Another problem(Irreducable Complexity)

An organism is irreducibly complex if taking away some of its parts doesn't just make it work a little worse, but makes it not work at all.

An illustration of irreducible complexity is a mouse trap. A mouse trap consists of several elements: a flat platform, a spring, a trigger, an arm, and some cheese. A mouse trap with all of these elements will work well. A mouse trap that lacks any one of these elements, though, won't just not work well, it won't work at all.

If there is no platform to which the other elements can be attached, then the mouse can grab the cheese from the unassembled mouse trap with impunity. If there is no spring, then the mouse will set off the trap, but the arm won't snap down on it. If there is no trigger, then the mouse can grab the cheese without setting off the trap. If there is no arm, then it doesn't matter that the mouse sets off the trap. If there is no cheese, then the mouse won't go anywhere near the trap. To have a mouse trap that functions at all, then, you need every one of these elements; if you're missing any of them then it just won't work.

Evolution theory holds that we have evolved incrementally over time, gradually changing from one state that works to another state that works better. If evolution theory is true, therefore, then there must be a succession of states, each of which allows us to survive, through which we have evolved on an upward curve.

This, though, doesn't seem to be the case; we seem to be irreducibly complex. To illustrate (actual examples are a bit more complex than this): think of the organs that make human beings work, our hearts, lungs, stomachs, brains, etc. A human being that lacks any of these won't just have less survival value than one with all of them; it won't have any survival value at all. A human being without a heart is a dead human being, as is one without either lungs, or a stomach, or a brain. We therefore can't have incrementally acquired these things, first getting one, then another, and so on; we must have acquired them all at once. That, though, isn't evolution. Evolution is a gradual process.

Evolution, then, cannot explain the origin of irreducibly complex biological organisms. If (and that's a big "if") we are such organisms, then there must be more to how we got here than evolution.

Take the trigger and arm off of the mouse trap and you got a nice tie (I think that's what it was). See, evolution would suggest that different parts with different functions can combine to do a completely different task... and the evidence suggests it. I believe you should check the keywords Ken Miller Irreducible Complexity on YouTube to get a better idea.

your arguement is flawed . but its summer, i just got a A- in anthropology and i dont want to bust the book out for you, so .. i'll just drink another beer and forget about this thread.nimatoad2000

Ifthe mousejust bought the cheese at the grocery store, then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. :(

But really, what organism isn't irreducibly complex? Evolution creates terms for the enviorment around us, it doesn't turn us into some sort of regenerative biotron. I believe you need to take another look at the structures of complexity within the organism and in the enviroment.

Fail. Kenneth Miller has already shown us that a mouse trap with only base plate, spring and arm works just fine. Sure, it doesn't work as well as a whole mouse trap but still works as a nice tie-clip.

Also, the spring in a mouse trap can be used to trap mice... it just won't do a good job of it.

Irreducible complexity is one of the worst arguments in favour of Creationism.

1. IC has already been debunked many, many times.

2. Even if it wasn't, "We don't know how this evolved" is a God of the Gaps fallacy, and does not pose a problem to evolution any more than uncharted territory on the moon poses a problem to Google Maps.

Fail. Kenneth Miller has already shown us that a mouse trap with only base plate, spring and arm works just fine. Sure, it doesn't work as well as a whole mouse trap but still works as a nice tie-clip.

Also, the spring in a mouse trap can be used to trap mice... it just won't do a good job of it.

Irreducible complexity is one of the worst arguments in favour of Creationism.

foxhound_fox

Ifthe mousejust bought the cheese at the grocery store, then we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. :(

But really, what organism isn't irreducibly complex? Evolution creates terms for the enviorment around us, it doesn't turn us into some sort of regenerative biotron. I believe you need to take another look at the structures of complexity within the organism and in the enviroment.

PecansAreNuts

Take the trigger and arm off of the mouse trap and you got a nice tie (I think that's what it was). See, evolution would suggest that different parts with different functions can combine to do a completely different task... and the evidence suggests it. I believe you should check the keywords Ken Miller Irreducible Complexity on YouTube to get a better idea.

zakkro

your arguement is flawed . but its summer, i just got a A- in anthropology and i dont want to bust the book out for you, so .. i'll just drink another beer and forget about this thread.nimatoad2000

I think it's actually their best - which isn't saying much - even if it does boil down to an argument from ignorance.

zakkro

There is no "best" argument for Creationism except "we think God did it, so God did it." All other "arguments" that claim "proof" are epic fail, including IC.foxhound_fox

It seems everybody had a field day with the mice but take something as complex as a human. Dont just argue with me. Think about the argument fully argue with yourself then after actually thinking about it then w/b

It seems everybody had a field day with the mice but take something as complex as a human. Dont just argue with me. Think about the argument fully argue with yourself then after actually thinking about it then w/b

kneeha

It seems everybody had a field day with the mice but take something as complex as a human. Dont just argue with me. Think about the argument fully argue with yourself then after actually thinking about it then w/b

kneeha

It seems everybody had a field day with the mice but take something as complex as a human. Dont just argue with me. Think about the argument fully argue with yourself then after actually thinking about it then w/bkneeha

It seems everybody had a field day with the mice but take something as complex as a human. Dont just argue with me. Think about the argument fully argue with yourself then after actually thinking about it then w/b

kneeha

I have thought about it plenty of times. It's bunk. And it's been debunked before.

It seems everybody had a field day with the mice but take something as complex as a human. Dont just argue with me. Think about the argument fully argue with yourself then after actually thinking about it then w/b

kneeha

Make no mistake about it: if something was proven to truly be irreducibly complex, such that no portion of it served any function whatsoever unless assembled into a complete whole, then this would be a major, almost catastrophic blow to evolution as we know it. The theory of evolution would have to be completelyre-examined in a brand new light if there weresuch a piece of evidence. The person who proved such a thing would almost certainly get a Nobel prize.

The problem is that nobody has ever done so. All people ever do is present something and baselessly claim that it's irreducibly complex. Then scientists prove that it isn't. Irreducible complexity is a total non-starter until people find something that actually is irreducibly complex. It is identical to many people's attempt to prove God: "I make a claim, now you have to prove me wrong!"

Make no mistake about it: if something was proven to truly be irreducibly complex, such that no portion of it served any function whatsoever unless assembled into a complete whole, then this would be a major, almost catastrophic blow to evolution as we know it. The theory of evolution would have to be completelyre-examined in a brand new light if there weresuch a piece of evidence. The person who proved such a thing would almost certainly get a Nobel prize.

The problem is that nobody has ever done so. All people ever do is present something and baselessly claim that it's irreducibly complex. Then scientists prove that it isn't. Irreducible complexity is a total non-starter until people find something that actually is irreducibly complex. It is identical to many people's attempt to prove God: "I make a claim, now you have to prove me wrong!"

GabuEx