Proving irreducible complexity with a cell-phone


yes. but you chose it when in reality any case shape can be choose. so you use your intelligent to do that. something that evolution cant.


see my car example. wheels are babsically useless without the other important car parts. so you cant evolve a car stepwise.

(Timothy Horton) #145

This wheel seems pretty functional with no engine or other car parts.

Nothing in evolution says the function of a part can’t change over time.

(George) #146


Oyyy… man, you are so “reflexive”!

You can’t just make a sweeping statement that “wheels are basically useless”.

It depends completely on the ecological niche, on the predators, on the food supplies, on the climate conditions…

Yes… it is easy for you to CONCLUDE that wheels would have no use except in their final form.

But try to do this with a living scenario… like insects…

Some people argue that the wings on a fly would have ZERO use until they are fully developed wings. But then a “bug” was found with “extensions” or “stumps” of what might eventually become wings… and they found these little nubs helped the bug travel air currents to more distant food supplies or where there was less competition for mates.

The fact you just aren’t "getting* the point about OTHER uses for incomplete mutation sets shows how ill-suited you are to be discussing Evolution. You have ZERO intuition on these matters … or your intuition might be FANTASTIC… but it is crushed by your overwhelming religious zeal to assert millions of years of evolutionary evidence should be swept aside… because you can’t imagine God using Evolution.


but again you use human intelligent (this wheel is useless without human). can you show it without any intelligent involve?

(Timothy Horton) #148

ZOOM! Look at those goalposts fly!

You said a car couldn’t evolve because the parts would be useless until the whole car evolved. I showed you are 100% wrong. All you can do is stand there red-faced. :slightly_smiling_face:


Evolution can choose function. It’s called natural selection.


but natural selection will choose any form that can be used as paper weight. so it will not choose a case in the shape of a cell-phone.


It doesn’t have to choose the case in the shape of a cell phone.


right. if so how you will get a cell-phone? there are basically billions of different shapes that can be used as a paper weight. so the chance to get a paper weight (by natural selelction) in the shape of a cell-phone is very low.


It doesn’t have to. There are billions and billions of things that can evolve with the cell phone being just one possibility.


This is true but it’s not saying much. Nothing in ID theory says that God cannot be the designer. :slight_smile:

(Jordan Mantha) #155

Oh, I don’t know about that:

Edit: I guess @Timothy_Horton beat me to it.


correct. but we have much more possibilities that do nothing. this is why we will never get a cell-phone from a self replicating molecule.


note that you use human intelligent to make it functional. we are dealing with a natural process without any intelligent involve.

(George) #158


If you would simply use REAL examples… instead of evolving cell phones… you wouldn’t be making these hair-brained comparisons.

I gave you an example:

Fly with no wing.

An incomplete wing cannot work like a wing.

However, an incomplete wing can still pick up air currents and provide benefits to the owner.

Eventually, as the incomplete wing becomes larger and more elaborate, one day it works as a wing… and all the benefits that an incomplete wing are quickly forgotten… because a REAL WING does so much more!

(George) #159

Note that NATURE is telling my example of the fly with incomplete wings… that its incomplete wings helps it drift further from its dwindling supplies of food… or further into new mating territory…

And in anycase, @SCD, you continue to return to the debate discussing this issue as though it is GODLESS EVOLUTION or nothing.

God guides the evolution of the wing, of paper weights, of everything… and He uses Evolution.

How long do you want to be put on Moderation? One week, Two weeks? Let me know, and I’ll arrange it…


im note sure about that. first: a shape that help the fly to detect air currents can be done in many shapes and not just in a wing shape. so what is the chance to get a wing if we start with something that isnt a wing?

second: even an air currents detector may need many genes at the genetic level. so even such a thing may be very complex.

  1. even if you are right remember that this isnt an ic system in the first place, since by removing a part of the wing we can still have a function according to your scenario.

no. i already said that i have no problem with a guided evolution. i just want to discuss about the problems with a natural evolution.

(Jordan Mantha) #161

How can you tell the difference?

(Retired Professor & Minister.) #162

Would a “guided evolution” necessarily NOT be “a natural evolution.” How would one test for the differences in “natural evolution” and “non-natural evolution”?