Detecting Design.

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, it has potential to refute evolution.

It does not.

I'm talking about if as abstract concept, is it legit.

It is not. At least, it is not for the purpose that it is presented: a hallmark of design by which "design" can be determined. It simply isn't capable of that. In fact, if it is used for that, then one is simply engaging in an argument from ignorance. Because at that point, what is being said is essentially "I don't understand/know how this multi-part system came about naturally - therefor it didn't come about naturally".

That's the crux of it.
If one tries to use this concept as a means to determine design, one is simply engaging in a logical fallacy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But irreducible complexity doesn't say that. It has different way at reaching design than "well it's so complex, then it definitely is designed".

Kind of disagree....

A case could be made that almost any complex system is "irreducibly complex".
As most complex systems will either no longer work or lose function when parts are removed.

And "complex", imo anyway, literally means that multiple parts work in some sort of cooperation to achieve a certain effect or goal. The more parts, the more complex.

I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with an example of any complex system that can continue to work without any loss of function when parts are being removed.

 

[Tiberius]

It doesn't, as it completely ignores the option of repurposing of parts.

Function X might require 3 parts. If you remove one of them, function X no longer works.
But the system of just 2 parts, might be able to serve another function.

"irreducibly complex" features naturally come about all the time in such fashion.

Also, there may be some system made up of parts A, B and C.

When part D evolves, the organism may start using it for a different purpose. In this new purpose, part A may play no part. So natural selection removes it. Now we have a system made of B, C and D, and someone may claim that the removal of part D leaves it as a non functioning system, and thus is evidence of irreducible complexity (and they'd be wrong).

Builders constructing a stone arch use this technique. In the completed arch, each stone is required. Remove any stone, and the others will collapse. It would appear that every stone must be placed simultaneously. Yet this is not how the arch was built. The builder creates a wooden framework which is used to support the arch while it is being constructed and incapable of supporting itself. Once the arch is finished, the wooden framework is removed, leaving the arch standing securely. And yet the arch is not irreducibly complex.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe because Scientists are so doctrinal and controlled by Satan, can't listen or reason properly about this.

Is this a joke, or do you mean it?

If it is not a joke, our discussion, such as it was, is not going to go anywhere.

 

[sayak83]

It's not just science that is corrupted, it's everything, something in the water.

Shiism has been corrupted through and through. Quranic translations are evil through and through in so many key places.

Experts and how authority is built, is theory. In theory, Shiism is suppose to refer hadiths back to Quran. It doesn't happen in reality.

The same is true of peer review with respect to science and scientists. It's a theory, but so much power bullying going on there, it's been compromised.

Rubbish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Doesn't matter. We aren't talking about God or Aliens here, simply design, and if can be inferred from this concept.

We aren't talking about real life. First, you have to understand this concept thoroughly.

It's because a bunch of idiots misapplied this to the eye in pamphlets, that, everyone thinks it's refuted now.

Let's look at the concept.

The concept as a way to determine design has indeed been refuted. And not through "missapplication in pamphlets", but based on the original incarnation straight from Behe's mouth.

It's been refuted to hell and back a thousand times over.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It may claim it does, but as I say the problem is that it can't prove the system or structure in question cannot have arisen naturally. This follows from the fact that we do not know all the possible processes of nature.

Yep.

And that's exactly why, even if we assume IC to be a legitemate way to detect design (which it isn't), it ultimately ends up being an argument from ignorance when used as such.

"I don't know how this structure came about naturally, therefor it didn't".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have to first see what the design inference is.

There is none.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe because Scientists are so doctrinal and controlled by Satan, can't listen or reason properly about this.

Was this a serious comment or were you joking?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also, there may be some system made up of parts A, B and C.

When part D evolves, the organism may start using it for a different purpose. In this new purpose, part A may play no part. So natural selection removes it. Now we have a system made of B, C and D, and someone may claim that the removal of part D leaves it as a non functioning system, and thus is evidence of irreducible complexity (and they'd be wrong).

Builders constructing a stone arch use this technique. In the completed arch, each stone is required. Remove any stone, and the others will collapse. It would appear that every stone must be placed simultaneously. Yet this is not how the arch was built. The builder creates a wooden framework which is used to support the arch while it is being constructed and incapable of supporting itself. Once the arch is finished, the wooden framework is removed, leaving the arch standing securely. And yet the arch is not irreducibly complex.

Yep exactly.
I like the stone arch example, it's indeed a nice illustration of yet another way such things can come about.

There are many ways imaginable on how one can achieve an "IC" system. In both manufacturing AND in natural development of whatever.


And just to add.... it's also easy to demonstrate how IC actually isn't of any importance to creationist arguments. As usual with just about EVERY point a creationist makes as such....

IC is not at all a requirement for creationism / ID.
Because if Behe and cohorts label some thing as being "IC" and then someone else comes along and actually demonstrates how that thing can come about without any outside designer help... it's not like they then consider their ID / creationism to be refuted.


The thing is that creationism / ID is compatible with BOTH a universe that has IC systems and a universe that has none.

So really, it doesn't actually matter either way.

It's typical creationist dishonesty, akin to flipping a coin and them saying "heads I win, tails you loose".

 

[Link]

Also, there may be some system made up of parts A, B and C.

When part D evolves, the organism may start using it for a different purpose.

You are right about this. So we can conclude with addition to the components all required to be there, there can be no rational pathway possible to at least one of the essential components unless there is the other parts. If this can't be proven, then irreducible complexity cannot be proven.

So we see it takes this form:

1. Many components rely on each other.
2. There no pathway to the individual component(s) or at least one of them unless the other parts are there because individually they are useless and evolution makes no usage of getting there.

This maybe impossible to prove or it maybe possible, we'll have to see.

 

[Link]

Sorry, 2 should be modified, there is no usage of component unless the system is already in place. Without the system, the component has no pathway possible.

 

[Link]

Or easier way to say this. Sometimes components can be added one at a time for different usages. But is it possible that, components rely on each other, but have no individual usage (or some of them don't) outside the system and hence, no alternative usage for them.

 

[Bear Wild]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

As an abstract it does not hold up for a rational explanation for design. At best it could argue that that those parts that cannot be reduced must have always existed and that is all.

The term is similar with the ​

teleological argument​

for God. ​

Saying there are things that cannot be reduced further is not equivalent to saying it is designed. The latter is a leap of faith not a rational argument to prove design.

I looked up and it seems to be connected with the following definitions
Michael Behe definitions
1 "... a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Ok then what we have are the most basic parts. This does not prove design only the smallest elements.


2. "An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway."
Oh no now we have the connection to evolution except there is absolutely no evidence at all that this has any meaning at all with design.

William A. Dembski
"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."

Again a statement of the most basic part and cannot in any way prove design. So these definitions fail the argument.

 

[robocop (actually)]

This thread is not going to be about actual design in the universe or earth or biology.

I'm simply, want to look at the concept of irreducible complexity as an abstract concept. That is, does it rationally hold as a possible means of detecting design (1). And secondly how do we apply it properly to reality (2). Careful with (2), I don't want this to be an actual discussion about design in reality, just purely abstract. So I said to reality, but what I really mean, is give examples of concrete design that it would apply to, but, aren't real things.

After this thread is over, then perhaps, we can make a thread about real life application of it and look for examples.

Too hard of a topic for me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

absolutely love the quote by Darwin at 10:15 -- "what seems baffling is not a valid guide in science."

This is akin to what I've called the Philosopher's Fallacy: mistaking a failure of imagination for a philosophical insight.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think comparing it to a programming language is very useful. Because it has to be irreducible in nature, so we would be able to argue that a designer were behind.

It's why using inorganic examples are not recommended when talking about organic development and functions.

If it was an academic debate inorganic examples wouldn't even be considered.

 

[Link]

It's not about it being baffling. Is whether abstract concept proves design in theory. That is can (1) components in a system be proven to be reliable (2) can one or more components shown to not have any usages without the system, and has no route to be added individually.

We can give examples of the eye, that would show irreducible complexity doesn't work with respect to it, mainly the eye is not irreducible complexity, since you can get there through a series of steps and add each component and so it's not irreducibly complex by this method.

But I'm not discussing if any an examples in real life have this applied, at least not yet. I'm talking about the abstract concept. First we have to see this, before we can search evidence for it.

 

[Link]

It's why using inorganic examples are not recommended when talking about organic development and functions.

If it was an academic debate inorganic examples wouldn't even be considered.

It's useful, because, in programming, you can almost all the time, add a function itself, test by itself. But sometimes for somethings, you need multiple functions at the same time working together, before some of those functions individually can have a use. This happens rarely in programming from my limited experience. So usually a function is testable and good in itself.

This is just to show the concept.

We will talk biology later. This is just seeing abstract concept.

In analogy to biology, it would be saying some parts of the system can be individually added and have purpose individually. But some systems require parts that can't have any usage in themselves. Whether such things actually exist in biology, we have to see.

We are purely talking abstract. See if the abstract concepts allows detection of design. Then we get look for it in the actual world.

 

[Link]

Also, it would have to be a binary system. That is no system can transition to it by definition. It's either on or off. No between steps of A -> C where B is something in-between. This is from my understanding. I will expand on why this necessary trait of it.

The eye obviously failed, because, there is so many transitional steps, it's ironically, the worse example to take lol.