Difference between revisions of "Irreducible complexity"
(→Peer Review: opponents of Intelligent Design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals) |
(critics) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the [[blood clotting cascade]], and the bacterial [[flagellum]]. | The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the [[blood clotting cascade]], and the bacterial [[flagellum]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Such examples have been showed to be flawed, for example precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within [[bacteria]], known as the ''Type III Secretory System''.<ref>[http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html The Flagellum Unspun]</ref> This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.<ref>[http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/ode_to_the_flag.html Ode to the Flagellum</ref> Even Behe's [[toy model]] used to illustrate the concept, the [[mouse trap]], was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.<ref name=trap>[http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html A reducibly complex mousetrap] (graphics-intensive, requires [[JavaScript]])</ref> <!--Critics consider that most, or all, of the examples were based on misunderstandings of the workings of the biological systems in question, and consider the low quality of these examples excellent evidence for the argument from ignorance.--> | ||
==Peer Review== | ==Peer Review== | ||
Revision as of 13:05, April 4, 2007
Irreducible complexity is a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of Intelligent Design in the context of the claim that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve.
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe introduced and defined this term on page 9 of his work, "Darwin's Black Box":
- Irreducible complexity is a "single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the blood clotting cascade, and the bacterial flagellum.
Such examples have been showed to be flawed, for example precursors to the flagellum's motor can be found being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[1] This is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[2] Even Behe's toy model used to illustrate the concept, the mouse trap, was countered by critics including biology professor John McDonald, who produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.[3]
Peer Review
During his testimony at the trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, opponents of Intelligent Design made the objection that this concept has not been published in peer-reviewed journals. Behe testified that his book was subjected to peer review as rigorous as that of journals:[4]
- Q (Plaintiffs' attorney). You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?
- A (Michael Behe). No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.
- Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.
- Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.
- Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?
- A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.
Sources:
- ↑ The Flagellum Unspun
- ↑ [http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/ode_to_the_flag.html Ode to the Flagellum
- ↑ A reducibly complex mousetrap (graphics-intensive, requires JavaScript)
- ↑ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am177