Talk:Irreducible complexity
Contents |
[edit] Logical Fallacy
Do any of our philosophers know the logical fallacy at work in "irreducible complexity"?162.82.215.199 13:33, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
You mean other than the fact that it is complete Tripe? XD Trashbat 13:38, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
- I was never that good at critical thinking, but the fact that, discounting solipsism (and you have to do that), it's demonstrably false is a start. Statement in conflict with reality? (damn, simu'ed by TB!)--ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום! 18:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know as there is a logical fallacy if you don't make a statement about irreducible complexity, but read [1] for why it's not accepted.Sterile 13:41, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
- A wristwatch, unlike a flagellum, is made of several other pre-made parts assembled together. A flagellum is an integral machine, all of whose parts evolved together, and were not produced in another "factory". The whole idea is silly, but I was wondering if there is a logical fallacy other than idiocy.--PalMD-yada yada 13:45, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
For starters wristwatch-parts do not mutate, grow or reproduce. MiddleMan 13:51, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
It's pretty much "argumentum ad ignorantiam" insofar as the main argument put forward seems to be "I can't see how that would be of any use therefore this must be true". I'm sure someone with more of a philosophical leaning could offer a better explanation than mine, especially as it's been a busy day and I have my stupid head on this evening...! Trashbat 13:55, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
If you are referring to "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection," irreducible complexity is begging the question/assuming the answer. That is, it assumes that a flagellum or an eye or wing is designed, and therefore it answers the question, How did living things come to be? without actually providing an argument. Sterile 13:58, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
I always get a laugh about the concept that something is so complex that it could not happen by chance (quantum physics says otherwise). Often people experience pareidolia when they are looking at complex patterns, I believe this is the case with the ID due to Irreducible complexity claim. Since the process is so complex it must have been designed to happen. Because we have yet to understand all of the biochemical interactions, and the evolution of those processes, of an organism we tend to see the complexity as overwhelming instead of reducing it to its parts. I often believe that this ID is a ploy for suppression of invaliding evidence by the religious that could harm their basic claims. Befuddle the layperson's understanding of what and what is not empirical evidence and then overwhelm them with information, reprogramming their understanding if you will. That is why ID is making ground is because most people do not understand what "science" is. If you look at how the ID movement is going about to achieve this you can conclude that proponents of ID are looking to indoctrinate the youth instead of presenting their "Science" in a way that can be evaluated by the scientific community. Consider what other organizations indoctrinate the youth, religious groups come to mind real fast. How many people are circumcised in the US? Why? Mostly due to religious upbringing which has changed the common mindset to "we should mutilate our children for no medical reason other than the bible saying so." Because it has happened in society for so long few challenge it and when they do they are seen as odd. This I believe is what ID is trying to do through the school system in the US, get everyone on board with this idea so that the science that challenges it is seen as odd, which consequently means less people actually studying it therefore achieving the religious agenda of suppression of information that goes against their dogma. Ok, enough of my rambling.--TimS 15:28, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
- Nice work, folks, this article is really starting to shape up. We probably need a lay-person section though, as statistics are tough for people. --PalMD-yada yada 09:40, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
I'll add the fact that any curve that is not a straight line, is thus not linear, meaning it it's a power of some constant, or something like that... MiddleMan 09:46, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Humor
I hate "gratuitous" humour, to the point that I almost felt ashamed for calling 4 CP Sysops idiots, but this really cracked me up! So funny... and so true! (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 17:56, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Not Pseudoscience!
Dawkins is especially interested in noting that intelligent design or irreducible complexity, as Behe proposed it, is not pseudoscience. It is a testable hypothesis. It may pseudoscience to ignore evidence against irreducible complexity, but the proposal in itself is not. If there were certain processes which coudln't be explained in a gradualist fashion, then Behe would be right. However, it is very unlikely that these processes will be found, Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have generally been accounted for. Bottom line, refuted science is not pseudoscience!!! 189.146.11.107 12:28, 12 November 2008 (EST)
- There are many things which can make something Pseudoscience as our Pseudoscience article mentions.--Bobbing up 12:55, 12 November 2008 (EST)
- I think the reason why most on the anti-ID say that ID is not testable is that if the designer is supernatural, it is by definition out of the realm of testablity. I suppose aliens might have put life in motion, but the the "who designed the designer?" question comes up. I guess if you could trace the lineage of designers back to a first, mortal, non-supernatural designer, then you could have an argument.
- Also, it's not clear to me that irreducible complexity presupposes ID. After all, one can argue that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, but can show inductively that natural selection favored it (although never with 100% certainty, of course). And on the other hand, IDers never seem to provide mechanisms by which the designer designed... Sterilevote! 18:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
[edit] What?
| We assume that advantageous mutations are rare, meaning the gene density will drop with the distance from x=0, this can be plotted as a probability curve, every non-linear graph (a graph that's not a straight line), can be described by a power of a constant, the simplest form being f(x) = x2. In statistics, a continuous probability curve the, f(x), is related to x through an exponential function. |
What does any of that mean? - π 11:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Dude, you have just EC'd quite a large edit of mine. It doesn't affect your stuff, the change is quite similar actually but expanded.
gnostic 11:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, I checked your edit to the statistics section and included that in what I did. Feel free to review, of course.
gnostic 11:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I will have to read my book on Evolutionary Dynamics to do a proper rewrite. I will remove what I know is wrong for now. - π 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have no clue on the statistics so I'll trust your judgment on that part. Until then we can possibly focus on the abstract examples like the one with a mousetrap or a paperclip.
gnostic 12:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have no clue on the statistics so I'll trust your judgment on that part. Until then we can possibly focus on the abstract examples like the one with a mousetrap or a paperclip.
- I will have to read my book on Evolutionary Dynamics to do a proper rewrite. I will remove what I know is wrong for now. - π 11:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind, I checked your edit to the statistics section and included that in what I did. Feel free to review, of course.
[edit] Removed stats section
| ==Statistical examination of chance==
Often irreducible complexity relies on overstating the aspects of chance in evolution. Usually by outright stating that "this couldn't all have happened by chance" and attempting to argue from an almost straw man version of evolutionary theory. However, the role of chance still needs to be looked at and looking at it thoroughly often shows that the odds aren't stacked up that badly. Elementary statistics prove that dismissing chance as a whole is mathematically erroneous. Imagine a situation where every base pair (DNA building blocks that make up genes and chromosomes) has an equal chance of mutating within a certain period of time. We can now plot these base pairs along the x-axis, the distance of the base pair to the x=0 is inversely proportional to its necessity (that is, base pairs that would harm the organism if they were to mutated will be closer to x=0 than base pairs that could mutate without harming the adverse effects.) We assume that advantageous mutations are rare, meaning the gene density will drop with the distance from x=0, this can be plotted as a probability curve, every non-linear graph (a graph that's not a straight line), can be described by a power of a constant, the simplest form being f(x) = x2. In statistics, a continuous probability curve the, f(x), is related to x through an exponential function. Now, since exp[z] = e2, where e is Euler's Number<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)</ref> with a value of 2.71, it can easily be shown that the probability will never become zero (c0 = 1.) In addition, one of the most important factors in evolution - the fundamental role of Natural selection, cannot be neglected. As a result of natural selection evolution is nothing like the blind random process that its critics sometimes claim it to be. |
— Unsigned, by: Π / talk / contribs 11:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] natural arches
There is an entry on the Evolution News and Views blog which probably should be addressed here: Is There a Michelangelo Building Sandstone Arches? I read about this on the Sensuous Curmudgeon here: Natural Arches Aren't Designed, But You Are I will be extremely busy over several days. TomS TDotO (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)