[_ Old Earth _] How do macroevolutionists refute irreducible complexity?

[mpok1519]

He the thing: IC doesn't even exist. It is yet another misnomer term that describes ideas that simply don't objectively exist. Much like micro/macroevolution, irreducible complexity is one of those terms that creationists have fabricated to give creedance to ideas that aren't scientific at all. Microevolution and macroevolution are misnomers bc they simply describe evolution in general but within the confines of certain amounts of time, micro meaning evolution over a small period of time and macro meaning evolution over a large period of time yeilding seemingly more drastic results, but in reality, when microevolution is stacked over and over, over time, those microevolutions one would consider one giant macroevolution. But these are not scientific terms since time is not one of the mechanics of evolution. It is a dimension which helps us coorelate space and occurance, but it is not one of the mechanisms which drives the natural process of evolution.

Irreducible complexity is one of those ideas that also does not exist. For example, creationists cite continually that certain organisms are so complex that removing just one piece or feature of their bodies would ruin and negate any functionability of their designed bodies and the purposes of those bodies. One of these organisms that is said to be too complex to be irreducible was a bacteria. The organism was so complex with parts built into a flagellum used for propulsion that it'd be impossible to function if just one tiny segment of that propeller were removed. This is what they mean by irreducible complexity; that something so complex and juxtaposed loses function if any pieces of it are removed, so if any complexity is reduced, the functionability is also reduced.

But this is simply not true; for example, a mouse trap, when removed of certain parts, loses all functionability as a mousetrap. Say you take the spring away, and it loses function to snap down quickly so as to catch a mouse. While it may have lost function as a mousetrap, it does not lose all function as anything, however, bc it still can be used as a tie-clip, even without the spring. The same example can be applied to the bacteria and the flagellum; while one of the pieces is removed from the propeller motor, it loses function as a propeller, but, it still can be used as a tool for latching onto other microbes in order to feed from them.

Irreducible complexity simply doesn't exist because even if you reduce the complexity of something, it still maintains some kind of function somewhere, for something. You can reduce all of the universe to the smallest planks and quirks, but even those still serve a purpose. Complexity is reducible, as it is also compilable, and function never ceases to exist.

 

[abrown9]

Post above hit the nail on the head. Pre-adaptation. Stephen Jay Gould has a really nice essay on this topic where the question at hand was how could such a complex structure such as the eye come into existence. Sure half an eye does not confer any evolutionary advantage, but what if the original structure was not selected as an eye.

Gould uses the freshwater mussel Lampsilis to present his case of pre-adaptation, which he defines as a "functional change in structural continuity". Lampsilis has an extension that looks completely like a fish that attracts predators, which in turn allows the larva (suspended near the fish) to catch a free ride on the predator (which is necessary for survival). Gould shows many related mussels that have several stages of the "fish" development. It turns out that originally, a flapping extension was all that developed to attract predators, and the more colourful and more alluring the extension became, the more the fish would be attracted to it.

The same could be said for the eye: it started as a simple ocelli to sense light and although there was "structural continuity" towards the completion of a complex eye, the function changed as the eye became more complex.

 

[Deavonreye]

abrown9, that's what I have heard, and it makes a lot of sense. Adaption based upon its [the adaption] ability to give the organism a foot forward from other similar organisms. Good post.

 

[abrown9]

Thanks.

The one question I always pose is if the eye did not arise from natural selection then why do we have at least two (the cephalopod and us) unique eye forms that are not homologous? One of my profs always said "at least three" but I never heard what that other eye was from because he used the cephalopod as an example.

Why would God create two totally different eyes (and give us the inferior one as cephalopods do not have a blindspot)?. It seems a bit like re-inventing the wheel and not very efficient engineering to me.