Irreducible Complexity - God guides evolution?

Question

Like a mechanical motor, each part in the flagellar motor is absolutely necessary for the whole to function. Therefore, I couldn't logically deduce any naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the existence of a bacterial flagellum. Besides, no one would expect an outboard motor, whether mechanical or biological, to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Outboard motors are designed and engineered!

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm

mooseback333 - What?

Answer 1

the problem with irreducible complexity is that the vast majority of scientists believe, from looking at the problem, that it is the sort of problem that science can solve. It is not the sort of problem that science can NOT solve.

We can not logically deduce any process, as you describe, but science is confident that it will be able to. So it is true that science can not say irreducible complexity has been proven wrong, but science can say 'we believe a scientific explanation will be found'

Answer 2

The concept of irreducible complexity is a false premise. Take the example of an arch. If you remove any piece of an arch, it will fall down - so it must have been created that way - right? Wrong. There would have been scaffolding in place to support the arch while it is being built. Once the keystone is put in place then the scaffolding is removed and you are left with an arch. The same is true for living organisms. Just because you cannot conceptualize how they developed different systems and functions that are seemingly 'irreducibly complex' does not actually mean that they had to have been created that way. A bacterium flagella motor would have developed as a secondary function - the bacterium would already have some means of moving, but it wasn't very efficient. A simple mistake in the copying of its genetic sequence allowed it to develop the flagellum in addition to its already existing motive system - and once the flagellum developed to the point that it made the bacterium be able to move more efficiently - thus giving it an advantage over bacterium that moved slower - it would be able to pass its genetic code on, while the slower moving bacterium died out. Once it had the more efficient motive system (which was most likely built on the existing one) the portions that were no longer necessary were slowly weeded out, leaving what you see today. Keep in mind that science does not necessarily preclude your belief in a creator - since we still have no real answer to the question about how 'life' originated. The fact is, whatever the source of life is, it has evolved to the point that it is at now.

Answer 3

It is interesting that advocates of intelligent design can keep asking the same questions again and again in different forms. This is essentially the same as asking about the use of half an eye, an argument skillfully put aside by Darwin such a long time ago. This new version, first put forward by the rather dubious MIchael Behe was just as skillfully put aside by the excellent biochemist Kenneth Miller. The idea we must put aside in the case of the flagella is that the whole must exist all together doing this particular job perfectly. This is simply not the case. The molecules that came to be involved in the flagella could well have been involved in very different things and due to a mutation bringing them together have formed a flagella similar to that which we see today. From this point it is not hard to imagine that further advantageous mutations would occur over a period of time resulting in the flagella we know and love. Miller draws our attention to the type three secretory system or TTSS. This is one of several systems used by parasitic bacteria in order to pump poisons through their cell walls and into their host organism. Each molecule is individually pumped through a specifically shaped hole, like an automatic slot machine. if we compare the molecular structure of the TTSS and the bacterial flaggella we see that they are very similar. From an evolutionary perspective it now becomes clear that TTSS component were commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the flagellar motor evolved. we can make the leap from the motion of tugging individual molecules across the cell wall to the flagellar tugging the molecules of the axle around and round. We can see then that the flagellar did not evolve in one big leap, but as with many molecules and chemical processes is the results of different molecules being changed and modified as a result of mutation. It is important to understand that there is NO CHANCE INVOLVED. the flagellum did NOT come about by chance. A mutation which increases the survival/ fecundity of an organism will increase in frequency; those which do the opposite will fail to be spread. Applying this basic principle to any aspect of life will help you find out why something is the way it is.

Answer 4

The flagellar motor is not irreproducibility complex. The continued assertion that the fact that all proteins being required for the flagellum to act as a motor does not indicate that an incomplete flagellum to have biological benefit. It is known that the flagellar proteins share homology with other bacterial proteins.

Answer 5

Sure. Except that very argument has been debunked. The flagellar motor began as something other than an "outboard motor" and was co-opted as a mode of loco-motion at one point. Often in evolution, an organ evolves with one purpose and takes on another at some point when it is found to be useful.

Answer 6

Absolutely no such thing. There has only been a singe peer reviewed paper on the subject that I know of and it was destroyed by several others that came within months of it. Any real scientist would have withdrawn the paper, but I guess Dr. Behe doesn't have that kind of ethics.

Answer 7

the definition is a selffullfilling , since he is only talking about those parts that contribute to the basic function. ofcourse if you remove such a part the machine stops functioning by definition.

"Irreducible Complexity" -- "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." 1
'

Answer 8

Outboard motors didn't evolve bucko. Your really just stretching here. And let's say a god did create evolution. What makes you think it's your god?

Answer 9

There`s no better example of irreducible complexity than god itself.

Answer 10

What about all the branches of evolution that didn't cut the mustard and died off? What would be the point of that?