Irreduciblablabla Complexidoozits


People still bring up irreducible complexity. Why? WHY? WHY?

Comments

  1. chrislawson says

    For the same reason they keep bringing up 2LoT, radiocarbon dating, “why are there still monkeys?” and other broken arguments. It’s all they’ve got.

  2. rietpluim says

    1996? Boy, time does fly.

    And why they keep bringing it up, is because they can’t keep up with you the moment you bring up actual science.

  3. nomdeplume says

    IC is simply a complete failure to understand evolution working by gradually assembling structures (PZ’s scaffold is another way of saying this). It is in the same class of “problem” as “if we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys”. I assume Behe is not a stupid man, so the fact that he can’t, or won’t, see this is yet another case of the triumph of religious irrationality.

  4. microraptor says

    nomdeplume @3:

    Or at the very least it’s a triumph of him desperately needing a paycheck and having no credibility to get a more legitimate job.

  5. nomdeplume says

    microraptor @4 – There does indeed seem to be money in contrarianism these days.

  6. wajim says

    Lucid and somewhat piqued. If you were Katherine Hepburn I’d ask you to marry me.

  7. Snarki, child of Loki says

    “People still bring up irreducible complexity. Why? WHY? WHY?”

    Irreducible stupidity, of course.

  8. microraptor says

    nomdeplume @5: I think there’s been money in it for a long time. Too many people who spout this nonsense are too well-educated to not know what the evidence actually is.

  9. StonedRanger says

    Why? Because it is the ineluctable modality of creationists/IDers. They simply cannot help themselves.

  10. chigau (違う) says

    I really liked all the explaining.
    .
    That last minute was straight-up, youtube asshole.

  11. billyjoe says

    Marcus Ranum,

    I took a motorcycle transmission apart once and it was irreducibly complex…

    You should have thrown all those parts into the air. They surely would have fallen back to earth reassembled.

  12. rietpluim says

    You should have thrown all those parts into the air. They surely would have fallen back to earth reassembled.

    Don’t you need a tornado in the junk yard for that?

    To the OP:
    Thanks for the video, PZ. I’ve never realized that the link between “this is irreducibly complex” and “so it cannot be evolved” is a false one. All refutations I’ve seen so far, demonstrate that things can evolve / have evolved and therefore by implication are not irreducibly complex, even Behe’s favorite examples like mouse traps and the human eye. The notion that evolution may produce irreducibly complex structures (by Behe’s own definition) is new to me.

  13. says

    Hey, PZ! Delighted that you remembered my infamous Mousetrap Tie Clip, which I still wear from time to time as a fashion statement. And you even used one of my lecture slides (just before the 5:00 minute mark) showing the other uses that parts of a toeclip can be put to. Just like you, I get IC thrown at me from time to time, often by people who seem to be unaware of just how thoroughly the concept was destroyed in Kitzmiller v. Dover. A great job on the video! (Ken Miller)

  14. says

    @rietpluim #15:
    I don’t see any problems with explaining IC structures using evolution. Let’s say we find the perfect example, a “mechanism” composed of multiple parts. It needs all parts to have any function whatsoever, none of which has any other functions.
    The IC-argument requires it to be assembled in the current configuration, but once you factor in evolution it’s easy to explain. All the current parts have evolved from a much more primitive configuration that wasn’t IC.
    IC only works if someone can prove that a certain arrangement cannot possible be altered in any way whatsoever, not even by a single atom, and still do useful work. And that is simply not possible.

  15. rietpluim says

    Erlend Meyer Why, yes, I understand that. I just hadn’t thought of it that way.

  16. rietpluim says

    IMHO the biggest flaw of IC is not the claim that some structures did not evolve – the burden of proof lies by the biologists who claim that they did – but the claim that some structures cannot have evolved. This means IC proponents have to rule out every single possibility by which those structures may have evolved. Not did evolve, but only may have.

  17. wcorvi says

    I enjoy chatting with these IC-types. I tell them there is something I don’t understand about it. I ask them if anything which is irreducibly complex must have had a creator? I ask them if God is complex? They quickly see where this is going….

  18. rietpluim says

    Simply put they’re trying to disprove evolution by not allowing for it.

    Wow, never have I seen a few decades of creationism been described so briefly and accurately!

  19. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @kenmiller:

    Nice to hear about your tie clip! I don’t remember if I heard about it before the Nova episode, but I remember it very clearly from KvD: Intelligent Design on Trial and loved it. It tickles me to think you’re still getting use out of it.

  20. billyjoe says

    reitpluim,

    Don’t you need a tornado in the junk yard for that?

    How silly of me to forget….yeah, change that to: throw those motor part into a junk yard and wait for a tornado to blow through it. They will surely reassemble themselves into a motorcycle motor.

    I’ve never realized that the link between “this is irreducibly complex” and “so it cannot be evolved” is a false one. All refutations I’ve seen so far, demonstrate that things can evolve / have evolved and therefore by implication are not irreducibly complex…The notion that evolution may produce irreducibly complex structures (by Behe’s own definition) is new to me.

    Interesting.

    I’ve always seen that as the main argument: Yes, there are structures that are IC, as Behe said, but, contrary to what Behe said, they certainly could have evolved, and here is how. And, I’ve always seen the destruction of some of their examples are NOT actually being examples of IC as a secondary argument.

  21. leerudolph says

    Incredibly, there are theologians who insist that God is simple.
    It even has a name: Divine Simplicity.

    Presumably the name for those theologians would be “Divine Simpletons”?

Leave a Reply