Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oze · 02-21-2002, 12:09 PM

Hi! Yes, I'm new, so rake me over the coals, but has the topic of irreducible complexity been discussed?

You know, the idea that there are some organs, the eye, for example, that are so complex, and have so many inter-related functions, that they can't have evolved from earlier forms.

Thanks.

Kosh · 02-21-2002, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oze:
Hi! Yes, I'm new, so rake me over the coals, but has the topic of irreducible complexity been discussed?

You know, the idea that there are some organs, the eye, for example, that are so complex, and have so many inter-related functions, that they can't have evolved from earlier forms.

Thanks.

ad nauseum

BLoggins02 · 02-21-2002, 01:02 PM

But, after you read what <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">talk.origins</a> has to say about the matter, if you still have questions feel free to ask.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]

Peez · 02-21-2002, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Oze:
Hi! Yes, I'm new, so rake me over the coals, but has the topic of irreducible complexity been discussed?

Hi Oze, and welcome. Just give me a minute to warm up those coals.

Yes, irreducible complexity has been discussed. Look <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000179" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000087" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000038" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000010" target="_blank">here</a>, or <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000001" target="_blank">here</a>.

Quote:

You know, the idea that there are some organs, the eye, for example, that are so complex, and have so many inter-related functions, that they can't have evolved from earlier forms.

If we define "irreducible complexity" as a state in which a structure cannot function if one or more parts are missing, then the vertebrate eye is perhaps a good example. There is, however, no problem with evolving such a structure. The eye is a particularly well- documented example, probably because creationists have held it up for so long as an example of something that they could not imagine evolving. The fact that they are merely ignorant of evolution in general and the evolution of the eye in particular did not seem to bother them, but simple, functional intermediates have been suggested, and have even been found in extant organisms, so the creationists have (by and large) left this example alone in favour of more obscure systems. It is discussed in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000007&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

Quote:

Thanks.

My pleasure.

Peez

Kevin Dorner · 02-21-2002, 01:15 PM

Oze: I just finished "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. Of all the chapters of all of the books I have read by him, I liked the "The Forty-Fold Path to Enlightenment" of this book the best.

It's about just what you asked for: the evolution of eyes. He does a much better job of it than I ever could so recommend it very strongly. Dawkins is (these days) the best laypersons' introduction to evolutionary biology (and well-read by the seasoned pros too.)

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

mac_philo · 02-21-2002, 02:06 PM

Yes, we've discussed it, but it was rather embarrassing since the creationist argument is irrefutable.

Not to mention the fact that if evolution were true, we'd still be evolving. In fact, people would probably be evolving eyes on their backs, because then they'd be able to see people sneaking up behind them.

Anyway, I'm off to church.

mac_philo · 02-21-2002, 02:08 PM

Yes, we've discussed it, but it was rather embarrassing since the creationist argument is irrefutable.

Not to mention the fact that if evolution were true, we'd still be evolving. In fact, people would probably be evolving eyes on their backs, because then they'd be able to see people sneaking up behind them.

Anyway, I'm off to church.

pseudobug · 02-21-2002, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mac_philo:
Yes, we've discussed it, but it was rather embarrassing since the creationist argument is irrefutable.

Not to mention the fact that if evolution were true, we'd still be evolving. In fact, people would probably be evolving eyes on their backs, because then they'd be able to see people sneaking up behind them.

Anyway, I'm off to church.

You must smoke some pretty good weed with your fellow church members as you are stoned to hte bone, mac-philo.

Kaina · 02-21-2002, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mac_philo:
Yes, we've discussed it, but it was rather embarrassing since the creationist argument is irrefutable.

Yep, the goddidit head-in-the-sand arguement is hard to refute. Now if only the creationists actually had experiments, or data, or even a real theory maybe we could make some headway.

Automaton · 02-22-2002, 12:23 AM

Irreducible complexity can evolve. Biological evolution is not like taking bits of LEGO and sticking them together in different arrangement.

02-21-2002, 12:09 PM	#1
Oze New Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2	Irreducible Complexity Hi! Yes, I'm new, so rake me over the coals, but has the topic of irreducible complexity been discussed? You know, the idea that there are some organs, the eye, for example, that are so complex, and have so many inter-related functions, that they can't have evolved from earlier forms. Thanks.

02-21-2002, 01:02 PM	#3
BLoggins02 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: College Station, TX Posts: 254	But, after you read what <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">talk.origins</a> has to say about the matter, if you still have questions feel free to ask. [ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

02-21-2002, 01:15 PM	#5
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	Oze: I just finished "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. Of all the chapters of all of the books I have read by him, I liked the "The Forty-Fold Path to Enlightenment" of this book the best. It's about just what you asked for: the evolution of eyes. He does a much better job of it than I ever could so recommend it very strongly. Dawkins is (these days) the best laypersons' introduction to evolutionary biology (and well-read by the seasoned pros too.) [ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2002, 02:06 PM	#6
mac_philo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tax-Exempt Donor, SoP Loyalist Posts: 2,191	Yes, we've discussed it, but it was rather embarrassing since the creationist argument is irrefutable. Not to mention the fact that if evolution were true, we'd still be evolving. In fact, people would probably be evolving eyes on their backs, because then they'd be able to see people sneaking up behind them. Anyway, I'm off to church.

02-21-2002, 02:08 PM	#7
mac_philo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tax-Exempt Donor, SoP Loyalist Posts: 2,191	Yes, we've discussed it, but it was rather embarrassing since the creationist argument is irrefutable. Not to mention the fact that if evolution were true, we'd still be evolving. In fact, people would probably be evolving eyes on their backs, because then they'd be able to see people sneaking up behind them. Anyway, I'm off to church.

02-22-2002, 12:23 AM	#10
Automaton Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 717	Irreducible complexity can evolve. Biological evolution is not like taking bits of LEGO and sticking them together in different arrangement.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.