Creation Science Hall of Fame #fundie

Creation Science Hall of Fame #fundie creationsciencehalloffame.org

Irreducible complexity is also another fact which disproves evolution. For example, the eye could not evolve in stages but had to be designed fully formed or it simply would not work. Besides, how would an animal know it even needed to evolve the sense of sight and how would it even know what to use it for?

41 comments

old comment by michael3ov

Irreducible complexity proves nothing other than the stupidity of those who promote it.

The eye most certainly could evolve in stages. Please don't tell me that you can't understand the evolutionary advantage for an organism being able to detect light. The eye would have started as nothing more than a group of photosensitive cells and nerve fibers. Over 350,000 generations or so the eye as we know it now would have evolved. Irreducible complexity is the most egregious argument from incredulity ever.

Lets pretend that we don't have a clue how the eye evolved. It still would not disprove evolution You cannot disprove anything by ignorance.

old comment by Swede

If there was such a thing as "irreducible complexity", it might, yes. But there isn't, it has been debunked, many times; in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial, for example.

There are species alive today with different stages of light-sensitive cells, stupid. They are all beneficial and useful to the creature in question.

If we are the "height of creation", how come octopuses have better eyes than ours? Theirs are not "inside out" and have no blind spot.

Evolution is not a decision, silly, but a natural process. Do plants know how to photosynthesize?

A mutation causes a light-sensitive spot, the organism with it prosper more than those without the spot, and have more offspring than the others. They carry the spot to their offspring, and additional mutations might cause a nerve in the vincinity, so that the spot can be pointed hither and thither. And so on, and so forth.

Do you KNOW what to use your colon for?
Do you KNOW what to use your tailbone for?

old comment by EG

Oh yes, because the different gradual stages for the evolution of the eye haven't been spelled out ad nauseam a thousand times already. Saying that eyes are irreducible complex doesn't make them so, you have to back that up. Don't bother though, since the counter argument is just one quick google away.

In the end, most appeals to irreducible complexity just come down to a personal lack of imagination and understanding: it's not actually shown that something is irreducible complex, it's just stated that the one making the claim can't be bothered to think of a plausible scenario.

To be fair, it's much easier to show that something is not irreducibly complex (you only need one counter example, and the scenario you come up with makes testable predictions). To show that something is irreducibly complex you have to first list all counter arguments and then show why they don't work

> how would an animal know it even needed to evolve the sense of sight and how would it even know what to use it for?

How do you remember to breath?

old comment by Canadiest

Irreducible complexity is an invention of Micheal Behe, sellout Biologist to the creationist racket.

At the Dover trial he argued this "Irreducible complexity" in the case of a form of bacteria would never form so complexly since there were no simpler forms to be found. It's motor system contained 9 distinct parts and without one it wouldn't work AND there are no simpler with less parts comparisions, said Behe, noted Biologist.

They then, near the end of the trial, piled many books wherein the simpler forms were recorded, many of those books older then his "Theory" and he was forced to admit he'd never heard or seen this information. "kinda your job, Isn't it?" was the next question he dodged until forced to anwer.

His whole theory of Irreducible complexity depended on that one bacteria example, even Behe didn't have the gall to use the eye example as it would be shut down even quicker. Behe depended on the obscurity of a single form of bacteria when compared to the many in a specialized field of study to invent a phony creationist point. He made it up without any research.

But years later the debunked Irreducible complexity is still in the creationists playbook.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

Then why does the mere Mantis Shrimp have superior eyesight to we - the supposed 'pinnacle' of your 'God's creation - humans...?!

The plaintiffs' lawyers didn't even need to mention that in Kitzmiller vs. Dover just over eight years ago, and they still annihilated your Cre(a)ti(o)nist case, reduced to masquerading as the pseudo-'science' (un)'Intelligent Design' as it [i]had[/i] to, this being the Religious Reich's last gasp attempt to save it's educational agenda:

image

If complexity is 'irreducible', then explain the Mantis Shrimp's eyes...?

A bull is clearly superior to that crustacean (it being a bovine mammal). Yet, why can it only see in Black & White...?! [/'Matador's 'Red' cape enraging the bull annihilated]

“Irreducible complexity is also another fact which disproves evolution.”
Except that every candidate that’s claimed for IR has always proven to be reducible by actual scientists.

"For example, the eye could not evolve in stages but had to be designed fully formed or it simply would not work.”
You should read the rest of that chapter Darwin wrote. On Earth, there are many simpler eyes. Patches that are light-sensitive, ridges that provide a little protection, structures that detect movement, a whole pyramid of lesser stages of eyes.

“Besides, how would an animal know it even needed to evolve the sense of sight”
What an incredibly stupid objection against how evolution does NOT work.

“and how would it even know what to use it for?”
You should write apologies to every teacher you have ever had.

Creation Science Hall of Fame #fundie creationsciencehalloffame.org

41 comments

Confused?