Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

Yes.


That would be the salient detail of my posting.


Good showing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Okay, Kharrie's shot his wad.

Now, rhutchin, you said:

Complexity is an issue. You need a biological process to take something simple and evolve it into something complex. There is no biological process that has been shown to take a simple organism and make it complex. So, if genetics is uncovering greater complexity in organisms, then the demands evolutionists place on biological processes to produce this complexity become more fanciful. Biological processes have been shown to degrade genomes but never to upgrade them. More complexity means more upgrading and you can't even get simple upgrades.

As you noted, the mutation that represents a change to the genome that provides a resistance to malaria also causes sickle cell.

So that mutation has increased the complexity of the organism. It went from having one form of red blood cell to two forms of blood cells. Greater complexity is possible through mutations. Do you acknowledge this or will you try to spin it into some other argument?

 

[Dutch_labrat]

I use peanut butter sandwiches to keep alive, but I am not peanut butter sandwiches nor is the way I use them a property of peanut butter sandwiches.

Eww. I like the taste of PB, but it makes me sick when I eat it. ewww... At least it isn't apples (not that I have anything against apples, I just don't personally eat them).

....totally avoiding the point being made. Anybody wonders why?

 

[Cobalt]

I'm taking the position of a conscious form of energy saying that there is no evidence, whatsoever, that another form of energy is non-conscious.

There is absolutely no evidence of non conscious energy.

Show

The other day, I talked to my one friend about this, and he said "well, every time I drop something, it follows the law of gravity". I told him: you're already quite set in your ways. You like to take a leak, have a beer and a cigarette every day when you get off work. Then you watch a certain program on Monday, another on Tuesday.... and you're 40 years old, and you still haven't completely settled into a favorite routine- you're just starting.

Protons and electrons have been around for over 13 billion years, and you say they are non-conscious because they are set in their ways? Maybe they weren't for the first 300k+ years of existence.

My thought on the matter is this: if you are over 1000 years old, and you haven't figured out a pattern of behavior that you like, you might be a redneck. Second thought: how many times in the past billion years, have the interconnected beings of the cosmos heard the exact same fucking thing about "well, they aren't conscious, because they behave in the same way all the time" or "they don't care about me, because when I complain about something and they don't immediately respond, they are assholes that don't care" or any other type of immature, childish shit that comes out of the minds of someone who is <1000 years old (or simply less mature).

Hey- maybe they finally got it right- they have learned over billions of years, ways to cause maturity at a quicker pace, without altering their basic comfortable routines.

Show

Make only minute adjustments to some very basic things, such as the path of an earth sized object that is going to travel through our solar system and disrupt the asteroid field and a few other things, causing the orbit of mars to slowly move inwards, which will eventually begin to pull the earth outwards, counterbalancing the suns increase in luminosity- yet leading to another crisis to overcome in the future, if we want to preserve our homeworld.

Of course, the death toll from the asteroids will be enough to protect those who have fear of conscious beings running the show (in other words, it will assure them that it is natural law that causes stuff, and not some very mean super scary conscious being that is slowly introducing them to eternal life).

So everything is conscious, huh? The problem you have is that individual protons and the like don't generally behave in ways that are typically described as conscious.

Your amusing story here posits that the reason this is so is due to the fact that protons have merely settled into a routine of preferred behavior. So you would expect lots a variables in the conscious behaviors of freshly created igneous rocks, but very regular conscious behavior for comparatively ancient human great-grandmothers, no? I mean, on your age-centric analysis, the great-grandmother can be something like 7 orders of magnitude more 'settled' in conscious patterns than a minute old igneous rock.

We should expect to see all sorts of behaviors indicative of consciousness from all sorts of new things, don't you think?

You are familiar with nested hierarchies, yes?

Yes. Turning a statement into a question is sort of fun, no?

Life is a particular sort of energy. Not all energy is life. If you do not assent to this nested hierarchy and think that all energy is life (and vice versa), why do you suppose we have different words for these concepts?

Different words exist to describe energy (life) from different perspectives. The nested hierarchy may be a bit on the false side,

Show

although I've read a thread

Show

on string theory which described

Show

a great tapestry

Show

of interwoven yarns that formed

Show

a comfortably crafted "hi" story to introduce us to life. The judgement that we reach at maturity?

Show

We are Quilty.

When energy follows rules, such as the axioms of arithmetic, or engages in certain patterns of behavior described by natural laws, some here seem to think (or at least espouse the view) that this indicates it is not alive.

We find certain patterns of behavior that we enjoy as we mature. Yet, energy, which has been around for a scant 13 billion years longer than us (probably even a teensy bit more, you know, maybe 10^googol^googol^sideways 8 more time than us), is expected to not have found patterns of behavior that it likes to engage in?

Do those that precede us in the nesting hierarchy of beings have to completely and utterly change their actions to kowtow to our childish demands? Can you imagine a universe run by babies? Gurp gork! What do you mean they use the same word for 20 different things? How the hell are you supposed to communicate?

What change in perspective makes evident that non-living energy (let's say, the gravitational potential energy of a rock balanced on a thin column of underlying strata) is alive (to say nothing of it being conscious)?

 

[Kharakov]

So everything is conscious, huh? The problem you have is that individual protons and the like don't generally behave in ways that are typically described as conscious.

Your amusing story here posits that the reason this is so is due to the fact that protons have merely settled into a routine of preferred behavior. So you would expect lots a variables in the conscious behaviors of freshly created igneous rocks, but very regular conscious behavior for comparatively ancient human great-grandmothers, no? I mean, on your age-centric analysis, the great-grandmother can be something like 7 orders of magnitude more 'settled' in conscious patterns than a minute old igneous rock.

Nope. Protons are still ancient, whether they form a grandmother or a rock. Even in the case of free neutron decay- this isn't a new proton being formed, it is simply a proton splitting up with an electron, and a neutrino and possibly a gamma photon. When they form into neutrons, they like to be with other fundamental beings, or they like to split up and do whatever. Energy,and space, have been around for a while. I don't expect big changes in behavior any time soon (although I don't think I'd be surprised).

We should expect to see all sorts of behaviors indicative of consciousness from all sorts of new things, don't you think?

Why? Protons have not changed their basic behaviors when they formed into the rocks, or behave inside of a grandmother (or you or I). We fit into their behaviors, and they can orchestrate things the way they want, although I think that spacetime itself has a specific influence on all of the living energy within it (and responds to it as well- give and take).

What change in perspective makes evident that non-living energy (let's say, the gravitational potential energy of a rock balanced on a thin column of underlying strata)

That is not non-living energy. It is simply in a form that you do not appreciate as alive.

is alive (to say nothing of it being conscious)?

Actually, as a conscious form of energy that reacts to other forms of energy around and within it, one needs to postulate that somehow energy is non-consciously reacting. Where do you get the idea that anything is without life? Simply defining other behaviors of energy and space, in which energy and space are interacting with one another, as "non conscious" or "not alive" doesn't cut it.

Everything we do is a manifestation of energy and its interactions with space. Anyways, I'm dead tired. Out of energy. Sleepy. Or at the very least, the various beings that humor me by participating in my life want to relax, take care of what they have to do, and do their own thing for a bit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, as a conscious form of energy that reacts to other forms of energy around and within it, one needs to postulate that somehow energy is non-consciously reacting.

Postulated? Say rather, observed. Energy behaves in predictable ways, by rules that do not match observations of the behavior of life, especially conscious life. Therefore, the terms 'conscious' and 'life' appear to be rather poor choices to apply to 'energy.'

Where do you get the idea that anything is without life? Simply defining other behaviors of energy and space, in which energy and space are interacting with one another, as "non conscious" or "not alive" doesn't cut it.

No. We don't just define energy as 'not alive.'
We define 'life' and things that don't fit the definition are not 'life.'

You've yet to define non-biological life. Pointing at things that are non-biological and saying 'that's alive' is just preaching.

 

[Cobalt]

Nope. Protons are still ancient, whether they form a grandmother or a rock. Even in the case of free neutron decay- this isn't a new proton being formed, it is simply a proton splitting up with an electron, and a neutrino and possibly a gamma photon. When they form into neutrons, they like to be with other fundamental beings, or they like to split up and do whatever. Energy,and space, have been around for a while. I don't expect big changes in behavior any time soon (although I don't think I'd be surprised).

The more you say about your 'explanation', the more difficult it is to take you seriously. The protons are old. Not everything made with them is old. Why is the great-grandmother seeming more conscious than the rock? Both contain protons, and in the examples provided the great-grandmother is significantly older.

We should expect to see all sorts of behaviors indicative of consciousness from all sorts of new things, don't you think?

Why? Protons have not changed their basic behaviors when they formed into the rocks, or behave inside of a grandmother (or you or I). We fit into their behaviors, and they can orchestrate things the way they want, although I think that spacetime itself has a specific influence on all of the living energy within it (and responds to it as well- give and take).

Why, you ask? Because your attempt at explanation leaves the difference in rocks and conscious people entirely unexplained. That's why.

What change in perspective makes evident that non-living energy (let's say, the gravitational potential energy of a rock balanced on a thin column of underlying strata)

That is not non-living energy. It is simply in a form that you do not appreciate as alive.

Feel free to explain how it is living. Please be precise.

is alive (to say nothing of it being conscious)?

Actually, as a conscious form of energy that reacts to other forms of energy around and within it, one needs to postulate that somehow energy is non-consciously reacting. Where do you get the idea that anything is without life? Simply defining other behaviors of energy and space, in which energy and space are interacting with one another, as "non conscious" or "not alive" doesn't cut it.

Everything we do is a manifestation of energy and its interactions with space. Anyways, I'm dead tired. Out of energy. Sleepy. Or at the very least, the various beings that humor me by participating in my life want to relax, take care of what they have to do, and do their own thing for a bit.

From the widely agreed upon meanings of the word 'life'. We collectively define the meanings of words such as 'life'. That you happen to take an idiosyncratic view doesn't really create a burden for me in this discussion.

 

[rhutchin]

Okay, Kharrie's shot his wad.

Now, rhutchin, you said:

Complexity is an issue. You need a biological process to take something simple and evolve it into something complex. There is no biological process that has been shown to take a simple organism and make it complex. So, if genetics is uncovering greater complexity in organisms, then the demands evolutionists place on biological processes to produce this complexity become more fanciful. Biological processes have been shown to degrade genomes but never to upgrade them. More complexity means more upgrading and you can't even get simple upgrades.

As you noted, the mutation that represents a change to the genome that provides a resistance to malaria also causes sickle cell.

So that mutation has increased the complexity of the organism. It went from having one form of red blood cell to two forms of blood cells. Greater complexity is possible through mutations. Do you acknowledge this or will you try to spin it into some other argument?

Or did the mutation takes an existing complex genome and corrupt it? Does mutation take advantage of existing complexity or create complexity? I don't know that genetics will actually answer that question, but what seems certain is that genetics is showing that mutations can only change that which already exists. If you have a genome, mutation can change it. Mutations cannot create the genome in the first place. So, whatever genome first popped into existence is all that mutations have to work with.

However, whether mutations corrupt the genome or enhance the genome seems to be a philosophical issue for now.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or did the mutation takes an existing complex genome and corrupt it?

So, all of us have a gene that would provide a resistance to malaria, except it's benefits are locked away from our use, and we never, ever, ever suffered that mutation because our ancestors were never exposed to malaria?
It's an interesting fantasy. But still, the mutation has made a more complex creature.

Does mutation take advantage of existing complexity or create complexity?

Creating complexity is probably the least difficult to explain. Otherwise, all beneficial mutations would have to act in an outrageously precise manner.
Then again, you've yet to actually provide a definition of complexity, or a way to measure it, so we can't look for research that'll back up your claims, here.

I don't know that genetics will actually answer that question, but what seems certain is that genetics is showing that mutations can only change that which already exists.

That's kinda what the term 'mutation' means, yes.

If you have a genome, mutation can change it.

Yes... Which would be why the science of evolution is restricted to changes in existing life forms.

Mutations cannot create the genome in the first place.

Incorrect. Whatever state the genome is in, it evolved from a preceeding state. That would be a process whereby changes are introduced in the replicatoin process.

So, whatever genome first popped into existence is all that mutations have to work with.

Incorrect. This is where you're preaching, with nothing ot back it up.

However, whether mutations corrupt the genome or enhance the genome seems to be a philosophical issue for now.

Not if your kid is camping in an area that has malaria, it's not. Resistance to fatal disease is really easy to assess as a plus/minus.

 

[Kharakov]

The more you say about your 'explanation', the more difficult it is to take you seriously. The protons are old. Not everything made with them is old. Why is the great-grandmother seeming more conscious than the rock? Both contain protons, and in the examples provided the great-grandmother is significantly older.
...
Because your attempt at explanation leaves the difference in rocks and conscious people entirely unexplained.

Protons, electrons, neutrons, imaginations, space, etc. shall vary and grow into new arrangements creating united minds.

Not all structures formed exhibit the same properties. Still energy is not necessarily less alive than moving energy. It is just different.

The quarks in each Proton are moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light- most of the mass of the Proton is due to relativistic effects. So they literally have things whizzing around inside of them- and we don't even know what's going on inside of quarks.

Feel free to explain how it is living. Please be precise.

All the particles in the rock, and everywhere, are moving around doing things, even when they look still to us due to our limited perspective.

 

[bilby]

Protons, electrons, neutrons, imaginations, space, etc. shall vary and grow into new arrangements creating united minds.

Not all structures formed exhibit the same properties. Still energy is not necessarily less alive than moving energy. It is just different.

The quarks in each Proton are moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light- most of the mass of the Proton is due to relativistic effects. So they literally have things whizzing around inside of them- and we don't even know what's going on inside of quarks.

But we DO know that it makes no difference to anything at larger scales. Kenneth G. Wilson got the Nobel prize for Physics in 1982, for his for his constructive theory of the renormalization group, which amongst other things implies that the Color Confinement principle applies to all quantum scale particles; in short, the behaviour of a hadron at scales above its own can be completely understood without reference to its components.

This also applies at larger scales; you need not know how atoms work to understand the large scale behaviour of a rock; and you need not know how protons or electrons work to understand the supra-atomic scale behaviour of atoms. Only when you want to break objects down below their original scales do their components need to be understood.

This is a good thing, because if it were not true, nothing could be understood about anything until we knew everything about how things work at the tiniest possible scales. Galileo would have been totally in the dark about how cannonballs fly, or how the moons of Jupiter move, without first understanding matter at the quark level, and science would simply not exist.

 

[Cobalt]

Protons, electrons, neutrons, imaginations, space, etc. shall vary and grow into new arrangements creating united minds.

Protons, electrons, and neutrons are varying and growing? At least you're correct that their arrangements are changing.

Not all structures formed exhibit the same properties.

You're getting warmer...

Still energy is not necessarily less alive than moving energy. It is just different.

...and now you're getting colder. These different structures (or more broadly, the arrangements that matter and energy can take) that you just mentioned, how different can their properties be? For example, some structures have the property of symmetry, and some lack symmetry, no? Is being non-symmetrical an impossible property for a structure to possess? If your answer is not in the affirmative, then perhaps you might see why some folks think it possible for some structures to likewise be non-living (they lack the property we call life).

The quarks in each Proton are moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light- most of the mass of the Proton is due to relativistic effects. So they literally have things whizzing around inside of them- and we don't even know what's going on inside of quarks.

Feel free to explain how it is living. Please be precise.

All the particles in the rock, and everywhere, are moving around doing things, even when they look still to us due to our limited perspective.

That doesn't tell me how they are living. That tells me they are moving. Are you trying to claim that movement = life?

 

[Kharakov]

Protons, electrons, and neutrons are varying and growing? At least you're correct that their arrangements are changing.

Not all structures formed exhibit the same properties.

You're getting warmer...

Still energy is not necessarily less alive than moving energy. It is just different.

...and now you're getting colder. These different structures (or more broadly, the arrangements that matter and energy can take) that you just mentioned, how different can their properties be? For example, some structures have the property of symmetry, and some lack symmetry, no? Is being non-symmetrical an impossible property for a structure to possess? If your answer is not in the affirmative, then perhaps you might see why some folks think it possible for some structures to likewise be non-living (they lack the property we call life).

I understand seeing the living energy of the universe forming ordered structures, and mistakenly thinking the living energy is not alive. But these ordered structures are ordered because of the rules the energy follows, rather than because energy is not alive in these forms.

I am not less alive when I add 1 and 1 following the axioms of arithmetic, although the mathematical structure is completely, and utterly solid. 1+1 will always equal 2 following the axioms of arithmetic. And while in a certain sense this mathematical structure is "not alive", the energy that creates this structure is.

Are you trying to claim that movement = life?

No reason to think that life cannot hold steady.

 

[rhutchin]

The Issue of Complexity

...would you accept that an organism with two types of blood cells is more complex than the same organism with only one type of blood cell?

If so, and since you've already accepted that sickle cell is a mutation, why would this not be evidence that mutations can cause an increase in complexity?

If not, how...do you define 'complex?'

(Please answer the actual questions, without trying to move the goalpost. Just complexity, plus, minus or unaffected.)

Granted, we need a definition of "complexity." We also need a definition of "species" and even "evolution" (judging by your disagreement with the talk.origins article in the other discussion).

I don't know that complexity is something that is easily defined - however, if we see it, we tend to know it. For example, we can say that a living cell is complex because of the many functions that it performs and the interdependence of those functions in maintaining the cell. Given that "complexity," no evolutionist says that such a cell could have been the original life form that appeared on the earth. At the same time, evolutionists cannot contrive a "first living organism" that could be less complex than that which we observe today because the functions of a cell are interdependent and necessary to the life of the cell. Thus, we see more people buying into the idea that the earth was seeded by aliens or the first life form was transported to earth via meteorite.

I think Behe took at stab at defining complexity. Basically, he seems to be saying that something is complex if it is irreducible at some point. He wrote:

"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution."​

So, we might define complexity to describe a situation where two interdependent activities can generate an outcome that could not be generated otherwise.

To apply this to blood cells and a particular variant, the sickle cell mutation. The sickle cell is a corrupted version of the blood cell meaning only that it is not the same as the original blood cell. The complexity of the cell has not changed. There has been no increase or decrease in the complexity of the blood cell as a consequence of the mutation. The mutation has gummed up the works so that the cell is not what it was prior to the mutation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Granted, we need a definition of "complexity."

Well, yes. If you're going to claim that complexity is insurmountable problem for evolutionary theory, you need to define what the fuck you're talking about.

We also need a definition of "species" and even "evolution" (judging by your disagreement with the talk.origins article in the other discussion).

Non sequitur. Even with perfectly accepted definitions for every other word in the lexicon, your argument depends on what 'complex' means.

I don't know that complexity is something that is easily defined - however, if we see it, we tend to know it.

So you reduce your argument against evolutionary theory to personal impressions and incredulity.
Noted.
Come back when you have an actual scientific objection.

I think Behe took at stab at defining complexity. Basically, he seems to be saying that something is complex if it is irreducible at some point.

And all his examples have broken down under scrutiny.

So, we might define complexity to describe a situation where two interdependent activities can generate an outcome that could not be generated otherwise.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? You can't imagine any generation except for the system to just appear, whole and complete.
Your incredulity is not a definition, nor a substantial objection to the theory. No one supporting evolution claims that we had 20% of a system, then 34%, then 48%...
Rather we had 100% of a system, then 100% of a slightly different system, then 100% of a still very slightly different system.

To apply this to blood cells and a particular variant, the sickle cell mutation. The sickle cell is a corrupted version of the blood cell meaning only that it is not the same as the original blood cell. The complexity of the cell has not changed.

i didn't ask about the cell. I asked about the organism. You made a sweeping claim that mutations can never increase complexity and you've done everything to duck the consequences of that statement ever since.

There has been no increase or decrease in the complexity of the blood cell as a consequence of the mutation.

But there are two types of blood cells in the organism. That appears, to me, to be a more complex organism than it was in the organism's ancestors before the mutation. And the genes of the organism now create offspring with one of two new conditions that didn't exist before. Resistant to malaria and resistant to malaria with sickle cell.
Good, bad or indifferent, it's still an increase in complexity.

But without a robust definition of 'complex' i can't understand how you reject it.

The mutation has gummed up the works so that the cell is not what it was prior to the mutation.

Yes.
But organism is more complex.
I think.

Again, your objection would depend on what you mean by complex.


Not what Dawkins means by 'species.'

 

[rhutchin]

I think Behe took at stab at defining complexity. Basically, he seems to be saying that something is complex if it is irreducible at some point.

And all his examples have broken down under scrutiny.

I was not aware of that. Still not sure that is the case. I think Behe accurately identified examples of irreducible complexity that required two or more interdependent parts for something to work - I think a mousetrap was one of them. Take away one of the parts and the thing will not work. But if you think his examples actually broke down under scrutiny, please make the case.

 

[rhutchin]

So, we might define complexity to describe a situation where two interdependent activities can generate an outcome that could not be generated otherwise.

Well, that's just it, isn't it? You can't imagine any generation except for the system to just appear, whole and complete.
Your incredulity is not a definition, nor a substantial objection to the theory. No one supporting evolution claims that we had 20% of a system, then 34%, then 48%...
Rather we had 100% of a system, then 100% of a slightly different system, then 100% of a still very slightly different system.

I don't know what your point is here. I have suggested a definition of the term, "complex."

You don't really challenge that definition but go off on a tangent that makes no sense to me. What is your point?

 

[rhutchin]

To apply this to blood cells and a particular variant, the sickle cell mutation. The sickle cell is a corrupted version of the blood cell meaning only that it is not the same as the original blood cell. The complexity of the cell has not changed.

i didn't ask about the cell. I asked about the organism. You made a sweeping claim that mutations can never increase complexity and you've done everything to duck the consequences of that statement ever since.

If the individual parts of the organism are not more complex, I don't see why the organism would be more complex. In this case, we have an organism that has blood cells. After the nutation, the organism still has blood cells. I don't see that the organism has become more complex.

There has been no increase or decrease in the complexity of the blood cell as a consequence of the mutation.

But there are two types of blood cells in the organism. That appears, to me, to be a more complex organism than it was in the organism's ancestors before the mutation. And the genes of the organism now create offspring with one of two new conditions that didn't exist before. Resistant to malaria and resistant to malaria with sickle cell.
Good, bad or indifferent, it's still an increase in complexity.

OK. That's your opinion. We need a definition of complexity to determine whether you are correct. I proposed a definition earlier and by my definition, I don't see an increase in complexity - we started with a blood cell and we still have a blood cell. The blood cell performs a necessary function in the organism and that function has not changed.

What is your definition of complexity that allows you to draw the opposite conclusion?

 

[Keith&Co.]

And all his examples have broken down under scrutiny.

I was not aware of that.

Look it up.

Still not sure that is the case.

And your ignorance matters....why?

I think Behe accurately identified examples of irreducible complexity that required two or more interdependent parts for something to work - I think a mousetrap was one of them. Take away one of the parts and the thing will not work. But if you think his examples actually broke down under scrutiny, please make the case.

The case has been made, several times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, that's just it, isn't it? You can't imagine any generation except for the system to just appear, whole and complete.
Your incredulity is not a definition, nor a substantial objection to the theory. No one supporting evolution claims that we had 20% of a system, then 34%, then 48%...
Rather we had 100% of a system, then 100% of a slightly different system, then 100% of a still very slightly different system.

I don't know what your point is here. I have suggested a definition of the term, "complex."

Which is useless to your needs.
The fact that a system may qualify as irreducibly complex does not tell us how it arrived.
A stone arch is irreducibly complex. Take one stone out and it collapses. But stone arches do not appear, whole and complete, at the very start.
The circulatory system of a new-born baby is irreducibly complex.
However, in the course of developing, the fetus has several stages of circulatory systems that are smaller and simpler, with fewer parts.
If the one organism can make such changes in the course of fetal development, with fairly small changes made each day, how hard is it to imagine generations upon generations making such small changes over greater time?

Also: Just how does one determine relative complexity?
If a mousetrap IS irreducibly complex, and the circulatory system is irreducibly complex, which one is more complex than the other?
How do you use the word 'complex?'

You don't really challenge that definition but go off on a tangent that makes no sense to me. What is your point?

I challenge the usefulness of this definition in coming anywhere close to showing that evolution isn't possible.
Because irreducibly complex systems are not a problem for evolutionary theory.

So for your constantly leaping on any acknowledgement of complexity as if it were a befuddlement, irreducible complexity is not a definition that helps you support your case.