How do Darwinists answer the argument of "irreducible complexity?"?

Question

If you don't know what I'm talking about, then don't answer. I'm sure you're very cute, and clever, but if you don't have a decent answer to give, or any understanding of biology, then save it.

Answer 1

Irreducible complexity is the term used by proponents of Intelligent Design, who claim that there are certain biological systems that are simply too complex and too specialized to have evolved from more primitive systems, or that there are no intermediate steps between an earlier state and the complex state that would be advantageous to the organism, and thus cannot have evolved. Some of the favourite examples of IDers include the flagella of single-celled organisms, vertebrate eyes, and (oddly enough) giraffe necks.

One major problem with the idea of irreducible complexity is that it doesn't answer anything. Proponents of the idea claim that at these exact points of evolutionary history, some 'intelligence' must have come in and *poof* created flagella for the little protozoans, or *poof* created eyeballs. There is no science there, no testable hypothesis, no falsifiable theory to guide further research.

Another major problem is that just because you can't imagine a functional intermediate step doesn't mean that there isn't one. Darwin himself was perplexed by the ability of electric eels and torpedo rays to generate electrical charges using huge blocks of specialized muscle cells. What possible use could these blocks of muscles be before they could generate a useful stunning charge? Later, it was discovered that other types of fish do indeed have intermediate forms of the adaptation, using small blocks of muscles to generate a weak electrical field which they actually use for navigation, much like a radar-system, in murky waters. Other well documented series of intermediate steps include a variety of adaptations leading up to the development of explosive chemicals as seen in the bombardier beetle (another favourite of the 'irreducible complexity' crowd).

So the basic argument against irreducible complexity is that it usually isn't irreducible when you investigate it properly, and that even if complexity was indeed irreducible it still doesn't prove that any guiding intelligence was involved.

Answer 2

Irreducible complexity is a fallacy in and of itself. It assumes that the certain minimums set by whomever (the scientist) is the absolute minimum and cannot and could not have ever been lower than whatever the set limit is.

It ignores the basic tenant of evolution. Simple amino acids forming more and more complex building blocks. the acids built the tools that built the tools that built the tools that built the first organism.

WHY does so much bad happen if God is on 24-7 watch of just our little corner of the universe. We KNOW that there are over 350 million stars in our own galaxy. There are approximately 200 million galaxies like our own that we know of in the universe. To think that there is no other life than what is here now is pretentious at best and ludicrous to any reasonable individual.

Is it possible that God started this whole mess accidentally and went on about his merry business? To a being that has always been and will always be, the 8,000 years or so that some believe to be the age of the Earth is but a blink of an eye. Do you think about every microscopic piece of dust around you when you blink your eye. Does a bee care what happens to a flower after he has pollinated it?

Answer 3

I'm not a biologist - however the same way scientists answer every other question they yet have a clear answer too. They say they're still looking at it. Any while they have a belief as to what the answer is, they do not know it as knowledge. There is no repeatable experiment that proves life is so complex it must be the result of god. Until someone figures one out (I don't believe they will, but I can't prove it) there is nothing to answer. Yes, it's incredibly complex, and we still don't know how it happens, and some believe it's random, that a simple self-perpetuating system was created and continued to develop in complexity until what we see today, and a small number believe it was god. But NONE of them say they KNOW the answer as knowledge, that they can prove. HOWEVER, considering the great body of evidence, it seems obvious to most unbiased observers that Darwin's Theory's seem to explain a heck of lot. And really, how does saying that God did it, give you a greater understanding of the world? Even if you believe that God did do it, than you next question is HOW? If you can some me a reasonable theory for how God did it, that lead to repeatable experiments, I'd believe that God did.
PS - There really isn't anything that PROVES life is irreducibly complex. It's just a belief of some, after looking at how complex things really are.
-Hope that helps -- Really, relgieon and science can co-exiest easily. However intelligent design really does BOTH a diservice. Becase it's really built on weak fondations.

Answer 4

"Irreducible complexity" is the ID folks term for systems or organs that must have a certain level of complexity in order to function. The eye is one example. They claim that below that level of complexity, it just won't work. And since it has to be at least that complex, it couldn't have sprung forth fully functional at that level without being created by some intelligent designer.

I think it's a poor argument. I think they are picking a certain threshhold in the evolution of a structure, claiming that it doesn't work at any level below that, and then stating that it's evidence that someone must have designed it that way. And then that argument implies that the structure HAS evolved since then, which they say doesn't happen any way. So their argument has two conflicting positions.

Answer 5

The majority of the scientific community argues that there is no biological feature that is irreducibly complex. The eye, for example, could have evolved gradually, beginning with some crude photo-sensitive cells, followed by the formation of an iris and lens, and eventually developing sensitivity to color, etcetera. The evolutionary process is helped along in this case by the extreme benefit that sight brings to a species.

Answer 6

Irreducible Complexity, as defined by Michael Behe, only eliminates the possibility of one evolutionary path - the simplest and most direct path. It cannot, by Behe's own admission, eliminate indirect paths.

Behe then waves his hands around and casually says that the indirect paths are "too improbable", but supplies no other argument or evidence to support this assertion.

I'm astonished that such a pathetic argument has gained so much traction. The "sciency" sounding name goes a long way, I guess.

Answer 7

I'm glad you think I am cute and clever! Warms me aging 'art, it does. Only me Mum's ever told me that afore.

But anyways, a polite 'Darwinist' might suggest that Richard Dawkins' book "Climbing Mount Improbable" includes very articulate discussions that speak to your question.

A rude 'Darwinist' might just say irreducible complexity is effing hogwash, and anyone who believes in it and thinks they know anything about biology is a bloomin' idjit.

He might also wonder aloud whether the youth ministers of those icky megachurches are sending the children on-line to try to convert the evil evolutionists as a sort of e-ministry that earns Heaven points for later redemption. A bloody awful lot of youse show up here, there and everywhere bugging us with this shallowness.

Answer 8

Very simple answer: Every single example given of "irreducible complexity" ... turns out to be quite *reducible*.

E.g., ID people love to use the human eye as an example. Yes, it is a complex organ. But all that is needed to show that it is "reducible" is to show intermediate stages, each of which has advantages (slightly better eyesight) over previous stages, and therefore something that natural selection can produce over huge spans of time. From photosensitive eyespots, to more and more cup-shaped regions, to fluid based orbits, to mucus-based lenses, and higher and higher concentrations of receptors in the retina, etc.

And examples of all these intermediate forms of eyes can be found in creatures alive today.

Related to this is the natural selection concept of 'co-evolution'. This doesn't just occur with two or more species evolving together in a simbiotic relationship, but also two or more structures in an organ like the eye can co-evolve together. I.e., an improvement in one substructure drives improvements in others. For example, as the lens gets better, this produces a need for a better retina, and vice versa ... and as both of these improve on each other, they also produce more complex optic nerve to handle the increasing information, etc. etc.

The same analysis works for flight, feathers, the flagellum, opposable thumbs, the human brain ... anything yet produced by the ID folks. In every case, the complexity can be shown to be reducible to simple, incremental improvements.

It's not that difficult at all.

Answer 9

At any given moment, millions of mutations are taking place in parallel. There are more than 10^33 living things on Earth, and geological time scales, over which significant evolutionary changes occur, are much longer than our everyday experience. These are three reasons why creationists find it hard to get their heads around the idea that, one in a while, a complicated mechanism like an eye evolves and turns out to give an advantage to the organism.

Answer 10

If I understand you right, Your saying how people who believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution answer the arguement of the complexity of bone structures. well whats wrong with this arguement is that each part of a complex molecular machine evolves as part of the system. Natural selection can act on a complex system because at every stage of of its evolution, the system functions.