Irreducible complexity exists - cannot be refuted

[nnmartin]

Mutations are random in the sense that they are impossible to predict, not because the forces that create them are inherently random.
Stick to the topic please.

So you are basically saying they are not random.

If it is assumed that randomness does not really exist and that you can work everything out with enough data then we can see that life was pre-determined at or before the big bang.

Who determined this?

What "knowledge"? Are you attributing intelligence to the natural laws of the universe?

It is certainly possible.

You have come a long way since the first page of this thread! Kudos to you for be open to new knowledge and willing to change your mind.
Could you clarify your objection? Does this have to do with your post #5, about the "millions of tiny adjustments" and the "self organizing mechanism" of DNA?

These tiny adjustments are not random - already programmed into the Force that moves through the Universe.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

These tiny adjustments are not random - already programmed into the Force that moves through the Universe.

Well first of all, it would not be programmed into "the Force that moves through the Universe" but rather programmed into the known laws of physics. Secondly, that would only be true if quantum mechanics could be ignored. But it can't. A mutation occurs by changes to a single molecule -- the DNA in an organism -- so in light of quantum mechanics any such changes were not absolutely destined to happen.

 

[nnmartin]

Talking of quantum mechanics, physics etc. doesn't really solve the problem.

It seems that no-one knows whether quantum is random or not as it depends how you measure it and everything moves into the 'fuzzy logic'' sphere.

But regardless of that, The Force controls the laws of physics whether they are random or not.

The Force is above and beyond physics.

It's more of a philosophical argument really - for instance , what was before the Big Bang , what was before the beginning of time etc.. , it's impossible for us to know.

I find it impossible to believe that we are just robots, fashioned from DNA.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So you are basically saying they are not random.

I am saying they are random in exactly the way I described.

If it is assumed that randomness does not really exist and that you can work everything out with enough data then we can see that life was pre-determined at or before the big bang.

That is not necessarily assumed.
At the moment there appears to be instances of true randomness on the Quantum level, but we don't yet know the whole picture of that.

Who determined this?

Wrong question.
Try again.

 

[doppelganger]

Why impossible? I thought science knew all the laws.

Where'd you hear that?

 

[PolyHedral]

Why impossible? I thought science knew all the laws.

There is not enough processing power or precise enough data avaliable, even if all the laws were known. (which isn't quite true)

 

[PolyHedral]

It seems that no-one knows whether quantum is random or not as it depends how you measure it and everything moves into the 'fuzzy logic'' sphere.

Oh, you're completely wrong there: it is known for a fact that quantum mechanics is random. If it were not, there would be very unpleasant consequences.

 

[painted wolf]

Why impossible? I thought science knew all the laws.

Where did you get that idea?
Science would be very dull if we knew everything already.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Talking of quantum mechanics, physics etc. doesn't really solve the problem.

It seems that no-one knows whether quantum is random or not as it depends how you measure it and everything moves into the 'fuzzy logic'' sphere.

Quantum mechanics is very counter-intuitive and difficult to understand conceptually. However, there is nothing fuzzy about its logic. We do indeed know that the course of events at the microscopic scale are random. (There are of course probabilities that things will happen, and there are rules about the range of things which can and cannot happen.)

A mutation in DNA can occur, for example, when it absorbs a photon of ultraviolet light. This alters the chemical structure of one of the DNA bases and can lead to incorrect copying of the DNA. Whether the UV photon gets absorbed or not in the first place is random. Place one cell under low UV light and it may gain a mutation. Place an identical cell under identical light and it may not gain a mutation. The outcome was not "written in the stars" from the beginning.

But regardless of that, The Force controls the laws of physics whether they are random or not.

The Force is above and beyond physics.

It's more of a philosophical argument really - for instance , what was before the Big Bang , what was before the beginning of time etc.. , it's impossible for us to know.

That may be true. But aren't you contradicting yourself? If it's impossible for us to know what was before the beginning of time, etc. then how can you know what (if anything) exists before the beginning of time, etc. (namely the thing you call The Force)?

 

[nnmartin]

That may be true. But aren't you contradicting yourself? If it's impossible for us to know what was before the beginning of time, etc. then how can you know what (if anything) exists before the beginning of time, etc. (namely the thing you call The Force)?

One only needs to believe in The Force - let The Force worry about the logic!

Believing in The Force brings contentment, worrying about how it exists only brings frustration - believe and enjoy , that's good enough for me.


I think Science is a fascinating subject and all credit to those who try to fathom its depths - though there does seem to be a point where it merges into philosophy - that point will no doubt keep changing with the advancement of time but I'm sure it will always be there for eternity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

One only needs to believe in The Force - let The Force worry about the logic!

Believing in The Force brings contentment, worrying about how it exists only brings frustration - believe and enjoy , that's good enough for me.

I see. In that case I am sorry that my logic interrupted your enjoyment, please pay it no mind.

 

[painted wolf]

And that just about wraps things up here...

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

There are plenty of lame attempts at refuting irreducible complexity - but that is all they are - attempts.

Many vague reasons as to why certain structures evolved but not how they all happened to be put together as a complex whole. Take the Bombardier beetle for example -

Also the Arch theory - that even more complex designs came about by chance and then just magically morphed into a simpler one by chance.

It's about time someone came up with some real answers to evolution or at least accept that there is way more to it than Darwin.

I apologize if this is off-topic or beating a dead horse or what not, just thought I'd comment on irreducible complexity - IC.

The first time I heard about it, as I'm sure a lot of you have as well, is through the creationist movement and I've come to associate IC solely with the ID/creationist crowed. So it really surprised me to learn that essentially the same concept of IC was proposed by an actual geneticist, Hermman Muller, in the first half of the 1900's and called it "interlocking complexity". For him, because he saw evolution as mostly modifying already existing parts (i.e. you get a new protein by slightly changing an old one), you would expect irreducibly complex systems to evolve.

So like the word "theory", creationists have hijacked legitimate concepts in science and tried to turn them against the scientific establishment. At least for me, the more you know the more ridiculous ID and ID-like ideas become.