NationStates Jolt Archive

Furthermore, there is this thing called irreducible complexity, which means that if you remove a part then the whole will not function. The eye is irreducibly complex, if you remove any part of the human eye it will not function, therefore the eye could not have ever been simpler than it is now or it would not function.

This is a qoute taken from one of the many (T_T) creationist debate threads and this idea of IC has been used alot to disprove evolution..

To disprove this though.. dosn't one simply have to look no further then the human system ? Do we need our galblader.. or 2 kidneys or 2 lungs ?
The human body does not shut down becuase one loses an eye.. Of course the eye ceases to function as it was merely a part of the system..b ut the system continues to funciton..

What is an example of an Irreducibly complex system ?

That's just nonsense spouted by creationist ignoramuses. They obviously odn't understand evolution if they think that the eye is proof of creationism because it will fail to work if any part is removed.

The bottom line to this arguement is, my invisible blue bunny friend says you're wrong and that you will go to the land of Nylons where you will be flogged with a deaf porcupine from Cuba.

Furthermore, there is this thing called irreducible complexity, which means that if you remove a part then the whole will not function. The eye is irreducibly complex, if you remove any part of the human eye it will not function, therefore the eye could not have ever been simpler than it is now or it would not function.

This is a qoute taken from one of the many (T_T) creationist debate threads and this idea of IC has been used alot to disprove evolution..

To disprove this though.. dosn't one simply have to look no further then the human system ? Do we need our galblader.. or 2 kidneys or 2 lungs ?
The human body does not shut down becuase one loses an eye.. Of course the eye ceases to function as it was merely a part of the system..b ut the system continues to funciton..

What is an example of an Irreducibly complex system ?


Not really a disproof of IC. This is better:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Source (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html)

That's just nonsense spouted by creationist ignoramuses. They obviously odn't understand evolution if they think that the eye is proof of creationism because it will fail to work if any part is removed.

Nope. That's not the argument. The argument is that there could be no intermediate stage between eye/not eye, thus the eye is proof of creation/Intelligent Design. That's why the bit I posted, combined with the myriad other examples, disproves it.

This is getting a little too Hitchhikers Guide for me...

Interesting paper against Irreducible Complexity (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#argument)

The idea that Irreducible complexity disproves evolution seems less viable as i do more research on the subject.. On argues that Evolution cannot occur because through evolution there would be a gradual development of the system, and since all the system parts are not developed it is by default disfunctional. But more basic systems dont have the same defined functions as more advanced onces. In the case of the eye developing surely a basic eye on a simple organism did not serve the same function as the eye today being depth perception color differentiation. I simply don't understand the line of reasoning behind Irreducible Complexity, can anyone elaborate for me ?

Irreducible Complexity is simply a false statement that a religious person came up with to counter the opposition towards the Church during the Enlightenment Era around 1750. Many theories of the Church have been proven false, and this one will be to

what i like is just how stupid behe's mouse trap analogy was. the idea was that a mouse trap is irreducibly complex - all of its parts must be there for it to function.

http://thepestcontrolstore.com/i/ac0011lg.jpg

and within days the first wise-ass took a mouse trap, removed the bottom of it and attached the whole thing directly to the floor. irreducibly complex, my ass. all behe showed is that he has no imagination.

this site (http://chem.tufts.edu/science/IntelligentDesign/mousetrap.htm) has some ways to reduce the 'irreducibly complex' mouse trap even more. check it out, a one piece mouse trap
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/IntelligentDesign/mousetrap5.gif

Actually, I suspect that the universe itself may be irreducibly complex ... to sustain the physics it has right now, including living systems. In other words, the universe can be reduced, but reduction would change the physics rendering life as we know it impossible.

Interesting.

Actually, I suspect that the universe itself may be irreducibly complex ... to sustain the physics it has right now, including living systems. In other words, the universe can be reduced, but reduction would change the physics rendering life as we know it impossible.

Interesting.
*is a physics student*

*is utterly confused by this statement*

...it simply doesn't work like that... why is it that people think that they know so much about physics when they've taken like one class on the subject in highschool (if that) and that they can then go off and spout their theories that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, then claim that the nonsense they spout off is more correct than what the experts say.

...it simply doesn't work like that... why is it that people think that they know so much about physics when they've taken like one class on the subject in highschool (if that) and that they can then go off and spout their theories that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, then claim that the nonsense they spout off is more correct than what the experts say.
It is what I call the "layman effect". I came up with that phrase just now. :D But my point is that people really like to act more knowledgable on everything than they are. That's why I have difficulty discussing global warming and biodiversity on this board...

Edit:
I swear, I quite literally had to prove via numerous links to someone on this board that hypercubes (tesseracts) are a real concept. And we were discussing dimensional physics. He told me I was making up words.

It is what I call the "layman effect". I came up with that phrase just now. :D But my point is that people really like to act more knowledgable on everything than they are. That's why I have difficulty discussing global warming and biodiversity on this board...

Edit:
I swear, I quite literally had to prove via numerous links to someone on this board that hypercubes (tesseracts) are a real concept. And we were discussing dimensional physics. He told me I was making up words.
yeah, i spoke to him too.

i'm sure part of my annoyance here is also due to that... it's become a more frequent occurance around here it seems. it's very tiring and discouraging when people sit there and spout absolute nonsense and claim to have disproven physics itself... personally, i am passionate about physics and i find it to be facinating and to see someone butcher it so horribly... it would be like if an expert in shakespeare heard a horrible interpretation of the meaning behind hamlet's "to be or not to be" solliloquy and the person then insisted they were right and the personw ho had studied it was wrong, despte many obvious errors in their interpretation. or like if someone said that picasso's guernica was about a picnic...