# Irreducible complexity cut down to size ## Метаданные - **Канал:** QualiaSoup (archive) - **YouTube:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU ## Содержание ### [0:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU) Segment 1 (00:00 - 05:00) a common tactic among those who tried to discredit evolution is quote mining deceptively editing or taking a quotation out of context so as to attribute the author with a different or even contrary view Charles Darwin is often quoted as saying it's absurd in the highest degree that something as complex as the eye could be formed by natural selection in fact when we read the full passage in his Origin of Species from which this quote is mined the point Darwin making is that whether or not something seems absurd is not a valid guide in science and he reminds us how common sense first rejected the idea of the Earth orbiting the Sun he explains that if intermediate stages of the eye can be found in nature with each stage giving an advantage as he says is certainly the case then whether or not people find it hard to imagine them evolving by natural selection doesn't undermine the theory far from dismissing the concept of eyes gradually evolving as absurd Darwin was saying it should not be dismissed on the grounds of seeming absurd because the physical evidence of intermediate stages already existed he even goes on to discuss where such stages can be found in nature so how could something as complex as the human eye have evolved gradually various natural scientists have given straightforward solutions to the problem first a patch of light sensitive cells distinguishes light from dark if these cells form a shallow cup different cells will respond to different angles of incoming light giving information about the direction of light and possible predators as the cup deepens this ability increases and it begins to detect blurry images Like A Primitive pinhole camera next mucus produced by the cells collects in a globule bending and focusing light and improving on detail then the mucus hardens to form a lens allowing an even clearer picture while all this is happening the eye can benefit from moving more freely in its surrounding structure and putting the shape of the lens under muscle control increases focusing power we can keep adding refinements until we reach an eye like our own this shows how an eye can evolve without everything having to happen at once with each step building the advantage to the animal and there are examples in nature of eyes that closely match intermediate stages like these simple animals with a light sensitive patch flat worms with eyes like the shallow cup the Nautilus with its pinhole camera eye the octopus eye with its lens many kinds of eye have evolved which isn't surprising given that light provides so much useful information and nature provides a evidence that they're not too complex to have evolved gradually the bombarder beetle has been another favorite with anti-evolutionists it shoots boiling costic spray from its abdomen when threatened a mechanism they claim couldn't have evolved because according to them the smallest variation in the balance of chemicals involved would lead to the beetal exploding anti-evolutionists have often misdescribed the defense mechanism as consisting of two chemicals that explode when mixed or having an inhibitor to stop them exploding and an anti-inhibitor to calls the Boom in fact the chemicals in question hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide don't explode when mixed and there are no Inhibitors or anti- Inhibitors the true mechanism involves these chemicals being released through a valve into a thickly lined chamber where catalysts induce the reaction and the resulting pressure causes the substance to gush from the abdomen outspoken creationist Dwayne Gish has likened this mechanism to a Rocket needing every part present and functioning in order to reach the moon notice how this analogy encourages us to attribute the mechanism with vastly disproportionate super complexity a common creation is Ploy when trying to make Evolution seem impossible but did this have to be an all or nothing leap of biology certainly not a weaker chemical solution produces a weaker reaction some bmers produce a caller but still repellent froth so there can be a perfectly smooth sequence from strong reaction back to barely any reaction at all the options are not just explosion or no explosion however often some people repeat that false dichotomy and before even the weakest chemical reaction evolves the presence of Quinones alone which used to color parts of arthropod exoskeletons can make them repellent to Predators as with the eye the evolution of this defense mechanism does not rely on some impossible leap of biology it can be explained step by step with step-by-step advantages and intermediate examples are found in nature some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael beee an advocate of the pseudo scientific intelligent design movement that biological systems showing irreducible complexity can't evolve gradually because any previous version that lacked a part would be by definition nonfunctional behe has famously likened such systems to a mouse trap an object he says has five necessary Parts but his analogy and reasoning have many flaws firstly this trap is not irreducibly complex we can immediately remove the base and secure the other parts to the surface on which it was resting be says this just swaps one base from another ### [5:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&t=300s) Segment 2 (05:00 - 10:00) but the standard trap and a trap fixed to one spot have significant differences also mouse traps are made with a specific goal in mind Evolution has no such goals living Mouse catchers didn't plan to evolve that way and something that catches mice today might have had ancestors ill suited to that task so demanding we should be able to reduce a mouse trap to one part and still catch mice doesn't reflect what happens in nature thirdly it hardly challenges Evolution if an object we all agree didn't evolve couldn't have evolved D guitars don't mate and give birth does that mean sexual reproduction and pregnancy must be fantasy watches don't grow from a few dividing cells does that mean you didn't of course not living organisms have ways of changing form that simply aren't available to non-living metal and bits of wood while it may be valid to infer design for things we already agree aren't formed by natural processes it's simply not valid to apply the same reasoning to living things which we know can develop in literally millions of ways however if a non-living analogy is required let's take this dry Stone Arch remove any part and it collapses this object does have irreducible complexity but we can still reduce it part by following its construction in reverse the stage before this wasn't four Stones define gravity but five Stones Plus a support structure in this case a curved piece of wood and look what happens now we can take the arch apart piece by piece until only the support is left forming an arch by itself we've solved the problem of how to reduce this irreducibly complex object in stages by first adding a part before taking away and this illustrates a fourth Point precursors to irreducibly complex systems don't have to lack Parts they may for example have extra parts that get discarded Evolution doesn't always add it often subtracts streamlining a structure or function which benefits the organism by getting rid of redundant and physically costly components but arches like Mouse traps are unsatisfying examples when we're talking about Evolution let's look at a living trap for small animals the Venus fly trap which as the name indicates snaps shut quickly enough to trap flies and sometimes even small frogs when trigger hairs are brushed how could this have evolved wouldn't a precursor that closed more slowly have caught next to nothing not if it was covered with thick sticky mucilage a sticky leaf that also closed around its victim would be extremely effective and in fact the sunu a relative of the Venus fly trap uses just this method to capture its victims note how the extra Factor stickiness isn't present in the Venus fly trap but can allow slower precursors to be effective as with the dry Stone Arch a crucial Factor not present in the last stage enables the last stage to develop even systems that are irreducibly complex can and doize gradually through a combination of addition subtraction change of parts and or change of the function of Parts behe's argument ignore three of these options and is therefore invalid but even if there was only addition the argument is still wrong because we can remove components from an irreducibly complex system and still be left with functional parts with secondary functions that benefit the organism in other ways biology Professor Kenneth Miller has explained how this is the case with the bacterial flagellum another complex system whose gradual Evolution has often been declared impossible if we remove not one but more than half of its 40 to 50 components we're left with a system used by bacteria to inject toxins into host cells this is very far from nonfunctional indeed almost every constituent protein in the flagellum has been identified with proteins that perform other cell functions arguments from complexity would have us believe that flagellum Parts had no reason to be there other than to form the flagellum but if they were already performing useful functions at a second and third level as evidence shows there were excellent reasons for them to be there Michael beeh claims that so-called intelligent design is scientific yet he's admitted in court that no articles appearing in peer reviewed scientific journals argue in support of it and that under his definition of science astrology would also be classed as a scientific theory in court where lies can lead to Serious penalties and unsound arguments can be thoroughly and systematically dissected intelligent design has been quickly exposed for what it is creationism thinly concealed a religious argument from a non-scientific political movement that unlike Evolution which has gained legitimate support through the disciplined and demanding work that any genuine scientist expects to do seeks to wriggle out of that hard work and award itself a free pass to bulldo its way into science classrooms regardless to pollute young minds with its distorted nonsense history is littered with examples of scientific facts being fought and denied by those threatened by knowledge and curiosity about our universe so anti-evolutionists upholder long tradition of blinker ### [10:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&t=600s) Segment 3 (10:00 - 10:00) dogmatists who let learning pass them by but when people not content with squandering their own opportunities for Education feel driven to sabotage the education of others that is inexcusable complexity in nature can seem baffling at times however as Charles Darwin explained what seems baffling is not a valid guide in science as we've seen complex natural systems can evolve gradually through an accumulation of many small useful steps systems claim clim to be irreducibly complex are often not and even systems that are irreducibly complex can have functional precursors and evolve gradually these facts destroy arguments from complexity at their very foundations leaving the vastly overinflated claims of anti-evolutionists reduced --- *Источник: https://ekstraktznaniy.ru/video/32209*