A question for evolutionists about irreducible complexity?

Question

This is the idea that there are some creatures that are so complex that if a part were removed during the evolutionary process then the whole system would stop working. I was wondering if there is a counter argument to this, just so I can see both sides of the debate...

Michael X: How is irreducble complexity god? It is a counter argument to evolution.

Michael X: How is irreducble complexity god? It is a counter argument to evolution.

Trouthunter: The exclusion of other possibilities is contrary to the very nature of science. I am not looking as it as proof of creationism, because disproving evolution does not prove creationism. I am merely seeing if the theory of evolution can be disproved. When we cease to question we cease to learn...

Answer 1

There are very good counter arguments to the hypothesis of irreducible complexity. The best one i have heard is a counter to Behe's mouse trap analogy. Behe claims that a mouse trap missing any of it's parts fails to function. The response is that if you remove the catch from the trap you can still use it as a clip. This is the crux of the issue... these so called irreducible systems are made of parts that may have, and often times it has been shown that they did in fact have different functions in earlier evolutionary stages. The bacterial flagellum for example, a favorite of the proponents of the IC argument can be traced back to a secretory system.

Answer 2

I guess you must feel like Galileo felt when the dogmatists tried to force him to not follow his reason, the facts and his beliefs.

Michael X feels that sarcasm is a substitute for reason. Salient2 is smooth, stating as fact that which is still unproven.

The idea basically comes from Darwin, where he stated that if it were found that a change could not happen incrementally, that it required multiple changes at once, that this would refute his theory of natural selection.

I read some of the posts with the pat answers and dogma, however, Behe and others are finding that there are a lot of serious unanswered questions about natural creation that question its validity. Many of the hypotheses are unproved and accepted on faith. Does that sound familiar?

A good summary of the pros and cons, though admittedly by a Christian, who tried to be objective, is a Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It's a good book that gives a high level overview of a lot of information.

Answer 3

Well first of all and simply, irreducible complexity can evolve, eg. by the loss of parts that previously existed. Once a part is superfluous, it is a waste of resources, so a lot of evolution can be about loosing parts that are no longer needed (... like a tail). Further, parts often change in function, or arise through duplication.

But also, just because we can't imagine how something did evolve, doesn't mean that it didn't. Many (all?) of the trivial number of apparent examples of irreducible complexity have been solved fairly easily (eg. peoples links above).

Answer 4

The concept of irreducible complexity usually indicates a lack of imagination on the part of the claimer. What Richard Dawkins calls the "Argument from Personal Incredulity" ie "I personally can't possibly think of a way this could have evolved, therefore it must have been god"

Most of Richard Dawkins books deal with it in some detail, I'm not sure about his website. The Talk Reason folks have lots of articles.
http://www.talkreason.org/index.cfm

Answer 5

I am not aware of any structure that is so complex and appears to have formed out of nothing. Certainly, complex systems do not form correctly 100% of the time in many creatures, but for those that do have all systems working, the survival advantages are astounding. One of my favorite systems is the mammalian kidney -- simple, elegant, and sufficiently complex that the intermediate forms in evolution are difficult to ponder. Of course one only need look at the inelegant construction of the human knee, and find no evidence of design.

Answer 6

Did you know that many of the proteins involved in clotting in mammals began their evolutionary existence as digestive enzymes?

Also, the idea of the irreducibly complex mouse trap has a counter example: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

Answer 7

Its simple organs evolve in conjunction with others. The bee evolved at the same time the flower evolved.Its called Co-evolution. Sure you remove one part now and the system fails but they evolved together, not separately.

Answer 8

And this idea, who proposed it? Is it an idea, a hypothesis, or a theory?

An elephant without a trunk? A tapir
A giraffre without a neck? An okapi

Which bit in particular?

Answer 9

Instead of posting each very long counter-argument, I'm just going to leave you with this link so that you can visit the site yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Criticisms_and_contrary_evidence

Answer 10

You should stop reading Christian pseudo-science. There is a great explanation, and I would suggest that you follow the link provided by the first poster.
Just because you don't understand something does not mean "poof" god did it.