Irreducible Complexity - If you believe this, what's your main example?

[Ectezus]

Irreducible complexity is often claimed to be proof of creationism.
After all, even Darwin himself said:

"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." (followed by: "But I can find out no such case")

Obviously, in order to believe in the concept of irreducible complexity you must have some examples in your mind to support/confirm that opinion.

Side note: Lets for a second ignore that the truth about the diversity of life is not a dichotomy just between evolution and 'god did it'. Therefore disproving evolution isn't really proof for the Islamic/Christian or Hindu god's at all.
But I think we can all agree that if irreducible complexity were to be true it would have major impact in favor of religions all over the world.


In this topic I would like to ask any firm believer or advocate of creationism to give an example that according to you is absolute proof for "irreducible complexity".

1) Name your ONE main example that according to you could absolutely not have evolved over time.
2) State your reasons why you think this couldn't have evolved.

In response I invite everyone with a clear understanding of evolution to logically explain how evolution could in fact have formed the seemingly irreducible complex example.

- Ectezus

 

[Ectezus]

Personally,
I find it interesting this complexity to be the main argument against evolution when even back in 1919 the scientist Hermann J. Muller predicted that evolution by natural selection and random mutation will produce irreducible complex systems.

After all, what else would you expect with millions of small changes over time. At some point a mutation will happen to an earlier change and from there on it would appear that latest change could not have happened without the earlier phase.
Take our alphabet for example, lets say a letter can only mutate one letter beyond itself.
A -> B
B -> C
A -> C!
Is C impossible to form from just A directly? Yes absolutely, but that doesn't mean it can't be formed over time through B.

For demonstration purpose I'll explain 1 example that's often used by creationists:

Question:
1) Wings/Flight
2) Evolution says changes are small and gradual but a wing that can actually FLY is way to complex to have just been formed.

Explanation:
It's absolutely true wings that can fly are far too complex to just form without earlier steps. Therefore we have to look at the usefulness of these earlier steps.

But if an earlier step can't fly, then what good does it do?
Answer: Gliding.
Even small wings (unable to fly) cause wind resistance when falling down from heights (lets say treetops) and therefore it has a benefit for species that often fall down or probably more important: want to glide from a tree to another closeby tree. We have squirrels doing this today for example, just a simple piece of skin between their legs is highly useful to them.
Flying squirrel: http://extension.unh.edu/FHGEC/graphics/NFSqSM.jpg

So the gradual steps for more wind resistance can be explained as it is beneficial to certain organisms.
Going one step further; flapping your arms would create even more upward forces. Both stronger arms/wings and larger wing area would result in increased air time,even if it's still just gliding.
And at a certain point where the upward forces are equal or greater than the downward forces we have the very definition of flight.
Bat: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/166360567_55a8bcb61e.jpg?v=0


- Ectezus

 

[juvenissun]

Personally,
I find it interesting this complexity to be the main argument against evolution when even back in 1919 the scientist Hermann J. Muller predicted that evolution by natural selection and random mutation will produce irreducible complex systems.

After all, what else would you expect with millions of small changes over time. At some point a mutation will happen to an earlier change and from there on it would appear that latest change could not have happened without the earlier phase.
Take our alphabet for example, lets say a letter can only mutate one letter beyond itself.
A -> B
B -> C
A -> C!
Is C impossible to form from just A directly? Yes absolutely, but that doesn't mean it can't be formed over time through B.

For demonstration purpose I'll explain 1 example that's often used by creationists:

Question:
1) Wings/Flight
2) Evolution says changes are small and gradual but a wing that can actually FLY is way to complex to have just been formed.

Explanation:
It's absolutely true wings that can fly are far too complex to just form without earlier steps. Therefore we have to look at the usefulness of these earlier steps.

But if an earlier step can't fly, then what good does it do?
Answer: Gliding.
Even small wings (unable to fly) cause wind resistance when falling down from heights (lets say treetops) and therefore it has a benefit for species that often fall down or probably more important: want to glide from a tree to another closeby tree. We have squirrels doing this today for example, just a simple piece of skin between their legs is highly useful to them.
Flying squirrel: http://extension.unh.edu/FHGEC/graphics/NFSqSM.jpg

So the gradual steps for more wind resistance can be explained as it is beneficial to certain organisms.
Going one step further; flapping your arms would create even more upward forces. Both stronger arms/wings and larger wing area would result in increased air time,even if it's still just gliding.
And at a certain point where the upward forces are equal or greater than the downward forces we have the very definition of flight.
Bat: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/166360567_55a8bcb61e.jpg?v=0


- Ectezus

Are you saying squirrel evolved to bat? It sounds not too complicate.

 

[Hespera]

nobody in his right mind would say that a squirrel did or could evolve into a bat.

you will though notice that there are intermediate steps between full flight and no flight. There is even a snake that flattens its body and glides.

the standard creationist objection is that the animal that 'wants" to fly will jump off the cliff and plunge to its death because it does not have wings.

The existence of living animals that show simple experiments in ways to fly points to possibilities for how other animals actually did start on the road to full flight.

 

[Ectezus]

Are you saying squirrel evolved to bat? It sounds not too complicate.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was actually suggesting this...
I was merely giving a few examples. In the bats case you can clearly see large fingers and skin still between it's arms and legs like in the squirrels case.

Gliding doesn't even have to be the main reason for the evolution of wings. There are even wing origin hypothesis like: "large sexual postures" or "an expanded surface for cooling" (like elephant ears).
Gliding/surviving a fall from heights just makes the most sense with the date we have.

Irreducible complexity means that something does not have a solution that can be explained in gradual steps for as to remove a single part would make the whole thing stop functioning all together.
If you can explain something through natural & gradual steps the irreducible complexity argument is incorrect.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was actually suggesting this...
I was merely giving a few examples. In the bats case you can clearly see large fingers and skin still between it's arms and legs like in the squirrels case.

Gliding doesn't even have to be the main reason for the evolution of wings. There are even wing origin hypothesis like: "large sexual postures" or "an expanded surface for cooling" (like elephant ears).
Gliding/surviving a fall from heights just makes the most sense with the date we have.

Irreducible complexity means that something does not have a solution that can be explained in gradual steps for as to remove a single part would make the whole thing stop functioning all together.
If you can explain something through natural & gradual steps the irreducible complexity argument is incorrect.

How many steps are needed to be called complex? Reducible or not.

How could the example on bat be described as simple or complex?

 

[Ectezus]

How many steps are needed to be called complex? Reducible or not.

How could the example on bat be described as simple or complex?

Excellent question Juvenissun.

You realize that in order to know if something is irreducible you need to know how big the increments are that evolution can 'jump' sort to speak. We know creating a fully functioning wing out of nothing is impossible but it's hard to define the beneficial progress of mutations other than: small and gradual over relatively long periods of time.

A giraffes neck for example, for each millimeter the giraffe gains he will be able to reach some higher leaves that no other can eat, therefore the giraffe has a benefit compared to shorter species. Each gradual step has to have some sort of benefit. Same applies to the bat's long fingers which results in increased wingspan and thus better upward forces.

As for complexity. It's entirely subjective.
When creationists say "the eye is too complex to have just formed" it's obviously a weird statement. Too complex how, compared to what or what aspect of it?

This is the main reason why I've asked question 2) in my first post for those who want to give an example of proof for irreducible complexity.
You have to define what makes it 'too' complex in your opinion in order for someone else to show you why it's not.

No one is claiming evolution isn't complex, but claiming it's "too" complex requires proof because it has major consequenses.

In case of the human eye for example. It would indeed be absurd to think that our ancestors were somehow blind and then suddenly mutated a fully functioning eye out of nothing. That would in fact be evidence for creationism. Evolution has to explain this in gradual steps, which can be done:

a) The smallest step to imagine is a single light sensitive cell on a simple organism for example.
Detecting only light or dark would still be useful for determining whether you're above or below ground, or whether it's night or daytime.

b) Next add multiple of those same simple light sensitive cells together. Now instead of just light and dark you have the ability to determine shades of gray. In case of a fish this could possibly determine it's location beneath the water surface for as light penetrates the water with increasingly difficulty ie: it's gradually getting darker.

c) Now if a collection of clumped light cells would form even the shallowest is pits, one edge of the 'pit' would form a shadow and this would reveal the direction of light. I'm not even going to explain the huge benefit of this with an example.

d) As the hole gradually gets deeper and deeper it would be better fine-tuned to determine the direction and eventually allows bending of light for sharper images with the help of a simple crude lens. There are animals today that have these type of simple eyes and at this point we don't even have the ability to see in color or anything.
It's not hard to see how each small step is not only small but also beneficial and is thus affected by the principle of Natural Selection.

Anyway, my answers are getting a bit too long.
Instead of explaining the common creationists examples all by myself can someone come up with an example of what they think is actual proof for irreducible complexity? It's one of the, if not thé main foundation of creationism/intelligent design.

Surely if you believe it there must be a prime example that convinced you that irreducible complexity is true..?

- Ectezus

 

[shinbits]

first of all, it should be stated that ID and evolution do not contradict each other, except when fundamentalist propropents of ID insist that it does.


ID, free of any sort religious agenda, can flow with evolution.


that said, there are many examples of irreducible complexity. the galaxy and it's billions of stars, along with the solar system, the planets and thier many satalites, asteroids and comets, which all orbit and rotate in cyclical and predictable fashion, could not have arisen by mere chance.

 

[consol]

there are many examples of irreducible complexity. the galaxy and it's billions of stars, along with the solar system, the planets and thier many satalites, asteroids and comets, which all orbit and rotate in cyclical and predictable fashion, could not have arisen by mere chance.

So a higher power made it all? which itself arose by mere chance? no, the higher power is much too complex for that,
so that also had to be designed and made by a much higher power,
these are the ramblings of madmen or people who are afraid of something,
where and why did these stories arise? they arose back in a time when people knew nothing,
we don't know much more but we do know these ideas and stories are childish and crazy,
and the people who believe them must have had their brains flattened by years of pounding,
all powers of reason and deduction must have ceased long ago, religion must obviously numb the brain.

But I suppose it's much easier to say, "it's too hard for me to understand so I'll lay it at the door of the gods,
and the more I know the more it hurts, so I'll stay dumb".

 

[MoonLancer]

that said, there are many examples of irreducible complexity. the galaxy and it's billions of stars, along with the solar system, the planets and thier many satalites, asteroids and comets, which all orbit and rotate in cyclical and predictable fashion, could not have arisen by mere chance.

are soap bubbles intelligently designed?

oh, please elaborate why it could not have arisen from chance. so far you have simply demonstrated an argument from ignorance. YOU cant see how the universe could have come about by chance, this does not mean that it could not have come about naturally. You need to show through science why it cant.

However I can in fact see how it could have come about naturally. The same as the way a soap bubble comes about. It simply does. No one makes the soap bubbles round.

 

[Ectezus]

there are many examples of irreducible complexity. the galaxy and it's billions of stars, along with the solar system, the planets and thier many satalites, asteroids and comets, which all orbit and rotate in cyclical and predictable fashion, could not have arisen by mere chance.

Shinbits, I politely ask you not to bring up any more nonsense about the galaxy, solar systems or any of Jupiter 63 moons for that matter because I made it very clear this thread is specific about irreducible complexity and EVOLUTION.

Oh and before you say things about the universe please do educate yourself a bit on the subject. I've seen practically every English documentary on the subject out there. Have you seen even one video on star formation?
We know exactly how solar systems form. The formation and death of stars if what drives it all. We know exactly what goes on inside a star, what elements is fuses into a higher element and at what point, WHEN the star will explode and what the results will be (supernova, white dwarf, black hole, etc). We even use certain type of exploding stars (type 1a) as beacons of distance measurement because it will always have the exact same brightness.

Not only is your post major off topic it also has absolutely nothing useful to say and you didn't answer any of the questions I've asked you to answer IF you have proof of irreducible complexity in the context of evolution.
So please, give your example for evolutionary irreducible complexity or get out with your "galaxy by chance" argument.

If you want a debate about that subject PM me or create a topic about it and I'll happily answer any of your questions. I only ask you to do the same in my topic.

- Ectezus

 

[juvenissun]

No one is claiming evolution isn't complex, but claiming it's "too" complex requires proof because it has major consequenses.

The question is still there: how do you tell (reducible) complexity from irreducible complexity? How complicate is evolution? Is there an example that illustrates that its degree of complexity can be reduced?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The problem with irreducible complexity is that it doesn't preclude evolution: there are a number of biological systems that are both irreducibly complex, and evolve-able (the bacterial flagella, for instance).

 

[MoonLancer]

The problem with irreducible complexity is that it doesn't preclude evolution: there are a number of biological systems that are both irreducibly complex, and evolve-able (the bacterial flagella, for instance).

I think your giving the wrong impression because the bacterial flagella is reducibly complex. As its reduced, one finds its function changes, but its still reducibly complex

The question is still there: how do you tell (reducible) complexity from irreducible complexity?

A reducible system can be reduced and still have a function (even a different function then before)

A irreducible system when parts are removed has no functions and has no usefulness. In other words a complex system that cannot be simplified in any way is irreducibly complex.

So far no irreducibly complex systems are known. All of Behes examples have been proven false.

 

[Nathan45]

edit: nevermind why am i commenting on this.

 

[juvenissun]

I think your giving the wrong impression because the bacterial flagella is reducibly complex. As its reduced, one finds its function changes, but its still reducibly complex



A reducible system can be reduced and still have a function (even a different function then before)

A irreducible system when parts are removed has no functions and has no usefulness. In other words a complex system that cannot be simplified in any way is irreducibly complex.

So far no irreducibly complex systems are known. All of Behes examples have been proven false.

So, what would be an example of a biological system which can be described as a reducible complex system?

 

[Ectezus]

According to evolutionists everything living you see around you is an example of a reducible complex system.
There are a lot of examples that might SEEM irreducible though. I gave an explanation for the eye and wing earlier.

The smallest example would be a single cell in our body. If you look at a human cell we see today it's amazingly complex.
Here's a link: http://www.jameswatkins.com/simplecell.jpg
The picture is actually used on a Creationists website where they use it as proof for irreducible complexity.

Now they argue that if you take just one thing away in this cell, any one thing, it will fall apart and stop working...
Weeeeeh this is absolutely true!!

However this is where their investigation already stops and conclude: It's too complex therefore god must have done it. The only thing they've really established though is that it's complex, not irreducible complex yet.

Evolution takes place over 3.6 billion years. It started with single cells... guess what had the longest evolution of all? Correct, a single cell! Obviously the first cells most definitely wouldn't be as complex as we see them today, just like the first eyes were nothing more than simple light sensitive cells, the first cells were just self replicating lines of code. Each useful addition to the cell would make it more efficient at reproducing itself.

Irreducible complexity often makes the mistake to only judge things as how we see them today without taking into consideration it's history .

- Ectezus

 

[gaara4158]

So, what would be an example of a biological system which can be described as a reducible complex system?

Pretty much everything that isn't irreducibly complex. Trees, grass, frogs, monkeys... all reducible.

 

[MoonLancer]

So, what would be an example of a biological system which can be described as a reducible complex system?

the eye

 

[juvenissun]

the eye

How was the complexity of the eye reduced?