Irreducible complexity
(Removing just plain weird stuff) |
m (Quick-adding category High priority (using HotCat)) |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
[[Category:Pseudoscience]] | [[Category:Pseudoscience]] | ||
| + | [[Category:High priority]] | ||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
{{Intelligent design}} | {{Intelligent design}} | ||
Revision as of 11:44, 27 October 2009
This topic is a pseudoscience, and is not accepted by the scientific community as a valid discipline.
Although it may use scientific terminology, it does not use scientific methodology.
Remember: just because it sounds right doesn't mean it's actually right.
According to Creationwiki, "Irreducible complexity is a concept popularized by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, which supports what is known as intelligent design theory. If something is irreducibly complex, then it can not be reduced to less complex functions, and therefore, could not develop by assembling preexisting components. Intelligent design theorists argue that while some systems and organs can be explained by evolution, those that are irreducibly complex cannot, but instead an intelligent designer must be responsible."[1]
Irreducible complexity stems from the claim that some biological systems appear to be too complex to have arisen by natural selection. Specifically, it argues that if you take a part away from an organism and it stops functioning (analogous to taking the engine out of a car) then it must be irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved. It is one of the main arguments of the Intelligent Design movement. The concept is considered to be mostly bollocks when applied to evolution because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through - it assumes that evolution must go through "additive" processes to achieve its conclusion and this isn't the case. Most evolutionary biologists do not consider it it science by any stretch of the imagination because the idea relies on personal incredulity and specific examples are non-falsifiable.
Contents |
Explainations
"Official"
There is a slightly different definition of "irreducible complexity" related to emergent phenomena in systems theory and computational complexity theory. However, a full explanation of this is beyond the scope of this article.[2] It is believed that Micheal Behe has basically taken some of the ideas found within this theory and rehashed it slightly to apply to evolution. Behe's definition is that a irreducibly complex form is:
“”"composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning"[3]
|
While surrounded by some fancy words and the language of science, this is just incredulity that the world could arise through naturalistic processes. The argument is no more advanced or "evolved" than Willaim Paley's "Watch Argument" which stated that as a watch looked created, it must have a creator. Essentially, Behe is stating "because I can't see a natural explanation, Goddidit" - this ignores any possibility that a naturalistic explanation or evolutionary pathway will later be discovered.
Humor
In a blog post about the Lenski affair, biologist Björn Brembs came up with a a hilarious alternative definition[4]:
“”"I think I have now finally understood what "irreducibly complex" really means: a statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist."
|
Explanation from uncyclopedia
An argument that states that because something doesn't work when broken down to its component parts it must be impossible for it to have been developed gradually.
Examples of flawed arguments
Frequently, believers in this philosophy cite the eye as an example of something too complex to have evolved. The argument is frequently presented with a question of the type, "What use is half an eye?". However if the question is recast as "Given a choice, would you prefer to be completely blind or have 50% of your present vision?", then it becomes clear that the question is badly formed, especially when keeping in mind that many species manage to survive with significantly less advanced eyes. Examples include the polychaete worms, which can distinguish between light and dark;[5] the simple eye-cup of the flatworms, for finding the direction of a light source; jellyfish and scallops, with simple eyes for detecting movement;[6] the famous compound eyes of the insects, which can make out simple shapes, and ultimately the sophisticated single-lens eyes of the molluscs and vertebrates.
Another famed and also flawed example is "the watch on the beach." It goes as follows: "if you find a watch on the beach, do you assume it got there by chance, or do you assume it was made by an intelligent designer?" The example is flawed because watches and their parts do not reproduce or mutate. (And if they did, they could be produced by random mutation.[7]
The above arguments are appeals to the common sense of the "Average Joe." Popular support is, however, not part of the scientific method; this can be easily understood when considering that a significant part of the world's population believes in astrology.
How "Irreducibly complex" structures form
One way in which "Irreducibly complex" structures could develop is via a process known as scaffolding, wherein a structure gains in complexity via duplication and mutation of parts, then parts are knocked out via mutations, leaving a structure with no direct linear development from the original, basic structure. Other paths by which irreducibly complex structures may form include cooption of parts from other structures. Both of these can be seen in the case of the bacterial flagellum, which includes many parts taken from a secretory pump.
Another is "function shift" or exaptation can also explain how irreducibly complex structures may evolve. During evolution, a feature may shift from one function to another-a classic example is the feathers of a bird. They originally evolved in dinosaurs as a way to keep warm, but birds then evolved to use them for flight. Half a wing might not be useful for flying, but it will still keep you warm. Our arms are another example-they where originally legs, but evolved into arms when we became bipedal.
See also
External links
- Eye evolution, a good basic explanation of the subject.
- EvoWiki's responce and explanation of the subject.
- Irreducible complexity and the scientific literature
Footnotes
- ↑ http://creationwiki.org/Irreducible_complexity
- ↑ See Wikipedia: Irreducible complexity (Emergence)
- ↑ Micheal Behe - Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
- ↑ Björn Brembs - I CAN HAZ UR BEKTEERYA?
- ↑ Buchsbaum, R. Animals Without Backbones (Penguin 1958); vol.1, plate 64
- ↑ Scallop eyes
- ↑ Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker: Video of a clock-'evolving' simulation
| Articles about intelligent design | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main concepts of ID | ||||||
|
||||||
| Related topics | ||||||
| In law | ||||||
| Reductio ad absurdum | ||||||
|
| |||||
| Miscellaneous | ||||||
|
||||||