irreducible complexity (in reference to a system): the inability to remove any part from the system and have the system still perform its intended task.
why irreducible complexity is not broken: biological systems can be shown to have not arisen from simpler systems in a _consistently_ advantagous(to survival) way.
Darwinian evolution: the theory that natural selection acting on random mutations has given rise to life as we know it on this planet.
Directed evolution: the theory that natural selection acting on _directed_ mutations (as well as random mutatinos that of course happen) has given rise to life as we know it.
the challenge to Darwinism: the evidence that life on this earth could not have arisen solely from natural selection acting on random mutations. Noone disputes that random mutations and natural selection occur, only that they are what solely accounted for life on this earth.
a conceptual, undetailed example of irreducible complexity, vision: required for vision, a molecule upon being hit by a photon emits an electric signal, a molecule upon receiving an electric signal creates a unique chemical signal, a transport for this chemical to surroundings, a molecule which accepts this unique chemical signal and acts upon it.
This is not the best example and does not even touch on the complexities involved in the simplest forms of visual stimulations(sensing light) that we have found in living organisms.
A billion years may pass trying but you will never be able to walk across a canyon by taking single steps.
heh, yeah, I would love to see the "disproofs" of Behe's theories. When you find out the way to cross a canyon by taking one step at a time, let me know, it just might make you rich, I'll even let you spend 10 billion years working on it.
Fascinating documents, however irreducible complexity is never answered. Behe and I never claim that evolution did not happen, evolution thruogh natural selection did not happen. The arguments presented against irreducible complexity are interesting yet miss the point. Regardless of the existence of cascading changes or shortcuts to the Krebs cycle or neutral mutations, natural selection allows for one criteria by which mutations become predominant, survival advantage. By throwing arguments like neutral mutations or cascading changes at irreducible complexity the 4th point on the 5 misconceptions about evolution is violated, that evolutiond does not happen by chance.
The only answers to irreducible complexity are chance, a mousetrap example which is fairly ridiculous and and example of the Krebs cycle which shows that it is not irreducible complex. The problem with this reasoning is that chance(neutral mutatins, cascading mutations) cannot be a defense for natural selection, for if so natural selectin degrades into a theory of chance evolution which is agreed to be ridiculous. The other flaw is that a thousand and one examples of non-irreducible complex systems can be put forth but ONE irreducibly complex system subsumes all of the rest. There is no answer for irreducible complexity without going outside natural selection and at that point invalidating Darwinian evolution.
In answer to the fossil record, it is not the lack of transitional organisms that is so troubling, it is the amazingly FAST transitino periods that occur, followed by periods of long evolutionary stability, i.e. the Cambrian explosion (not the best example but I'm no expert of the fossil record). I don't debate the existence of transitional fossils but because of the fast, DIRECTED transitions they are found in they do not point to natural selection.
A final note one micro vs. macroevolution, my use of the words is basically one of the evolution of a single variable vs. the evolution of a system, any historical connotatins they have can be ignored.
Although accepted by many people as a fact, Darwinian evolutin is actually only a theory, and from my view point a theory which is on its way out as it has no answers for the questins which face it.
Darwinian evolution is the idea that evolution occurs through natural selection. We have observed microevolution (changes of a single variable over a short period of time, i.e. a moth changing color) but natural selection cannot acount for macroevolution (the creation of new bodily systems and types, i.e. the development of vision). Macroevolution through natural selection requires that every step along the path from beginning to end is linearly advantagous for survival since that is the only mechanism for choosing mutations Darwin's theory allows. It can be shown that some developments are simply NOT possible this way, for example vision. The simple act of recognizing light (which is light years from our complex equipment allowing us to see) requires the existence of over 10 complex chemicals without any one of which it would never take place in addition to the required organ of sight and processing capabilities. In Darwininian evolution these things CANNOT develop together, even given 100Billion years, since none are beneficial without the others. This does not disprove Darwinian evolution, that still happens, it just shows that Darwinian evolution DOES NOT explain life as it now exists on earth, it only explains individual traits of some organisms.
The second major problem with Darwinian evolutin is the fossil record. Darwinian evolution would occur at a gradual pace and would require the existence of more transitional fossils than we find, for instance during the rise of mammals or the appearance of land creatures. The only possible somewhat legitimate response to the first challenge to Darwinian evolutino, the many worlds hypothesis, is defeated by the fossil record, since even if this is the one place where intelligent life evolved, it will not be a place where "random" evolution happened at hyperaccelerated rates at random intervals.
Evolution through natural selection is a theory which has some truth, but cannot explain life as we see it. That is why people are searching for what could have caused the directed evolution on our planet and even if you disagree with this author's theories, at least he should be respected for attempting to find an explanation.
-benjc
...for further information on the challenges to Darwinian evolution, an excellent book is "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.
Slashdot Mirror
why irreducible complexity is not broken: biological systems can be shown to have not arisen from simpler systems in a _consistently_ advantagous(to survival) way.
Darwinian evolution: the theory that natural selection acting on random mutations has given rise to life as we know it on this planet.
Directed evolution: the theory that natural selection acting on _directed_ mutations (as well as random mutatinos that of course happen) has given rise to life as we know it.
the challenge to Darwinism: the evidence that life on this earth could not have arisen solely from natural selection acting on random mutations. Noone disputes that random mutations and natural selection occur, only that they are what solely accounted for life on this earth.
a conceptual, undetailed example of irreducible complexity, vision: required for vision, a molecule upon being hit by a photon emits an electric signal, a molecule upon receiving an electric signal creates a unique chemical signal, a transport for this chemical to surroundings, a molecule which accepts this unique chemical signal and acts upon it.
This is not the best example and does not even touch on the complexities involved in the simplest forms of visual stimulations(sensing light) that we have found in living organisms.
A billion years may pass trying but you will never be able to walk across a canyon by taking single steps.
-benjc
-benjc
The only answers to irreducible complexity are chance, a mousetrap example which is fairly ridiculous and and example of the Krebs cycle which shows that it is not irreducible complex. The problem with this reasoning is that chance(neutral mutatins, cascading mutations) cannot be a defense for natural selection, for if so natural selectin degrades into a theory of chance evolution which is agreed to be ridiculous. The other flaw is that a thousand and one examples of non-irreducible complex systems can be put forth but ONE irreducibly complex system subsumes all of the rest. There is no answer for irreducible complexity without going outside natural selection and at that point invalidating Darwinian evolution.
In answer to the fossil record, it is not the lack of transitional organisms that is so troubling, it is the amazingly FAST transitino periods that occur, followed by periods of long evolutionary stability, i.e. the Cambrian explosion (not the best example but I'm no expert of the fossil record). I don't debate the existence of transitional fossils but because of the fast, DIRECTED transitions they are found in they do not point to natural selection.
A final note one micro vs. macroevolution, my use of the words is basically one of the evolution of a single variable vs. the evolution of a system, any historical connotatins they have can be ignored.
-benjc
Darwinian evolution is the idea that evolution occurs through natural selection. We have observed microevolution (changes of a single variable over a short period of time, i.e. a moth changing color) but natural selection cannot acount for macroevolution (the creation of new bodily systems and types, i.e. the development of vision). Macroevolution through natural selection requires that every step along the path from beginning to end is linearly advantagous for survival since that is the only mechanism for choosing mutations Darwin's theory allows. It can be shown that some developments are simply NOT possible this way, for example vision. The simple act of recognizing light (which is light years from our complex equipment allowing us to see) requires the existence of over 10 complex chemicals without any one of which it would never take place in addition to the required organ of sight and processing capabilities. In Darwininian evolution these things CANNOT develop together, even given 100Billion years, since none are beneficial without the others. This does not disprove Darwinian evolution, that still happens, it just shows that Darwinian evolution DOES NOT explain life as it now exists on earth, it only explains individual traits of some organisms.
The second major problem with Darwinian evolutin is the fossil record. Darwinian evolution would occur at a gradual pace and would require the existence of more transitional fossils than we find, for instance during the rise of mammals or the appearance of land creatures. The only possible somewhat legitimate response to the first challenge to Darwinian evolutino, the many worlds hypothesis, is defeated by the fossil record, since even if this is the one place where intelligent life evolved, it will not be a place where "random" evolution happened at hyperaccelerated rates at random intervals.
Evolution through natural selection is a theory which has some truth, but cannot explain life as we see it. That is why people are searching for what could have caused the directed evolution on our planet and even if you disagree with this author's theories, at least he should be respected for attempting to find an explanation.
-benjc