|
Wasp creates zombies out of roaches via brain surgery (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sakabatou |
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." (Origin of Species, 6th ed. (1988), p. 154) – Darwin
An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can't catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice. [1]
According to evolution, you should be able to reduce every biological system, piece by piece, down to its beginning. Evolution then could not be the scientific origin of the mouse trap, there must have been some intelligent hand involved. As Darwin admits in the opening quote, if you can demonstrate a complex biological system along the same line of reasoning, then his theory would break down. |
|
|
| astroboy |
The concept of irreducible complexity, even if successful would not prove intelligent design, it would merely disprove Darwinian evolution. While evolution is a scientific hypothesis based on initial observation and consisting of positive assertions about the way things are, and backed by some evidence indicating its veracity. Irreducible complexity merely attempts to disprove evolution, or to demonstrate the way things aren't without demonstrating any positive proof of an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer part is seemingly an a priori assumption.
Secondly, several mechanisms have been identified, by which gradual, small changes overtime can lead to the formation of an irreducibly complex system.
Thirdly just because you can't think of a way that a functional mousetrap could be reduced in complexity does not mean that it's irreducible - it could simply mean that you (or rather Michael Behe) can't think of it. Indeed examples of a mousetrap's reducibility have already been demonstrated. |
|
|
| whiskers |
| quote: | Originally posted by sakabatou
As Darwin admits in the opening quote, if you can demonstrate a complex biological system along the same line of reasoning, then his theory would break down. |
However, a mouse trap is not a complex biological system and WAS designed by an intelligent being which means whoever came up with that argument was using a straw man.
 |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by whiskers
However, a mouse trap is not a complex biological system and WAS designed by an intelligent being which means whoever came up with that argument was using a straw man.
|
To be fair Michael Behe (the guy that came up with thi new wave of creationism, relabelled "intelligent design" and supported by his "theory" of irreducible complexity) only used the mousetrap example as an analogy to explain the idea, in his writing he then goes on to give examples of complex biological systems that he believes demonstrate irreducible complexity.
Again there is no way of measuring the reducibility of complexity scientifically so really it is a case of him saying, "i can't think of a way this can be reduced therefore it can't be and if it can't be therefore evolution is false, and if evolution is false then there must have been an intelligent designer" (scientific reasoning if i've ever seen it :rolleyes: )... the guy's actually a qualified molecular biologist if you can believe it.
Then there's the fact that instead of taking his theory and publishing it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal he writes a book aimed squarely at the creationists. I have never understood how people even slightly familiar with scientific theory and method could sit there and call intelligent design science. |
|
|
| Tiger777 |
Darwin wrote his theory back in 1850. A long time ago when you had to be afraid of the church and cristian people.
Darwin's theory doesn't explain everything though. Most of the mutations are lethal, so there were NEVER radical changes in the genes of animals. Even now, we have 60% of the genes that flies have... But that doesn't mean we're 60% fly. Genes interact with eachother to create complex organisms. The more genes interact with eachother, the more complex your animal will be. Now it can't be TOO hard to believe that in the evolution from plants to animals, the interaction of genes increased now can it? |
|
|
| Pjotr G |
| God created evolution. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| But who or what created god |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
But who or what created god |
Chuck Norris. |
|
|
| Pjotr G |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
But who or what created god |
he evolved from a plant |
|
|
| miamitrance04 |
| considering that 99.9% of mutations are harmful i find it hard to believe that my eye was once a light receptor. I also find it hard to believe that we are glorified apes. Deep down what really gets in the way for people to believe in intelligent design is their own ego. If intelligent design were somehow to be proven this would imply several consequences that most people would want to avoid. for example trying to understand who this "creator" is and why he created us? and why we are here/purpose. Most people would rather have a darwinian worldview/secular humanist point of view and believe that we are here randomly by the effect of thousands of mutations, have no inherent value or worth and our purpose of existence is only to further our species and survive oh and to seek pleasure. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitrance04
considering that 99.9% of mutations are harmful i find it hard to believe that my eye was once a light receptor. I also find it hard to believe that we are glorified apes. Deep down what really gets in the way for people to believe in intelligent design is their own ego. If intelligent design were somehow to be proven this would imply several consequences that most people would want to avoid. for example trying to understand who this "creator" is and why he created us? and why we are here/purpose. Most people would rather have a darwinian worldview/secular humanist point of view and believe that we are here randomly by the effect of thousands of mutations, have no inherent value or worth and our purpose of existence is only to further our species and survive oh and to seek pleasure. |
No your eye was not once a light receptor. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the "eye" of an extremely primitive organism was a light receptor. It eventually lead to the spawning of a number of organisms that found the concept and phsyiology of an "eye" somewhat useful ... including you. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by miamitrance04
considering that 99.9% of mutations are harmful i find it hard to believe that my eye was once a light receptor. I also find it hard to believe that we are glorified apes. Deep down what really gets in the way for people to believe in intelligent design is their own ego. |
I'd say that what really gets in teh way is a lack of scientific proof of intelligent design and a wealth of scientific data supporting evolution.
Conversely what i think really gets in the way of people accepting evolution is a narrow-minded approach to scripture which leads them to the belief that evolution somehow cuts God out of the process, together with a stubborn faith based purely on a set of a priori assumptions that have been drummed into them from childhood by their parents and community, and entirely devoid of any rational basis.
The point is that if you take the scientific, rational approach to the world then there does not currently exist a better hypothesis for the origin of species than the theory of evolution. If, you wish to take a fundamentalist religious aproach then scripture should only be interpreted literally and all else is herecy. But for goodness sake if you do take the latter approach don't try to bring science into it.
| quote: | | If intelligent design were somehow to be proven this would imply several consequences that most people would want to avoid. for example trying to understand who this "creator" is and why he created us? and why we are here/purpose. Most people would rather have a darwinian worldview/secular humanist point of view and believe that we are here randomly by the effect of thousands of mutations, have no inherent value or worth and our purpose of existence is only to further our species and survive oh and to seek pleasure. |
Philosophically a view of a divine creator is in fact the easier option to accept. It instantly (especially if backed by scripture of some form) provides a purpse to life that is beyond question, provides a concrete system of morality and the unique ability to decide what is right and what is wrong without any advertance to personal responsibility.
A far more difficult position for man, philosophically speaking, is to find himself alone, without a God or scripture by which to judge his actions. In a state of existential abandoment man can not follow a written guideline knowing that it is right path. Instead he has to consider the consequences of every action and choice he makes and decide for himself what the correct path is. If the religious right accepted that evolution is right and that scripture should notbe interpreted literally, they'd be forced to reckon with the freedom that God gave them, and have to finally take responsibility for their actions (a scary prospect for any fundamentalist). They could no longer point to the bible and say "this justifies all my actions". |
|
|
|
|
