Can you give 1 example of a biological system that is irreducibly complex?

Question

Behe's notion of "irreducible complexity" tells us that individual components of a complex biological system could not have evolved independent of each other because they would have no evolutionary function on their own.

The eye and bacterial flagellum have both been offered as prime examples of irreducible complexity but both have been soundly refuted by science as we've shown both evolved through a series of gradations and in fact, all components making up each system have at 1 time served a purpose independent of the system.

Keep in mind, a system that cannot function without 1 of it's components (take away the lens and the human eye can't see) is not, by definition, irreducibly complex unless it can be shown that each component could not have evolved on it's own.

So I'm looking for a new example, 1 that holds up.

Anyone?

Please explain why you believe your example is irreducibly complex.

Sheepdog needs more background on the topic. Irreducible complexity hasn't been disproved by science. This isn't my point. All I pointed out was that the eye and flagellum have both been shown by highly respected biologists (the likes of Ken Miller) to have evolved through gradation. If you want to argue with Ken I hope you've got some serious credentials (which I doubt).

As a matter of fact, the notion of irreducible complexity has to date, no means of falsification so it can't be "proven wrong".

Read the question. Don't read into the question.

Good answer Mike. I don't agree, but nicely thought out.

The woodpecker evolved so it could more effectively attain food. Genetic drift answers the question. Genetic mutations beneficial to the species become more pronounced over time. Thus, what originally served only as a tongue eventually wraps around the brain and serves as a shock absorber.

As for what parts of a system "could" or "couldn't" function independent of other components, IC proponents simply need to offer an example that science cannot show as independently functional.

Answer 1

A woodpecker's tongue. It wraps around the skull and then comes out the mouth.

Now unless some bird just suddenly grew a tongue that was really, really long and then swallowed it and pushed it up around the skull, there would be no way to evolve a tongue that grew around the skull. First, if it just grew a really long tongue, there would be no room for it in the beak, and it would wind up either flying around with it's tongue dangling out in the wind, or swallowing it and choking to death. If it started growing around the skull first, it wouldn't be long enough, and it would have no tongue. Now the only advantage a long tongue would have is if it were a woodpecker, but woodpeckers need their tongues wrapped around their skulls first, so they don't get one walloping headache (have you ever tried pounding your head through a tree? It hurts).

The long tongue would be no good if it didn't already have the super-strong beak and special neck and padded skull, so there would be no reason to evolve a long tongue.

But say this woodpecker first evolved the strong beak and special neck for, I don't know, cracking nuts open or something. But it was getting headaches even from pounding its head against the nuts, so it grew its tongue up around its skull for padding. Well now we have a problem, because the tongue can't reach, like I said before. So said woodpecker can now safely poke a hole in a tree, but the hole does it no good, because it can't catch the bugs in the tree to eat.

But really, if you put your mind to it, you can prove or disprove anything. Especially if you're going by "it COULD have happened". I'm going to say Genghis Khan never existed. All those stories about him are a result of bedtime stories Mongolian traders told to their kids while in Europe or wherever Mongolian descendants have spread out to. Official records were forged. It's all just one big hoax. That COULD be true, but it's not likely.

Answer 2

This isn't a real question.

You're not looking for "proof" of anything.

That you assert that science has "soundly refuted" the irreducible complexity of the eye and flagellum, and that "[you]'ve shown both evolved through a series of gradations", are clear indicators that, for want of a better way of putting it, you've drunk the Kool-Aid.

The fact is, science has NOT disproven irreducible complexity--particularly the irreducible complexity of those structures. Furthermore, the state of knowledge that we have achieved thus far CANNOT disprove it. The only thing evolutionary dogmatists can offer--and have offered abundantly--is theory.

Unless you can reproduce in the laboratory the evolutionary processes which gave rise to they eye and flagellum, you have no proof that that's the way it happened.

The theory which you cherish so dearly is held IN FAITH, just as much as the creation story of Genesis is held by fundamentalist Christians.

Answer 3

You won't find an example in biology, except for the still-missing link between true organisms and the elements of the "primordial soup."

The universe itself is irreducibly complex, because the laws of nature and the Big Bang do not show any evidence of "evolving" from a set of simpler laws or a prior state. What Aristotle called the "uncaused cause."

Answer 4

Most complex supramolecular biological structures have primarily this type of accessibility by Darwinian evolution, with examples being bat echolocation, spiders' web construction, honeybee waggle dances, and insect mimicry by orchids

Answer 5

Its a matter of perception. We can choose to see the biological miracles and subatomic and quantum miracles as Gods work, or as a functioning symbiotic universe. God is in the eye of the beholder. Proof, we will not find.

Answer 6

Behe- who isn't a qualified biologist and who stated in Darwin's black box "Darwin has triumphed"? Did he really say that?

Answer 7

science, contrary to popular belief, is just theory! The degradation of humanity through environmental destruction and unhealthy diet and lifestyle is not evolution it's degradation! If everything seeks to evolve to higher state and humans evolved from primates, then why are primates still primates?

Answer 8

Ken miller rocks there is no such thing

Answer 9

preheat the oven to 450 degrees, pinch of salt, 1 clove of garlic and your good to go.

:o)

Answer 10

you just used a couple words that most xians won't understand until they go to dictionary.com.

give them time to answer.