Question for Evolutionists

I am not a biochemist so I can't refute the examples commonly cited although I can give links.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
BTW Michael Behe wrote Darwin's Black Box about 10 years ago. In that time there has been lots of research into the systems he mentioned and they now have explanations.

The problem with irreducible complexity is how do you know when you have a system that is irreducibly complex? When we can't explain it. What if we figure out how to explain it? We move on to the next example. What if we explain that one? We move on to the next. And so on and so on.
It is a God of the Gaps argument. Just because we can't explain a system doesn't mean we have to invoke the supernatural. If we couldn't explain lightning would that mean it's the work of thor or zeus?

There have been no instances of irreducible complexity ever brought forth. Every single instance brought up has been explained. Claims that bacterial flagella, blood clotting, the human eye, etc., are irreducibly complex have all been disproved.

DanPev said:

Thanks for the responses and the links. CactusJack, your reasoning does make sense. But what about the mousetrap example commonly brought forth? That every part is needed for it to function?

Click to expand...

Not every part in a living organism have to had the same role in the past. Combined they may start off new function. It's obvious that the new function will probably too many parts that are not required at this moment. Given that losing those parts may not harm the increased reproducibility(thanks to the new function) of the species, they may start to disappear. Now after long time of evolution you may see what you think is "irreducibly complex".

A mousetrap can be developed in a process that would resemble evolution:
Assume you start out with the hammer. It's not a mousetrap but it can be used to beat the mouse to death, it's certainly better than being empty handed. Then you find a spring, that allows the hammer to beat the mouse more forcefully, increasing the chances of killing it on the first attempt. Then you add the wooden board so the hammer is secured and doesnt have to be held to the ground. Then the bar is added to make it easier to pull the hammer all the way back. Lastly the lever is added so that the person can walk away from the trap altogether.
This is kind of how evolution would make a mousetrap, piece by piece and with each step fully serving its purpose and is superior to the previous step.

A reducibly complex mousetrap: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

The argument is a bit of a red herring. It's true that some of these organs and systems are irreducably complex. You can not remove any one part and have it still function in the same way. However, this in no way means that the system is unevolvable.

I don't know if you want to get into specifics on any particular system or organ but people here would be happy to if you're really interested. Basically, things like the clotting system can work very well with a different combination of the same parts -- these are observed in different species. The eye could easily have evolved from a light-sensitive spot, to a directional recessed spot to a focusing eye -- each is seen in nature and although it can't be proven (eyes don't fossilize well) it's easy to show how it COULD have evolved.

I'm sure if you do a google search of particular structures you can find both the claim of ID and the counter that ID systems are perfectly evolvable. If you can't find a good detailed explanation (with citations of course) that shows how a system could have evolved, do send me a PM. As a grad student, I have a ton of experience looking up information and I've personally researched this very topic so I know detailed explanations are out there on the net.

DanPev said:

Thanks for the responses and the links. CactusJack, your reasoning does make sense. But what about the mousetrap example commonly brought forth? That every part is needed for it to function?

Click to expand...

the whole mousetrap thing is a flawed analogy. Every evolutionary step must have a benefit at that time and place, but that doesn't mean the benefit has to be related to current function.

Well, maybe the mouse trap analogy could be made to fit. I mean, the common mouse trap certainly wasn't created ex nihlo. That is to say that the inventer of the common mousetrap did not invent any of the individual parts. Springs were in common use as were levers and blocks of wood. trigger mechanisms were also pre-existing. As such, the mousetrap represents a collection of previously unrelated developments together for a novel purpose.

In this way, you could relate it to bacterial flaggella which were modifications/combinations of pre-existing structures that resulted in a novel use.

DanPev said:

I would like to know what is the evolutionists answer to the argument of irreducible complexity.

Click to expand...

I've yet to see any "irreducible complexity". All the examples I've seen so far turned out, upon closer inspection, to be based on either ignoring important facts or misrepresentations of the facts.

Maybe you've got an example of the real thing?

Irreducible Complexity is merely an argument from ignorance, but with a fancy name. And yes, the other big flaw is, as others have already stated, the parts of any biological system which will not function if any part is removed could have evolved from independent parts which used to serve different functions.

Irreducible complexity depends on each part having only one function. This is not the case in the real world. In nature, each part can have several functions, as the parts usually had different functions in the past.

Irreducible complexity is not true. There have never been any examples of it.

Here's a webpage about the reducible complexity of the "irreducibly complex" flagelum. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Tiberius said:

Here's a webpage about the reducible complexity of the "irreducibly complex" flagelum. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Click to expand...

That was a nice read, thanks.

Mystman said:

That was a nice read, thanks.

Click to expand...

You can also watch it in video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

DanPev said:

Thanks alot for all the responses. So basically, if I understand you correctly, you guys are saying that the each part of a system didn't necessarily have that function before. Or that a certain system that exists now is a modification of an earlier system that had a different purpose. Right?

Click to expand...

Another possible pathway is scaffolding, whereby an irreducibly complex system once had additional parts that contributed to the evolutionary pathway, but which either were lost entirely or were co-opted by another system.

A common analogy is a stone archway. The finished structure is irreducibly complex - removal of a single stone results immediately in the demise of the entire architecture - but in the construction phase it was surrounded by supplemental platforms and buttresses that were later removed.

DanPev said:

Thanks alot for all the responses. So basically, if I understand you correctly, you guys are saying that the each part of a system didn't necessarily have that function before. Or that a certain system that exists now is a modification of an earlier system that had a different purpose. Right?

Click to expand...

You, that is true in evolution and all inventions made by men.

What is more amusing about the ID movement is that we are told in the Bible over and over again that Gods way of thinking is so different than ours that we cannot comprehend it. Yet here we have a group of people claiming that they somehow know how God was thinking when God designed the universe...

Do you see a problem here? These people are claiming that they know the mind of God despite the fact that the book they believe in tells them that they cannot.

richard dawkin has a book on the matter, "climbing mount inprobable". i couldnt be bothered getting through it, cause i already have the general idea of how it works. but if you need specific examples and explantations its a good read

DanPev said:

Thanks alot for all the responses. So basically, if I understand you correctly, you guys are saying that the each part of a system didn't necessarily have that function before. Or that a certain system that exists now is a modification of an earlier system that had a different purpose. Right?

Click to expand...

Right.
I've seen the example used in "support" of IC of a shop where one person is the manager, one sits at the cashier (correct word? ), one is the salesperson, et cetera... the claim being (of course) that if one of them is removed the shop can no longer work. That this example is even used boggles my mind... is it really so difficult to imagine that the shop started small, as a one-man business, with additional personnel eventually employed and specialties assigned to the employees?
Used correctly, the shop example is a wonderful example supporting evolutionary theory.

Thus the dangers of arguments using analogies are revealed.