A video for a creationist - irreducibly complex?

[Changer01]

lol did anyone notice that all the parts in the video are INTELLIGENTLY arranged so that they function in a row? if one part misses it doesn't function.

First of all: Molecules are much more complex than domino pieces.

Second: The domino peaces are put together in an intelligent way.

Third: Because of 1st, the comparison of dominos with molecules is an invalid argument. Because what is done here is a very fierce reduction of the matters you discuss.

[pedroac]

@Changer01 First of all, tell what I'm answering in the video. And then show me (in another comment, if you need) that what you have said refutes my answer. That's important if you don't want to start a red herring.

[tepitenio]

What is clear, here, is that neither the Creationist, and the Evolutionists HAVE PROOFS. Neither of you KNOW what happened.

So, as an espectator of the debate: PLEASE, don't say that you know things you don't know.

[Russellbeta]

I don't see the point in this video? are you trying to explain the meaning of reducible complexity? it all seems so obvious....

[pedroac]

It seems a creationist, called Mats, didn't know the meaning. He used the sequence from the commercial as an example of a irreducibly complex system.

[SpawnFicklePets]

Taking into account compensation.

[Harikus]

Actually an ineffectual wing span (as in one that doesn't help the subject fly) could very well be a benefit. It could make the animal appear bigger. Possibly it would avoided and thus the predator may move on to a less threatening subject for food. Thats just one example. It happens all the time in the wild...predators often seek easier prey as opposed to something that could be a challenge.

[0lord0kinbote0]

"WINGS either work or not !"

so there are no flightless birds that benefit from their wings?

[zloben9000]

cool video BUT ... how could creatures with No wings evolve functional wings ?

WINGS either work or not !

How do wings evolved ?

Strange isn't it ?!

[pedroac]

From arms with 3 fingers (each). Archaeopterix had 3 long fingers with claws (each arm). Modern birds have a structure like 1 huge finger and 2 tiny finger in their arms. It is not clear what's the origin of feathers in detail (and that's what creationists talk about now). Recently it was found that a lizard-like reptile (Longisquama) had feathers on its back. So, they had another functionality.

[pedroac]

I wrote something about that there: crerparaver(dot)blogspot(dot)c­om/2008/07/archeopteryx-e-as-d­uas-lentes(dot)html . It's in portuguese, but you can see the images comparing the "secular lens" and "biblical lens" (AnswersInGenesis lens ilustration) and read the references at the end of the article. Regards.

[zloben9000]

i know .. BUT ... by small improvements

Having non functioning UNEVOLVED wings would not be beneficial for any creature. Right? :S

why did they continue to evolve into functioning wings ?

The population with "wing like hands" should not have a better chance of survival, because they still wont fly.

Its puzzling .. really

[jamesbrennand]

"evolution is not magic."

"ignorance is a bliss."

"read the mf manual."

my three favorites quotes and i use them everywhere i go...

strange, isn't it?

[patrickledford420]

@zloben9000 they r helpfull look it up on here

[pedroac]

The structures don't need to have the same functionality. The flying squirrels do not have wings like bats. And they don't fly like bats. Longisquama insignis didn't have wings like birds, but they had structures like feathers each side of the body, like a flying squirrel membrane.

You can find some experiments and documentaries about this issue here in YouTube.

[califoniania]

"Having non functioning UNEVOLVED wings would not be beneficial for any creature. Right?"

"The population with "wing like hands" should not have a better chance of survival, because they still wont fly."

Tyrannosaurus rexes, velociraptors and other species of bipedal dinosaurs didn't rely heavily on their arms, so even if the wing arms had absolutely no function, it wouldn't hinder their survival.

[califoniania]

Now, I speculate that bird-like dinosaurs could have used their feathered, 'semi-wings' much like ostriches do, to seem bigger and scare off predators. The large surface area of a 'semi-wing' would be better at that than a bony limb so it would help them survive. From there wings adapted to gliding and then flight aren't huge leaps to take as they already have a wing-like structure as a base. I'm not an expert on dinosaurs, but that seems likely from the behavior of ostriches.

[ProudToBLoud]

well you still had to put it together, but i give you credit, its well done, do you have any scientific qualifications, just out of curiosity

[pedroac]

I studied in the University of College of Science in Lisbon (I'm portuguese), and now I'm a computer programmer. Well, I had to use the Physics Lab and write reports ;-)

[ProudToBLoud]

well im not suprised, because it was well put together , we might have different views, i dont know, but i can still respect how well that was put together.

[ProudToBLoud]

whats the name of this test and where was it set up and carried out, if i were to look it up, thanks

[pedroac]

"whats the name of this test"

It does not have a name.

"and where was it set up and carried out"

At my house. In my bedroom.

And those are my hands and my body.

It's just an illustration to make a point, making easier to understand. Note: when I say "A video for a creationist", I'm refering to a particular creationists.

Regards

[ProudToBLoud]

this still needed someone to set up eh, or are you saying this experiment set up by itself?

[pedroac]

LOL I'm the author of the experiment and I did not give a name to it.

I'm not arguing about the source of the system. I'm just saying that if something is added to an irreducibly complex system, the new system is not irreducible, and if from X to Y information is dicreased, then going from Y to X information is increased.

This is an answer to a person who says the Honda commercial shows an irreducibly complex system.

[hellshade2]

during the dover pennsylvania intelligent design trial the whole irreducible complexity idea was refuted yet again. one of the id's example was the common mouse trap. remove the lever and it does not function. from what i understand ken miller came in the next day with a mouse trap being used as a tie pin :)

[pedroac]

There's at least one creationist saying that the systems with removed parts should have the same function, although Behe says "nonfunctional".

[sergiomats]

Segundo, creationists don't say that mutations ONLY decrease information. Isto é totalmente falso. Mutations decrease OR scramble ALREADY EXISTING INFORMATION. They do not generate new information.

[pedroac]

Escreve em português ou em inglês. Eu não disse que os criacionistas dizem que as mutações só diminuem informação. Eu disse que, se pode-se diminuir informação (inf2 = inf1 - 1) de um estado X para Y, então se voltar para X, a informação aumenta (inf1 = inf2 + 1).

[pedroac]

Translation:

«Write in portuguese or in english. I didn't say the creationists say the mutations only decrease information. I said that, if it's possible to decrease information (inf2 = inf1 - 1) from state X to Y, then if it goes back to X, the information increases (inf1 = inf2 + 1)»

[pedroac]

I read the description and I admit wrote: «Now creationists say the mutations only decrease information.» although I remember AnswerGenesis saying what you said before I sent this video. Since I knew that I should have said: "Now creationists say mutations don't increase information". The point in the video is still correct. I'm not removing the mistake. I'm only adding a note.

[sergiomats]

Pedro,

Só é pena que tenhas perdido tanto tempo numa ponto que ou foi mal entendido ou foi mal explicado.

Tu podes adicionar uma peça ao sistema X, mas ao adicionares essa peçao sistema já não é só X, mas sim X + 1, por exemplo. O sistema X ainda é CI, mas isso não significa que o sistema X + 1 também seja.

[pedroac]

Veja como começa a publicidade. E depois veja como termina o vídeo. Se não percebes, veja o comentário que coloco lá no topo: "I didn't show the beginning of the commercial". Parece que "X - 1" também é irredutível. É a maravilha do vídeo.

Nota: não fui eu que pontuei os comentários, nem sei quem o fez.

[pedroac]

Translated:

«Look how the advertisement begins. Then look how I end the video. If you don't understand, read the comment on the top: "I didn't show the beginning of the commercial". It seems "X - 1" is also irreducible. That's the wonder of the video.

Note: I didn't scored the comments, and I don't know who did it»

[pedroac]

Estou traduzir o teu comentário para inglês:

sergiomats: «Pedro,

it's a pitty you lost a long time in a misunderstanding or something that was not well explained. You can add one piece to the system X, but if you add that piece the system is not only X, but X + 1, for instance. The system X is still a CI, but that doesn't mean X + 1 is also a CI.»