Talk'n bout some evolution...

Or, quite cleverly subtitled, "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle."

God made me, for there is no other explanation for a physical body and a soul.

Or:

A monkey could really have been my uncle. No, really.

Did we do this already? I can't remember and I'm too lazy to search. Well, we have new members anyways and they should be heard!

Step up! Provoke me with your perspacity!

Two words: irreducible complexity.

Evolution has provided no adequate explanation to combat the concept of irreducible complexity, yet many believe it all the same. It's really a matter of what I like to call "selective science" -- where people say they believe scientific things, but in reality pick and choose which reports, theories and findings to base their beliefs on.

What do you think of the belief that the simplest explanation is often the correct one?

I've heard this:
Well, imagine if there were a god, some supreme being who made the world then populated it with billions of people each with their unique set of flaws. Isn't it just simpler and in fact more believable that people just came to be through natural evolution of species as did the rest of the animals?

I'm not saying I subscibe to that but I've oft heard it muttered...

I think it holds some merit, but it's a highly subjective standard; who decides which explanation is simplest? It's all in the phrasing. Example:

Which is simpler? That we are the product of billions or trillions of years in evolution under a set of immutable Universal laws that are reliably and steady for no apparent reason despite the fact that through all our research we have no evidence to overcome certain hurdles of our own complexity or the origins of first life, or that we work so well because we were BUILT to?

The "the simplest explanation is right" concept assumes some common standard of simplicity. Frankly, I think God is far and away the simplest explanation.

What people don't realize is that dismissing God automatically requires several other things of you. However, I'm getting off topic here a tad. I suppose I should start another thread if I'm gonna get off the subject of evolution, eh?

Y'know, I think people just don't want to think that they were once damn dirty apes, so evolution is right out. The most interesting take on evolution came from DEVO, weirdly enough:

"God made man,
But He used a monkey to do it,
Ape's in the plan and we're all here to prove it,
I can walk like an ape, talk like an ape, do what a monkey can do,
God made man, but a monkey supplied the glue.."

I suppose quoting DEVO instantly devalues anything I have to say, but....I think evolution is a plausable theory but something had to start it in motion....Whatever that was, I do not know. Buddhism states that it isn't important to know how you got here, but only that you ARE here is important.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

I'm summoning Peter asap.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Bring it on.

A few more words...

Just to spice things up... man I'm so late.

The principle of unecessary plurality and Occam's Razor...

I want to bounce this off you but I have to go.

Manana I shall get back to you...

Well, Occam's Razor I've already addressed. It's highly subjective. I think it's a solid concept in general (but not infallible, necessarily), but simplicity is not a Universally agreed upon standard, and so the whole concept, then, is rather flawed as a result.

As for unnecessary plurality; that's really the same thing, more or less, as the phrase was coined by William of Ockham, a Franciscan Monk who's name should give away his thought process.

Unnecessary plurality differs slightly from Occam's Razor, however, in that it usually brings God into the picture. Example: if God is so perfect, why shouldn't we be, too? There are a few ways to answer this. For us to be perfect, though, God would probably have to intervene constantly. It's rather like the "if God exists, why does He allow evil?" question; the only alternative to imperfection (both biologically and morally) is dictation; a God that creates puppets who never stray. And what value would life have if we could not decide for ourselves what to do, for the most part?

Maybe Adam & Eve were perfect...or at least, as perfect as they could be without giving up their Free Will. The Bible does claim that people used to live hundreds of years, after all. Perhaps our own decisions about food, behavior, and other such things had something to do with the lessening of our life span over time. It's evolution, in a way. No one, after all, denies the existence of any form of evolution. Just speciation.

The inevitable result of Free Will is that once God's turn winding the key, the tune will play on no matter what on its own accord. Once we're put here, we can misuse our bodies and devolve and degrade ourselves away into a more and more flawed state over thousands of years, or more.

There's also the obvious answer that just because we cannot see a reason, it does not exist, though I imagine that explanation will/would typically receive an awful lot of jeers for its uncanny resemblance to a cop-out answer.

Hello hello..

Since I don't believe in God as a "concept" I automatically should be disqualified. It's like asking me: "Who made this wooden table? A carpenter or a pink crocodile with eight legs?". But in some strange way I feel like this topic was kind of almost made for me....

Firstly, I don't have any higher education on evolution or whatever. These are just my opinions based on tv-zapping, mag-skimming and common sense.

We can just look at the world around us today and we see evolution everywhere. Eskimoes, for example, have stronger hearts than other people because extreme cold climates is harder to survive for people with heart diseases and weak hearts. So those genes have been removed selectively by nature during generations and generations. And there is of course a reason why people in Africa have dark skin while people in Scandinavia have fair skin. The sunlight of course. I once was told the reason why asian people, like japanese, have a harder time handling alcohol but I've forgotten what it was. Anyone that knows?

I'm sure that in a couple of hundred years the scientists will see changes in our body construction because of the Industrialisation and because of inventions like the car. I saw on tv that 1/3 (or was it 2/3?) of the American people suffers from obesity. Maybe that will cause changes too. By examining skeletons from, say, 13th century scientists have found out that we grow taller nowadays. A lot taller. And we live longer. (This is in 1st world countries primarily).

For me it's not hard to accept that we come from creatures similar to apes, millions of years ago. However, it's not that simple as saying that there was one spieces of apes from day one that developed into the human race that we have today. Some of the stages in the evolution chain isn't even related to each other according to some scientists. A lot of spieces were lost on the way. Some say, for example, that the Neanderthal human (is it called that in English?) was extinct and is not directly related to us.

I know it's not the same thing, but to illustrate my point: Just a couple of years ago a people containing of only a few individuals (I don't remember exactly but I think it was only two, a man and a woman) was found deep in the rain forests of South America. This people had a totally unique language, spoken nowhere else and it will die with these two human beings. I'm sure they were no different in body structure then me, but you see what I mean? People that doesn't keep up with the changes in the world will disappear.

Maybe it was evolution, not Adam and Eve, that God created?

That viewpoint is becoming quite popular. Evolution doesn't even begin to address the major problems with Atheism. Evolution says nothing about how life got here in the first place; it merely offers a potential explanation as to how life could become so complex ONCE there was a reasonably diverse biological element to choose from.

As for the rest of your post: no one denies microevolution. No one is so foolish as to say that natural selection is bogus; the rub lies in the claim that evolution cannot handle certain types of complexity. Certain human organs are irreducibly complex, which flies in the face of natural selection getting us to this level.

Anyone who denies ALL forms of evolution is a fool; but no one here's doing that (and hopefully no one will). The debate is about whether or not evolution exists to such an extreme degree so as to create new species and produce the kind of dominance and complexity present in human beings. THAT is the issue.

Im more of a believer, that something spirtual created us, rather than Darwin's theory of evolution, i could be wrong, but there isnt enough scientific evidence as far as im concerned to prove it just yet.

Well, there is the Big Bang theory of course. I don't know what or who created the little bacteria or what ever it was that's the mother of all life on Earth, and frankly I don't care. But I'm sure that God didn't create two people, one man and one woman, and that they looked like us. And just as you told me: That's not really the issue here, is it? Evolution is the case, not "the creation".

Oh, and may I add that I'm not an atheist.

Microevelotion. I have never heard that word before. What's that? A very small evolution? Are you saying that you don't have a problem accepting that our bodies have changed a little but not a lot? Our hearts can change but not our teeth or skulls or the amount of hair on our bodies? Natural selection got rid of most of the pre-historic animals but some lived on, like crocodiles. Why not the human species that we have today? As soon as the human being lost, or defeated, all its natural enemies it could develop in peace and get to the superior position where we stand today.

If we put together all "microevelutions" what do we have? Evolution! (Or is it macroevolution?)

Yes, and I was trying to make a point by drawing you a picture. It's kind of hard to find the room here to guide you through millions of years of history (even if I had the knowledge to do so). I think natural selection IS evolution in a way. That's the part of evolution that we can see with our own eyes. And time speaks for my side of the coin. Just the fact that I would have been burned for saying this not so long ago (not so long ago considering the age of Universe) shows that most people are slowly turning to evolution instead of the Adam and Eve theory.

I can't really see how evolution creates new spieces. It's more like evolution refines or develop some spieces allready existing, and disposes of others.

And Darwinism isn't the same as evolution... Just want to point that out.

Probably not just like us; but what makes you so sure God didn't create two people?


Consider it noted.


No. Microevolution is the progress and development of an already existing species. Macroevolution is one species gradually becoming another, basically. Skulls changing shape in subtle ways over a long period of time is an example of microevolution. Macroevolution would be the idea that we stemmed from some form of bacteria long, long ago. Or that a bird used to be a fish, etc. Similar to speciation.


Yes, macrevolution is the phrase. But no, it's not a matter of just putting a bunch of small changes together. That IS how macroevolution is said to work, in theory, but the human body contains many organs that would fall under the label of irreducible complexity. I don't know how many people here have heard of this concept, but I can elaborate if need be.


It's not evolution in a way; it IS evolution. Natural selection is a theory that shows how a species can realistically hone its skills and such over a long period of time. It's perfectly valid; just not at certain levels of complexity.


No, it shows that most people are turning towards a more tolerant view of life. More people are learning that certain beliefs, like religion, should be about persuasion and demonstration of superiority, and not force.


Exactly; and if evolution cannot create a new species, then how did each species come to be?


No worries; I'm aware.

Ok, if I got you right Yoda, you think that God created a number of spieces (it must have been billions of billions since most of them actually have died since the beginning of time) and then evolution developed them into what we have today? I don't believe so.

You seem to consider evolution as an event rather than a ongoing process. Evolution didn't "create" the world, but the world was shaped through evolution. Yes, I think it's very logical that some kind of simple form of life lived in the water when the whole Earth was covered in it. Maybe a number of simple forms of life was created when the Earth was created. Or maybe they were created a couple of millions of years after the Earth was created during some heat process from the vulcanos or something. I find it very hard to accept the christian creation myth just because "you can't prove it did NOT happen like that".

If I had lived my exact life just the way I have BUT without ever hearing about either the Creation Myth or Evolution, I would have a hell of an easier time to accept the Evolution theory than that this thing called God created it all in 7 days. If you had to choose, if you just HAD to choose between a creation so complex that it goes beyond our comprehension (creation in 7 days) or a more "primitive" creation (The Big Bang etc.) followed by evolution.... Oh, who am I kidding? You're religious, of course you believe in the first alternative. But to me - neither a religious man nor an atheist - the second alternative is correct.

I saw a documentary about how big of a problem it was to work the evolution theory into the American education system and that a lot of high shcool kids protested against the fact that God's creation was questioned. At the same time some of them were very interested in science and tried hard to work out some kind of compromise and if I understand Yoda correctly, that's more or less his position - somewhere in between. And this microevolution thing, it sounds to me as something constructed to fit those views and to justify that middle way. But I don't know, maybe it's a perfectly valid theory, it's just the way you use it that makes me sceptical. But at least we seem to agree on the fact that at one point in time we were some kind of ape-looking spieces and that was what I thought the conservative side of this site was questioning.

Well, I think the time IS talking for my side of the story. For modern science it's simple: God did NOT create the Universe the way the bible says he did. It's the conservative religious people who are battling with their will to stick to God's word on one hand, and a will to live the modern life on the other hand that's having problems. It has always been religion that has fought back science. A couple of hundreds of years ago saying that the earth was round got you killed, a little later saying that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe got you killed or prisoned and when evolution theory came around the followers was perhaps not killed (thanks to Enlightment) but at least laughed at and humiliated. But now we have an acceptance for "microevelution" (whatever that means) and I assure you that in a couple of more centuries the majority will accept the evolution theory (macroevelution). It makes sense to me but it doesn't make sense to you because it opposes and questions everything that you believe in.

It's really no use for me debating with you guys on this, because to make you accept my views would be like telling you to stop being religious - which is not only impossible but also wrong of me to do.

I don't recall using that phrase. Perhaps you're confusing me with some other Christian; if so, don't. You certainly wouldn't like it if I tried to hold you accountable for the nonsense other people of similar viewpoints to your own had spewed at me in the past.


I don't appreciate your assumption. Your "tone" seems to mock. I don't believe it because I'm religious. I'm religious because I believe it. See the difference?


I don't know if I do believe we were apelike. I'm rather undecided.

Microevolution is not something "invented" to justify anything. Microevolution is the evolution we can observe and verify. Macroevolution is another matter. Evolution on the whole; that is, the creation of new species, or the evolution of a species into a completely different species, is a scientific THEORY at this point. Any scientist with any credibility will concede that. Microevolution = proven fact. Macrevolution = theory.

Heck, you said it yourself, didn't you?

"I can't really see how evolution creates new spieces. It's more like evolution refines or develop some spieces allready existing, and disposes of others."


Care to elaborate? Are you using a totally literal interpretation of the Story of Creation?


I hate to say this, but you clearly have some homework to do. Religion is responsible for many scientific breakthroughs throughout history. The "world is flat" nonsense was believed by non-religious folks as well, and, get this:

The Bible states that the world is a sphere.

You heard it here first. People love this "religion hates science" nonsense; the only problem is they don't bother to find out if it's actually true. They spew out some story about Galileo (which is constantly misrepresented) and something about the Earth being flat, and they think they've made their point. I'd be willing to bet, however, that you merely heard about these things in passing, and didn't delve into them for yourself to see if they really had any merit.

And yes, evolution was fought early on; but not just because of God. Remember the Scopes Monkey Trial? Well, the book being used in class was highly racist. Scans of the textbook are available if you'd like to see their racist teachings for yourself. Evolution was used to support many racist views; the idea was that white people were more evolved than, say, black people.

That was one of the reasons they didn't want it in the school; but religion ended up taking center stage over that, just like slavery took center stage in The Civil War over the rights of the States; slavery and religion are more interesting topics, so they take the front seat.


There you go again: things make sense to me, or they don't, regardless of my beliefs. Technically, my beliefs would be even easier to swallow if I discounted all evolution...but that'd be stupid, because I can see microevolution all around me. So I believe it.

As for your assurance; pardon me if I don't run off to place a bet. I don't think your prognostication is all that reliable, given your other faulty claims about religion here. Frankly, I think evolution will LOSE ground over the next 100 years thanks to Intelligent Design and the concept of Irreducible Complexity.

Are you familiar with these concepts? If so, then what is your response to them? If not, then how can you claim to have any idea where popular thought will go? How can you predict the outcome of a fight when you don't even know who's fighting?


This is wrong on several levels. Anyone with a flaw in their thinking should be shown the flaw in their thinking. If there is a flaw in mine, show it to me. So far all you're giving me are erroneous claims about religion's relationship with science, and "oh, you'd never believe it anyway; you're religious"-style assumptions.

I could very well say the same thing about your views, anyway.

Hardy har har

"By irreducibly complex I mean 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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have any thing to act on. Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, 1996"

"An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."

Why does evolution need to supply a theory to concept something that hasn't been manifested yet? Doctors don't need to find a cure for a disease that doesn't exist.

But since I haven't read any other posts I'm gonna keep bear hugging your irreducible complexity.

Basically the concept states that something has irreducible complexity if you remove one part of something and it ceases to function. This threatens evolutionists because evolution is borne out of a gradual process, natural selection is in essence trial and error. Natural selection builds off predecessors, and if one predecessor were to be absent then what you're looking at shouldn't be.

Now when I first looked into this it didn't mean anything at all to me. I didn't understand how it applied. But looking at it on a much larger scale, this theory is saying you can't have 3 without having 2. You can't have 2 without having 1. If you took away 1 from 3, you simply couldn't have 3 anymore.

Now I reqoute this concept:"wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Heres what I have to say to that. Take my spleen, I don't need it.

If this irreducibly complex theory is to disprove evolution than for it to be valid if my spleen were removed I would cease to function; I would die. And yet this isn't the case.

This theory is way too vague and way to invalid in disproving evolution.

The reverse side always has a reverse side. If irreducibly complex can dissprove evoltuion it can invalidate any theory of creationism.

Lets say you can indeed isolate a biological function, remove it, and evolution would cease to exist. Theories of evolution would be inncorrect and hold no weigh what so ever simply because one piece of the complex system that is evolution was removed, made false, and thus none of the other pieces can function.

Say you have found something to remove from that system. I turn to your system, I remove God, your system ceases to function as well. Its a double edge sword that is swung either way.

Where in creationism does it combat irreducible complexity? "God was always there"? Sorry, I don't see how saying that is any different than saying the conditions for life didn't always exist. The concept of irreducible complexity is bull, cut out my spleen and that whole concept is immediately beaten by its own logic.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Oh yeah; it's on now.


Did you even read all of that?

"There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced."

Not that that article needed to mention the shortcomings of the experiment; ALL of it is based on what scientists think "may" have been present in early Earth. That's remarkably inexact.

Experiments in general are dubious at best when used as proof. Example: they're often used to test if something is POSSIBLE; not if something is likely. There are 20 basic amino acids that are in all living things. Most experiments are conducted with 180 amino acids present; many of them more common than those 20.

Experiments like that are more about whether, under very specific circumstances, this or that can happen. They disregard the fact that, in some cases, while possibile, the likelihood is so slim as to be nearly mathematically impossible.


Whether you realize it or not, you are now resorting to ridiculous logic that is often used by Christians to defend their beliefs. Have you ever had a Christian tell you "you can't prove God doesn't exist"? Yeah, so have I; and we both know it's a cop-out.

This is the same thing; we cannot prove for sure that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY for this to evolve this way or that to evolve that way, but we have brains for a reason. Behe only says "if there is such a thing" because there is no possible way to ever exhaust all the possibilities.


You're missing the point; the argument is not that you, as a human, cannot afford to lose any of your parts. The argument is that some of your parts cannot afford to lose any of THEIR parents. You, as a human being, are not irreducibly complex.

Your vital organs, however, probably are. 1/4th of a heart does you no good. Only the whole, completed, working heart does you any good.

Your mistake lies in saying that if irreducible complexity can be applied to one thing (a part), it must apply to the larger whole; which is simply not true. Irreducible complexity does not really say that some things cannot afford to lose ANY parts at all...but that, rather, they're made up mostly of parts which would ALL need to come together at the same time...which requires, well, luck. When an organ requires many parts working together at the same time...parts that have no value towards survival seperately...it doesn't fit the mold of natural selection.


Not at all; irreducible complexity is a biological concept. It combats the idea that natural selection got us to where we are. The "system" of Creationism is not contingent on natural selection, so irreducible complexity is not an argument against it. The comparison between the two in that respect is completely invalid.


Creationism doesn't HAVE to combat irreducible complexity, because the two are not at odds. Irreducible complexity is a challenge to the idea that the complex biological organisms on Earth evolved via natural selection. It's not a Universal concept that applies to all situations. It applies to biological machines and their development.

Apples to oranges.


Addressed above.

I know that the experiment was flawed, I did read that page and I read it in my Biology book and I read it and wrote it down when my Biology teacher taught it to us. You said it said nothing about how it got there and I was refuting you by pointing out the exact opposite, it does say reasons as to how life evolved; not only that but it there are multiple paths of explaination, just as there are multiple faiths with variations in the belief of creationism. Earlier you were addressing what you called "selective science", picking what theories you believe in is no different than picking a religion. You have stated that you believe in microevolution, but not macro, you're a victim of your own words.

The man who came up with the theory of irreducible complexity stated that if it applies to the man-made world than it should likewise apply to the biological world. Basically, if it applies to the son it applies to the father. If Adam is essentially the son of God (yes I know he wasn't literally the son, he was a creation of), if he is a biproduct of a product this idea of irreducible complexity does apply. It isn't apples to oranges.

Also the man who came up with this theory used an example of removing a piece from a mouse trap. Once removed, the trap no longer traped mice. This showing that if you remove any piece from a larger complex machine the machine will cease to function, which just isn't true. If this theory were solely a biolgoical concept, as you yourself said ("Not at all; irreducible complexity is a biological concept. It combats the idea that natural selection got us to where we are." then why would Behe use a mouse trap as an example of his own theory. I don't see any mouse traps growing in my backyard.

It tries to invalidate evolution because everything has a parent. It goes to the chicken and egg thing. But solely on the terms of evolution, this theory doesn't matter. Evolution is the idea that everything evolves from a predecessor. But eventually it would be immpossible to have one, correct? There would be nothing to build off, no trial and error, no natural selection to gradually build up organs that would form complex structures such as a human being. All those things would have to exist in the first place. It wouldn't be gradual, it would be instantenous. Adams organs didn't evovle over a long time, God created them all at once, present day man has evolved from that. That sort of thing.

Let us assume that is true. Lets assume following the evolutionary timeline you eventually hit a point where a parent can not be found. Irreducible complexity comes into play, creationism shines. The thing I struggle with is that it would have to apply to whatever created Adam. If by all logic this applies to things in the man made world, reflectively it applies to things in the biological world (sort of like how art imitates life), then its just like saying you can't have 2 without 1. But how do you get 1? 1 was simply created. Created by god, hence creationism. By all logic and reason, the basis for this theory, then it would have to apply to God. Unless God himself evolved from something, something would have to of created God. If this is not the case then again this theory of irreducible complexity is bull. It is not ment to apply ONLY to biological constructions. Newtons laws don't apply only to things on earth. No Law or Theory applies to one thing and not the other. Hell, look at Newtons Third law: For each reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. If this theory is going to dissprove evolution, it is likewise dissproving creationism whether you see it that way or not. This whole concept of irreducible complexity that you are pointing to is in itself irreducibly complex and thus should cease to function.

Anyone who has taken alegbra knows that when working out an equation anything you do to one side you have to do to the other side as well. You can't focus this theory only on biological machines.

By its own logic, Apples to Apples.

I said that evolution gives no explanation of it; not that there was no potential explanation. Evolution is apart from the origin of first life.


Not at all; selective science is about picking a report for no other reason than it being the one you want to believe. However, in the case of microevolution, and macroevolution, the former has been clearly demonstrated, whereas the latter is not only unproven, but has failed to take things like irreducible complexity into account, or the fact that a lab experiment has NEVER created a protein merely by allowing amino acids to interact with one another.


You're making a crucial mistake: you're acting as if the concept of irreducible complexity is forever tied to the man who first published something on it. I'm not responsible for defending some analogy he used, just as you are not responsible for defending Darwin's beliefs and preferences just because you believe a theory he invented.

(he didn't actually invent it, however, but that's beside the point.)


Again; I'm not responsible for his comparisons. But in this case, I'll go at it all the same. There are several flaws in the above quote.

As I stated in my last post, irreducible complexity does not state that the machine in question runs only when all its parts are in place so much as it states that all of its crucial parts rely on one another. The point is the same: they would've ALL had to come together at once to work.

The fact that you can, say, peel some membrane off of the outside of your heart, or some other organ without it ceasing to function, is completely irrelevant to the point at hand, which is that natural selection is about small changes over a long period of time, whereas many biological machines within us have an "all or nothing" type of complexity. Thus, the entire organ would have to show up at once; the odds of which are, well, completely implausible.


This is false. It invalidates evolution because evolution does not, by its very nature, rely on major jumps forward, of which it would likely need MANY to explain the complexity of many living things on this planet.

For evolution to work in developing human beings, it could not develop, by chance mutation, a fourth of a heart which would then help that creature survive, thus carrying on natural selection. A fourth of a heart is useless. THAT is the point. All the "everything has to have a parent" speculation is something else entirely.


The problem with what you're saying here is that irreducible complexity doesn't just come into play early on; it comes into play time and time again, wherever a complex biological machine is found. A machine that has no reason to evolve in tiny steps, because it would not help in survival until it was completed.


Why would it apply to God? Irreducible complexity is only applicable in response to natural selection. What part of that don't you understand? Look at its very nature: no one is saying irreducibly complex things cannot exist. We can build them, for one.

Let's run down the basic definition:

If something is irreducibly complex, it requires all or most of its parts, basically, to function. So what? What does this tell us? Does it tell us things simply cannot be irreducibly complex? No, obviously not. The only thing it tells us is that natural selection does not work at irreducibly complex levels, because it would require a giant leap forward for every such organ.

How, pray tell, have you come to the conclusion that irreducible complexity therefore conflicts with other things as well? By its very nature, it takes issue with natural selection. You've given no reason as to why it has to inherently conflict with anything else.


By that warped logic, the theory of evolution therefore applies to planets, even though planets do not breed.