And “Behe’s definition is about removing components, @RichardG’s definition is about adding them.”
Chopping text after a few words and responding as if the rest wasn’t there is dishonest.
Oh, you meant Behe’s other definition of ‘irreducibly complex’. This one:
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations)
That’s the definition of irreducibly complex evolutionary pathways, not irreducibly complex biological systems, so isn’t the same as your definition, which was for systems:
Furthermore, your definition is about small steps, while Behe’s definition is about unselected steps. So once again your definition doesn’t match Behe’s.
Also, the definition you gave (“IC means that they cannot be made up in small steps”) isn’t from Wikipedia. It may be your rephrasing of something from Wikipedia that you didn’t really understand, but that’s not “from Wiki not me”.
No. Fraudulent claims about motives aren’t helpful. The fact that YEC and pop antievolution ID do not deal honestly with the data proves nothing about whether evolutionary biology has it right. If ID cleaned up its act, might it find something better?
It differs from both of Behe’s definitions, in focus not just in terminology (removal vs addition of parts, pathway vs system)
It differs from Dembski’s amended version ib the same way.
It’s not on Wikipedia. You posted it.
Unless you can cite some-one or somewhere else that defines irreducibly complex as “cannot be made up in small steps” it is your definition.
If you think based on my comment that I think that is a valid analogy for evolution, you need to pay more attention.
You just characterised evolution as “to be constructed in parts”.
rreducible complexity is a concept that argues certain biological systems cannot evolve through gradual modifications because they require all their parts to function.(Bing)
Irreducible complexity (IC ) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have [evolved](Evolution - Wikipedia) by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional.[Wikiirreducible complexity
One will do. One source that defines ‘irreducibly complex’ or ‘irreducible complexity’ as "cannot be made up in small steps”.
Not a source like those two that define ‘irreducibly complex’ or ‘irreducible complexity’ in some other way and then argue that systems that are irreducibly complex cannot be made up in small steps.
You’ll need to be able to tell the difference between
(i) a definition,
(ii) an argument which uses that definition, and
(iii) a conclusion from that argument
when you go back to school.
If your definition actually uses the words “cannot be made up in small steps” that would be good too. Neither of those do.
P.S. Don’t think that I haven’t noticed that despite you insisting on the ‘updated’ version of IC, both those arguments are based on the original version. Though it wouldn’t surprise me if you hadn’t noticed. Despite what you seem to think, ‘IC’ doesn’t mean ‘cannot evolve’, and ‘evolve’ doesn’t mean ‘be constructed in parts’
Just shows you do not bother to read or understand what I write.
Now you really are splitting hairs.
Stop arguing what IC means. I know what it means. You are reluctant to accept what it means.
“Small steps” is the conventional summary view of ToE. Perhaps you dispute that as well?
You still have never tried to define the basic progression of evolution in any term, be it small steps or something more vague that would get you past IC.
You are more concerned with claiming I know nothing. That has been your mission for the past year or so. The fact that you persist is more telling about you than me.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
49
The 5G COVID Theory is a concept that 5G broadcasts cause COVID. If we admit that 5G exists, does this mean we are agreeing with the theory that 5G causes COVID?
3 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
50
Not to mention that an argument from incredulity is considered a logical fallacy, so it isn’t a logical argument either.
We get it. You don’t think IC systems can evolve. Great. Flat Earthers think the Earth is flat and they question the scientific consensus. Great. Should we care that people question the shape of the Earth?
The bigger question is why the scientific community, or anyone for that matter, should care what you think can or can’t evolve. It makes zero impact on the science, or how scientists will plan their future research. The arguments for IC systems not being able to evolve tells us nothing about their history or how they came about. No one who thinks IC systems can’t evolve is doing active research looking for positive evidence for how they think IC systems came about. It’s about denial, not enlightenment.
I did not invent IC. you refusal to accept it exists is one thing. To accuse it of bein comparable to flat eart is just childish.
It has nothing to do with incredulity, mine or otherwise.
Why do I have to supply the solution? is that how science works? You propose it, you prove it? (I didn’t propose it)
In the mean time science can just ignore it!
Is IC a negative? Only to ToE.
Is IC provable? I do not see how it can be, at least in terms o creation .No more than you can prove anything can be made in small increments.
IC can, and has been, demonstrated in both analogy and mechanics, but neither of them seem valid to evolutionists,
The underlying claims about “small Steps” or increments within evolution would appear to be a bone of contention that you et al do not seem to wish to confront or address, or answer. IC contests this, but as long as you deny IC you do not have to clarify or adjust the vagueness.
You are mistaking disagreement for lack of understanding.
That does not appear to be the case. You seem to think it means “* cannot be made up in small steps*”, or “cannot evolve”. It doesn’t.
Because I know of counterexamples.
Bovine faeces. I have, and so have others. You just ignore it.
(Put simply, IC systems can evolve from non-IC systems by the alteration of some components so that previously optional components become non-optional).
And if you say cannot be broken down you are clearly being stupid.
Your examles just rove my point about your refusing to understand.
If you don’t like the principle change it!
The whole idea is that none of the components work on their own, so your answer fails! IC means that. It means that the systems are interdependnet and cannot work alone. You are claiming that they can.
You are cheating.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
54
It’s the same reasoning you are using when you claim evolutionists can’t admit that IC systems exist. I fully admit that that IC systems exist in the same way that I admit 5G exists despite my skepticism that 5G causes COVID.
I accept that there are systems where the removal of one part causes the system to cease functioning. What I don’t accept is your claim, as well as others, that these systems can’t evolve.
What is so hard to understand here?
Then what data is it based on? What data demonstrates these systems can’t evolve?
No one has supplied a solution, nor any evidence. It’s based solely on “it can’t evolve because I say so”. It’s just denial.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
58
Yes, biological ones. I accept that there are biological systems where the removal of one part results in the whole system losing function.
I have yet to see evidence demonstrating that IC systems can’t evolve.
Yes, all you can do is make claims just like Flat Earthers can only make claims about the Earth being flat. Like you, they can’t bring any data to bear.
Can you offer anything to support your claims about IC systems other than “because I say so”?
3 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
59
That they didn’t leave a record is also a matter of opinion. New pre-Cambrian fossils are being found all of the time.
The first question is how many would we expect to even leave a fossil record? We know flatworms (Platyhelminthes) are super abundant, but we hardly have any fossils of flatworms. How many would we expect to have found thus far given the rarity of Pre-Cambrian strata available to search, and after searching such a tiny percentage of the Pre-Cambrian?
Moreover, what would we expect with ID? Well . . . just about anything, wouldn’t we? Why not expect to see something as complex as whales or birds in the Cambrian? Why would we expect to see anything like a nested hierarchy? Instead, we see what we would expect to see if evolution is true. We see the least complex organisms emerging first, and they form the earliest branches in our phylogenies (i.e. phyla).
Everybody accepts IC as existing systems with multiple essential parts. Why this is not a problem for evolution has already been clearly explained in detail multiple times by @Roy, @Paleomalacologist, @St.Roymond, @Argon, and @T_aquaticus, so I expect it would be futile to try again.
This is why ID should be able to distinguish ex nihilo poofing from tinkering by biotech angels. Ex nihilo is unconstrained and need not follow a nested hierarchy or progression of complexity. Biotech angels punching clock for millions of years could yield results looking something like evolution as we know it. But according to ID, that investigation is out of bounds.
