Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; CottShop
I've asked the same questions about the mathematical models that supposedly "prove" that life is "irreducibly complex".

I'm not aware of any such models. Irreducible complexity is a concept, not a "model" per se; it's meaning is the opposite of reductionism. Reductionism says that the whole is the simple sum of its constituting parts; irreducible complexity says that the whole is MORE than the simple sum of the constituting parts. This would obviously be the situation applying to biological organisms.

And this should be obvious: You can't reduce a biological organism to its parts without destroying it, let alone be able to "reconstitute it" again from its parts. This sort of procedure works with simple (mechanical) systems like, for example, a wristwatch. But biological (complex) systems cannot be "reduced" in this way. It is in this precise sense that we observe that biological organisms are, in fact, irreducibly complex.

615 posted on 10/09/2009 9:07:45 AM PDT by betty boop (Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is. —Pope Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies ]


To: betty boop

Whether you can properly call it a “model” or not, the argument is made that it’s “mathematically proven that evolution is impossible”, based on probabilities of molecules arranging themselves in certain ways without some externally directed force being applied with specific intent.


616 posted on 10/09/2009 9:29:04 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies ]

To: betty boop

[[You can’t reduce a biological organism to its parts without destroying it,]]

Some parts of whole systems of IC can be reduced, but the parts that are IC can’t be reduced- however, those makign hte argument that IC isn’t IC because soem parts can be reduced- taken away, are being disingenious. Miller was forced to inteligently design a process that defied nature in order to come up with his ‘reducible compelxity’ blood clotting system, and hten claimed that higher complexity blood clottign was therefore not IC- but his argument fell flat on it’s face and just proved that intelligent design was absolutely needed behind the IC of higher complexity systems like blood clotting in mammals. Miller had to intellgiently design several processes that do NOT occure in nature, had to carefully protect ‘emerging processes’ and had to develop pathways that are non existent in order to develop his hypothesis- but only ended up showing hte need for ID behind IC which really did end up beign IC


619 posted on 10/09/2009 10:20:20 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson