Irreducible complexity cut down to size

Explaining how complexity can arise through gradual evolution and debunking anti-evolutionist arguments.

Advertisement





11 Responses to Irreducible complexity cut down to size

  1. What a complete load of bigoted, closed minded nonsense. If an “Irreducibly complex” structure can be broken down to smaller elements then it is not irreducibly complex. The closed mindedness of this person is astounding for one who claims to be a scientist.
    Lets look at some of the balancing evidence

    Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”

    In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].” Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”

    Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”

    And what about the origin of life? A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
    Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.
    At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”3 But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was

    Given these facts, should we not be keeping a more open mind in regards to creation / ID / Evolution?

  2. What a complete load of bigoted, closed minded nonsense. If an "Irreducibly complex" structure can be broken down to smaller elements then it is not irreducibly complex. The closed mindedness of this person is astounding for one who claims to be a scientist.
    Lets look at some of the balancing evidence

    Millions of bones and other evidence of past life have been unearthed by scientists, and these are called fossils. If evolution were a fact, surely in all of this there should be ample evidence of one kind of living thing evolving into another kind. But the Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History commented: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true.”

    In The New Evolutionary Timetable, Steven Stanley spoke of “the general failure of the record to display gradual transitions from one major group to another.” He said: “The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with [slow evolution].” Niles Eldredge also admitted: “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.”

    Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”

    And what about the origin of life? A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.
    Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.
    At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”3 But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was

    Given these facts, should we not be keeping a more open mind in regards to creation / ID / Evolution?

    • First, the fact that there are no irreducibly complex mechanisms in nature is exactly the point.

      Second, no there wouldn't necessarily be fossils of every point in the evolution of any organism, because fossilization is actually very rare and requires very specific circumstances.

      Also, evolution doesn't happen at a constant pace, things change faster sometimes, such as during a change in the environment, when the traits favored change.

      I previously addressed your claims about fossils. Genes do not act as a stability mechanism in any way, they just store the data that cells use to produce proteins. Random mutations actually can explain the complexity of life, those mutations that don't work don't reproduce, and the ones that do survive.

      Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, just with what brought about the current life forms from the past ones.

      Besides, the thing is that no matter what the probability is, as you get closer to an infinite number of trials, the chance that one has been successful reaches 100%. There are billions of trillions of planets, some of which are similar in size and temperature to the earth, and some of those got to the "organic soup" stage, and, frankly, it is conceited to think that after an almost infinite number of random chemical reactions a chemical that could replicate wouldn't ever be produced. Even if only one of those reactions on one of those planets produced life, it doesn't matter, because we only need one planet. Life isn't here because we are; we are here because life is.

      In response to your closing question, no, we should not "keep our minds open" to bullsht and lies.

    • Owww.

      You use Niles Eldridge's criticism of phyletic gradualism to argue against evolution. Punctuated equilibrium: look it up.

      Then to illustrate a "current evolutionary position on life’s starting point", you cite a book published 35 years ago.

      Seriously, read some actual evolutionary literature instead of quotes that have already been mined for you.

    • Owww.

      You use Niles Eldridge's criticism of phyletic gradualism to argue against evolution. Punctuated equilibrium: look it up.

      Then to illustrate a "current evolutionary position on life’s starting point", you cite a book published 35 years ago.

      Seriously, read some actual evolutionary literature instead of quotes that have already been mined for you.

    • Owww.

      You use Niles Eldridge's criticism of phyletic gradualism to argue against evolution. Punctuated equilibrium: look it up.

      Then to illustrate a "current evolutionary position on life’s starting point", you cite a book published 35 years ago.

      Seriously, read some actual evolutionary literature instead of quotes that have already been mined for you.

  3. *sigh* sorry creationists,

    long winded rebuttles containing basic, low-level ideas of what you think constitutes evolution doesnt even scratch the surface in describing the vast amounts of evidence available in its favour. The fossil record is staggeringly vast but for every "missing-link" found, creatonists demand that another is missing. However if you had really done any proper research you'd know that evolution could be proven even without a fossil record through what is basically common sense and a bit of genetic research.

    I do realise however that this comment is probably pointless as supporters of creationism and its laughable bedfellow "intelligent" design are comfortably cocooned by needing only "faith" and as every good scientist knows, its not worth wasting your breath trying to educate those who don't want to be educated.

    Sincerely,
    Someone with a Degree in this Sort of Thing

      • Hell, actually I think they should be able to worship and believe in any crazy shit they want as that’s their right.

        but.. there is a big ass but: I’m against anyone telling someone what he/she can believe or follow. As soon as someone tries to force you to believe in things is the same momemt when your freedom is threatened.

        Also religion should have a age limit, you need to be 18 years old to be a member, that way no bullshit brainwashed parents can drag innocent kids into this fairy land, instead the person can choose for itself once it’s adult being able ot forge his/her own believes.

      • Hell, actually I think they should be able to worship and believe in any crazy shit they want as that's their right.

        but.. there is a big ass but: I'm against anyone telling someone what he/she can believe or follow. As soon as someone tries to force you to believe in things is the same momemt when your freedom is threatened.

        Also religion should have a age limit, you need to be 18 years old to be a member, that way no bullshit brainwashed parents can drag innocent kids into this fairy land, instead the person can choose for itself once it's adult being able ot forge his/her own believes.

        • Whats that great (if a bit vulgar!) comparison? "Religion is like a penis. Its nice that you have one and its fine to be proud of it, but don't go trying to shove it down peoples throats! And definitely don't go waving it around in front of children!"