Irreducible Complexity

Congrats to Philip Cunningham

Here’s an example of what Michael Behe is (actually) talking about in Darwin Devolves The evolution strategy “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain”: Eleven authors writing in PLOS Biology found that “γ-proteobacteria eject their polar flagella under nutrient depletion, retaining flagellar motor relic structures.” When there’s nothing to eat, these bacteria are willing to toss off their flagella and plug the hole in order to save energy. If you were out on a lake, would you unlatch your new Yamaha F250 4.2-liter V6 outboard motor and let it drop to the bottom? You might if the boat was taking on water and was about to sink, and you were about to Read More ›

 Or here. Note: Behe has a new book coming out. See New book from Michael Behe on how today’s DNA findings “devolve” Darwin See also: The bombardier beetle, the toad, and – after all these years – Mike Behe

Ever since Michael Behe published Darwin’s Black Box in 1996, the concept of irreducible complexity has played a central role in the debate over Darwinian theory. I am proposing a new, theoretical method of determining whether a system is irreducibly complex using power-sets. First, however, it is necessary to define irreducible complexity. Various definitions of irreducible complexity exist. Michael Behe defines it as “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” Critics have noted that this definition is actually a definition of interlocking complexity, a concept H. J. Muller had written about years earlier and which is perfectly compatible with Darwinian theory. In Read More ›