Irreducible Complexity

There are many ID’ers who complain about the AVIDA simulation, and I for the life of me can’t figure out why this is so.
Read More ›

Further to: Where did the term irreducible complexity originate, Michael “Forbidden Archeology” Cremo writes to say, Richard Thompson and I used the term “irreducible complexity” In our 1984 publication Origins. “Looking at the complex phenomena that confront any observer of the universe, scientists have decided to try a reductionistic approach. They say, ‘Let’s try to reduce everything to measurements and try to explain them by simple universal laws.’ But there is no logical reason for ruling out in advance alternative strategies for comprehending the universe, strategies that might involve laws and principles of irreducible complexity.” (p. 4) Drutakarma Dasa (Michael A. Cremo), Bhutatma Dasa (Austin Gordon), and Sadaputa Dasa (Richard L. Thompso) 1984. Origins: Higher Dimensions in Science. Los Angeles: Read More ›

The term refers to the fact that many features of cells simply cannot be the product of Darwinian evolution (a point that is slowly being conceded now). Trying to rectify some known functions of cells with explicitly Darwinian evolution is just a time sink. Some say, of course, that the idea of irreducible complexity (IR) arose from creationist literature (also here.) Seriously, the term has so far been traced to Templets and the explanation of complex patterns (Cambridge U Press, 1986) by theoretical biologist Michael J. Katz. “Irreducible complexity” appears as an index entry in Katz’s book, and set forth as follows: In the natural world, there are many pattern-assembly systems for which there is no simple explanation. There are useful scientific Read More ›

On another thread we have been discussing abiogenesis in particular, but there was also some discussion about the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Commenter CHartsil indicated that “we actually watched an IC system evolve” in reference to Lenski’s E. coli research. At my request, he has posted a brief summary of the research and his take, which I am now elevating to a new thread on this important topic. For those who disagree with CHartsil’s take, strong objections on substantive grounds are of course welcome, whether relating to Lenski’s research or CHartsil’s interpretation of it, but not irrelevant personal attacks. Thank you. —– Guest Post by CHartsil: This is a pro-ID board so I doubt I need to explain Read More ›

It finally happened. I’ve been nursing along my car’s transmission for several months (careful driving, changing the fluids, etc.), but last week it finally failed completely, with an accompanying whump! and a jerk, and the car had to be towed to the auto repair shop. The initial hope was that a regular tear-down and cleanout, along with replacement of the wearable parts, would take care of it.  That was going to set me back about $1,500, which I wasn’t happy about but could live with.  Unfortunately, it turned out that some of what the transmission guys call “hard parts” – in this case the planetary gear assembly – were broken, so they were going to have to order a whole Read More ›

Walter Remine mentioned in passing about a parasite that slowly evolved to lose all its organs except for its anus. Unfortunately he didn’t recall the name of the creature or whether he got all the details right, but rather than peppered moths, if that creature really exists, it should be the poster child of Darwinism. I’ve argued almost from the beginning that most observed evolution in real time is loss of function. Loss of function is called reductive evolution. And the fact that most selectively favored adaptations involving function is loss of function rather than acquisition of function is what I refer to as Behe’s Rule. But far be for evolutionists to salute creationists and IDists who have pointed out Read More ›

This lecture by Dr Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute, with Q & A may be a good refresher and focus for thought on OoL, HT WK: [youtube NbluTDb1Nfs] WK — a useful blog to bookmark and monitor to see trends and issues — gives a helpful bullet point outline, in part: intelligent design is concerned with measuring the information-creating capabilities of natural forces like mutation and selection Darwinists think that random mutations and natural selection can explain the origin and diversification of living systems Darwinian mechanisms are capable of explaining small-scale adaptive changes within types of organisms but there is skepticism, even among naturalists, that Darwinian mechanisms can explain the origin of animal designs even if you concede that Darwinism Read More ›

Wikipedia is known to be Darwin loving, but here is a moment of anti-Darwinian honesty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_redundancy Genetic redundancy is a term typically used to describe situations where a given biochemical function is redundantly encoded by two or more genes. In these cases, mutations (or defects) in one of these genes will have a smaller effect on the fitness of the organism than expected from the genes’ function. Characteristic examples of genetic redundancy include (Enns, Kanaoka et al. 2005) and (Pearce, Senis et al. 2004). Many more examples are thoroughly discussed in (Kafri, Levy & Pilpel. 2006). …. A Darwinian Paradox Genetic redundancy has aroused significant debate in the context of evolutionary biology (Nowak et al., 1997; Kafri, Springer & Pilpel Read More ›