News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

irreducible complexity

Started by yepimonfire, December 28, 2011, 08:02:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

yepimonfire

how do we explain the evolution of such things? the eyes and heart are examples of this.

Tank

Pre-adaption. The evolutionary path of the eye is one of increasing efficiency and effectiveness. The first 'eyes' were little more than pigmented surface cells and each refinement built on the capabilities of its precursor. Evolution progresses a little like an amoeba and nothing like a grasshopper. The developmental progress of any trait is contiguous with branching occurring at points of advantageous mutation.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Asmodean

What tank said.

Neither eyes nor the cardiovascular system are irreducibly complex. Both have evolved from less efficient versions. In some cases, the process goes the other way too, such as cave-dwelling creatures potentially losing their eyes due to the lack of need for such.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Crocoduck

It's been a while but I think Richard Dawkins covered this pretty well in Climbing Mount Improbable.
As we all know, the miracle of fishes and loaves is only scientifically explainable through the medium of casseroles
Dobermonster
However some of the jumped up jackasses do need a damn good kicking. Not that they will respond to the kicking but just to show they can be kicked
Some dude in a Tank

Recusant

#4
There are no cases of truly irreducible complexity that I'm aware of, including the eye and the heart. Some research into the topic would show that. There may be some issues that warrant further scientific investigation, but I don't think any biologist (who isn't pushing an intelligent design/Creationist agenda) who is worth their salt has thrown up their hands and said, "Well, that's clearly something which could not have possibly evolved, therefore it must be the product of a designer."

Michael Behe has tried to advocate for intelligent design through use of the argument from irreducible complexity. He's a qualified biochemist, so his ideas have some weight to them. That doesn't mean that he's right. You can find several resources on the web which point out the problems with Behe's thesis. One of my favorites is a review of Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by H. Allen Orr.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Siz

Quote from: Crocoduck on December 28, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
It's been a while but I think Richard Dawkins covered this pretty well in Climbing Mount Improbable.

Yes, including an explanation of the single most contentious biological conundrum with regard to irreducible complexity - the freely-rotating axle. Though not providing irrefutable proof, RD did argue a good story.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UFY18Bep5ygC&pg=PA301&img=1&zoom=3&hl=en&ots=6Ss3TiO4dF&sig=ACfU3U3G51AGrnVUjXLRAaxbw86Wfio4aQ&w=685

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Twentythree

There are two things you have to keep in mind regarding the evolution of complex biological systems. The first is paramount and that is time. The earth is something like 4 billion years old. In 4 billion years a lot can happen. A lot especially in the way of accumulated complexity. Accumulated complexity is basically making a system more complex with each new revision of that system. Complexity does not mean better or worse it just means more complex. As a matter of fact efficiency only plays a small part in the actual accumulation of complexity. Only so much so as excessive waste in energy conversion or function will result in those characteristics being selected out; whereas increases in complexity that only marginally improve the chances of gene survival and transmission will tend to prosper in subsequent generations. To help illustrate this let's look at a possible very rudimentary explanation for the formation of an eye.

At some point there was a cell. Which is basically a vehicle for genetic material and a chemical factory for the creation and distribution of protein to other parts of the cell. If this cell exists in an environment where necessary molecular materials for its survival are found in more abundance closer to a light source than further away it would be beneficial for this cell to stay in a more well lit area. Light travels as photons, so if one cell had a mutation to create a sensitivity to photons then this cell should be influenced to move in the direction of the most photons or the most chemically rich environment for it to thrive. This would then lead to the photon sensitive mutation to pass on into future generations with more frequency and abundance eventually selecting out those cells with no photo sensitivity. Over the course of eons the photo sensitivity will become more acute and possibly a mutation would occur for photosensitive cells to attract to one another and cluster together. You can sense more photons with more photosensitive cells. Therefore a trait for clustering and a trait for photo sensitivity are evolved and you have a very primitive eye like organ. This could have happened independently but more likely it happened as a part of cellular specialization in a more primitive multi-cellular organism. Either way you can see how without a conscious drive, chemical reaction to stimuli combined with deep time and accumulated complexity can create an eye.

Squid

As Tank had mentioned, look up exaptation - something many ID proponents neglect to address or just outright brush off as insignificant or false.  Research says otherwise.

The Magic Pudding

Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws.  This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.

xSilverPhinx

To use the example that Kenneth Miller used to refute Behe: a mouse trap, with all it's parts is irreducibly complex - for a mouse trap. But if you took the pin you could do something with your neck tie or something (didn't really catch that part, and am too lazy to look it up) and it would be useful, until some sort of mutation came along to change it and the result of which underwent a selective process.



I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Guardian85

#10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTWB65WXxyQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E&feature=related


Sir David Attenburrough and Dr. Richard Dawkins take on irreducible complexity in these videos, with the example of the eye.
They explain it better then I can. Probably because they are proffesional biologists...


"If scientist means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I guess I'm a scientist, then."
-Unknown Smartass-

Ali

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 03:58:38 AM
Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws.  This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.

Yes.  I always thought it was bizarre that creationists claim the eye as proof of creation, when the eye is such a perfect example of something that no sensible creator would design that way.  If any organ shows the sort of jury rigging that happens when nature is left to it's own devices, it's the eye.

Davin

Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 09:18:11 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 03:58:38 AM
Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws.  This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.

Yes.  I always thought it was bizarre that creationists claim the eye as proof of creation, when the eye is such a perfect example of something that no sensible creator would design that way.  If any organ shows the sort of jury rigging that happens when nature is left to it's own devices, it's the eye.
What I always find odd is the switch some do, first they reference how amazing and complex it is, then when pointed out how not so amazing it is, they say that's the way it was designed to be... cancelling out their appeal to how amazing it is, but pretending that both are true: that it's both amazing and designed not to be amazing so it's not amazing.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Tank

Quote from: Ali on January 13, 2012, 09:18:11 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 29, 2011, 03:58:38 AM
Yes what everybody else said and eyes and lots of things aren't perfect, they have what a designer who was free to start from scratch would consider as flaws.  This is due to way they have been been blindly cobbled together by evolution.

Yes.  I always thought it was bizarre that creationists claim the eye as proof of creation, when the eye is such a perfect example of something that no sensible creator would design that way.  If any organ shows the sort of jury rigging that happens when nature is left to it's own devices, it's the eye.
Darwin mentions the eye as a highly complex organ, so it became a target for creationists.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Guardian85

The blood vessels in the eye are in front of the optic nerve. That's like designing a camera with all the wiring in front of the lens. Very bad design!


"If scientist means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I guess I'm a scientist, then."
-Unknown Smartass-