Irreducible Complexity Refuted!

So how many believe this?

"It's not evidence, it's an argument"

He says it himself, "by definition it is non functioning" It functions as such but that is only one instance, any others?

Doesn't change what "he" said. Shall i quote it again? "by definition it is non functioning" Get it?

He says that to show an example of "Irreducible Complexity" and subsequently to refute that example.

Take the flagellum. Yes, if a piece is removed, it no longer functions as a flagellum. However that does NOT mean that such a structure is "irreducibly complex".

It can perfectly provide a completely different function.

This gives a solid pathway for natural selection and evolution to work. .

The idea that this structure could not have evolved from a more basic version is therefore completely refuted.

Oh... "he" in your case is a man named Michael Behe.

Get it?

C'mon, can you actually debate this topic?

Out of context my ass.

In his opinion.

By definition, you lose. Take away one and you have nothing. We irreduced and it was less complex?

Or not.

This also give a pathway for nothing.

Not by his own admission.

Sure do, and who are you?

refuted is as refuted does.

Yeah, that's pretty out of context, too.



Default answer to an argument you can't debate? What he showed was scientific evidence. Fact. Not opinion.



Take away one piece and you have a structure that serves a different purpose. This does not mean that it is non-functional. Not one bit. Irreducible Complexity, as it's name suggests, says that this is not possible. Remove even one piece and you're left with something completely useless and non-functional. This structure has no evolutionary path, it is too complex to have evolved. This has been shown to be false, using scientific evidence, as shown in the video. We have shown the evolutionary path for the bacterial flagellum (if you want a link, I will be happy to point you to numerous papers on this subject.

So... how have I "lost" again?



See, now you're just grasping for straws. If the structure has *ANY* function with one or more of its pieces missing, it is not irreducibly complex. It is not so complex that it cannot be reduced to something simpler



Sometimes you make absolutely no sense. This above response is one of those times. The evolutionary path of this structure has been shown in DNA evidence and in the video up there. This has also been studied and confirmed in many scientific papers. I'd like you to explain how this "give a pathway for nothing".




But by science. I'd like you to also show me an irreducibly complex structure. If you have evidence for this claim, put it out there. I'd love to rip it to shreds.



Someone who knows a tad bit more about the subject.



And no attempt from you to actually debate the subject. Hot air and poor grammar are all I've been seeing. That and a lack of research.

Yeah, that's pretty out of context, too.

Default answer to an argument you can't debate?

What he showed was scientific evidence. Fact. Not opinion.

Take away one piece and you have a structure that serves a different purpose.

This does not mean that it is non-functional.

Complexity, as it's name suggests, says that this is not possible. Remove even one piece and you're left with something completely useless and non-functional.

This structure has no evolutionary path, it is too complex to have evolved. This has been shown to be false, using scientific evidence, as shown in the video. We have shown the evolutionary path for the bacterial flagellum (if you want a link, I will be happy to point you to numerous papers on this subject.

So... how have I "lost" again?

See, now you're just grasping for straws. If the structure has *ANY* function with one or more of its pieces missing, it is not irreducibly complex. It is not so complex that it cannot be reduced to something simpler

But by science. I'd like you to also show me an irreducibly complex structure. If you have evidence for this claim, put it out there. I'd love to rip it to shreds.

Someone who knows a tad bit more about the subject.

And no attempt from you to actually debate the subject. Hot air and poor grammar are all I've been seeing. That and a lack of research.

I bet you believe that your sentence is?

And i quote again from your link. "It's not evidence, it's an argument"

Not fact but merely someones opinion.

How many people believe this?

If it's many you might be able to construe fact by consensus?

Him and you makes two, any more?

I'm sure in your mind that is how it works.

When does evidence become fact

it's the opinion of an observation that gives way to an idea as to how close it is to being fact.

Him believing/faith in what he interprets of his observation does not make it fact.

Neither does your faith in his observation.

There both Just Opinions.

For being anti-religious you sure participate in the practice of faith? Except your faith is in Darwin? I bet you have gobs of faith for his observations?

If this is true then you should be able to name the new purpose?

By his own definition it is not functioning to begin with?

Here is his quote again, "by definition it is non functioning" Did it sink in this time?

"by definition it is non functioning"

"by definition it is non functioning"

And it's purpose would be what?

No buts. My example would be the human. Take away any vital organ and do you have a less capable entity or a lump of dead flesh?

Time to start rippin.

I'm still waiting to see your shred.

In your opinion that is all.

Do you have a question mark fetish?

That sounds like irreducible complexity and ID to me. No fact, merely opinion. That doesn't stand in a scientific arena.

Again, the complexity thing? And again, not much.

99.9998% of the scientific community believes that the whole ID thing is bollocks. They're right.

Please explain to me how it works.

Official sponsor of Michael Behe.

Is this your best?

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation

An observation does not have an opinion.

An observation does not have an opinion. An observation is fact, see above definition.

An observation is fact. An interpretation of a fact or group of facts is a theory.

Why the need to call it "faith"?

Is it to bring it down to your level, since your beliefs are nothing but faith?

You have no observed facts, no evidence, yet the real science is faith?

Fact != opinion. Observed facts have no opinion.

Typical creationist/ID jabber. Just like DirtySanchez. You're as transparent as air.

For a so-called seeker of truth, you sure deny a hell of a lot of it.

And that purpose was named. Did you actually watch the video? Even the DNA sequences were shown.

To inject material into victim cells in order to cause an infection. Watch the vid, kid.

Ladies and Gentlemen of ConflictingViews: I will now make a complete ass of DirtySanchez by showing his lack of knowledge of the topic at hand.

AGAIN.

Your example is the human, correct?

Are we watching, guys n gals?

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument made by intelligent design proponents that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.

A biological system. A human carries several biological systems. Why are you attempting to call an entire organism "irreducibly complex" when the idea does not cover an entire organism? IC focuses on structures inside of a living organism... flagella, eyes, etc. It does NOT focus on the organism as a whole.

I can remove a kidney from a human and it will still function.

I can remove a lung from a human and it will still function.

I can remove the gall bladder, appendix, eyes, inner ears, etc from a human (all of which are quite useful and vital organs) and it will still function.

Don't worry Sanchez, I wiped the floor with you many times before, this won't be any different (or less painful).

I publicly challenge you to refute my statements.

Scientific fact can be and are often wrong. That's why you have to be objectionable of which you are not. An observation is nothing but some ones opinion of what was observed.

The observation came from a human, humans are fallible. There went your percentage. Observations just don't appear out of knowwhere.I'd like to see a link to your definition?

Nothing i've read says "observation is fact"?

Observed facts are opinion.

Do you?

You would know cause your a scientist right? It's as much opinion as is your arguement.

Like you say, your arguement is "not much."

Can you substanciate that claim?

For you, open mouth, insert foot.

It is untill you prove how a flagelem funtions without one of it's parts?

Scientific fact can be and are often wrong.

That's why you have to be objectionable of which you are not.

An observation is nothing but some ones opinion of what was observed.

The observation came from a human, humans are fallible. There went your percentage.

Observations just don't appear out of knowwhere.

I'd like to see a link to your definition?

Nothing i've read says "observation is fact"?

Oh, now the story changes, so this interpretation wouldn't be some ones opinion of what was observed would it?

Because that is what it is, is it not?

Are you trying to insinuate your beliefs are something other then?

Like i said, you practice it well.

Observed facts are opinion.

What ever, how bout answering the question?

For a non believer you sure have a severe hang up about it don't cha?

So what was the name?

I did, didn't see it?

You didn't answer the question?

What happens when you lose two?

Both of them gone what happens?

None of the above are vital to life, maybe to survival but thats a different thread.

You can't wipe your nose.

Love you long time. My brother of faith, LOL.

wtf?

observation = opinion of observation??????? :dunno:


Observation:

n
1. The act or faculty of observing.
2. The fact of being observed.

3. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.




You probably haven't read much..

Fact is something you see and know to be true, you see an object fall towards the ground that is fact or if you observe the parts of a flagellum function that can as well be fact.




fact is not oppinion! fact is not subjective to oppinion. (or anything else)

wtf?

observation = opinion of observation??????? :dunno:

Observation:

n
1. The act or faculty of observing.
2. The fact of being observed.

3. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.

You probably haven't read much..

Fact is something you see and know to be true, you see an object fall towards the ground that is fact

fact is not oppinion! fact is not subjective to oppinion. (or anything else)

Yup. Two people observing the same thing can have two different observations, correct?

Are both fact?

Or are they subject to the observers interpretation and understanding of what was observed?

Nothing in there says observations are facts like Sabz likes to imply?

The fact that you are observing something does not automatically make how you interpret what you saw a fact.

I read your definition, nothing about "observations are fact"?

Yes it is, but why did it fall? Gravity. You know it's there but can you prove it?

No.In your own words, is global warming a fact or merely your opinion?

You believe in a book writen by darwin. You consider it fact, i consider it his opinion, not fact. He could of interpreted it wrong as human often do.

Yup. Two people observing the same thing can have two different observations, correct? Are both fact? Or are they subject to the observers interpretation and understanding of what was observed?

No.In your own words, is global warming a fact or merely your opinion? You believe in a book writen by darwin. You consider it fact, i consider it his opinion, not fact. He could of interpreted it wrong as human often do.

You cannot observe reason. Reason is oppinion based. For example I see an apple fall to the ground. The apple did fall to the ground, this is fact and it is also observed by any who saw. Even if i do not know the reason the apple fell, i do know that that apple fell. I cannot observe gravity merely the effects of it (things falling).

Or perhaps I saw a man running around who appears to be killing people. I do not know why he was trying to kill people, in my oppinion he was trying to kill people because he is crazy. I cannot see 'crazy' merely the effects of his craziness (killing people). yet I do know what I saw is true.



you are misusing the word 'fact'. Evolution is fact, it has been observed in the lab, it is known to occur.

Global warming however cannot be directly observed yet the effects of global warming can be seen (melting of ice).

Evolution is fact

it has been observed in the lab, it is known to occur.

Global warming however cannot be directly observed yet the effects of global warming can be seen (melting of ice).

Please provide a link from a reputable source stating so.

Then you should have a lab name, maybe the scientist's name who observed this and was it repeatable?

So is it fact or an opinion? By saying "cannot be directly observed yet" the answer would be "opinion"