Talk:Irreducible complexity

From EvoWiki

Thre is an inherent danger in implying that a natural bridge which got there by a method we can explain (erosion) is similar to a bacteria. Your argument will be stronger if you can come up with a better example. --Anonymous

Nobody implies that. The example just illustrates that the concept of IR doesn't fly - Behe only though about adding things, not removing things, and when you take the process of removing into account, his argument breaks down. --tk (t) 10:26, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

Just a side remark, bacteria also got there by a method we can explain (evolution). 62.245.162.192 11:30, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

The counterexample isn't really 100% counterexample, though. ID argues not that intermediate organs cannot appear, but that they serve no purpose, therefore they cannot survive enough generations to become complete. The functionality of a natural bridge does not influence its development, unlike the case of the evolution of an organ deemed irreducibly complex; thus, the counterexample misses the heart of the argument. Valaggar 16:42, 10 August 2007 (BST)

this bullshit is hillarous

hmm lets see. im in a wiki about EVOLUTION and it has a BIG biased portal about CREATIONISM.

And this article argues creationism is true because of "Irreducible complexity". Ironically "Irreducible complexity" here is ONLY defined as "something evolution can not produce". thats just perfect circular logic. It does not make sense at all. Its not even an argument! man what a waste of time!

im just saying that this article has no reason for existance here whatsoever! --Ollj 21:01, 2 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not sure I follow. The arguments used by ID creationists should be described as closely as possible to what they actually say, not to "endorse" them, but to understand them, find the flaws, and compose responses. Denouncing their arguments, in some cases that are obviously silly, still doesn't rebutt them in a manner one would want before a school board, for example. --Dmill96 21:49, 2 April 2006 (BST)

Re: Darwin's Black Box

The "Overview" section quotes Behe's book Darwin's Black Box. It might be relevant to notice that Behe's formulation isn't taken out of the blue air, though maybe from a black box. Compare with this piece from Darwin's Origin Of Species chap. 6:

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. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct.

--FreezBee 14:46, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, that's a point where Darwin seems to have made a mistake. How can one demonstrate that an organ "cannot possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications", without committing an Argument from Ignorance? Darwin can be falsified, but not in this way. --tk (t) 15:20, 9 May 2006 (BST)

True, it's hard to prove a universal negative. The problem rather is that unless evolution is fully deterministic, we really can't prove exactly how some organ developed, at best figure out how it could have developed. Behe's failure is that he thinks teleologically - any component of a complex organ must have specifically evolved as part of that organ, such that the organ wouldn't have any function before being completed. But that is assuming design rather than proving it. --FreezBee 11:25, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Rather odd "Intelligent Designer" ...

The concept of Irreducible Complexity seems to imply a rather unintelligent Designer. What kind of engineer would create a system in which every component is crucial? Imagine if a carmaker made a car where if one piece broke down, the whole car would cease to run! Surely an "Intelligent Designer" would want to create a system with plenty of redundancy! On the other hand, the lack of redundancy fits quite well with evolution - redundant parts can be lost, damaged through mutations, without causing harm, and thus, one would expect redundancy to gradually be lost, until you're left with a system with little redudancy Nik 08:45, 27 May 2008 (BST)