Is evolution a fact?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_Sully
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve40 said:
I see the logic in irreducible complexity. This is where the rubber meets the road. There is no driver for adaptation when you see complex functions that can only work together but are independent.
Click to expand...
Irreducibly complex systems can, and do, evolve. You are correct in that direct evolution of an IC system driven by natural selection is not possible but that does allow evolution of IC systems by indirect routes such as scaffolding or adaptation from another function. It also allows IC systems to arise by neutral mechanisms.

For a complete, mutation by mutation, example of the evolution of an IC system see the Line of Descent from Lenski’s paper.

For the evolution of IC systems by a subset of available neutral mechanisms see Behe and Snoke’s paper (yes, that Behe). If even Behe thinks that IC systems can evolve then you might want to reconsider your position.
The logical conclusion given the evolutionary model is that the functions must have always existed together.
Click to expand...
No, the functions may have existed for some other purpose. Your hands have many purposes, one of then can be to fan your face by moving air about on a hot day. Bats have taken this minor purpose - moving air - and turned their hands into a pair of wings for flight. Evolution can adapt mechanisms used for one purpose to serve a different purpose.

Behe’s original statement was “IC cannot evolve”. This has now changed into “IC is unlikely to evolve” and the discussion has moved on to exactly how unlikely. If you are sticking to the old version then you are not in agreement with Behe himself who has, correctly, changed his position because of the evidence.

rossum
 
Steve40 said:
I see the logic in irreducible complexity. This is where the rubber meets the road. There is no driver for adaptation when you see complex functions that can only work together but are independent. The logical conclusion given the evolutionary model is that the functions must have always existed together. You don’t have to believe the functions were designed you only have to understand that there is no explainable mechanism on how they cam about. A theory without a valid mechanism is a religion.
Click to expand...
“Irreducible complexity” is goobldy-gook for “I can’t figure out how it happened.”

To my 16-month old grand daughter, the grocery store shelves are “irreducibly complex” – she can’t figure out how they got there, nor how all those cans and jars and boxes got put on them.

But when she gets older, it will seem less “irreducibly complex.”
 
vern_humphrey said:
“Irreducible complexity” is goobldy-gook for “I can’t figure out how it happened.”

To my 16-month old grand daughter, the grocery store shelves are “irreducibly complex” – she can’t figure out how they got there, nor how all those cans and jars and boxes got put on them.

But when she gets older, it will seem less “irreducibly complex.”
Click to expand...
So Vern, would God be irreducibly complex?
 
buffalo said:
So Vern, would God be irreducibly complex?
Click to expand...
Do you claim God to be a product of evolution?

We Catholics believe He has always existed – and hence neither “irreducibly complexity” nor evolution apply Him.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Do you claim God to be a product of evolution?

We Catholics believe He has always existed – and hence neither “irreducibly complexity” nor evolution apply Him.
Click to expand...
I did not claim anything. It was a simple question asking for a simple yes or no.
 
buffalo said:
I did not claim anything. It was a simple question asking for a simple yes or no.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but no cigar. Your claim was inherent in your question, and you know it.

Now, I answered you – God, being eternal, is not a product of evolution and hence “irreducible complexity” does not apply to Him.

Now you answer me – do you claim different?
 
vern_humphrey said:
Nice try, but no cigar. Your claim was inherent in your question, and you know it.

Now, I answered you – God, being eternal, is not a product of evolution and hence “irreducible complexity” does not apply to Him.

Now you answer me – do you claim different?
Click to expand...
Well let’s try another way - is God’s infinite perfection reducible?
 
buffalo said:
Well let’s try another way - is God’s infinite perfection reducible?
Click to expand...
No, first answer the question: Do you claim God “evolved” and is therefore subject to the concept of “irreducible complexity?”

If you answer is no, then your question above is meaningless.

If you answer is yes, then you have a totally different concept of God than I (or the Catholic Church) have.
 
vern_humphrey said:
No, first answer the question: Do you claim God “evolved” and is therefore subject to the concept of “irreducible complexity?”

If you answer is no, then your question above is meaningless.

If you answer is yes, then you have a totally differenc concept of God than I (or the Catholic Church) have.
Click to expand...
No, God did not evolve.

Now show me how the above question is meaningless.
 
buffalo said:
No, God did not evolve.

Now show me how the above question is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Because it has no meaning, of course!!

“Irreducible complexity” is a concept associated with evolution. It does not apply to a Being who has always existed, any more than color applies to music, or smell to mathematics…
 
vern_humphrey said:
Because it has no meaning, of course!!

“Irreducible complexity” is a concept associated with evolution. It does not apply to a Being who has always existed, any more than color applies to music, or smell to mathematics…
Click to expand...
I disagree. rreducibly complex does not have to be taken in the evolutionary context.
 
buffalo said:
I disagree. rreducibly complex does not have to be taken in the evolutionary context.
Click to expand...
Then what does it mean outside that context?

And how can any examination of irreducible complexity outside the context of evolution apply to evolution?

How does the application of te comcept to God affect the Doctrine of the Trinity? Must we reject the Trinity in the pursuit of irreducible complexity?

How can we say God is complex at all? He may be elegently and divinely simple. Just as Einstein found elegently simplicity in the complexity of physics with E=MC^2, so we, if granted the Beatific Vision may find “God is Love” – elegantly simple, yet too profound for mortals to understand.
 
Irreducible complexity is a solid concept. The engine in your car is irreducibly complex. To assume that any of its parts could have existed for a different reason by themselves prior to attaching themselves to exactly the right part of an engine while it “evolved” is speculative fiction.

God bless,
Ed
 
vern_humphrey said:
Then what does it mean outside that context?

And how can any examination of irreducible complexity outside the context of evolution apply to evolution?

How does the application of te comcept to God affect the Doctrine of the Trinity? Must we reject the Trinity in the pursuit of irreducible complexity?

How can we say God is complex at all? He may be elegently and divinely simple. Just as Einstein found elegently simplicity in the complexity of physics with E=MC^2, so we, if granted the Beatific Vision may find “God is Love” – elegantly simple, yet too profound for mortals to understand.
Click to expand...
The Trinity is a great example. It cannot be reduced.

Catholic dogma is that God is simple.
 
edwest2 said:
Irreducible complexity is a solid concept. The engine in your car is irreducibly complex. To assume that any of its parts could have existed for a different reason by themselves prior to attaching themselves to exactly the right part of an engine while it “evolved” is speculative fiction.

God bless,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ah, I see your mistake. You assume evolution means the same animal or plant has existed for all time. That, of course, is no part of evolution.

But if you look at the engine of my car, I can show you an earlier, simpler engine. I can show you an earlier, simpler engine that that. And one even earlier and simpler.

I can show you how simple tools and parts were used and developed to produce more complex tools and parts. For example, the huge die stamping presses that turn out the parts for the car body were preceeded by much simpler dies used to mark clay tablets, stamp out coins, and so on, thousands of years ago.
 
Steve40 said:
Prove evolution to me. Show me an experiment that proves it. Show me any evidence of a transitional form. You don’t know what you are talking about. You trust in others to have evidence that you have never verified. The evidence does not exist. Believe your rediculous theory. I leave you to it.
Click to expand...
stop being silly.Now I’m rather sure you aren’t even an engineer. You answer nothing, just make some more garbage up. I am truly sorry to see such a limited faith.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Ah, I see your mistake. You assume evolution means the same animal or plant has existed for all time. That, of course, is no part of evolution.

But if you look at the engine of my car, I can show you an earlier, simpler engine. I can show you an earlier, simpler engine that that. And one even earlier and simpler.

I can show you how simple tools and parts were used and developed to produce more complex tools and parts. For example, the huge die stamping presses that turn out the parts for the car body were preceeded by much simpler dies used to mark clay tablets, stamp out coins, and so on, thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...
No, no mistake. Evolutionists make the unsupported claim that cells are not Irreducibly Complex because they are made up of parts that were used before for other things and later, one or more of these parts just happened to attach themselves to a precise spot, and just happened to be the right size, to add functionality to a cell. Baloney.

Put a bunch of car parts on the ground and they will not assemble themselves. A billion years later, still nothing.

Irreducible Complexity is good science.

God bless,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top