FIND THE ANSWERS

Irreducible complexity is real....when will it be introduced in schools? Is it because it destroys evolution?

Answer this question

  • Irreducible complexity is real....when will it be introduced in schools? Is it because it destroys evolution?


Answers

Answer #1 | 24/07 2014 01:37
The only excuse you have for it to be real is that you say it is. Do you expect your thoughts to be published anytime soon?
Positive: 100 %
Answer #2 | 24/07 2014 00:13
Aren't you cute, you just discovered a creationist site that talks about irreducible complexity and you now think you're a profound scientific thinker. Sorry, what you offer as "evidence" is nothing more than hand waving, and an argument from ignorance. So-called irreducible complexity was soundly debunked and added to the trash heap of goofy scienciness over 10 years ago. You're kind of behind the times, do try to keep up. I love it when you dilettantes come on here and claim that you know science better than the professional scientists. Interesting that you don't claim to know football better than the NFL pros, or medicine better than your doc, or theology better than your pastor, and somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to put your fighting skills up against that of a Navy SEAL, but y'all seem to have no such hesitancy or humility when it comes to science. That's unfortunate for you, because in that regard, you have much to be humble about.
Positive: 100 %
Answer #3 | 23/07 2014 20:36
Countless claims of irreducible complexity have been examined and debunked over the years. Oh, but wait! Some guy on the internet has just said it's real, without even a single word of evidence or argument! It just IS!! Let's all go and throw away our textbooks and centuries of research and theory that underpins our entire biological understanding! Cause a GUY said so!! On the INTERNET!!!! Cretin. Update in return: When I asked for evidence, I specifically asked for stories that had NOT already been debunked over and over already. Unsurprisingly, you have failed at this. Here, for example, is one article debunking your flagellar argument: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html#.U8_TMKgWnqA There are hundreds more pages just a Google search away. I'm not going to sit here and repeat information that is freely and easily available to anyone. That takes care of your updates 1-3. Update 4 is mostly gibberish. I have no idea what "20 amino acid layers" or "256 enzymes for the simplest life forms" is supposed to mean. Amino acids don't come in "layers", and there's no reason at all for enyzmes to come in powers of two. And saying there are "10 conserved amino acids" is just flat-out wrong. There are 20 amino acids that are used by all life on earth to make proteins. Considering that there are an infinite number of possible amino acids, the fact that we all use the same 20 is an incredibly strong argument FOR common descent. Regardless, any time one of you people starts to break out the "big numbers/small odds" argument (even when, unlike yours, it's in actual English), it's dependent on the fallacious belief that all of evolution is random. Statistics and probability rely on the underlying assumption of randomness. Evolution is NOT random at all, thus all of your calculations are garbage and can be easily and safely ignored. As to update 5, I have better things to do with my time than sit and watch pathetic YouTube videos, particularly if they're going to present arguments that are roughly as pathetic as your own. If you can't be bothered to take the time to write out your own arguments, I'm certainly not going to bother to take the time to do the research for you and then debunk it. I stand firmly behind my earlier "cretin". Oh, and by the way, cells are NOT made up of "organisms". Nor is a flagellum an organism. And the plural of "flagellum" is "flagella". And it's spelled "structure". I could go on, but I've made my point: you don't even understand the meanings of the words you're using, let alone being intellectually capable of making a valid scientific point that overturns centuries of accumulated research and evidence. You are about as relevant to science as is a housefly to a blue whale.
Positive: 100 %
Answer #4 | 23/07 2014 11:50
Initial assertion contested.
Positive: 100 %
Answer #5 | 23/07 2014 18:40
wdy mean?irreducible has a tremondous amount of evidence backing it's valid constraints... what is not real about it Bob?
Positive: 100 %
Answer #6 | 23/07 2014 17:13
Aren't you cute, you just discovered a creationist site that talks about irreducible complexity and you now think you're a profound scientific thinker. Sorry, what you offer as "evidence" is nothing more than hand waving, and an argument from ignorance. So-called irreducible complexity was soundly debunked and added to the trash heap of goofy scienciness over 10 years ago. You're kind of behind the times, do try to keep up. I love it when you dilettantes come on here and claim that you know science better than the professional scientists. Interesting that you don't claim to know football better than the NFL pros, or medicine better than your doc, or theology better than your pastor, and somehow I doubt that you'd be willing to put your fighting skills up against that of a Navy SEAL, but y'all seem to have no such hesitancy or humility when it comes to science. That's unfortunate for you, because in that regard, you have much to be humble about.
Answer #7 | 23/07 2014 11:22
It won't be taught in schools because it isn't real. Update: The flagellum has already been shown not to be irreducibly complex as have all other claims for irreducible complexity. Arguments that rely on probabilistic calculations to show that life can't have evolved fail to understand the meaning of "natural selection". If I throw 5 dice and try to get all sixes then I've got to do a lot of throws before I win. But if I keep throwing and keep the sixes as they turn up then I can do it in a few throws. This is the difference between natural selection and pure chance. You are introducing a false dichotomy between science and religion. If you were to prove evolution is wrong tomorrow then that would be interesting BUT IT WOULDN'T PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS. If you want to prove that God exists, then you have to prove that God exists. Proving that some scientific theory is wrong is not the same thing. You are also forgetting that the conflict between science and religion exists mainly in the US. Most of the world's Christians have no problem accepting evolution and cosmology AND their religion.
Positive: 0 %
Answer #8 | 23/07 2014 18:37
The only excuse you have for it to be real is that you say it is. Do you expect your thoughts to be published anytime soon?
Answer #9 | 23/07 2014 13:36
Countless claims of irreducible complexity have been examined and debunked over the years. Oh, but wait! Some guy on the internet has just said it's real, without even a single word of evidence or argument! It just IS!! Let's all go and throw away our textbooks and centuries of research and theory that underpins our entire biological understanding! Cause a GUY said so!! On the INTERNET!!!! Cretin. Update in return: When I asked for evidence, I specifically asked for stories that had NOT already been debunked over and over already. Unsurprisingly, you have failed at this. Here, for example, is one article debunking your flagellar argument: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13663-evolution-myths-the-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex.html#.U8_TMKgWnqA There are hundreds more pages just a Google search away. I'm not going to sit here and repeat information that is freely and easily available to anyone. That takes care of your updates 1-3. Update 4 is mostly gibberish. I have no idea what "20 amino acid layers" or "256 enzymes for the simplest life forms" is supposed to mean. Amino acids don't come in "layers", and there's no reason at all for enyzmes to come in powers of two. And saying there are "10 conserved amino acids" is just flat-out wrong. There are 20 amino acids that are used by all life on earth to make proteins. Considering that there are an infinite number of possible amino acids, the fact that we all use the same 20 is an incredibly strong argument FOR common descent. Regardless, any time one of you people starts to break out the "big numbers/small odds" argument (even when, unlike yours, it's in actual English), it's dependent on the fallacious belief that all of evolution is random. Statistics and probability rely on the underlying assumption of randomness. Evolution is NOT random at all, thus all of your calculations are garbage and can be easily and safely ignored. As to update 5, I have better things to do with my time than sit and watch pathetic YouTube videos, particularly if they're going to present arguments that are roughly as pathetic as your own. If you can't be bothered to take the time to write out your own arguments, I'm certainly not going to bother to take the time to do the research for you and then debunk it. I stand firmly behind my earlier "cretin". Oh, and by the way, cells are NOT made up of "organisms". Nor is a flagellum an organism. And the plural of "flagellum" is "flagella". And it's spelled "structure". I could go on, but I've made my point: you don't even understand the meanings of the words you're using, let alone being intellectually capable of making a valid scientific point that overturns centuries of accumulated research and evidence. You are about as relevant to science as is a housefly to a blue whale.
Answer #10 | 23/07 2014 20:57
It won't be taught in schools because everything you said was just jargon and buzzwords that don't logically add up... Maybe you should review how the theory of evolution works because what you just described has nothing to do with anything.
Answer #11 | 24/07 2014 13:10
irreducible complexity is false. therein lies the primary problem with the argument.
Positive: 0 %
Answer #12 | 24/07 2014 20:10
irreducible complexity is false. therein lies the primary problem with the argument.
Answer #13 | 24/07 2014 03:57
It won't be taught in schools because everything you said was just jargon and buzzwords that don't logically add up... Maybe you should review how the theory of evolution works because what you just described has nothing to do with anything.
Answer #14 | 23/07 2014 18:50
Initial assertion contested.
Answer #15 | 23/07 2014 11:40
wdy mean?irreducible has a tremondous amount of evidence backing it's valid constraints... what is not real about it Bob?
Positive: 0 %
Answer #16 | 23/07 2014 18:22
It won't be taught in schools because it isn't real. Update: The flagellum has already been shown not to be irreducibly complex as have all other claims for irreducible complexity. Arguments that rely on probabilistic calculations to show that life can't have evolved fail to understand the meaning of "natural selection". If I throw 5 dice and try to get all sixes then I've got to do a lot of throws before I win. But if I keep throwing and keep the sixes as they turn up then I can do it in a few throws. This is the difference between natural selection and pure chance. You are introducing a false dichotomy between science and religion. If you were to prove evolution is wrong tomorrow then that would be interesting BUT IT WOULDN'T PROVE THAT GOD EXISTS. If you want to prove that God exists, then you have to prove that God exists. Proving that some scientific theory is wrong is not the same thing. You are also forgetting that the conflict between science and religion exists mainly in the US. Most of the world's Christians have no problem accepting evolution and cosmology AND their religion.

Possible answer