Can't ID be tested AT ALL?

Just so we can be on the same page then, could you please answer the following questions.1) How do you measure complexity?2) How do you test to make sure something is 'irreducibly complex'?3) How does something being 'irreducible complex' show evidence of a
designer?

Ramos, one little note. I think it is apparent that Inkorrect thinks that "irreducibly complex" means "really, very complex". He doesn't appear to have a clue about what concept is being discussed when IC is used.It's not going to be easy for him to supply a way to measure the quantity of complexity when he hasn't a well-formed idea of what it is.

I figure.. but until those questions can be answered, then, it isn't even remotely science.Of course, those questions are not able to be answered by any ID propoents either. If they could be, they wouldn't be fudging around my making up new 'laws' such as the 'Law of conservation of information' (which doesn't seem to have any evidence for it what so ever)

Hi ramoss.Just to keep the thread moving, I'll play the part of the ID'er. I may only last one, at most, two posts in this fashion, for I am not well versed in ID, or Irreducible complexity. However, I'll give it a shot. Complexity could be measured with intelligence. The greater the intelligence, the greater the complexity. Humans are the pinnacle of intelligence for life on earth, therefore, we are the most complex organisms on earth. Unfortunately, I myself do not know what that means. A little help..? Revert to question 2.

I think that I understood what is meant by "irreduciblly complex."
Not having any text before me, and in my own home grown words this is what I think it means:A system with N functional parts can only do the job it is suppose to do with N functional parts. If you reduce one of the parts from the system, say N-1 functional parts, the system simply cannot perform its function.I never really got the idea that really really complex means irreducibly complex. I got the idea that N units working together can perform a certain task. You can take units away up to a point at which reducing any more units from the complex renders the system functionless.I recall the example of a mousetrap. You can take away the color from a red mouse trap and it will still do its job. But you cannot take away, let us say, the coiled spring. If you reduce the coiled spring from the mouse trap, it won't function to trap the mouse.

thats funny, are you sure you arn't reading Behe? he uses the same arguement with the mouse trap, and people have refuted that one http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html - for an review just as the author at T.O points out yes it will fuction but not all that wellThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 05-05-2006 08:59 PM

I agree that your definition of IC is correct. It is Inkorrect who is posting terms that he doesn't know the definition of; or at least it appers that way.I'm not sure that one issue has been specifically pointed out:You can take a working system and by removing parts make it, finally, IC. That means there is a path to IC that doesn't involve adding the Nth part to build it up but by removing the N+1th part to make it IC while it still works. There are, of course, examples of this in biological evolution.So being IC doesn't, as I think Behe suggests it does, say anything significant about the correctness of evolutionary theory.

There is one other condition IIRC. The system or part must also not be able to perform some other function. There are several systems where the various parts may well have served other functions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So predictable. I could have written that response myself.Okay, EXCUSE ME for not mentioning Behe. But if you insist that I give credit to wherever I heard the concept first, yes it was Darwin's Black Box by M. Behe. I found the book an enjoyable read.Now, for the refutations: Yes I read a rebuttal to the mousetrap example. It amounted to cleverly making up for the taken away parts to assure that the mousetrap could still do its job, up to a point.I would have to re-read that little rebuttal before getting into a discussion on it. But generally most of the loud boasting I hear that Behe was refuted so, so, many times, seems mostly hot air.I mean I have seen this or that point debated. But has anyone written a book of similiar length taking each chapter to task? It seems that over the Internet there's a lot of bragging about how bad Behe was refuted. I often question whether some of these braggers have even read Darwin's Black Box.Anyway, my post was just to supply to the discussion what I thought the concept of irreducible complexity meant.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:13 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:21 AM

quote:

---

I often question whether some of these braggers have even read Darwin's Black Box.

---

Well, I haven't read it. But I figure that if Behe had a point that hasn't been refuted, then someone who has read the book could supply it. So far, every ID argument that I have seen can be easily refuted within minutes using Google.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

Ned, Maybe Inkorrect has some simplified abbreviation of the definition that s/he has developed. That was my first thoought. Maybe s/he doesn't really know what IC originally was intended to mean.Behe, in person, is kind of humorous about the term. Though he seemed to take the concept seriously he was "tongue in cheek" about how popular the phrase "irreducibly complex" has become - kind of like it was not that much of a new idea. That was my perception. Maybe I read his attitude wrong when I heard him speak at a local university. Do you mean N parts cause the system to do one function A and N+1 parts cause it to do (in addition) another function B? So then by removing N+1 the system still performs function A?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 11:36 AM

Possibly. It also may do function A with N+n parts and eventually evolve to do function A with only N parts.As I recall the early pre-mammal jaw did it's function with two hinges at one point. Then it reduced to one.

Would that be evolution or the reverse of evolution? Would that be a kind of degeneration yet still performing the useful function? Should the loss of the hinge be considered evolution or degeneration?This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 12:46 PM

I'm a little skeptical of this claim. But to be fair neither have I read Origin of Species all the way through or Blind Watchmaker. So what I complain about above I also am guilty of.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-06-2006 12:50 PM

Ned,You're the software guy, right?