Some systems are irreducibly complex

From EvoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Claim

Some biochemical systems demonstrate irreducible complexity, ruling out their having evolved and therefore indicating intelligent design.

Source

Responses

  1. This claim ignores the possibility of scaffolding. Parts that were once only useful but not necessary may become necessary when other parts are removed.
  2. Exactly what specifically constitutes a biological system as being "irreducibly complex" has never been clearly defined for any of the example "irreducibly complex" systems.
  3. None of the biological systems that ID proponents claim to display irreducible complexity have actually been satisfactorily demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. All such systems have ultimately been demonstrated to be derived from other, simpler systems.
  4. This claim fails to understand the basics of genetics. "Irreducibly complex" assumes that all genes have singular functions. That a organ or set of processes requires all genes to be present in order for the required outcome to occur. Modern understanding of genetics refutes such a idea. Very few genes code for single traits. Most genes interact with other genes to produce hundreds of traits within organisms. The necessary parts of a biological system could produce other effects in a organism before the system is complete. Genetic researchers at the University of Hawaii removed genes from octopuses and placed them into mice zygotes to see if they would promote growth. What they found is that these genes made the mice glow under UV lights. Genes code for various traits, unlike the assumption of "irreducibly complex" that genes must only code for one thing, therefore if a single gene is lacking the biological system doesn't work.
  5. add more responses

Fallacies contained in this claim

External Links

  • Dunkelberg, Pete, 2003. Irreducible Complexity Demystified. [1]
  • Robison, Keith, 1996. Darwin's Black Box: Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? [2]

References

  1. Hooper, S.D. and Berg O.G., 2003. On the Nature of Gene Innovation: Duplication Patterns in Microbial Genomes. Mol Biol Evol, Apr 25 [epub ahead of print]
  2. Lynch, M. and J.S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155.
  3. Melendez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell, & Marta Cascante, 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3): 293-303.
  4. Muller, H. J., 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews 14: 261-280.
  5. Pennisi, Elizabeth, 2001. Genome duplications: The stuff of evolution? Science 294: 2458-2460.
  6. Ussery, David, 1998. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios (July 1998). [3]

Further Reading

  • Ussery, David, 1998. (see above)
  • Shanks, N. & Joplin, K. H., 1999. Redundant complexity: A critical analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science 66: 268-298. [4]
  • Lindsay, Don, 1996. Review: "Darwin's Black Box, the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael Behe. [5]
  • Gray, Terry M., 1999. Complexity--yes! irreducible--maybe! unexplainable--no! A creationist criticism of irreducible complexity. [6]
  • Miller, K., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. Harper-Collins, chpt. 5.

Related claims

See Also

Why is Creationism not a Scientific Theory?

Acknowledgments

Retrieved from "http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Some_systems_are_irreducibly_complex"
Personal tools