Irreducible Complexity

[Blob]

Maybe you are right. What the hell? Anyway, my my interest in theology is really no big deal - I don't want to build it up as some big mystery only to disappoint later!

Click here.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Does anyone have any objections to this definition?

No objections, but I would like to add one clarification. The parts making up the system can have other functions outside of the system.

He quoted Michale Behe, pg 39, Darwin's Black Box.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Great I beleive we have come to a consensus definition of irreducible complexity.

"Irreducible complexity means single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Also keeping in mind that some of the parts are also important in other systems."

So I would like to begin by asking is the formation of diamonds a good example?

What about the creation of a snow storm?

[Believer]

Great I beleive we have come to a consensus definition of irreducible complexity.

"Irreducible complexity means single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Also keeping in mind that some of the parts are also important in other systems."

So I would like to begin by asking is the formation of diamonds a good example?

What about the creation of a snow storm?

This is pointless, just refute Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, BGoodForGoodSake. This will save us time and challenge you and all will be happy. I get the impression you want to refute everything and want to start an argument with everyone to get special attention based on manipulation. Please do us a service and just refute the book and many others .

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Great I beleive we have come to a consensus definition of irreducible complexity.

"Irreducible complexity means single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Also keeping in mind that some of the parts are also important in other systems."

So I would like to begin by asking is the formation of diamonds a good example?

What about the creation of a snow storm?

This is pointless, just refute Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, BGoodForGoodSake. This will save us time and challenge you and all will be happy. I get the impression you want to refute everything and want to start an argument with everyone to get special attention based on manipulation. Please do us a service and just refute the book and many others .

Sorry, Thinker I think I realize what I am doing now, I will be quiet.
=(
I guess I let KMart get to me.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

A diamond and a snow storm have nothing to do with IR...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

A diamond and a snow storm have nothing to do with IR...

Well lets see a diamond requires everything to work out perfectly in order to end up in your mothers earrings. Lets review

In order for a diamond to be created, carbon must be put under allot of pressure. Somewhere around 430,000 pounds per square inch. And the carbon also has to be subjected to very high temperatures. Probably at least 755 degrees Fahrenheit thats, 400 Celsius. If its not quite hot enough or the pressure is not quite high enough graphite forms instead Pressure of this sort can be found around depths of 93 miles or 150 km or more below the surface of the Earth. Volcanic eruptions can then carry the diamonds to the surface. But not ordinary volcanic eruptions. Diamonds are found in Kimberlite Pipes. These eruptions are much more violent and powerful than todays eruptions drawing magma at three times the depth of normal volcanoes. The magma being brought to the surface through fissures in the crust in a matter of a few minutes.

So as you can see, diamonds can only be formed under extreme conditions and only by chance can the diamonds then be transported to the surface. But it happens.

Now if the earth were a living organism it would find a use for it. Perhaps a protective armour of some sort...

Now it could all be part of a grand scheme, but you can't prove it scientifically, only philosophically.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Uh...a diamond is not a biological machine-it is a pile of carbon shaped by heat and pressure. It has no parts. It's not organic. It has nothing to do with IR, get a grip.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Uh...a diamond is not a biological machine-it is a pile of carbon shaped by heat and pressure. It has no parts. It's not organic. It has nothing to do with IR, get a grip.

Biology if you break it down is a chemical process.

The reason organic chemistry is more complex is because it deals mostly with carbon atoms which can form up to four bonds with other atoms.

In diamonds the carbon atoms are only bonding to other carbon atoms but in organic chemistry the bonds can be with sulfer, nitrogen, phosphate, hydrogen, and oxygen among other elements.

It is good to have a general understanding of chemistry, this will help put biology into reference.

[Kurieuo]

I personally don't see an adequate comparison. With diamonds, you can take out a carbon atom and a diamond will still work (i.e., still be a diamond)—although I don't see this as the only defining feature of "irreducible complexity". The diamond, although complex, isn't "irreducibly" complex for its carbon atoms can bond gradually. It doesn't need "all" its individual carbon atoms bonded at once.

On the other hand, take an engine propellor (said the be like the mechanical equivilant of the bacterial Flagellum [recommend]). If such a thing can't come about gradually, evolving piece by piece and being functional in some way at every stage of development (which has to be the case for it to survive), then such a thing is said to be "irreducibily complex".

Here is also something often overlooked or ignored by many. Behe doesn't reject evolution per se, but rather he thinks the Darwinian mechanism (random mutation paired with natural selection) is incomplete. This doesn't go against the trend of what many scientists think anyway (as far as I'm aware), perhaps not even against the trend of what you yourself think BGood? He even has no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and as far as I'm aware to this day still thinks it explains similarities among species. He certainly isn't the "Creationist" many opponents make him out to be. If further interested in Behe's own comments, he explains what he find questionable, and what he doesn't in Darwin Under the Microscope.

Behe's own definitions on "irreducible complexity" are:

"a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."

and

"An irreducibly complex system is one that requires several closely matched parts in order to function and where removal of one of the components effectively causes the system to cease functioning."

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darw ... thways.htm

But I believe these definitions to be a weaker form of "irreducibile complexity".

Kurieuo

[BGoodForGoodSake]

On the other hand, take an engine propellor (said the be like the mechanical equivilant of the bacterial Flagellum [recommend]). If such a thing can't come about gradually, evolving piece by piece and being functional in some way at every stage of development (which has to be the case for it to survive), then such a thing is said to be "irreducibily complex".
Kurieuo

Lets take some of the components of this propellor system. Its made of a substance called polyethylene. Polyethylene is in fact used in everything from water bottles to plastic bottles at the grocery store. Did anyone design it? No it was discovered accidently. Sure in this case applications of this new substance are up to the imaginations of manufacturers. But application does not imply intelligence.

The flagellum did not evolve alone it formed in the context of the organism within a competitive environment. Just as the jetengine did not evolve alone it formed within the context of a human society.

An organism is like a self contained controled chemical environment.
Imagine an enzyme which causes a reaction to take place leaving silicon as a by-product. The organism then excretes the substance encrusting it in a silicate prison. On a person this will lead to a grotesque physical defect. But in a microorganism this can lead to a protective mechanism on pure surendipity.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

As I said, natural selection would in fact hinder the formation of IR machines. Because, until the flagellum is fullly functioning, the cell is WASTING ENERGY AND RESOURCES. So, in the competitive environment, the guys making flagellum parts would be picked off by natural selection. You have yet to touch the surface of ID, you're floating off in straw-man land.

And with excreting silicon-the cell will destroy itself, because the cell needs a permeable membrane to take in resources and expel what it doesn't need...if it builds itself a silicon box...it's dead.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

As I said, natural selection would in fact hinder the formation of IR machines. Because, until the flagellum is fullly functioning, the cell is WASTING ENERGY AND RESOURCES. So, in the competitive environment, the guys making flagellum parts would be picked off by natural selection. You have yet to touch the surface of ID, you're floating off in straw-man land.

And with excreting silicon-the cell will destroy itself, because the cell needs a permeable membrane to take in resources and expel what it doesn't need...if it builds itself a silicon box...it's dead.

Not quite. Natural selection is not that powerful nor exact. There are plenty of examples of organisms which are not perfect and waste resources but manage to survive. Take for example the collorful feathers of a peacock, or the large antlers of an elk.

There are also examples of organisms which posess features which serve no purpose. Snakes with leg bones embedded in the body. Blind fish with eye sockets. Apendix in humans. Of course an organism will try to utilize whats there but in many cases the vestige is unnessary.

And to close there are many organs which are incomplete or poorly designed. Examples include blood clotting mechanism which doesnt require so many "moving" parts, and the human eye with its blind spot.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Not quite. Natural selection is not that powerful nor exact. There are plenty of examples of organisms which are not perfect and waste resources but manage to survive. Take for example the collorful feathers of a peacock, or the large antlers of an elk.

Colorful feathers of peacock and large antlers of elk...how is this showing that natural selection doesn't work? Bigger antlers, stronger attack, colorful feathers...so?

There are also examples of organisms which posess features which serve no purpose. Snakes with leg bones embedded in the body. Blind fish with eye sockets. Apendix in humans. Of course an organism will try to utilize whats there but in many cases the vestige is unnessary.

Snakes with leg bones...uh, thank you for the smile that brought to my face...The appendix does have a function-it's part of the immune system. And, blind fish...don't know bout that.

And to close there are many organs which are incomplete or poorly designed. Examples include blood clotting mechanism which doesnt require so many "moving" parts, and the human eye with its blind spot

Blood clotting mechanism is very fined tuned point dexter, you haven't shown how it's. If you were to replace the cascade with one or two steps-you'd die. The human eye is also well designed, there's an article on this site-the human eye (and I think the eyes of all mammals) require a large supply of oxygen, and the blind spot is a small price to pay to keep things running. Also, people have two eyes, and the blind spots do not overlap. You're giving shoddy examples that don't prove a point.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Not quite. Natural selection is not that powerful nor exact. There are plenty of examples of organisms which are not perfect and waste resources but manage to survive. Take for example the collorful feathers of a peacock, or the large antlers of an elk.

Colorful feathers of peacock and large antlers of elk...how is this showing that natural selection doesn't work? Bigger antlers, stronger attack, colorful feathers...so?

There are also examples of organisms which posess features which serve no purpose. Snakes with leg bones embedded in the body. Blind fish with eye sockets. Apendix in humans. Of course an organism will try to utilize whats there but in many cases the vestige is unnessary.

Snakes with leg bones...uh, thank you for the smile that brought to my face...The appendix does have a function-it's part of the immune system. And, blind fish...don't know bout that.

And to close there are many organs which are incomplete or poorly designed. Examples include blood clotting mechanism which doesnt require so many "moving" parts, and the human eye with its blind spot

Blood clotting mechanism is very fined tuned point dexter, you haven't shown how it's. If you were to replace the cascade with one or two steps-you'd die. The human eye is also well designed, there's an article on this site-the human eye (and I think the eyes of all mammals) require a large supply of oxygen, and the blind spot is a small price to pay to keep things running. Also, people have two eyes, and the blind spots do not overlap. You're giving shoddy examples that don't prove a point.

Elk use the antlers to dominate other males.
Here is a snake with leg bones.

And here is a blind cave fish


Explain how the appendix is part of the immune system? Is it because it is more easily infected? Being in the location it is in is perhaps a result of its location in related species? However perhaps the human organism has compensated for the delicate position of the appendix by adding lymphatic and blood supply to an oft infected organ. It is better to remove this organ altogether.

I'm just continuing the conversation as noone has explained an example of irreducible complexity yet.

What is the blood clotting mechanism, and how does it work exactly. And How is it imperfect.

Well lets take a close look at a cut site and see what is going on. When a cell is damaged it spills all of its contents into the blood stream. When this happens the muscles around the cut start to contract reducing blood flow. Why? Well it turns out that an internal signaling protein within a cell is actually also used to make blood vessels contract as well!

Well the blood clotting mechinism aside from the platelets and the muscle spasms also involves the actual coagulation of the blood itself.

Lets take crabs for an example. When a crabs arm is ripped off in a crabby battle why doesn't the losing crab bleed to death? Well it turns out that there are enzymes located in the tissue of a crab, there for other processes. But when coming into contact with the blood will chop up the proteins in the blood and make it all glob up thus sealing the wound.

These enzymes (proteases) cut up protein even protiens it was never intended to cut.

Many invertebrates have only this system to prevent fluid loss and don't have the complex clotting system of humans yet they get by with their simple no-step process.

Crabs have in addition to this a simple system analagous to ours. Theyir blood contains fibrinogens which are like little cans of sticky stuff. When a cell is damaged it will cause the release of Thrombin which will go around and open these cans causing the area to clot and seal.

Now in humans the Thrombin actually exists in a faulty mishaped form. Think of it as thrombin in a can. Another enzyme has to come by and activate (open and release) this "pre" thrombin. Can you see an advantage to this? Well first of all the prethrombin is now free to flow in the blood, this makes the response faster. And second it allows the blood clotting process to be more local as the "factor" which activates the prethrombin can now be released and used up locally. But you might say this still does not near the complexity of the human clotting system. And I would tell you that is a great observation. But for another time.

If I asked you to spot a mouse from a helicopter, you would turn to me and say that it's impossible. But an eagle can do this. If I asked you to be able to see into the ultraviolet or infrared ends of the light spectrum you would probably ask what in the world are you talking about, but insects and snakes respectively do this on a regular bases. There are many eye designs, with many approaches to detecting electromagnetic radiation. Lets take a look at the eye of a squid. It is as equally as effective at collecting as a human beings but there is a major difference. Instead of the blood vessels (which supply the retinal cells) being behind the light collecting components they are in front of them. And the nerves which leave the components also exit them components in front and so the nerves converge inside the eye and exit through the blind spot. But in the squid the nerves and the blood vessels are actually behind the light collecting components and thusly there are no blind spots. Why is this?