Amazon Vehicles Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Gifts for Dad Shop Popular Services twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8, starting at $79.99 Kindle Oasis GNO National Bike Month on Amazon toystl17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science forum

"Irreducible complexity" destroys Darwinian evolution: Darwin RIP


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 406 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 23, 2013, 2:35:04 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 2:35:50 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 2:36:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 3, 2013, 7:12:56 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 2:58:45 AM PST
Johns says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 4:02:10 AM PST
David Félix says:
Hi Brent,

Can you give me an example of a biological structure that is NOT irreducibly complex?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 4:39:51 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 4:42:22 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 5:01:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 5:05:42 AM PST
David Félix says:
You do realize that most flagellated bacterial cells have more than one flagellum (i.e., are not monotrichous), don't you? Would the flagellum, in these species, NOT be irreducibly complex?

EDIT: Keep also in mind that in most non-monotrichous species, the number of flagella is not a fixed amount and varies, e.g., with external stimuli such as temperature. So you may "remove" one or more flagella and the bacteria still functions. Is it not irreducibly complex in this case?

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 5:28:40 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
Sorry, 'irreducible complexity' was already destroyed several years ago. See Kitzmiller v Dover.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 5:43:43 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 5:44:14 AM PST
This is one of the most frustrating things about dealing with Creationists.

An idea can be shown to be false in the greatest of detail, and with mountains of evidence to support its rejection.

Wait a bit, and another Creationist will present the same idea as if it were brand new and beyond reproach.

Lather, rinse, repeat...

The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial was a magnificent negation of Creationism, and Creationism In Disguise, aka Intelligent Design. Indeed, I mark that trial as being the last nail in the coffin of the Intelligent Design movement. Its corpse may still twitch, but it is dead, and good riddance to bad rubbish.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 6:38:06 AM PST
Behe and his "theory" have both been discredited as quacks long ago.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 7:01:19 AM PST
John McClain says:
When your arguments have been thoroughly destroyed, simply start a new thread, hoping newcomers will think you are credible.

The creator of this thread believes in curses, global floods, and that humans once lived for 700 years or more. That is the level of crazy we are dealing with here.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 7:41:27 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 7:45:06 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 8:32:34 AM PST
Customer says:
we don't know of any thing that's IC, in biology (or in the inorganic world), so I guess this would go a long way to 'disprove' Creationist notions about special creations, but the topic can be instructive for people on the fence (if they have some experience with how these questions are settled). But my point is, if the topic is dismissed with derision the folks who are on the fence get suspicious. This might've been what happened to Brent. I'd like to ask, but I know better, since you say he accepts superstitions about 700 year old men etc. (any women that old?) in a collection of old writings..

This acceptance of old tales and this attempt to promote questioning about IC seems incongruous to me. Outrageous assertions by ancient tribesmen (not wholly their fault) and an obvious disinterest in how complexities develop are in the same soup? This IC canard seems more and more to me to be a cry for HELP, because if they lose this one and people they respect in the movement request others to move on and not speak of it any longer (like they have with other creationist dead-ends)... if they lose this one, what do you think is their best fall-back position?

I wonder if we could talk about this, because I think it would be helpful for everyone to hear.. What do scientifically-educated posters think is the best ammo they have? Even sly tricks, lies and misinformation if you think it would be effective among the throngs. Anyone? Maybe you've heard something unique - away from the forum, at a cocktail party or baseball game...

It would be entertaining to hear a group of scientifically-informed posters honestly saying, "No, mine's better than yours, because you see how this would work with a neophyte ..blah blah..".

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 8:41:35 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 8:43:43 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 8:50:30 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 1:33:06 PM PST
noman says:
RE:" Even sly tricks, lies and misinformation if you think it would be effective among the throngs..."

**I'm disgusted that you would say something like that. It's the very antitheses of science and is rather the preview of pseudoscience, quackery and superstition.

EDIT: According to "barb" this statement was to suggest "...defusing what they purport by ranking their attempts?"

I have apologized for misunderstanding.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 9:00:16 AM PST
John McClain says:
Best Poe ever.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 9:04:29 AM PST
noman says:
**NOTE: reposted this to improve the flow of the dialogue. ~_+

David Félix says:
Hi Brent,

Can you give me an example of a biological structure that is NOT irreducibly complex?

Charles Dawkins says:
[You are ignoring this customer's posts. Hide post again. (Show all ignored posts)]
The kidney and the lung. We have two of each, remove one of each, you can still function.

David Félix says:
You do realize that most flagellated bacterial cells have more than one flagellum (i.e., are not monotrichous), don't you? Would the flagellum, in these species, NOT be irreducibly complex?

EDIT: Keep also in mind that in most non-monotrichous species, the number of flagella is not a fixed amount and varies, e.g., with external stimuli such as temperature. So you may "remove" one or more flagella and the bacteria still functions. Is it not irreducibly complex in this case?

**Addendum: BAM...you can also remove one arm, one leg, one eye, one ear and a lobe of the brain and retain function... just not the original function. Which,come to think of it, refutes the whole "IC flagella" thing since it's been shown that individual parts of the flagella have functions not associated with a working flagella. Thanks for this insight.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 9:16:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 9:25:52 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 9:41:58 AM PST
Brian Curtis says:
Topic: Irreducible complexity.

Status: Utterly and easily defeated.

Haynes: Irrelevant.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 9:42:26 AM PST
Customer says:
I thought this was about evolved complexity that can't be explained logically because some parts 'can't' be the result of unrelenting selection (for all the imagined sequence and structural etc. reasons).

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 9:43:44 AM PST
Customer says:
what's wrong with defusing what they purport by ranking their attempts?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 11:11:46 AM PST
David Félix says:
Hi barb,

"I thought this was about evolved complexity that can't be explained logically because some parts 'can't' be the result of unrelenting selection (for all the imagined sequence and structural etc. reasons)."

You should direct your comment to Brent / Charles then. He's the one who provided the kidneys as example of a system which is not irreducibly complex because we can lose one of them and "still function". I merely pointed out that the same can be said of the flagellum for most bacterial species.

Unless meant as sarcasm, Brent's reply admits to the fundamental that two of anything is not irreducible complex, which would create a problem for his position considering that multicellular organisms have, on a cellular level, more than two of everything, not to mention it dispels the other more classic example of IC, the eye.

I'm very interested in having specific examples of systems which are not irreducible complex according to ID.

Are voltage-gated ion channels IC?
Is quorum sensing biofilm formation IC?
Are plasmid transmission systems IC?

What's so special about the flagellum?

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 1:09:25 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 1:10:45 PM PST
SinSeeker says:
BAM, his sock puppet CD, and good ol' good ol' good ol' Chris all in the first twelve posts!

I call snap!

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 23, 2013, 1:30:33 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 23, 2013, 1:31:30 PM PST
noman says:
RE:"barb says:
what's wrong with defusing what they purport by ranking their attempts?"

**??? It read as if you were asking *scientists* to lie about science. I apologize and will amend my post since it appears I was in error.

Posted on Jan 23, 2013, 2:19:35 PM PST
The Weasel says:
Ouch. This one was debunked in the most embarassing way a long long time ago. Posting about it is just foolish.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 2265 10 hours ago
She went to the hospital, and they sent her home! 9 14 hours ago
If you buy a Refurbished electronics item should you be required to be informed what was done to Refurbished it, IF anything? 8 20 hours ago
Scientist: Trump is Exposing Global Warming as a Made Up Claim. What is Your Response? 1256 1 day ago
Bill Nye is a fraud 4 1 day ago
there are only 2 genders 12 5 days ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 9666 5 days ago
Right, got to get to Mars! More waste of taxpayer monies. 32 7 days ago
Medical studies are almost always bogus 11 7 days ago
The Missing Links 0 10 days ago
Use MERV 8 air filters and still lots of dust accumulates in house! 14 12 days ago
Baloney? 9 12 days ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  47
Total posts:  406
Initial post:  Jan 23, 2013
Latest post:  May 18, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer