How Does The Evolution Theory elucidate The Irreducible Complexity Of Structures And Systems In Living Things?

Question

According to the theory, all the stages undergone as one living thing evolves into another need to be advantageous. To put it another way, in a process of evolution from A to Z, all the intermediate stages, B,C,D … W,X,Y, must be of some benefit. Since it is impossible for natural selection and mutation to consciously identify an objective in advance, the theory depends on the assumption that all the systems in living things can be "reduced" to myriad small steps, and that each individual transition from one step to another is beneficial to the organism. That is why Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Darwin may have imagined, in the primitive state of science in the nineteenth century, that living things did possess a reducible structure. Scientific discoveries during the course of the twentieth century, however, have revealed that many organs and systems in living things cannot be reduced to simple forms. This fact, known as "irreducible complexity," destroys Darwinism, just as Darwin himself feared.

Answer 1

there are many animals that disprove Darwin's theory. take for example, the bombardier beetle. it has two chemicals in its body, stored in separate tanks. when it wishes to defend itself, it mixes the two chemicals in a third tank, and launches them out a port near its backside. additionally, there is a nozzle on the port that causes the chemicals to come out in not simply one blast, which would literally blow the beetle apart, but many rapid-fire shots. if the beetle had developed any of these adaptations without the others, then it would have died out.

Answer 2

Evolution does not have to evolve into a better organism. It is highly possible that a disadvantageous change can occur in an organism. (As you pointed out, mutation can not see the future, so modifications may actually in the long run, harm the organisms) These organisms tend to die out. Furthermore, Darwin only means that if you can disprove slight modifications then evolution will be false. Can you absolutely prove that humans never undergoed slight modifications, beneficial or not? If we could absolutely prove slight modifications, evolution will be a fact. However, given all possible assuptions, small steps seem the most likely. Can we prove that? Unless we can actually see evolution occuring, no. Small steps take a long time, and we may not realize the change. Fossil evidence probably will not show any myraid changes unless it is almost impossibly well preserved. Does it make it any more false? No, it just make it not provable. The point is, the Irreducible Complexity Of Structures And Systems In Living Things does not make evolution impossible, it just makes science more relevant.

Answer 3

Well...this is a bailiwick. But Darwinism and evolution are two different issues. Darwin sought to debunk religion in relation to creation, and creationists were quick to respond. A mistake, I think. Since the processes you describe cannot be explained by science, then it leaves only one other conclusion: that God must be responsible. So then, if at some point science does indeed provide a scientific explanation for the events you describe, you are worse off then you were before. For way too many people, God is the sum of all things unknown, and for them, the scientific process amounts to explaining away God. I don't think most Christians confuse the issue, and those firm in their faith have no quarrel science or it's 'discoveries', and have no problem with evolution per se. The ballyhoo, I think, has more to do being baited by Darwin and those who use his theories to challenge creationism. So Christians end up way over their head challenging science, arguing scriptural evidence with those who don't even believe the Bible is true...and worse, forcing their children to choose between science and their faith. This is a big mistake. We should not be fighting this battle, and should not have taken the bait.

Answer 4

Darwin may have erred in admitting this flaw as it is not truly a flaw. He did not live long enough to realize that many modifications were complex by chance and some were not good but the environment was permissive long enough to let some flaws get perpetuated. these imperfect beings manage to exist long enough to reproduce but not necessarily predominate. they struggle along imperfectly. an example of these types of organisms would be man himself. he got a few changes that allowed him to barely survive and overcome some bad changes that worked against him. So both good and bad changes can survive and be sent down the line. So Darwin bless his heart, was on the right track but needed to refine his theory after more data was collected. the data is still being collected and the theory is still be reworked and rethought.
the key words here are data and thought. not belief and hope. Hope and belief can lead you to conclude anything, even creationism. It certainly is more glamorous and easy to understand than evolution, so creationism has a big appeal to morons. You do not have to have one iota of intelligence to beleiee in creationism. it dodges the question. Evolution takes study and brainpower to get an understanding of so is not too popular with the Christians who favor faith over knowledge. They even believe that to eat from the tree of knowledeg was the original sin yet do not comprehend what this means.

Answer 5

Unfortunately, creationsist in their argument do not consider a simple fact - environment, and how it changes.

Irreducible complexity seems a grand theory, but the fact is, that as living things evolve, direction of evolution is guided by environment. With changing environment, over millions of years, there could be several small steps that evolution took, that are lost to us now. But nonetheless, these small steps did take place, to end with the organs we see today.

So, while we may see A and Z, we may have lost much of B,C,D,E, and what small ones we don find, they appear not to be part of the grand evolution.

Every major organ found in humans can be traced back to millions of years, but in some rudimentary forms. And in many places, there are large gaps in knowledge, because of our lack of finding fossils in that kind of preserved states.

But still, that doesnt mean we give up, and turn to creationism.

Answer 6

You are confused. You believe that adaptation to an environment or improvement requires conscious effort. Look at the evolution of bacteria. They become increasingly resistant to antibiotics, why? Because those that aren't resistant die off. You do not see this evolution if there is no antibiotic as reproduction would not produce a larger percentage of resistant bacteria. however, if an antibiotic is introduced and only those with the mutation survive to reproduce you will have evidence of evolution. Sexual reproduction would create even greater changes if the reproductive cycle of sexually reproducing life forms were as short as the cycle of bacteria.

Oh I didn't adress the irreducible complexity. There is no such thing.

Answer 7

Well, I think what is necesary is to eliminate gradualism and replace it with punctuated equalibrium followed by microevolution.
Case in point, a baby with 3 arms was born a few days ago. Now let's say this child mates and has 4 children, 2 have 3 arms, 2 have 2 arms, and through the generations the arms begin to become better formed, it's not entirely unreasonable to say a significant population would develop this trait over a few hundred years. Especially in a small population, like Founders syndrome.

Answer 8

Good try, but wrong again. These irreducable organs can all be reduced to very similar cells. Matter of fact these cells are similar in every living thing on our planet. They all contain the same structures, and are made from the same molecules. This suggests common ancestry. The evidence is very plainly visible. Go to school, before you try to argue something as true and real as evolution.

Answer 9

the is no irreducible complexity.
that's a myth as far as our bodies go.
trust me when i say this, i studied anatomy (mostly the brain) and comparative anatomy (various species) for four years. there's tons os steps, and tons of additions. some things just work and therefore are used more often, and over time are improved.
the steps that aren't needed are eventually lost, and after lots of time passes, the system functions as a whole without all the support systems the separate steps needed.

Answer 10

I tend to belive respected scienists from respected universities with respected careers and respected by all they're peers.

Show me a creational scientist that fits this? Show me an artical written by a creationalist that has changed the world view from scientific to creationalist? You can not as creation is based of faith and science of fact, the two can not mix and mingle the why most creationalist think.

Answer 11

That only makes sense if you apply it to individual species. The planet as a whole living organism is reduced in systematic complexity everyday due to mankind's interference. Acts of God aren't slowing down evolution, mankind is.