alas, it is the only language I speak. According to you, I guess, I can’t claim to do even that.
But moving from complex to irreducibly complex is becoming less complex. Don’t you have to be a contortionist lingist to claim otherwise? Your question simply does not make sense in context. Please explain.
I mean that it moves in the direction that leads from the first living cell to Einstien. Of course, it can move in the opposite direction. No one is asking scientists to explain how life can ‘devolve’ if you will allow me to use that word. What needs illustrating is the pathways to ever more complexity.
I can’t talk informatively about complexity and irreducible complexity in terms of biology. I do understand that I can go to my kitchen and take a hammer to the timer on my stove and voila, it has become less complex.
I’ve been upfront with my limitations as far as discussing biology is concerned from the beginning. If you want to limit the conversation to mousetraps I think that I can handle myself. I don’t see that you are disagreeing with IC. Behe claims the mousetrap is IC and you agree that “Irreducible complexity is a real thing” And of course I can imagine a mousetrap that is reducibly complex.I might for example have a mini air conditioner on the mousetrap to either comfort the expiring mouse or to keep it cool and reduce the stench as the mouse decomposes. If the air conditioner is disabled, I’ve gone from reducible to irreducible. Complex to less complex.
But you seem to present the idea that going from reducibly complex to irreducibly complex as doing just that.
Maybe.
Whatever. Is that supposed to be an insult. I’m amused to see you dish that out.
As Clint Eastwood said, “A man has got to know his limitations.”
Why the hell would it be? Please explain why you think it would have to become less complex, to go from complex to irreducibly complex.
There is no logical difficulty with the idea that you can go from something that is less complex to more complex, while also taking on a new irreducibly complex function. That’s how the flagellum is described evolving in the model I linked earlier. The flagellum has more parts than just the Type-III secretory system, and it is irreducibly complex. Yet there is a pathway by which it could evolve without becoming nonfunctional, through intermediate stages of increasing complexity, each of which perform a function that is different from the final stage where it is a flagellum that functions as a propulsion system.
So something like “functions” and “parts”, is that it? You want to know how you can get more parts, and/or more functions, with evolution?
No. In the example I described with the gene B being copied, complexity went up. One component B, became two components B1 and B2, and it also became irreducibly complex.
The stone bridge example in the article below illustrates how one can move from greater complexity to “irreducible” complexity, and is typical of how many biological structures and systems have evolved:
Evolution is an iterative process with the population in each generation having random variations filtered by selection feedback and carrying forward heritable traits. It is empirically observed to produce increased complexity when that complexity provides an increase in reproductive fitness. Here is an example of computer generated evolving soft robots. Notice the robots evolve to be more complex as that helps them better approach the selection criteria.
The inverse is also true. Populations can evolve to be less complex if the environment changes and the excess complexity costs more in energy that the reproductive benefits it provides. That is why blind cave fish have lost their eyes. A general rule in evolution is “use it or lose it”.
Behe’s “evolution mostly works by breaking things” is a really dumb restatement of a fact science has known for the better part of a century. Evolution works by modifying things which already exist. Sometimes that means adding features, sometime it means removing them, sometimes it means “breaking” one no longer useful feature to make a more useful variant. But it’s all still just evolution, not “devolution”.
Devolving, devolution are words only found in the dictionary of ID proponents.
This is the sort of education you get when you learn from the wrong sources.
Still spouting nonsense, despite Rumraket’s corrections.
Behe accepts common descent, do you?
This is a misrepresentation, but it also a ridiculous one.
While you, dear sir, has been spewing nonsense all through your comments on this thread. It would be nice if you educated yourself on basic evolutionary theory, before you attempt to critique it.
Even if I showed you scientific paper discussing it, you wouldn’t understand. This is not to belittle you, but your previous comments indicate you lack the necessary skills to do so.
A mousetrap (I don’t know about ACs) is irreducibly complex, damaged or not, because you need all of its parts to catch a mouse.
I am certainly not going to get involved anymore than this on this thread, but it would be best you learn from the corrections being given to you here.
Let’s start with the basic question first. Why must an irreducible system come before a reducible system? By the way, “humans” are not an example of an irreducible system. You may want to read up on what we are talking about.
alas, it is the only language I speak. According to you, I guess, I can’t claim to do even that.