Irreducible complexity

[rez]

I was watching TBN (Trinity broadcasting network) and they had a documentary on Intelligent Design. Certain scientists described various arguments as to why the Universe must of been designed by something intelligent. Although I understand fully well that science has nothing to do with such a notion, I was perplexed by one of the arguments. Irreducible complexity, as I understood from the documentary, argues that very small organisms have such complex design that slow gradual change from a more simple organism could not occur. (as I write this, I now see some flaws in this argument)

Charles Darwin writes in the Origin Species

Quote by: Charles Darwin "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

So, do you think it is possible to demonstrate and discover such an organism that could not have been formed by numerous successive modifications? (They showed an example of an organism that has a spinning tail, and described the various parts that operate this organism...Does anybody know the name of this?)

Are organisms classified into species like animals are? For instance, the Tucan family has many types of species such as Andigena, Aulacorhynchus etc..

What are some counter arguments toward irreducible complexity?

[Jack]

Of all these examples, the flagellum has been presented so often as a counter-example to evolution that it might well be considered the "poster child" of the modern anti-evolution movement. Variations of its image (Figure 1) now appear on web pages of anti-evolution groups like the Discovery Institute, and on the covers of "intelligent design" books such as William Dembski's No Free Lunch (Dembski 2002a). To anti-evolutionists, the high status of the flagellum reflects the supposed fact that it could not possibly have been produced by an evolutionary pathway.

The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.

Read more...

That page may give you some good thinking-points on why irreducible complexity is a bogus idea.

[Technosoul]

They love to quote that statement by Charles Darwin. But Darwin might have misspoken when making that statement, This is not proof that the whole theory of evolution is wrong just because of one statement by Darwin. Some micro organisms if well adapted to their envirnoment would not have evolved into anything else.

We see little signs of ants and cockrouches evolving from their fossil like images into modern alternatives.

The problem I find with the Creationist Science people is that 90 percent of their "teaching" is about finding faults with the theory of evolution, especially the older works of people like Darwin.

They also use new findings to prove that the Bible is correct. For example: Scientists measured the depth of cosmic dust at one location on the moon and then, based on that measurement, determined that the moon started collecting dust 10 thousand years ago. Aha! proof that the earth and moon was created Ten Thousand years ago and not millions of years ago. So they claim. The Bible suggested a time frame of about 10 thousand years ago (based on the estimated time between Adam and Jesus - due to passages about who begat whom).

Even scientists can find some faults with the original theory of evolution and they have made corrections in the theory and have come up with more modern versions. It is a on-going study as new evidence is uncovered. But finding fault with some of the older concepts is not proof that the only alternitive for evolution is creation by a God ( Higher Intelligence).

Which is what the Creationist bases their science on.

So far I have seen them present any facts about how God created the universe scientifically. They have presented no scientific facts about how a higher intelligence could have created a Adam out of clay by breathing upon that idol image of that God. No scientific evidence that pottery can "come alive" as a flesh and blood person. Where is their science about how things came into being via "being made and molded" by the Voice of a Higher Intelligence,. or "whatever"?

The fact that people can build working cars and computers is not absolute proof that the universe was made the same way, or life on earth, just because you can find designs and patterns in both. The idea of "designer people who make designer drugs" is an interesting idea but where is the proof of the pudding when it comes to being a science, or a scientific fact.

After they bash some of the shortcomings and point out the missing links in the theory of evolution they then revert back to "faith" and "belief" in order not to demonstrate the science of creation a human life from damp clay.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I think this idea is ridiculous. If the human mind can evolve from simpler minds then I don't think any physical attribute of any animal could be labeled "too complex" to have developed from gradual changes.

Even if these organisms developed from some process other than gradual evolutionary change, I find it doubtful that they came from some the pre-thought design of some intelligent being. You could just as easily theorize they arrived on the planet from some far away asteroid, also farfetched but more plausible than an intelligent designer.

I think the proponents of this theory are just trying so hard to find some kind of evidence to support their religiously based claims, and they're not making logical claims based on evidence.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: rez What are some counter arguments toward irreducible complexity?

The counter argument is, it's a false conclusion. Aliens transporting that creature across the cosmos is just as likely a reason for it not having evolutionary evidence.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul They love to quote that statement by Charles Darwin.

Right. They do. And then they offer the flagellum as an example.

Quote by: Technosoul But Darwin might have misspoken when making that statement,

Nope. I'm pretty sure that he said what he meant.

Quote by: Technosoul This is not proof that the whole theory of evolution is wrong just because of one statement by Darwin.

It isn't because of the statement by Darwin that the theory would be wrong. The theory would be wrong if one complex organ could be found that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. Didn't you read the OP?

Quote by: Technosoul Some micro organisms if well adapted to their envirnoment would not have evolved into anything else.

Which is meaningful to the point of the thread and the arguments by creations exactly how? And you base that assertion on what evidence?

Quote by: Technosoul We see little signs of ants and cockrouches evolving from their fossil like images into modern alternatives.

What? Not sure what you mean by that. Even 92 million year old ant fossils show diversity. However, the greatest evolutionary radiation of genera and species didn't happen until after 65 million years ago. A transitional species between wasps and ants has been found that is exactly as it was predicted to be. But the fact that ants have indeed evolved is beside the point since the topic is about whether there exists an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. The topic is not whether or not any change has taken place in any organism.

Quote by: Technosoul The problem I find with the Creationist Science people is that 90 percent of their "teaching" is about finding faults with the theory of evolution, especially the older works of people like Darwin.

Except for the fact that few creationists have ever read anything by Darwin, it is true that, for the most part, "creation science" consists of trying to disprove evolution, not in offering evidence that supports creation.

Quote by: Technosoul They also use new findings to prove that the Bible is correct. For example: Scientists measured the depth of cosmic dust at one location on the moon and then, based on that measurement, determined that the moon started collecting dust 10 thousand years ago. Aha! proof that the earth and moon was created Ten Thousand years ago and not millions of years ago. So they claim.

Dead wrong. You have it backwards. The creationist claim was based on an inaccurate estimate of in-fall of cosmic dust on earth. In spite of subsequent measurements made on the tops of high mountains and by instruments in orbit that reduced estimates of the amount of cosmic dust falling on the earth (and therefore also on the moon) by orders of magnitude, creationists continued to use the first erroneous number. You will hear creationists say that NASA was afraid that the 1st lunar mission would sink into the dust. No such thing because they didn't expect much dust as previous orbiters, impacters, and landers had pretty much shown that the most recent estimates of dust accumulation were correct. But creationists continued and still continue to use the original incorrect estimation. Thus, they claim that there is only about 10,000 years of dust accumulation.

Quote by: Technosoul The Bible suggested a time frame of about 10 thousand years ago (based on the estimated time between Adam and Jesus - due to passages about who begat whom).

So creationists claim.

Quote by: Technosoul Even scientists can find some faults with the original theory of evolution and they have made corrections in the theory and have come up with more modern versions.

Actually, all 5 of Darwin's major theories have been supported. Even the rediscovery of genetics supported Darwin's original work.

Quote by: Technosoul It is a on-going study as new evidence is uncovered. But finding fault with some of the older concepts is not proof that the only alternitive for evolution is creation by a God ( Higher Intelligence).

True.

Quote by: Technosoul Which is what the Creationist bases their science on.

Actually, creationists don't use science.

Quote by: Technosoul So far I have seen them present any facts about how God created the universe scientifically.

Do you mean you haven't seen them present facts? It would be better state that they present no evidence. After all, what is a scientific fact? Do you know?

Quote by: Technosoul After they bash some of the shortcomings and point out the missing links in the theory of evolution they then revert back to "faith" and "belief" in order not to demonstrate the science of creation a human life from damp clay.

Please explain some of these shortcomings and point out these missing links for us.

[RickSp]

Whenever I hear anyone mention "irreducible complexity" I am reminded of high school students saying "but calculus is sooooo haaaaarrrrrdd!"

The existence of complexity in nature, at virtually every level of development, is hardly surprising. On the contrary, the absense of complexity might be more remarakble.

[xyzer]

I'm amazed that many cannot admit that we do not know everything there is to know about the universe we live in..Metaphysics?
I would suggest that that is why humankind sometimes resorts to religion in an effort to explain the unexplainable?
Sure evolution is a fact! But some processes are still unexplained and incomprehensible to even the scientific community? How it all began is another facet of the universe that has never been scientifically proved or demonstrated. It's still in the realm of theory? Isn't that what the term irreducible complexity refers to? We just don't know all the answers?

That is why I shudder when people start insisting on one theory or another as absolute? That is why I shudder when some rebuff religious beliefs as another explanation of the unknown? Is not religion just another avenue to the human conception of metaphysics and the sometimes unexplained series of lifes events? At this stage of our scientific knowledge much of the scientic communitities explanation of creation is still also conjecture..unproven theory?

[Geneticist]

Quote by: rez So, do you think it is possible to demonstrate and discover such an organism that could not have been formed by numerous successive modifications?

On a molecular level biology shows amazing ingenuity in its ability to reuse the same basic platforms upon which to build nearly all of its necessary parts. Its very much a modular system, so that from the same basic parts one can piece them together with slight modification so as to build a huge variety of molecules and systems.

What this basically means is that on the molecular level you can find homologous molecules doing something completely different. This basically makes the idea of finding an irreducible complex part or system nearly impossible as it not only demonstrates that only slight modification is needed to create new function, but also that it makes it far easier to come up with possible means by which a system or molecule could evolve.

For instance the "motor" of the bacterial flagellum which you mention is in many ways similar to ATP synthetase and could have evolved from such an enzyme complex.

Quote by: gallo Except for the fact that few creationists have ever read anything by Darwin

Few evolutionists have read him as well.

[Osborn F Enready]

Was Darwin Wrong?
Thursday, December 7, 2006, at 10P
Our planet Earth is teeming with life. To some, it's a miracle - but can science explain how it came into existence? Critics have attacked the theory of evolution for 150 years. They claim it is full of holes, and the gaps reveal the hand of an Intelligent Designer. Naked Science investigates this explosive science and asks, was Darwin wrong?


I watched this on National Geographic Channel last night. Simply the best 1 hour presentation I have seen bringing to light what is known of Darwins theory as far as the latest "challenges" are concerned, and I think to any rational mind, explaining the answer of where we came from.

The explanation and demonstration of the evolution of the "eye", was absoutely awesome, and answered some personal questions for me.

I think if you have intrest in the question of where we came from, you should watch this, its well worth it. (I'm sure it will repeat, I'll check the listing)

Here's the repeat time and date:
National Geographic Channel
National Geographic Channel TV Schedule - Mysterious Science: Was Darwin Wrong? [N/A]
Was Darwin Wrong?
Sunday, December 10, 2006, at 05P
(check local listings for time)

[Hostile55]

Whenever I hear anyone mention "irreducible complexity" I am reminded of high school students saying "but calculus is sooooo haaaaarrrrrdd!"

True. Very true.

I'm amazed that many cannot admit that we do not know everything there is to know about the universe we live in..Metaphysics?

I think the term metaphysics is a misnomer. Just because we can't explain something, doesn't make it 'beyond the physical', just beyond our understaning of the physical.

For instance the "motor" of the bacterial flagellum which you mention is in many ways similar to ATP synthetase and could have evolved from such an enzyme complex.

The term for this is 'Exaptation'. That is the counter to the irreducible comlpexity argument - exaptation.

An exaptation is a biological adaptation where the biological function currently performed by the adaptation was not the function performed while the adaptation evolved under earlier pressures of natural selection.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: rez as I understood from the documentary, argues that very small organisms have such complex design that slow gradual change from a more simple organism could not occur. (as I write this, I now see some flaws in this argument) So, do you think it is possible to demonstrate and discover such an organism that could not have been formed by numerous successive modifications? What are some counter arguments toward irreducible complexity?

The obvious potential flaw in this argument is that whoever posed "irreducible complexity" assumes life can not evolve into simpler forms. However, when the asteroid hit and ice ages ensue, large animals must either evolve to be compatible with the environment, or terminate. So a species of moth might for instance lose it's wings and thrive on the ground near geothermal hot springs. A once beautiful butterfly with the relatively complex social behaviors might evolve into something completely different, but with apparent "irreducible complexity".

The study of insects is foreign to me, I simply see where due to losses in food supplies a species might evolve into simpler forms to survive. Remove the high protein uptake of humans and we become significantly intellectually inferior. Over a period of time we would be little different intellectually than our cousins the apes. We can get protein from soy and other vegetables, but if in a region protein sources were just not available, our brains would devolve.

[Fonceai]

Evolution is not a scalar quantity; it is not more complex or more simple.

It's a vector quantity that reflects the rate of evolution and nothing more.

Nuclear winter and a blackout over the planet doesn't mean an organism has to "evolve into something simpler." There's no such thing.

An organism evolves an adaptation or dies. And that is the proverbial "it".

It if turns out a less complicated organ structure is the trait needed for survival, the organism isn't evolving into something simpler.

It is evolving into something that survives.

[rez]

Are organisms classified into species like animals are? For instance, the Tucan family has many types of species such as Andigena, Aulacorhynchus etc..

[Hostile55]

Are organisms classified into species like animals are?

Animals are organisms.

[jamesbdunn]

Quote by: Fonceai It if turns out a less complicated organ structure is the trait needed for survival, the organism isn't evolving into something simpler. It is evolving into something that survives.

I can live with that point of view. But the point I so badly was trying to make is that if an organism is observed with complex features that could not directly evolve from a simpler state of evolution, then perhaps due to environmental conditions the organism became more complex and then had to become more compact or efficient to survive.

As a result, what appears to be an organism that is irreducible, is just the limitation of humans and our capacity to be faked out. Perhaps the more complex fossil needed to make this link is not yet discovered.

Much more effort has gone into connecting the links for human evolution. I would guess an insect is pretty low on the list of priorities for making similarly complete evolutionary links.

[Fonceai]

@jamesbdunn

What you are talking about is possible.

Consider that with high amounts of radiation there are multiple mutations. As the creature(s) breed, those mutations either weed themselves out or they strengthen over time.

From a certain perspective, if that creature's descendants return back to their non-mutated state after X number of generations, it would appear that the creature is "devolving" when actually it is just evolving "back" it's advantages.