Home » Irreducible Complexity » Evolution does and does not predict irreducible complexity, and anyway it doesn’t exist …

Evolution does and does not predict irreducible complexity, and anyway it doesn’t exist …

I’ve been meaning for ages to review the pseudonymous* Mike Gene’s Design Matrix – and yes, I’ll get to it – but for now here is fun post at his blog, summarizing the incontrovertible truth about evolution and irreducible complexity

Chris Ho-Stuart: However, Muller’s claim is that this [IC] is an EXPECTED result of evolution.

Massimo Pigliucci: there is no evidence so far of irreducible complexity in living organisms.

Blue Collar Scientist: Muller’s paper….contains a description of irreducible complexity, along with an explanation of how it comes about through the simplest of evolutionary means. It amounts to a prediction that “irreducible complexity” will actually be found in organisms.

Niall Shanks and Karl Joplin: The redundancy we observe today in effect represents the biochemical and molecular footprints of evolutionary processes in action.

Wikipedia: he described the “interlocking” of biological features as a consequence to be expected of evolution

Wikipedia: It may be that irreducible complexity does not actually exist in nature

Got that, class! Now remember it for the Indoctrinate U entrance exams.

*Mike Gene writes under a pseudonym for the same reasons at the current winner of the student IDEA club award is incognito.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to Evolution does and does not predict irreducible complexity, and anyway it doesn’t exist …

  1. I was lurking/ reading the Telic Thoughts blog and read that Darwin’s falsification:

    If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin

    does NOT apply to IC.

    So it appears that this is their tactic because they know they cannot demonstrate anything in genetics beyond slight, oscillating variations.

    They also think that imagination is an OK substitute for a demonstration.

    Natural selection has taken on the meaning of “hocus pocus” and random magic, I mean mutations, has taken on te meaning of “abbra cadabra”

  2. Massimo Pigliucci: there is no evidence so far of irreducible complexity in living organisms.

    This is an incredible comment. Living things are composed mostly of irreducibly complex systems that clearly cannot be approached in a step-by-tiny-step evolutionary process, and at all levels, from the DNA molecule, to the flagellum, to the avian lung.

    However, it is an article of faith that the obviously true cannot possibly be true, otherwise the Darwinian story would just be a myth.

  3. Gil,

    Living things ARE irreducibly complex, not just composed of IC systems.

    (Once it is shown that living organisms can arise via blind, undirected processes ID falls.)

    However this does bring up a question-

    If there aren’t any IC systems then what, if anything, can falsify the theory?

  4. Nothing can falsify a theory that does not allow falsification except on pains of eternal shame.

  5. Pigliucci’s chart is inane, particularly because ‘optimal’ and ‘perfect’ depend entirely on the perspective of the creator(s)/Creator – not on our own judgment of them. Further, asserting that no designer could make use of a historical process is baseless – especially considering the use of computer simulations with regards to evolution (both to simulate the supposed actual past evolution – which would then be compatible with guidance of a historical process – as well as the use of evolutionary programs to ‘design’ things such as transistors.)

    The man does not know what he’s doing on this subject.

  6. 6

    there is no evidence so far of irreducible complexity in living organisms.

    Try telling that to the heamophiliac. Oh you can’t, he’s dead.

  7. 7

    They also think that imagination is an OK substitute for a demonstration.

    So true.

Leave a Reply