Do evolutionists know about irreducible complexity?

Question

And if so, how do they go about explaining it?

Answer 1

They sure do. They say that, over long periods of time, the simplest of organisms undergo a great deal of successive improvements. When creationists can not explain something easily, they automatically say that some supreme power made it that way. Scientists try to explain things, not dismiss them as magical.

Answer 2

It's kind a like you know how climates work, but weather forecasting is never 100 percent right. So is atmospheric science just wrong and should be considered pseuso science?

Complexity is difficult concept to understand. If you don't understand something scientifically you can do 2 things. You can say I give up. Or say 'may be I can figure this out if I study it hard enough'

Complex theory such as evolution cannot lay out every little details as you'll see same in other areas in science. Irreducible complexity basically points to obvious complexity current science cannot explain. Evolution took milions of years and you can't map process like that in just matter of months.

Answer 3

Could it be possible that no one has any clue where we all came from in the first place, and that we're all trying to figure it out either through scientific or religious avenues? I have a hard time believing that either train of thought is 100% correct. I'm more evolutionist, because there's too much evidence to ignore. I'm also not 100% evolutionist because there are some things that are just too amazing in the earth for me to believe it just happened naturally. I'll admit it, I don't know the origins of the universe, but I also never will if I blindly followed what it says in some book that's thousands of years old...

Answer 4

Yes, we do, and it is fallacious. Every system can be reduced into similar systems that will function or function just as well. For instance, haemoglobin is similar to other globin-family proteins, both genetically, and functionally. It is easy to see how one of these proteins could be modified to produce any of the other globin proteins. Haemoglobin or any of the other globins did not spring from nothing: they came from precursors. Also, out of the incalcuable amount of combinations of amino acids that could form proteins, proteins have surprisingly little variation, even in different species of animals. This is best explained by the idea that every protein comes from a precursor protein. In addition, we share many, many genes with other species of animals and other life forms, even bacteria! The differences among life forms are largely due to what genes are "turned on" at a time and in what order, and how they are chopped up and recombined at the messenger RNA or higher levels. As Nietzsche once said "you have made your way from worm to man, yet much within you is still a worm." If you want a macromolecular example, even one light sensing pigment that reacts with the nervous system and lets the animal know that there is light around it is better than no form of "sight" at all. This can then progress in small steps, each slightly better than the previous "eye." Not all of the components need to come together at once to produce a complex human eye, and some of the components, such as the pigment retinol (derived from vitamin A), were already in the body, serving another purpose. The irreducible complexity argument simply doesn't hold water, in my educated opinion.

Answer 5

Irreducible complexity is 'god of the gaps argument'. And even if it was true, then it wouldn't in any way disprove evolution. Evolution is fact - copiously observed - and the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is backed up by overwhelming evidence. If "irreducible complexity" was true then it would simply be another (minor) component to the story. However, the vast majority of "irreducible complexity" examples put forward by its proponents are very easily and plausibly explained by evolution (there will always be gaps in what we can observe for people with an agenda to jump in to).

Answer 6

Ireducible complexity in relation to evolution is a very hard idea to test scientifically. Firstly it's an idea with no testable or falsafiable hypothesis. Secondally famous examples of irreducible complexity in living organisms such as the eye, various cell functions and blood clotting are increadibly difficult to look at through time via the fossil record. Squishy bits just don't make good fossils and thus there is nothing to study.

It's the old, "If you came across a pocket watch in the desert would you be more likely to believe it fell together randomly or that it was put together by a higher being?"

And who's to say that evolution and intelligent design are the only two ways to explain life?

Answer 7

Evolutionary theory holds that very complex biological systems can be reduced to a great deal of successive improvements. Irreducible complexity argues that there are some structures where this is not possible. This is because the constituent parts of these structures would be useless prior to their current state.
They explain it away because to accept irreducible complexity would be to have to answer to a higher being and not abide by their own rules for life.

Those who take the stand for irreducible complexity say that certain biological systems are absolutely too complex to have evolved naturally from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. The idea is used as an argument for the intelligent design of life, against the theory of evolution.
I choose irreducible complexity.

Answer 8

Critics factor out that the irreducible complexity argument assumes that the mandatory areas of a equipment have consistently been mandatory and for this reason ought to not have been extra sequentially.[40 8][40 9] They argue that some thing that's on the start in effortless terms powerful can later replace into mandatory as different factors replace. besides, they argue, evolution usually proceeds by using changing preexisting areas or by using removing them from a equipment, extremely than by using including them. that's sometimes talked approximately by way of fact the "scaffolding objection" by using an analogy with scaffolding, that may help an "irreducibly complicated" construction till it extremely is finished and arranged to stand by using itself.[n 12] Behe has regarded using "sloppy prose", and that his "argument against Darwinism would not upload as much as a logical evidence".[n 13] Irreducible complexity has remained a widely used argument between advocates of clever layout; in the Dover trial, the court docket held that "Professor Behe's declare for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed examine papers and has been rejected by using the scientific community at super".[50]

Answer 9

The problem with creationists and ID is that they lack the ability to understand that everything happened by chance. If we look at the way things are now, then work out the chances of our genes mutating the way they did then its one in a billion billion billion and probably many more billions. However looking back on the chances is flawed science itself. Take an unremarkable event like a hand of poker between six people. Each with four cards.No matter how good anyones cards are. Now if you look back and work out the chances of that deck being dealt. You'll find it to be in the region of 1-60million. You cannot look back and extrapolate the odds, like what creationists do (which is a fundemental mathmatical error). Evolisionists accept the way we are and try and link the series of events that led us to this point.

Answer 10

irreducible complexity itself is a proof that the creation never took place. According to creation Eve was created from a bone which is calcium. We all know the all the components of women can not be reduced to calcium. So Now the creationist should conclude from their argument that women were not created that follows men too

Answer 11

Yes they know about it and its been deb-bunked.
What I find amazing is the human race has managed to discover the structure of the atom and from that construct incredible machines that allow individuals to send messages to each other via wires and radio at almost the speed of light. Whilst at the same time have numerous religions whose basis is at best questionable and at worst down-right dangerous believed by over half the population of the planet!

So whilst you are reading this text consider all the technological achievements man has made from the humble wheel to satelites orbiting in space. These achievements were made not by studying some sacred text but by observing how the universe works.