irreducible complexity

[Anonymous No.3983779]

irreducible complexity is an argument invoked by intelligent design enthusiasts to criticize darwinism and natural selection. it states that some biological objects are too complex to have emerged simply from natural selection's algorithm of selecting to survive, from time to time, the more suitable individual. one famous example is the human eye. darwin himself stated that at first glance the idea of the evolution of the eye driven by natural selection seemed absurd. the human eye is said, by irreducible complexity enthusiasts, to have a structure that demands a more intelligent generating algorithm than a greedy one (one that divides the problem, selects always the optimum sub-solutions and recombine them) like natural selection.

we know, from the studies in combinatorial optimization, that greedy algorithms are sometimes not suitable to generate optimum solutions or even solutions close to that, so it is reasonable to assume that natural selection is not an all-powerful tool to drive speciation and evolution.

what do you think about that? i am not really focusing on the religious aspect of irreducible complexity. i am just curious about how we can decide (if we can) whether some biological structure has or not irreducible complexity. and of course, i would like some constructive criticism on the irreducible complexity argument itself.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3983793]

>>3983779 greedy algorithms are sometimes not suitable to generate optimum solutions

Human eye is not an optimum solution. It has a big blind spot and makes up for it by vibrating and constructing a full image mentally. Also our retinas are fucking in backwards. To reach the photo-receptors light needs to travel through layers of blood vessels and nerve fibres.

[Anonymous No.3983825]

>>3983793
i also wrote "or even solutions close to that".

the idea is that, in order to have a structure as sophisticated and complex as the human eye, evolution would have to select "bad" mutations a certain number of times in order to eventually select "good" mutations capable of turning the until so "bad" eye into an very good one.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3983837]

>>3983825
Do you not understand how natural selection works?

[Anonymous No.3983841]

>>3983825
it happens

it's happening /right now/

that's why we take care of retards

[Anonymous No.3983843]

>>3983837
elaborate

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3983854]

>>3983843
Natural selection removes mutations which are detrimental to survival from the gene pool and propagates mutations which provide a survival advantage.

[Anonymous No.3983864]

its creationist bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

[Anonymous No.3983878]

>>3983825
A lot of "bad", or less well adapted to the environment, selections are made. For instance, Sickle Cell Anemia as a trait in Africa is technically a disease process, but is selected because it provides immunity to another disease. There are other genetic factors that can provide immunity to Malaria with NO negative side effects, but these are generally limited to isolated villages. The "bad" gene was selected due to population genetics effects.

As for eyes, even single celled organisms have photosensitive patches. Studying the developmental anatomy of the eye yields surprisingly simple methods of creating it, and philogenetics can show where certain structures first appeared.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3983890]

>>3983793
> not an optimum solution
this x1000

Evolution has found some really terrible solutions to problems.

[Anonymous No.3983897]

>>3983854
yes, and that is why natural selection is not suitable to generate structures that demand sequences of detrimental mutations

[Anonymous No.3983899]

Irreducible complexity, meet coevolution.

The causality relation is not a total order.

[Zoologist !!d1rrJ+p+/nz No.3983905]

>i am just curious about how we can decide (if we can) whether some biological structure has or not irreducible complexity.

No structure that has evolved is "irreducibly complex." Because evolution is a scientific fact, your assumption is to assume that a trait/structure of an organism evolved, and thus there was some selective pressure on mutations that made it more well-suited to whatever environment the organism was in at the time.
Your question makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.3983908]

>>3983878
yes, but that kind of selection of "bad" mutations is, in some sense, local. it does not select those things thinking globally. it is just that, in some environments, mutations that are usually "bad" become "good"

[Anonymous No.3983930]

>>3983905
i am not skeptical about evolution. it is reasonable to assume evolution is real, but i am not so sure about natural selection. i think there might be some structures that are "irreducibly complex" in the natural selection context, but not absolutely irreducibly complex. however, it is possible that a more sophisticated selection algorithm drives evolution.

[Anonymous No.3983963]

>>3983930
look up Nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution

[Anonymous No.3983970]

>>3983890

Like having your balls hanging down when you're a hunter. Or your delicate nose sticking out in front of your face.

Though there aren't really any other solutions for these.

[Anonymous No.3983975]

>>3983930

Do you mean ancient aliens?

[Anonymous No.3983990]

>irreducible complexity
Ooh! Sounds like a good maths/compsci thread! What will I learn about toda-
>an argument invoked by intelligent design enthusiasts to criticize darwinism and natural selection
... nevermind. I has a sad to attend to.

[Anonymous No.3984012]

Read; A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram.
also
>intelligent design
kill yourself, everything that can be, will be, it doesn't matter if it's efficient, evolution can barely solve anything better then 30% perfect given most constants. also remember to kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3984017]

Read; A New Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram.
also
>intelligent design
kill yourself, everything that can be, will be, it doesn't matter if it's efficient, evolution can barely solve anything better then 30% perfect given most constants. also remember to kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3984018]

It's not irreducably complex. Irreducably complex means that if you were to subtract from it, it would fail to work. Cataract sufferes have a part of their eye removed and although vision is impared, they can still see enough to save their life i.e to see predators ( or prey ) although we can gotten to the stage where we no longer need to perform such tasks as prey is on the shelf and predators are in africa.

[Anonymous No.3984021]

>>3984018

[Anonymous No.3984032]

>>3984018
>Irreducably complex means that if you were to subtract from it, it would fail to work
That's not even true.
Irreducably complex means that there is no sequence of local improvements, such that something can be constructed (by evolution).
Applying it to something mundane as an arch. An arch is not irreducably complex, since there is a conceivable way to construct it, but removing a single brick will collapse the arch.

[Anonymous No.3984333]

>>3984032
Many religiocrats will use both definitions, and interchangeably, in order to confound understanding. When you start to explain one, they will switch definitions. When you try to explain the other, they will switch back. All while claiming you take your position on faith.

[Anonymous No.3984558]

>>3984012
>2011
>Suggesting ANKS
ISHYGDDT
SG, S

[OP !bHY9YBiyuo!!adFW7DxysUX No.3984579]

op watch this they have a whole section on irreducible complexity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

>implying you will watch any of this

[Anonymous No.3984657]

>>3983890
>Evolution has found some really terrible solutions to problems.
But if we provide better solutions, and we are the product of evolution, doesn't that mean evolution was a wizard all along?

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3984682]

>>3984657
Haha, either that, or it means evolution was so shitty that we're not even smart enough to realize our "fixes" are shitty...