Evolutionary athiests....?

Question

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the principle of "irreducable complexity". In short, it's the principle that some biological structures are so complex that if you were to remove the slightest element from the machine like system, it would completely fail. So a piece by piece evolutionary progress model has some difficutly explaining this.

Answer 1

Evolutionists generally don't understand the complexities of science. You have to break it down a bit and tone down some of the big words for them.

Try again using irreducably simple words.
.

Answer 2

Irreducible complexity is always a misnomer, a straw man created by theists who neither understand evolution and have no better argument against evolution. A typical (indeed wearisome) example is the human eye. It truly is an amazing consequence of natural selection. But all of the elements of it existed in the DNA of other organisms for millions of years. Bacteria evolved translucency and photosensitivity within the first million years or so of life evolving (which was 3 billion years ago). At the level of DNA there is no irreducible complexity. Everything has its evolutionary purpose, and can usually be traced, nowadays, through the DNA chain.

Dawkins gives a much fuller answer than I ever could on pages 125-35 of The God Delusion. But the basic argument is given above.

Answer 3

Not at all.

Your argument works from the end of the process, that everything was done for a specific purpose. Which makes sense for something that was designed.

If you're going to understand scientifically-accepted evolutionary theory, you need to start from the beginning. Mutations happen randomly. There is no design or purpose or concern for the end result. They just happen.

Those that increase the chances of an organism (and/or its offspring) surviving and/or reproducing are carried into the next generation in greater numbers. Again, there's no design, purpose or concern for the end result.

This multiplication of a beneficial mutation just occurs. Eventually the mutations add up to the point that we recognise it as something somewhat different. Along the way, any one of those mutations could have not happened, or failed to multiply, or been curtailed by another mutation or natural event. That would lead to a different result. But it would still lead somewhere.

Arguments like 'irreducible complexity' argue from the end results, as if that alternative result couldn't possibly happen. That's not how evolution works.

Answer 4

Evolution doesn't work by building things piece by piece like some biological lego set. Individual components and indeed the organism as a whole mutate from simpler forms over successive generations. Irreducible complexity is one of the ideas that could, if proven, falsify evolution. One of the favorite arguments to support such an idea being the complexity of the eye. Rather than imagining that each part of the eye was added indivdually to build it up to such complexity, think of it more like successive stages beginning with a light sensitive spot of skin that mutates into a pit, which further mutates into a "pinhole camera", which forms a membrane over the hole, which develops into a lens and cornea and iris. This of course take hundreds of millions of years and millions of generations of trillions, quadrillions, or quintillions (some really big number, I'm not entirely sure) of individuals to acomplish. As it turns out, these intermediate stages all exist in the mollusk phyllum and therefore could have mutated from simpler forms.

Irreducible complexity is often held up as one of the few pieces of evidence to support intelligent design, but so far nothing has been proven to be irreducible complex.

Answer 5

It's an interesting idea, but hardly a "knock 'em down and drag 'em out" refutation of evolutionary thought.

There are several possible answers to the concept, differing as to whether it is applied to the creation of particular organs or features of living organisms, or is being applied to the origin of life itself (not, strictly, an issue in evolutionary science, but a precursor field)

On the latter, for example, you could consider the foam hypothesis, or panspermia, or the clay substrate hypothesis, or a combination of these. Just for starters.

With the increasing (recent) knowledge of prions, the understanding that self-replication can occur at simpler levels than previously thought has been enlightening, though not necessarily of direct relevance.

So as a stimulus to thought, it's worth keeping the idea around. As a new label for a "God of the gaps" (we don't see how this could have happened, so God must have done it) it's a terrible idea.

Answer 6

Most specific ID ideas of irreducible complexity have been refuted. (the eye, bacterium flagella, etc).

Also evolution by natural selection comes in clumps of pieces often...think of a abnormal mutation where a person has say...6 fingers....is that a simple chemical mutation? No, leaps occur and evolution by natural selection still makes perfect sense.

You look at it backwards...it's not a finished product with parts...it's a work in progress and the "stage" its in and its "effectiveness" are subjective and arbitrarily defined.

With the trillions to the trillioneth power of chemical reactions that are occuring every second, it's not inconcievable that these working structures do what they do. Your viewpoint is limited and your logic flawed.

Answer 7

Irreducable complexity ignores the possibility that there may have previously been another, parallel piece in place while the one currently there was developed, and so the "machine" could still function. It is another pointless argument made by people who don't really understand evolution, and are clutching at the straws people tell them are good arguments.

Answer 8

No it doesn't. You don't build a wall, you put one brick on top of another. Once it is built, removing one component may make the whole thing collapse.

Cut the flight feathers off of a bird, it can't fly. So, one may assume that early birds had to have a full set of flight feathers. Yes?

No. Feathers were first developed as a form of insulation. Larger feathers may then have allowed the bird to glide. Even larger ones, and a keel in the chest allowed it to fly properly. Increased complexity - to an extent - but still showing advantages over earlier, yet advantageous, characteristics.

Nice question though. A bit of thought went in to it.

Answer 9

It's a bad argument. It's unsound, illogical, and has been thoroughly refuted in every respect. In the end, it is just saying the same thing as all other intelligent design (ID) arguments; i.e. "We don't fully understand how some biological structures came to be, therefore, it must have been designed by some kind of separate intelligence." The logical mistake, of course, is the unwarranted leap to some kind of intelligence, just because we don't fully understand something.

The recent Dover trial smashed this argument completely:

While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who coined the term "irreducable complexity", conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."

In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:

- "Professor Behe admitted in "Reply to My Critics" that there was a defect in his view of irreducible complexity because, while it purports to be a challenge to natural selection, it does not actually address "the task facing natural selection." and that "Professor Behe wrote that he hoped to "repair this defect in future work..." (Page 73)

- "As expert testimony revealed, the qualification on what is meant by "irreducible complexity" renders it meaningless as a criticism of evolution. (3:40 (Miller)). In fact, the theory of evolution proffers exaptation as a well-recognized, well-documented explanation for how systems with multiple parts could have evolved through natural means." (Page 74)

- "By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity..." (Page 75)

- "As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." (Page 76)

- "...on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fiftyeight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))." (Page 78)

- "We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally, even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66 (Fuller)). We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for design encompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnich throughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we see parts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference is quantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). As previously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the Reverend William Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paley reach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed using the same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify the designer, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6- 7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductive argument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruled out. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller))." (Pages 79-80)

Answer 10

This would be a problem if Evolutionary Theory proposed a piece by piece model. It does not. Since one sequence of DNA can code for many different proteins (depending on the nucleotides skipped or translated), simple changes in the DNA can account for many higher order changes. Organisms are, then, be able to evolve functionally rather than mechanism by mechanism.

Answer 11

I think I've got a good explanation for that. Viruses are the simplest form of life. However, a Virus needs the biology of another life form in order to survive. Therefore, viruses couldn't have been the first form of life. Single celled organisms, which are more complex than viruses, came first, and evolved in the more simple form, virus. I don't know if that answers your question, but that's about the only way I know how to explain it.