Only specially-shaped forms (left-handed configurations) of each amino acid are used to form proteins.
3. Amino acids can be joined only by peptide bonds to form proteins.
4. To link together, each amino acid first must be activated by a specific enzyme.
5. Multiple special enzymes are required to bind messenger RNA to ribosomes before protein synthesis can begin or end.
6. Out of many details even these few have specified complexity without which the proteins could not exist. Not even half of the functional proteins could survive without important function.
7. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned.
8. This is creation by an intelligent designer, and this is the dictionary meaning of the word God.
the only irreducible complex system is Chaos, and *everything* evolved from the initial chaos. In physical terms, if a god exists it would have to be in a state of total chaos.
In metaphysical terms, certain universal constants are in essence mathematical, and not the *work* of a god.
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
That isn't even wrong.
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
That isn't even wrong. (I love that quote)
I agree, one but needs to look at lobotomy victims, to see how a mind can evaporate along with the parts of the brain that were removed.
A mind cannot exist independent of a brain. The Mind is a product, not a constant.
Don't suppose you bothered to spend anytime with any of that.
okay have it your way.
The lord acts in mysterious ways.
Please answer why natural forces would produce proteins and enzymes, or their respective subunits, that by themself have no use, only, if duly embedded in the respective biological molecular machine, or subunits only, when all subunits are present and fully mounted to form a functional proteino or enzyme.
No answer to that question ?? thought so.......
The answer is "why not"?? They are merely mindless chemical interactions. Since the formation of the earth its natural chemical reactions is estimated at some *2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion. quadrillion and it is very easy to make biochemical molecules. Given the time and space and the combined richness of the earth's bio-metric functions, existing everywhere in the universe, it was a matter of probability before a chemical structure emerges that can replicate itself and needs external energy to power the energy required. Did you know that we only have about 500 different bio-molecules out of the thousands available?
God particle to benefit humankind and biometrics.
This week, a fundamental base component of the universe was found. Physicists working at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful atom smasher, reported they had discovered what could be the ‘God particle’ – a subatomic particle that imparts mass to all matter in the universe: Also known as the Higgs Boson, the particle is highly unstable, living for only the tiniest fraction of a second before decaying into other particles, so experiments can observe it only by measuring
If a Higgs boson decays (before it interacts with something else), would you call that a *fleeting* thought of God or a fleeting *observation* of God?
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
That isn't even wrong. (I love that quote)
I agree, one but needs to look at lobotomy victims, to see how a mind can evaporate along with the parts of the brain that were removed.
A mind cannot exist independent of a brain. The Mind is a product, not a constant.
So god is brainless?
If IC is a fact that needs to be explained, then the creator of that IC must itself be more complex and therefore needs explanation. So, who created the complex creator who created the IC? And if you say the complex creator of IC doesn't have a creator, then you're saying it's logical for something complex to NOT have a creator, which means IC doesn't need a creator.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
That isn't even wrong. (I love that quote)
I agree, one but needs to look at lobotomy victims, to see how a mind can evaporate along with the parts of the brain that were removed.
A mind cannot exist independent of a brain. The Mind is a product, not a constant.
So god is brainless? If we could agree on that, just think of the ramifications.
Perhaps it is not a metaphysical/philosophical question what God is, but what It is not.
We can say God is the *body* (collection) of universal mathematical constants, but we cannot say that It is intelligent, motivated and emotional. I could agree with such a analogy in a casual way.
Knowledge of mathematical and chemical processes can give us a mental image of implacable universal functions which are in essence mathematical and chemical which allowed for the evolution of the world as we know it. These functions need to be respected or bad things will happen, (the wrath of God).
But such an image does not need personal worship or having cathedrals built in His honor. Better would be to spend all that labor and treasure to built institutes for the sciences (the muses), where testing and applications of universal mathematics and chemistry can be performed to discover the properties and potentials (the essence) of the universe.
This is why I am a fan of David Bohm. I recently saw that Bohmian mechanics are being revived and that his interpretation of hierarchical orders from the very subtle to gross expression in reality is drawing renewed interest. It seems that evidence has been discovered which would confirm the deBroglie-Bohm *Pilot Wave* as one of the fundamental properties of the universe.
The beauty of Bohmian mechanics is his attempt to look at the universe as a *wholeness and implicate order* rather than in separate *aspects*, such as QM and GR or a sentient Divinity.
We could have called such a condition by a single word *God*, but that word has been so damaged by the writings (scriptures) of metaphysical spiritualists, that the word God has lost all of it's meaning and has become so confused as to be detrimental to the peaceful pursuit of the properties of the *Wholeness and the Implicate Order*.
As Carlin observed, it is the people's different interpretations of the properties and demands of God that has caused untold misery.