Difference between revisions of "Irreducible complexity"
(critics) |
(Am I the only one who has noticed that only the 'crtitics' are sourced? (Commandment 2)) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
It has been argued that such examples are flawed. Kenneth R. Miller, for example, describes precursors to the flagellum's 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> Nick Matzke suggests that this is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; suggesting that 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> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Even Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald 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.--> | It has been argued that such examples are flawed. Kenneth R. Miller, for example, describes precursors to the flagellum's 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> Nick Matzke suggests that this is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; suggesting that 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> Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Even Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald 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.--> | ||
| + | '''Sources:''' <references/> | ||
[[Category:Intelligent design]] | [[Category:Intelligent design]] | ||
Revision as of 10:47, April 5, 2007
Irreducible complexity is a property of any system whose internal workings are so complex that the removal or alteration of any part would prevent the system from functioning. For example, a car will not go without an engine. Indeed, the engine will not run without fuel and a starter motor. The designer must ensure that all parts work together to produce the intended function.
This concept has been used by astronomer Fred Hoyle and biochemistry professor Michael Behe to argue against the idea of "evolution through natural selection". Hoyle compares the probability of all the parts of a cell coming together through natural forces to the probability of a cyclone in a hanger assembling all the parts of a Boeing 747 aircraft.
Intelligent Design theorists agree with Charles Darwin that a biological system could not make a gradual transition via small successive steps, unless each step provided an advantage to the species.
Behe presents several examples of organs and cells which he argues could not have evolved through natural forces alone due to their irreducible complexity.
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."
It is therefore a state of interacting components that could not function without all its parts. In particular, the term is used by proponents of Intelligent Design to argue that irreducibly complex biological systems cannot evolve.
The most commonly used examples of irreducibly complex biological systems are the human compound eye, the blood clotting cascade, and the bacterial flagellum.
It has been argued that such examples are flawed. Kenneth R. Miller, for example, describes precursors to the flagellum's being used as ionic channels within bacteria, known as the Type III Secretory System.[1] Nick Matzke suggests that this is true for most of the structure of the flagellum in general; suggesting that of the 42 proteins found in the flagellum, 40 have already been found in use in different biological pathways.[2] Critics, including biology professor John McDonald, have countered Even Behe's toy model, the mouse trap, used to illustrate the concept. McDonald produced examples of how he considered the mousetrap to be "easy to reduce", eventually to a single part.[3]
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)