How does Darwinism explain the phenomenon of the ' irreducible complex ' in biological systems, where all parts must be present simultaneously for the system to function and simple step-by-step evolution is not enough?
(4 votes)
Loading...Hello, Does a flywheel last forever? Or does the thing have a life cycle?
Hey, I'm currently studying genetics in biology class, and I'm learning how to correctly read and analyze a karyotype. In one of these karyotypes (pictured below), "the answer" is 47xy + 13 I understand why it says 13 and why there are 47 instead of 46 chromosomes, but I don't understand how you get the…
What exactly does the title "King of the Beasts" mean? If you compare the lion to a tiger, isn't it superior? The tiger is more agile, stronger, etc., and would, for example, show the lion how to fight. So why exactly is the lion called the king of the beasts? Because he behaves like one?…
What do you guys say then you'll finally be rid of me have you ever been there and can you recommend it
Is that an escaped pet bird? The bird landed on my antenna and was looking around on my balcony. Unfortunately, it didn't spot the bird feeder. This picture is from a video; I had to take it through the double-glazed window, so please don't criticize my photography skills.
Very simple: by simple, gradual evolution. That’s enough. The watchmaker’s argument is a popular actor’s trick of the creationists, but it has long since been refuted. As a favorite example of the creationists, the lens eye is often called. A gradual evolution would be impossible in view of the complex structure. In fact, however, this is very well the case and that it was so, can be dubiously demonstrated by morphological series of stages. In the case of soft animals, we find the most diverse organizational levels of eyes, from “primitive” eye pits to beaker eyes to the “highly complex” lens eye. Here we can literally see the gradual evolution of the complex lens eye over various intermediate stages:
Fig: differently complex eye shapes in soft animals. © Wikimedia Commons, Public domain.
Each of these intermediate stages works for itself. The fact that every part has to be at its place from the beginning is thus clearly refuted.
In addition, evolutionary features can also undergo a change of function. Our lung is actually a piece of intestine that enabled our ancestors still living in the water to absorb atmospheric oxygen in the event of a shortage of oxygen or when the water is dried out. That’s what fish do today. If the water contains little oxygen in a carp pond in the summer, you can see the fish caught in the air. They take oxygen over the intestine. The lungs then experienced a change of function in the land swirls by allowing the landing. From “primitive” lungs, “more complex” developed there. We find the “most progressive” in mammals and birds. In most “fishing” the lungs experienced a completely different form of conversion, it became a floating bubble that regulates the buoyancy.
The big mistake in thinking is that one assumes that only parts are added in evolution. However, parts can also fall away, change their function (exaptation), gain new functions, be neutral and much more. Such mechanisms are common in evolution. It is therefore not surprising that biological systems interlink with time in such a way that a reduction is no longer possible.
In the end it is a to be expected consequence of evolution. And this is not my guess; in experiments one can actually observe how irreducible complexities arise, asVpu HIV or Cit+ at E. Coli. The fact that removing a part destroys a system is completely irrelevant to whether it has evolved or not.
Since the beginning of 20. The theory of Darwin (Darwinism) is no longer represented. Darwinism is incomplete and a few things even turned out to be incorrect. Darwin’s contribution is a small, though very important part of modern synthesis in evolutionary biology. Today we are talking about(Integrated) Evolutionary Synthetics.
The term Darwinism is only used by creationists or historians.
Today’s Synthetic Evolution Theory is the further development of the classical evolution theories of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.
No “is too complex to be created without a designer”:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/non-reduced_complexit%C3%A4t
By Scherer is the book “Evolution – a critical textbook”. In this, Junker and Scherer represent the thesis of “Intelligent Design”: the living beings are so complex that they could design only an intelligent designer.
And they become more and more cautious in their formulations:
https://laborjournal.de/rubric/buch/2014/b_03_01.php
–
Creationists jump from one “you cannot explain” to the next:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augenevolution
Evolution does not form individual parts of a system step by step, but different forms of the overall system in step-by-step complexity, from primitive to complex. Thus, not parts of the eye developed in succession, but overall eyes from simple light-sensitive cells to the optimized apparatus which the eye is still today, from light-dark perception to sharp images. The complexity levels are still present in different animals.
How does the theory of evolution explain the transition from simpler to more complex eye structures in detail, in particular given the fact that each stage of eye development must be functional to provide an evolutionary advantage?
How was it ensured that any evolutionary change, even if it was small and gradual, improved the overall system of the eye in a way that promoted the survival and reproduction of the species?
better constructs prevail if they are an advantage for survival. If a few transparent cells randomly form over the light-sensitive surface cells, the light perception is stronger because of the focusing (can be observed with water drops), and the first step is already moving into an eyeglass body. And so it goes on – now perhaps a few specimens of the species can tend the light-sensitive skin surface by contraction in two directions (it should give people who can shave with their ears), they already have an advantage because they can turn the direction of focus faster than others, and at some point all one glass body can roll back and forth. etc. etc.
The problem of creationists is always that they consider the human nature of constructing to be a superior way (although human constructs have malfunctions and disintegrate shortly after construction) and think, so also nature or higher power should act. Highness and dimension replaces flexibility.
Random is overrated and misunderstood. Random does not mean that everything is possible – after all, physical laws and boundary conditions always apply.
Example: the probability for a certain number in dice is 1/6. Who now throws 6 cubes and expects each number to come exactly once will be disappointed, because the cubes do not meet who shows the 1, who shows the 2 etc. But whoever throws 6000 cubes will see that about 1000 the 1 show. The more cubes, the sharper the boundary condition appears, which is given by the shape of the cube.
So coincidence does not determine the result, it only ensures that there is a result at all.
The goal of biological systems is always a functioning ecological environment from different species. And evolution is a robust optimization process that leads to this goal. There are also software processes that successfully use the three pillars of evolution (selection, mutation, crossover) for optimization.
Evolution through natural selection is not simply a linear process in which “better constructs” automatically penetrate 😉
Any evolutionary change must be considered within the overall context of the organism and its environment.
Firstly, not all evolutionary changes are beneficial or lead to an improvement. Many mutations are neutral or even disadvantageous. The process of natural selection is often a process of “good enough” and not necessarily optimization.
Secondly, the process of evolution is not targeted. Evolutionary changes are the result of random mutations, which are either promoted or discarded by natural selection, depending on how well they help the organisms to survive in their specific environment and to reproduce.
Your submission that creationists view human constructs as a superior way, simplifies and generalizes the views of a diverse group. While some creationists may assume that a higher power acts in a human-like design style, many others recognise the complexity and diversity of natural processes at 😉
They don’t explain this at all because this “phenomenon” is only postulated by creationists, but never occupied.
Once the bird flight was the parade example, after the discovery of feathered (non-vogel) dinosaurs, it was replaced by the bacterial chisel.
Creationists are in evidence. If you sit down and ask for a complete development story of the vertebrate animal eye, while you only “can’t be” out and the explanations probably don’t understand or at least don’t look at it, that’s unmistakable of you and smashing for your counterpart.
and the eye.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augenevolution
Creationists jump from one “you can’t explain” to the next.
The eye is an old hat and at the same time a continuous burner. Las last “founding”, why various “construction errors” are so useful, the inverse location of the retina e.g.
Darwinism has not dealt with this problem. Today’s theory of evolution, which, in addition to population theory, also draws on genetic findings, has dealt with it. For example, there are very clear explanations, such as the eye has emerged in animals.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augenevolution
There are a variety of answers from the scientific community, some of which you will find here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB (from CB300)
https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/tch/evidevol/ircomp/index.html
and so on and so on. All these articles refer to further scientific literature. However, if you set the claim
I would recommend studying biology, investigating the focus of evolutionary biology and even researching the topic. Otherwise, all explanations will appear to be insufficient.
However, since I suspect that you have copied all the texts literally by word & knowledge or another creative site that badly translated the prescribed English texts into German, a discussion with you is superfluous anyway.
“But since I suspect that you have copied all the texts literally by word & knowledge or another creative site that badly translates the prescribed English texts into German, a discussion with you is unnecessary anyway.”
Your assumption does not correspond to reality. In fact, I have dealt with matters in detail and some critical questions have come to my mind. It goes without my knowledge, which is why you feel directly attacked. If you don’t have any answers to these questions, just admit it. It is generally recognized that no individual has omnipotent knowledge.
Well, if you’ve been so busy with the subject, you’ll be able to read and understand the texts I link, and in particular the scientific literature mentioned there.
I don’t feel personally attacked. You seem to ask simple questions here with the aim of being able to call “Gotcha, you don’t know” and thus make doubts. This is a common trick among creationists and I want to prevent silent fellow readers from falling into it.
It seems that you also have problems to grasp the nuances of the German language. If you hadn’t faced me with your troubled accusations, I would have been willing to conduct a scientifically sound discussion.
Âlso you do not want to discuss it in terms of content. Well, no answer is also an answer.
“Nextly, you haven’t received in any way what I linked.” Although I answered what you had to delete. I like to do it again:
To this accusation: At the moment when I am confronted by a user with irrational submissions, I prefer to end the scientific discussion with him. This behavior reveals a pronounced irrationality, emotionality and immature of the relevant user…
Nope, just my personal experience. By the way, you have not yet received in any way what I linked. It’s called
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Avoiding-the-Issue
“You seem to ask simple questions here with the aim of being able to call “Gotcha, you don’t know” and thus make doubts.”
Again, I must point out an implicit submission to you, which obviously reveals a personal deception on your part.
It is by no means my intention to create uncertainty. My concern is to ask questions that I consider interesting. This corresponds to the purpose of the platform on which questions can be formulated in order to discuss them from a philosophical or scientific perspective and to know the opinions of others on these issues, which is of intrinsic interest. I am unclear what the problem is with you, Mr. Mathematics. However, I would like to stress that I am not the appropriate contact person for working up your childhood trauma.