Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Members Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kangal" data-source="post: 65647"><p>All I did was <strong>ask</strong> it to contruct a counter argument. You have now also demonstrated you don't know how the current AI models work.</p><p></p><p>Here what it says about Behe.</p><p></p><p>Irreducible complexity is a concept often associated with the argument against the theory of evolution. It was popularized by Michael Behe, a biochemist, and is commonly used by proponents of Intelligent Design. The idea of irreducible complexity posits that certain biological systems or structures are too complex to have evolved gradually through a series of smaller, functional steps. The argument goes that if any part of these systems were removed, they would lose their functionality completely, making them "irreducible" and implying that they must have been designed by an intelligent creator.</p><p>However, there are several reasons why the concept of irreducible complexity is considered problematic and not a compelling argument against evolution:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Lack of Intermediate Steps:</strong> Irreducible complexity often assumes that there are no functional intermediate steps in the evolution of complex systems. In reality, evolution proceeds through incremental changes, with each step providing some advantage or function. These intermediate forms may not be as complex as the final structure but can still serve a purpose.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Exaptation:</strong> Many biological structures have exaptations, which means that they originally evolved for one function and were later co-opted for a different function. Irreducible complexity doesn't account for the possibility that a part of a structure may have had a different function before being incorporated into a more complex system.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Complexity Can Evolve:</strong> The argument that complex systems cannot evolve overlooks the fact that biological complexity can emerge gradually over long periods of time. Complex structures can evolve from simpler ones through the accumulation of small, beneficial changes.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Empirical Evidence:</strong> Irreducible complexity relies on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, the theory of evolution is supported by extensive evidence from various fields of biology, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and molecular biology.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>Challenges from Evolutionary Biology:</strong> Many scientists and researchers in the field of evolutionary biology have addressed and refuted specific claims of irreducible complexity, providing plausible step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of complex systems.</li> </ol><p>In summary, irreducible complexity is considered flawed as an argument against evolution because it does not account for the incremental nature of evolutionary processes, lacks empirical evidence, and has been challenged by scientific research. Evolutionary biology provides a more comprehensive and well-supported framework for understanding the development of complex biological structures and systems over time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kangal, post: 65647"] All I did was [B]ask[/B] it to contruct a counter argument. You have now also demonstrated you don't know how the current AI models work. Here what it says about Behe. Irreducible complexity is a concept often associated with the argument against the theory of evolution. It was popularized by Michael Behe, a biochemist, and is commonly used by proponents of Intelligent Design. The idea of irreducible complexity posits that certain biological systems or structures are too complex to have evolved gradually through a series of smaller, functional steps. The argument goes that if any part of these systems were removed, they would lose their functionality completely, making them "irreducible" and implying that they must have been designed by an intelligent creator. However, there are several reasons why the concept of irreducible complexity is considered problematic and not a compelling argument against evolution: [LIST=1] [*][B]Lack of Intermediate Steps:[/B] Irreducible complexity often assumes that there are no functional intermediate steps in the evolution of complex systems. In reality, evolution proceeds through incremental changes, with each step providing some advantage or function. These intermediate forms may not be as complex as the final structure but can still serve a purpose. [*][B]Exaptation:[/B] Many biological structures have exaptations, which means that they originally evolved for one function and were later co-opted for a different function. Irreducible complexity doesn't account for the possibility that a part of a structure may have had a different function before being incorporated into a more complex system. [*][B]Complexity Can Evolve:[/B] The argument that complex systems cannot evolve overlooks the fact that biological complexity can emerge gradually over long periods of time. Complex structures can evolve from simpler ones through the accumulation of small, beneficial changes. [*][B]Empirical Evidence:[/B] Irreducible complexity relies on theoretical arguments rather than empirical evidence. In contrast, the theory of evolution is supported by extensive evidence from various fields of biology, including the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and molecular biology. [*][B]Challenges from Evolutionary Biology:[/B] Many scientists and researchers in the field of evolutionary biology have addressed and refuted specific claims of irreducible complexity, providing plausible step-by-step scenarios for the evolution of complex systems. [/LIST] In summary, irreducible complexity is considered flawed as an argument against evolution because it does not account for the incremental nature of evolutionary processes, lacks empirical evidence, and has been challenged by scientific research. Evolutionary biology provides a more comprehensive and well-supported framework for understanding the development of complex biological structures and systems over time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Does Doxxie know his real father.
Post reply
Latest Threads
How Dangerous is Israel?
Started by Anderson
Today at 4:04 AM
Replies: 1
Nationalist Politics
Charlie Kirk Shot Dead ~ RIP
Started by Anderson
Yesterday at 3:29 PM
Replies: 94
Nationalist Politics
J
Has anyone else kinda lost the will to live ?
Started by Jay Homer Simpson
Yesterday at 12:30 PM
Replies: 4
Public Chat and Announcements
The 2023 National Party Coup D'état or Split: My Understanding of it
Started by BelfastRatepayer
Saturday at 12:59 PM
Replies: 28
Nationalist Politics
RTE and Virgin - 2 Cheeks of the same.....
Started by Anderson
Friday at 3:46 AM
Replies: 11
Nationalist Politics
Popular Threads
Ukraine.
Started by Declan
Feb 21, 2022
Replies: 15K
World at War
US Politics.
Started by jpc
Nov 7, 2022
Replies: 6K
USA
Mass Migration to Ireland & Europe
Started by Anderson
Feb 26, 2023
Replies: 5K
Nationalist Politics
C
🦠 Covid 19 Vaccine Thread 💉
Started by Charlene
Sep 14, 2021
Replies: 3K
Health
General Chat in The Marcus Lounge.
Started by Declan
Dec 30, 2024
Replies: 2K
Public Chat and Announcements
The Climate Change scam
Started by Anderson
Jul 29, 2022
Replies: 2K
Climate Change
Forums
Self Moderated Area
Tiger Blog
Origins Thread
Top
Bottom