Proof evolution is not real?

Question

People keep telling me that irreducible complexity is absolute proof we did not evolve. I don't think this is true. They often use the example of the flagellum motor and the mouse trap. If anyone is familiar with these concepts and can give me some information as to why it does not disprove evolution, it would be greatly appreciated! thank you!

Answer 1

This is an example of "argumentum ad incredulum", or "argument from incredulity". "Irreducible complexity" is a scientific-sounding term for "I don't want to believe it because it's way too complicated".

Answer 2

You can read about the irreducible complexity argument, and the mousetrap and flagellum example, in the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.

Behe's conclusion is that there have been, at different times in Earth's history, intelligent design of biochemical systems.

My opinion is that this conclusion isn't supported, and that evolution is the better answer based on evidence.

The flagellum motor didn't appear out of thin air. Components similar to the motor's are involved in other processes in the cell. It's possible that copies of those genes were repurposed (evolved). Some self-assembly later et voila. A billion years is a long time. Cells can and do produce structures that aren't useful. A long time of shaking out the losers, coupled with mutation, can produce a few winners.

Answer 3

I have never heard of an example of 'irreducible complexity' that could not actually be reduced.

One that is often cited is the human eye. Obviously a modern human eye needs all its parts working in a certain way in order to see well. So anti-evolutionists suggest that you couldn't have an eye without one part or another part.

What they ignore is that evolution often doesn't work that way. It is capable of working in such a way that a dozen parts DO tend to change at the same time.

We can see a very very primitive 'eye' in the form of an eye spot that some microorganisms have - it can't produce images, it just detects whether light is present or not. From there it's not too hard to imagine (and find existant examples of) changes in shape to distinguish direction, protective layers which could turn into a lens, and so on and so forth.

In fact, this one example of supposed 'irreducible complexity' is so well worked out now that anti-evolutionists have stopped citing it as an example... moving on to things that are a little less worked out.

But it underscores a point: There is a BIG difference between something that CAN'T be simplified, and something that you DON'T UNDERSTAND how it could be simplified. There are lots of things we don't understand... there are no known examples of things that are IMPOSSIBLE to have been derived.

Answer 4

Irreducible complexity was retracted by its progenitor, Michael Behe. However, there are other proofs against evolution. Besides, we cannot be absolutely sure that either evolution or creationism is absolutely false because we do not have absolute evidence for either of them. Anyone who claims to have absolute proof for something should be under scrutiny; no credible scientist or debater ever assumes that their proof is absolute.

Answer 5

Hi there, Watch this great BBC horizon documentary on Google video, it deals specifically with your question and the flagellum motor in particular.

The documentary is called "A War on Science" and is primarily a discussion of the Intelligent Design movement.

Answer 6

This idea is saying that because i dont understand it then it must be false. Irreducible complexity says that a system is too exact in its nature and that without even one of itscomponents it would collapse, isnt this true about computers?

Answer 7

Here is the response specifically to the flagellum:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

And here's a very nice discussion (including animations) of the mousetrap example, and the fallacy of irreducible complexity:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

Answer 8

umm... evolution is not true. no you read the Bible?

Answer 9

these links are good

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI101.html
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html