Irreducible

Word IRREDUCIBLE
Character 11
Hyphenation ir re du ci ble
Pronunciations /ˌɪɹɪˈdjuːsɪbəl/

Definitions and meanings of "Irreducible"

What do we mean by irreducible?

Impossible to reduce to a desired, simpler, or smaller form or amount. adjective

Incapable of being reduced to a lower amount or degree; not to be diminished or degraded.

Incapable of being brought into a different state, condition, or form.

Incapable of being reduced to a desired form or condition by manipulation: as, an irreducible hernia or fracture.

Incapable of being reduced, or brought into a different state; incapable of restoration to its proper or normal condition. adjective

Incapable of being reduced to a simpler form of expression. adjective

A particular case in the solution of a cubic equation, in which the formula commonly employed contains an imaginary quantity, and therefore fails in its application. adjective

Not able to be reduced or lessened. adjective

Not able to be brought to a simpler or reduced form. adjective

Unable to be factorized into polynomials of lower degree, as (x^2 + 1). adjective

Unable to be factored into smaller integers; prime. adjective

Not containing a sphere of codimension 1 that is not the boundary of a ball. adjective

Impossible to divide further into representations of lower dimension by means of any similarity transformation adjective

Such a polynomial noun

Incapable of being made smaller or simpler adjective

Such a polynomial

1. Any person or crackpot idea that is outright retarded, misleading, or completely illogical beyond all reason. 2. Something that cannot get any stupider than it currently is. 3. Bullshit that can't be broken down into simper forms of complex absurdity. For example, pseudoscience. Urban Dictionary

A myth perpetrated by Creationists and IDiots alike (although they are the same people really). It states that certain bodily systems are "too complex" to have evolved over millions of years despite evidence to the contrary Urban Dictionary

This theory is a favorite of theists. It says that life is simply too complex to have developed via natural selection or random mutation. However... - on July 11, 2002, scientists artificially re-created polio. Using only the DNA of the polio virus and a series of synthetic chemicals, they recreated the natural desire to reproduce, the ability to evolve, and all other mechanisms that make a virus, LIFE, work. - the bacterial flagellum argument has also been disproven. Back in 1996, scientists found that the 10-part "Type 3 secretion mechanism" that pathogenic germs have is very similar in function to the bacterial flagellum, but does so with only 10 parts. Therefore, each supposedly "irreducible" mechanism is perfectly functional if you take away the RIGHT parts. It is still reducible. - the Eye argument has also been disproven. All you need are some simple photo-receptive cells that just detect light. As the species ages, this mechanism becomes more and more useful as these traits develop into actual senses. Keep in mind that these mechanisms had countless opportunities to develop across countless species during the Cambrian Explosion 500 million years ago, and have been getting more and more complex over that amount of time. Sorry for using science and fact, but keep in mind that if you make a claim, there's always someone willing to check your facts. Urban Dictionary

As has been stated, it is a favorite argument used amongst creationists to claim that some organic systems are too complex to have evolved as such. In other words, it is the argument of "I don't understand how it works, therefore it's wrong." Ironically, it can be used as an argument against God, too. Urban Dictionary

Synonyms and Antonyms for Irreducible

The word "irreducible" in example sentences

Behe claims that evolutionary processes cannot generate structures that exhibit what he calls irreducible complexity. ❋ Unknown (2005)

Nothing explains our phenomenology, but it's not the sort of physical stuff we usually think of as "physical" so I'm not physicalist, and it doesn't help to call it irreducible res cogitans either so I'm not dualist. ❋ Unknown (2008)

But thats precisely why you're definition of irreducible is useless, and why IC is relevant. ❋ Unknown (2006)

The concept of coherence is implicit in the definition of irreducible complexity in the idea of parts that are “well matched” to a “system.” ❋ Michael J. Behe (2007)

The fundamental rhetorical argument of Intelligent Design was and remains the idea of "irreducible complexity" -- the existence of biological systems with functionally integrated parts that apparently cannot possibly arise by a succession of small changes produced by Darwinian evolution. ❋ Dan Agin (2011)

Although he did not use the term irreducible complexity the interactive nature of the protein was implicit to his analysis of the evolution of chromatin. ❋ Unknown (2008)

The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. ❋ Unknown (2008)

Intelligent Design has something called irreducible complexity, all though all the examples have been shown to be reducible. ❋ Unknown (2009)

Michael Behe has basically conceded the validity of virtually every aspect of evolution, but fiercely clings to the idea of irreducible complexity even though every example he's come up with gets shot down. ❋ James F. McGrath (2009)

I said that his use of the term irreducible complexity includes function. ❋ Unknown (2006)

A philosopher has taken on the idea of irreducible complexity. ❋ James F. McGrath (2008)

As Roger Ruston has argued in a very important study of the development of rights language (Human Rights and the Image of God, 2004), the idea of irreducible or non-negotiable liberties for human beings has a strong theological basis in mediaeval thought. ❋ Unknown (2008)

Proponents of Intelligent Design have used the notion of irreducible complexity to bludgeon evolution theory by insisting that complex biological structures ranging from the human eye to the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved in stages because none of the intermediate versions would have functioned properly. ❋ Unknown (2007)

The concept of the number of “steps” resembles the idea of irreducible complexity in that both look to see if multiple factors are needed to produce something. ❋ Michael J. Behe (2007)

"Intelligent Design fits the criteria of pseudoscience perfectly because it completely lacks any genuine science and its adherents operate solely on making baseless assertions and speculation. Its ideas cannot be falsified through the scientific method because it deliberately fails to produce valid, testable data to confirm its claims. [Irreducible complexity] is indeed [irreducible stupidity] at its finest. Intelligent Design is unworthy to be taught in public schools because it has literally nothing to offer." "Creationism is a joke. It appeals only to the weak-minded and is simply an [intellectually lazy] excuse to be willfully ignorant of real empirical science. The irreducible stupidity of creationism and its advocates is simply unfathomable." "That dumbass thinks the world is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs once lived together with humans. He is so irreducibly stupid. Did he purposely fail high school biology, or did he get his so-called "facts" from a church? He is such a n00b." "Anyone who can stare directly in the face of evidence for evolution and still have the audacity to ignore it has to be willfully uneducated—more accurately, irreducibly stupid." "Nuff said. ❋ EvolvedExpert (2011)

[Creationist] IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved Scientist: we have found evidence to the contrary and have run simulations on primitive photosensitive cells which disprove [irreducible complexity]. Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved Scientist: did you understand what i just told you? Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved Scientist: I take it you either didn't understand that or you are just close minded towards evolution Creationist IDiot: the human eye is irreducibly complex, it cannot have evolved Scientist: ok I'm not dealing with you anymore Creationist IDiot: We won! he cannot prove [Evilution], WE WON!!! ❋ Person With At Least Half A Br (2010)

[Complexity] does NOT necessarily [indicate] [design]. Irreducible Complexity is BULLSHIT! ❋ Kjun1_3 (2011)

[Creationist]: "You can't explain how an eye evolved, it's too complex to have sprung up on its own. It's [irreducible complexity]." Scientist: "Of course it can, you're just incapable of understanding the concept that it takes millions of years for features to evolve in to the things we see today." Creationist: "Nuh-uhhhh." Scientist: "Fine, please tell me exactly how your 'God' made the eye." Creationist: "He made it in his own image." Scientist: "How exactly did he do it, [lay out] the steps for me on the precise methods used." Creationist: "I don't know...." Scientist: "Thus, by your own logic, you've just disproved God. Fantastic job, let me buy you a beer." ❋ Dumaitisagain (2011)

Cross Reference for Irreducible

What does irreducible mean?

Best Free Book Reviews
Best IOS App Reviews