Irreducible complexity: can you give 1 example of an IC system that hasn't already been explained...?

Question

...by science. The eye and bacterial flagellum are thoroughly debunked, dead horses. Any others?

wbusykat4- IC = irreducibly complex

If a complex biological system can be shown to be truly IC, the theory of evolution will need some major revision, or need to be scraped all together.

An IC system is comprised of several components that could NOT have evolved independent of each other. The eye was commonly used as an example of an IC system by intelligent design proponents because it was believed that the iris, pupil, and retina could not have evolved independent of each other. Evolutionary biologists have shown this isn't the case (Ken Miller is a good 1 to read up on). Bacterial flagellum has also been explained. I'm looking for a good candidate that has yet to be addressed.

vorenhutz - you make a common mistake with IC. Irreducibly complex systems cannot exist if evolution takes shape the way its understood.

Each component of a complex biological system must prove to have had a function independent of the rest of the system (prior to the development of the entire system) for evolution theory to work. To date, not 1 IC system has been alleged that biologists can't explain in detail.

I made the same mistake when I 1st started researching IC.

IC is still utterly baseless.

Josias B- This is a classic Intelligent Design position. "Evolution is not probable". Aside from disregarding what has already been observed (extensive fossil records of biological systems and entire species evolving through gradation), a massive problem arises once the alternative is considered.

To say "life must have been created by a higher power" simply begs the question. The claim is contra-natural and cannot be assigned probability. Yet you'd call it probable?

ID proponents have done some pretty strange math to conclude evolution is "not possible" because it's "utterly improbable". Then they contend that a higher power must be the answer. Why? Based on what? What's the probability? This is top down logic and isn't how the scientific method is applied.

I see no mystery behind the evolution of the venus fly trap or over a dozen other carnivorous plants. Living in environments low in nitrogen they've learned to adapt. Check out the bladderwort, a primitive fly trap.

Answer 1

the contention is that IC systems can't evolve. but it's been shown how many IC systems could have evolved, so is the problem that creationists are just very bad at identifying true IC systems, or is it that IC systems actually can be produced by evolution? either way the whole IC thing is looking like a pretty bad argument, which may be why behe's latest book is all about how unlikely favorable mutations are (but does he realise he's covering the same ground as hoyle, for example?).

of course there are other things they could point to, DNA is a kind of obvious one. naturally they must suppose that because it has not yet been explained in detail, it never will be.

Answer 2

I did some research on this. I have found that the evolutionary 'explanations' for IC systems invariably tended to lead me to another IC system. The scientific explanations do not show a linear path back to a common ancestor. Rather, they show a circular path that is bound within a type of creature. It appears as if it is not bound by species, but I suspect, rather, by one or two more classifications up (like Order). There really doesn't exist any conclusive scientific evidence for the full-scale evolutionary theory. I tried tracing back the evolution of the Venus Fly Trap. I couldn't get beyond its Family. This is what I mean by circular - tracing the evolution of a flower, or bee, or whatever, does not in the slightest sense, based upon current evidence, lead back to a basic life form such as a protozoa. The logic I've seen which combats the IC system is at best incomplete and at worst flawed and illogical. Either way, it has not proven itself to be a sufficient counterargument to the Creationist arguments to me, by any stretch of the imagination. The problem here is not on the small scale with one particular organism that appears to be IC on its own. The problem is with the grand scale picture - can you trace the evolution back through several organisms (some of which may appear IC) to something sufficiently different to warrant a claim of evolution? I concluded no. When taken with the standard used by other scientists (physicists, mathematicians, cosmologists, chemists, etc) to declare something statistically impossible, the probability of Evolution happening far surpasses the necessary qualifications to be declared statistically impossible - even if you could 'trace' (more accurately, the word is predict or extrapolate) the Venus Fly Trap's ancestry back far enough to suggest significant evolutionary trends.

However, some degree of evolution is an inescapable truth, as it has been observed in the most limited sense to cause speciation(sp) in rare cases. This does not automatically mean common ancestry, though. It just means things have the ability to adapt to the point of becoming incapable of reproducing with things they once were. (bad use of language, I know).

As a former chemist, now a computer engineer with great interest in the sciences, I would love to think that the scientific community has not hit a dead end in one of its theories. However, in this case I have found myself disappointed at the approach people have taken to this theory. Currently, the full-scale theory of evolution has only enough evidence and observation behind it to be considered a philosophy, by my understanding of the word. The degree and measure to which the scientific community pushes this theory as absolute, undeniable truth is embarrassing to me. Science has always been about challenging the conventionally accepted theories of the time - this is how new discoveries and progress is often made. How can progress be made if Evolution is automatically right? Theories become undeniable when they stand up to the criticism of skeptics, not when the criticism of skeptics is crushed under the authority of an influential community or committee. The Truth upholds itself.

Answer 3

The dead horse is an irreducible complexity. If it is dead, it cannot grow, therefor cannot reproduce, yet there are dead horses all over the place, and they're all being beatten up by people from the ID camp... So most certainly dead horses had to have been created, you can't evolve a dead horse : P

Answer 4

I really need to read more cause I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I am assuming you are talking about intelligent design? But what is an "IC system"?

Answer 5

Irreducible complexity is an excuse for believers in creationism or intelligent design. The problem with the idea is not that it is erroneous -- it is that it can't predict anything. So the theories are useless.

Answer 6

Dead Roses and God!