Talk:Irreducible complexity/Archive1

Conclusions often follow from assumptions made
The article has this: "Imagine a situation where every gene has an equal chance of mutating within a certain period of time."

I have a problem with such an assumption, as I know other fields that such assumptions are often misleading (even when the assumption is valid). In signal processing, for example, it is often assumed that quantization error (using a uniform quantization scheme) can be modeled as Gaussian noise. However, in many cases, this assumption is invalid. For example, a 100 Hz sine wave sampled at 280 Hz and quantized to 8 bits will exhibit quantization errors that do not exhibit Gaussian distribution (in fact, the quantization errors will result in the appearance of "noise" that is highly colored, that is, correlated to the signal of interest and the sample rate). Even so, if you consider the effect of quantization for an ergodic ensemble of signals, the statistics of quantization error approach a Gaussian distribution as the number of signals in the ensemble increases. Heart ♥  Gold tx 09:48, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Smart people ROCK! User:PalMD
 * Well, I don't mean to show off. But in all cases, the origin and applicability (and dangers that lurk in applying) such assumptions are often glossed over.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 09:55, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't matter in this case, you'd still get a probability curve if there was another kind of spread and with 3 billion DNA base pairs quantization isn't really an issue.

If you insist I can change this part, but it doesn't seem necessary, though I will change "genes" to base pairs, that really do have equal chances for mutation. MiddleMan 09:57, 25 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I'll think about how to reword this. I am not concerned about quantization in particular but rather how conclusions follow from assumptions, and whether or not danger lurks in those assumptions.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 10:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, basically a copy error during cell division is random, so it doesn't target specific base pairs, neutron radiation just hit the cell and damages a chunk of DNA, also randomly, it could be that chemical contaminations do have a preference for one kind of base pair, but there are only 2 kinds of base pairs if I remember correctly. Maybe Palmd, or TimS can clear this up. MiddleMan 10:11, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, there are many different kinds of errors, most of which are random, or "nearly random" (some areas may be more susceptible than other). There are 4 nucleotide bases (well, 5, but that's just a technicality), and any can be hit by radiation or other mutations.  Various copy errors, like frame-shift mutations, occur as well as deletion.  Most mutations are nonsense, but some actually encode proteins.  --PalMD-yada yada 11:49, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

4 nucleotides and 2 base pairs, right? In any case, even if one kind of base pairs was more susceptible to mutations than the other, you could still graph it into a probability curve, notice g(x) part in the exponential, it leaves you free to change the steepness and such of the curve, but in the end you still have an exponential function that only approaches zero as g(x) approaches minus infininity. MiddleMan 11:59, 25 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Good point. I have to rethink the Diehard battery of tests.  Philosophically, you cannot really prove that a source is not random even if it repeats the same sequence over and over (or makes errors in a predictable way).  Even so, statitics are used to analize random number generators, and used to demonstrate that they are not random.  Strictly speaking, such tests can only demonstrate that they probably are not random, but nobody would take somebody seriously who claimed that a coin that came up head 99.9% of the time in experimentation was a fair coin.  You might argue that it is random, just biased.  Applying this back to irreducable complexity, it seems that scientific conclusions can be drawn regarding the liklihood of compound (requiring two or more simultaneous mutations) adaptations occuring randomly.  For example, and I am not arguing that this has been done, if it was never determined that the probability of a compound useful adaptation was greater than 1E-57, it would be unreasonable that all such adaptations were the result of truly random and normally distributed processes, even if filtered via selection.  Heart  ♥  Gold tx 23:40, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

One Word
I have a tiny problem with one word "the guiding role of Natural Selection, " - this suggests intent and therefore reasoning and therefore intelligence = ID! QED. Someone think of another word - please. Keepit under your hat! 08:48, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * "Guiding2 doesn't have to be intelligent. The course of a river is guided by the lay of the land and the hardness of the rock it cuts through. But yes, guided for natural events should be avoided in this argument, otherwise the creationists will leap on it with a cry of "Aha!" (because they like Norwegian pop groups). Totnesmartin 08:56, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, it's a bad choice. I've removed it for now as it's only a hostage to fortune.  If anybody has a better adjective then let's use it.

Well that's 3 UKers as one mind. (why aren't you two working - who's going to keep my pension coming? Mush, Mush!) Keepit under your hat! 09:17, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Alright - you're in Spain but you could pay some taxes on your vast properties back home Bob) Keepit under your hat!
 * Actually off work for the month of August. :-) But it's a bit too hot to go out at the moment. (And my tax position is up to date in both countries.) :-) --Bob_M (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * sorry, off sick. Totnesmartin 09:28, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Hope you get better soon. Out of curiosity, where do you stand on this UKers thing? I'm a Brit - what are you? --Bob_M (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Brit is better, UKer seems like I'm playing a Ukelele. But then, George Formby was a Brit! Getting better soon doesn't appear to be on the table, but I can manage. Totnesmartin 10:05, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

It always seems to sound a bit derogatory to me - but OK I'll go with it.Keepgerbils(in a cage)! 10:13, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

Your misfortune seems to be RWs gain. Hope your ailment departs soon. Keepgerbils(in a cage)! 10:13, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks. What about "Airstrip one prole"? Totnesmartin 10:17, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
 * The reason that I don't like "UKer" is I'm ex-pat, and explaining what on earth "British" is takes long enough without having to talk about the UK. Naturally I could say that I'm English - but it wouldn't be true. "Airstrip oneer" - might work here. --Bob_M (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

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 נתֶּר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  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 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)

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)