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

no one has been dumb enough to try to get in one with me.....Omni-Slash

So you dont call millions of witnesses all around the world as proof.

Nope. I have no reason to. I have yet to see a single piece of conclusive evidence to support the existence of any supernatural apparition.

foxhound_fox

i believe in demons angel like you believe in life .

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

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

[QUOTE="kneeha"]

Let me break it down in simpler terms. Why would we develop thoughts or emotions that would not help our survival rate.Or like most concious thought hinders our survival.

xaos

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.

Let me break it down in simpler terms. Why would we develop thoughts or emotions that would not help our survival rate.Or like most concious thought hinders our survival.

Let me break it down in simpler terms. Why would we develop thoughts or emotions that would not help our survival rate.Or like most concious thought hinders our survival.