there can be no reason given for them that isn't just as complex as they are.Complexity can be irreducible. Irreducible complexity is so complex it is irreducibly complex. The Intelligent Designer produces irreducible complexity. The Intelligent Designer is irreducibly complex. What the Intelligent designer designs is an irreducibly complex design. Am I on the right track? I don't want to waste a lot of headaches on this.
(laugh) IDists see irreducible complexity as signalling the presence of rationality; mathematicians see irreducible complexity as signalling the limits of rationality.
Please explain.
mathematicians see irreducible complexity as signalling the limits of rationality.
And, I'm guessing, the possible threshold of irrationality. It sounds good anyway. Except for those damned irrational numbers.
Mathematicians see *the theory that irreducible complexity is the result of chance* as signalling the limits of rationality.
There it's fixed.
Mathematically, it is impossible to go backwards from 20 AA to 64 codons. There is no way to know which of four or six codons, for example, coded a given AA when one tries to go backwards against the "Central Dogma." Prescriptive Information has been lost. Various models of code origin often pursue primordial codon systems of only two nitrogen bases rather than three. At some point, such a two-base codon system must evolve into a three-base codon system. But catastrophic problems such as global frame shifts would have resulted from such a change midstream in the evolution of genetic code. Source