Irreducible complexity

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
(Redirected from Irreducibly complex)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Mousetrap.jpg

Irreducibly complexity (IC) is a conceptual test for intelligently designed components or system. It is asserted that if a system cannot be reduced to fewer components and retain functionality, then it could not have evolved by the gradual assemblage of components over successive generations.

The concept was popularized by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Intelligent design theorists argue that while some systems and organs can be explained by evolution, those that are irreducibly complex must have been assembled by an agent of intelligence.

There are many examples of molecular machines, such as the bacterial flagellum, that are composed of numerous elements. Behe rightly points out that such machines are irreducibly complex in that if any one part were removed, the function in question would be instantly lost. How then could such a machine be built up gradually if it will not work to any selectable degree until all its parts are present in their proper order?

Darwin

Darwin knew his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection carried a heavy burden:

“ If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.[1] ”

By Irreducible Complexity the Creationist refers to aspects of creation that are so complex they indicate a Creator; they are in other words too complex to have arisen from purely naturalistic processes. Darwin himself saw the existence of complex organs/life and instinct in nature as serious problems for his theory, serious enough that he devoted two whole chapters of 'On the Origin of Species' to addressing them, chapter 6, 'Difficulties on Theory', and chapter 7, 'Instinct.'

“ "In the four succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or in understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record."

-Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species.[2]

”

Definition

The term "irreducible complexity" was originally defined by Behe ​​as:

“ 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. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.[3][4] ”

William Dembski, another advocate of intelligent design, gives this definition:

“ A system that performs a primary function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of individual parts in a non arbitrary well-arranged way, which interact, so that each part is in all essential to maintain the basic function, and therefore original of the system. The set of these parts is known as the essential irreducible core system.[5] ”
Flagellum diagram.png

Irreducible complexity vs. Cumulative Complexity

According to Dembski, the irreducible complexity should be contrasted with cumulative complexity. A system is cumulatively complex if the system components may be arranged sequentially such that a successive removal of components does not lead to a complete loss of function.[6]

Examples

Lygodium Spider Moth

Lygodium spider moth. Img credit: itchydogimages/John Horstman.

The lygodium spider moth, discovered in Thailand in 2005, has an unmistakable picture of a spider on its wings.[7] The fern-eating moth of the genus siamusotima is unique in other ways as well, its caterpillar form resembles beetle larvae, and its rear end contains armored sections for protection. The moth was originally discovered by scientists M. Alma Solis and Shen Horn Yen in their search for an enemy of ferns troubling Florida's Everglades, and is being researched as a solution to Florida's fern problem.[8] Evolutionists should have their hands full trying to explain how moths would evolve the exact pictures of spiders on their wings, down to the exact number of legs, and even evolve the images of different modern-day spiders... let alone how the moths would evolve the behavior necessary to avoid fleeing and to deceive spiders once they had those images.

Nor is the lygodium spider moth even the only moth to mimic spiders. Metalmark moths in the genus Brenthia also mimic spiders with great success, to the extent that spiders captured only 6% of the metalmark moths in trials compared to 62% of regular moths, and 14% of the time even backed away from the spider-imitating moths.[9] And it's not just a one-way street, either, the Ladybird Mimic Spider (eresus sandaliatus), Britain's rarest spider, does an excellent imitation of the common ladybug.[10] There are several spiders which mimic ants, also, such as the ant-mimic jumping spider and ant-mimic crab spider.[11]

Macrocilix Maia Moth

Macrocilix maia moth. Img. credit: Alexey Yakovlev.

The macrocilix maia moth has a mural on its wings depicting two maggots eating excrement. The moth even smells like excrement.[12] It makes no sense whatsoever for such a design to evolve over long time periods through purely random biological processes and indicates an intelligent Creator responsible.

Bombardier Beetle

The most well-known example of irreducible complexity, and one that Evolutionists are doubtless sick of hearing about, is a small little beetle that shoots a fiery concoction from its behind as a defense mechanism. Using a complex firing system with two sets of spray nozzles, the beetles, which range in size from 2-30 mm in length, fire from 2 to 12 rapid blasts of aqueous benzoquinones, oxygen and steam as hot as 100 degrees celsius (212 degrees fahrenheit). The firing rate can be as fast as 500 pulses a second, and the distance as far as 64 feet with remarkable precision.[13] The chemicals vaporize upon contact with the air.[14]

“ "The spray of bombardier beetles contains p-benzoquinones (10), compounds well known for their irritant properties (11). A single bombardier beetle can discharge upward of 20 times before depleting its glands (6). The discharges are accompanied by audible detonations, and they have been shown to be potently deterrent to a number of predators, including ants (6, 12–15). The spray of bombardier beetles is ejected at 100°C (13). This is because the quinones are generated explosively at the moment of ejection by the mixture of two sets of chemicals ordinarily stored separately in the glands. Each gland consists of two confluent compartments. The larger of these (storage chamber or reservoir) contains hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide while the smaller one (reaction chamber) contains special enzymes (catalases and peroxidases). To activate the spray, the beetle mixes the contents of the two compartments, causing oxygen to be liberated from hydrogen peroxide and the hydroquinones to be oxidized by the freed oxygen. The oxygen also acts as the propellant, causing the mixture to 'pop' out (16–18). The heat that accompanies the formation of the spray is perceptible (13) and contributes to the defensive effectiveness of the secretion (14, 15)."
-Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, The National Academy of Sciences[15] 		”

Evolutionists like to point out that an initial description of the beetle by Creationist Duane Gish in 1977 was false.[16] Gish mistranslated a German account, and incorrectly claimed the beetles mix chemicals that would otherwise explode without an inhibitor (there appears to be no inhibitor, and hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone when combined do not explode), a description that has been erroneously repeated by various Creationist organizations as late as 1999.[17] Nonetheless, there nevertheless remains the improbability of such complex mechanics in a small beetle coming about through pure naturalistic chance.

“ "Can you imagine trying to explain all of this intricate design by 'chance evolutionary processes' occurring over millions of years in nature? And yet, evolutionists maintain that there are logical step-by-step explanations for this unique bug’s ability to have a chemical reaction chamber inside its abdomen. The truth is, however, that only intelligent design can explain how the beetle is able to produce the proper chemicals, keep them separate until they are needed, manufacture the right enzymes, and propel the hot mixture into the face of its enemy."

-Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub, Apologetics Press[18]

”

Because there are multiple inter-working parts that would make no sense if evolved in isolation, separate chemicals that must be mixed to achieve their reaction, separate chambers to hold them, and a firing mechanism perfectly suited for the whole process, the bombardier beetle is clearly the work of an Intelligent Designer. Needless to say, secular science has not yet decided how such complexity could have evolved. According to Alex James, Ken Morrison, and Simon Todd "the evolutionary pathway and the phyletic relationships between the different species and tribes is still unknown. Some believe that bombardiers have a monophyletic lineage (i.e. the mechanism evolved only once) and that the paussoids and brachinoids are sister groups. Others believe the mechanism evolved separately in the two families of paussoids and brachinoids."[19]

The bombardier beetle's firing mechanism is advanced enough that it is still "inspiring designers of engines, drug-delivery devices and fire extinguishers", possibly even mini rocket boosters. As recently as 2008 Biomimetics 3000 Ltd. patented revolutionary new technology based on the tiny beetle.[20] In 2014, ATM Machines are being designed to imitate the beetle's unique firing mechanism.[21]

Macropina Microstoma

It will be interesting indeed to see how Darwinists attempt to explain the evolution of a fish with a fluid-filled transparent head and 360 degree rotating eyeballs with green lenses. The 6-inch fish is a member of the Barreleye family and lives over 2,000 feet (600 meters) below the surface where very little sunlight reaches.[22] The fish's unique design results in 360-degree vision, dispelling previous claims that its eyes had 'tunnel vision.'[23]

“ "Fish didn’t design their eyes any more than humans designed theirs. Nor would nature be a reasonable candidate for designing such highly-specified structures as the barrel eyes, since there have been no recorded instances—in the lab or in the field—of nature’s processes doing anything but wearing systems down. And the more time allowed for nature to 'work' with, the more broken down the systems become, according to observable science. Design features like tubular eyes could not be the result of unaided, undirected natural forces, which have not demonstrated any capacity to develop anything beneficial or unique and purposive. However, barrel eyes are exactly what would be expected in a world created by an intelligent God who equips His creatures for the specific environments in which they live."

-Brian Thomas, "Tubular Fish Eyes Defy Evolution," Institute for Creation Research[24]

”

Although it was discovered in 1939 scientists didn't know that its eyes could rotate until 2009 when one was captured alive and brought to the surface for study in an aquarium by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Bruce Robison and Kim Reisenbichler used remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to study the remarkable fish, revealing that the fish typically hang motionless in the water, tracking prey with their remarkable eyes until it swims overhead for easy catching.[25]

More Examples of Batesian Mimicry

The following are, like the previously mentioned spider moth, more examples of what's known as Batesian Mimicry, creatures that perfectly imitate other organisms or objects, and stretch the limits of Evolutionary credibility:

  • Flower mantises imitate flowers, and amazingly each imitates a different plant. The pink orchid mantis, mymenopus coronatus, perfectly imitates its namesake.[26]
  • The amazing tree stump spider, poltys illepidus, does an impeccable imitation of a broken tree stump, as does the buff-tip moth, phalera bucephala.[27]
  • The pupae of the swallowtail butterfly while brown imitates bird poop, and then turns green with black eyespots and imitates snakes.[12]
  • There are a number of dead leaf mantises that imitate decaying leaves, some even have the decay spots on their wings.

References

  1. ↑ Darwin, C., 1872. On the Origin of Species, 6th ed., p. 154. NY: NYU Press.
  2. ↑ Darwin, C.R. (1859). "On the Origin of Species." p. 5. London: John Murray. Darwin Online.
  3. ↑ Behe, M. J., Dec. 27, 1987. Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference. In Intelligent Design, Research & Analysis.
  4. ↑ Behe, M. J., 1996. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, p. 39-40. NY: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster. ISBN: 0684834936.
  5. ↑ Dembski, W. A., 2007. No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence, p.285. RLPG. ISBN: 074255810X.
  6. ↑ Dembski, W. A. 1999. Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic. ISBN: 083082314X.
  7. ↑ Welsh, J. (2013, April 30). "Silly Moth, You Aren't A Spider." Business Insider.
  8. ↑ Pons, L. (2005, August 17). "Scientists Identify New Moth That Attacks Invasive Fern." U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research Service.
    USDA/Agricultural Research Service (2009, July 28). "Stem-Destroying Insect May Help Conquer Climbing Fern." ScienceDaily.
    Yadav, Mani, Chandra, Sachan, & Gosh (2012, July-December). "A Review on Therapeutic Potential of Lygodium Flexuosum Linn." Pharmacogn Rev 6(12): 107–114. doi: 10.4103/0973-7847.99944. PMCID: PMC3459452.
  9. ↑ Roach, J. (2007, February 14). "Moths Elude Spiders by Mimicking Them, Study Says." National Geographic.
  10. ↑ AFP (2011, August 11). "Britain's Rarest Spider Moves to New Home." Phys.org.
    Boettcher, D. (2011, August 11). "Rare Ladybird Spiders Released in Dorset." BBC Nature.
  11. ↑ Breslin, S. (2013, August 13). "Rarely Seen Spiders of Singapore are Creepy and Beautiful." The Weather Channel.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Conniff, R. (2013, October 25). "The Grand Animal Costume Party." The New York Times.
  13. ↑ Armitage, M.H. & Mullisen, L. (2003, April). "Preliminary Observations of the Pygidial Gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus Sp." Journal of Creation 17(1):95–102.
    BBC (1999, August 17). "Bull's-Eye Beetle." BBC News.
  14. ↑ Bhutia, Rogers, Lewis, Tikkanen, & Young (2012, July 23). "Ground Beetle." Encyclopædia Britannica.
  15. ↑ Eisner, Thomas, & Aneshansley, Daniel J. (1999, June 29). "Spray Aiming in the Bombardier Beetle: Photographic Evidence." PNAS 96(17): 9705-07-0. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.17.9705.
  16. ↑ Isaak, M. (2004). "Claim CB310.1." TalkOrigins.
    Weber, C.G. (1981). "The Bombardier Beetle Myth Exploded." Creation Evolution Journal 2(1): 1-5.
  17. ↑ Nature Friend Magazine (1989, December). "The Amazing Bombardier Beetle." Creation 12(1):29.
    Huse, S.M. (1999). "The Bombardier Beetle: Evolutionary Accident or Everlasting Architect?" Eternal Word Television Network.
  18. ↑ Thompson, Bert, & Harrub, Brad (2003). "Beetles and Airplane Engines." Apologetics Press.
  19. ↑ James, A.; Morrison, K.; & Todd, S. (2013, February 6). "A Mathematical Model of the Defence Mechanism of a Bombardier Beetle." J R Soc Interface 10(79): 20120801. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2012.0801. PMCID: PMC3565695.
  20. ↑ Institute of Physics (2008, April 5). "The Bombardier Beetle, Power Venom, And Spray Technologies." ScienceDaily.
    Nelson, B. (2008, May 19). "Beetle's Toxic Blasts Trigger Innovation." NBC News.
  21. ↑ Yirka, B. (2014, March 27). "Chemists Mimic Bombardier Beetles to Safeguard ATMs." Phys.org.
  22. ↑ Lovett, R.A. (2009, February 23). "First Photos: Weird Fish With Transparent Head." National Geographic.
    N.a. (2012, May 22). "The Hidden Wonders of Marine Biodiversity International Union for Conservation of Nature.
  23. ↑ Millat, C. (2009, February 25). "Crazy See-Through Fish Wows Scientists." NBC Washington.
  24. ↑ Thomas, B. (2009, March 3). "Tubular Fish Eyes Defy Evolution." Institute for Creation Research.
  25. ↑ Fulton-Bennett, K. (2009, February 23). "Researchers Solve Mystery of Deep-Sea Fish with Tubular Eyes and Transparent Head." Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.
    LiveScience (2009, February 23). "Strange Fish Has a See-Through Head." NBC News.
  26. ↑ Bates, M. (2013, September 25). "Praying Mantis Mimics Flower to Trick Prey." National Geographic.
  27. ↑ N.a. (2019). Buff-Tip: Phalera Bucephala." The Wildlife Trusts.

Related links

See Also

v • d • e
Intelligent Design
ConceptsBacterial flagellum diagram.png
Examples
Proponents
Resources
Books • Links • News • Organizations • Theorists • Videos
Creationwiki portals.png Categories • Portal • News Creationwiki portals.png
Retrieved from "http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Irreducible_complexity&oldid=369123"