Darwin's most vexing problem

[Neuropteron]

Darwin feared that his theory of gradual evolution had a potentially serious flaw.
Namely irreducible complexity and the nature of mutation.
He knew that if it could be demonstrated that any organ existed that could not have possibly been formed by repeated successive iterations using slight modifications his theory would experience a complete breakdown.

Could it be safe to say that much of the scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution has centered around this requirement ?

From Mivart's critisism to Margulis dismissal of gradual mutation, I think that critics of evolution have demonstrated that this criterion of failure has been established. eg. https://michaelbehe.com;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

How do we know that biological systems could not be formed by succesive and repeated modification?
To begin with a system that is irreducibly complex cannot be produced by successive modification of a precursor system, because any such precursor is by definition nonfunctional.
We have to keep in mind that natural selection can only select a pattern that is already working.

This means that if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to suddenly come into existence as a fully funtioning and integral unit for natural selection to continue its course. Simply stated its either gradual or sudden.

Goldscmidt's theory "called hopeful monster theory" which attempst to integrate "sudden appearance" with gradual mutation is replete with speculations and empty of convincing arguments. We might as well propose that the whole earth "with all of it's current features" as we know it today suddenly sprang into existence . Using luck to explaine a process is not science but metaphysical speculation.

Additionally, there is another difficulty for Darwin's theory. It's called "minimal function capability",
Not only do "all" of the parts for a irreducible system require to be present for a component to work but the part have to be made of the 1/right material and 2cd work in prescribed manner.
Unlike irreducible complexity, minimal function is hard to describe, but is an important part in a working system.
For instance:
A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.
A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction.

For the theory of evolution to be even fleetingly considered scientific these two issues (and others) would have to be satisfactorily resolved, they never have.

Until these and similar issues are answered, do you think that evolution should be considered a scientific fact or be relegated to the section: Fiction and fantasy? or religion and faith?

Should a person want to, what could we replace evolution with?
Belief in a divine architect and creator ?
Put it in the "Cannot be answered" folder ?

Note:
I am aware that many scientists are supportive of evolution. I am also aware that no scientist has proved it a fact.
Please do not expect me to read reams of information supporting this pseudo-science, I have already done my share of searching and reading (ad nausea) to find legitimate support for evolution.
However if you want to share information in your own words about evolution, I would appreciate that.

All the above is my opinion and is not presented with the purpose to annoy.

 

[Revoltingest]

A long standing problem for the irreducible complexity claim has
been the assumption of no intermediate steps. I remember the
eye being cited as an example of evolution being impossible.
Then numerous such steps have been found. It was a good try.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Hmmm... Just curious, but what is a "proven fact" in science?

As far as I was aware, there are scientific theories. Yes, they have to pass certain tests to become theories, but when those theories are found to be flawed, they are either updated or discarded by the new information that comes along.

Evolution is a theory that has been around for a long time, and has survived a lot of people trying to tear it down; both from those who don't like it, and by those who want credit for tearing down such a well established theory (think of the fame someone could acquire in the scientific community for dethroning evolution).

There just hasn't been anyone yet that has been able to dethrone evolution, IMO.

 

[McBell]

I am sincerely surprised that the OP has not referenced Expelled....

 

[Heyo]

Please do not expect me to read reams of information supporting this pseudo-science, I have already done my share of searching and reading (ad nausea) to find legitimate support for evolution.

I doubt that. But then again

All the above is my opinion and is not presented with the purpose to annoy.

You have a right to your own opinion, even when it's completely wrong.

 

[SigurdReginson]

I am sincerely surprised that the OP has not referenced Expelled....

Wait a minute... Is your signature a reference to Red Green? That explains so much now...

 

[Nimos]

Darwin feared that his theory of gradual evolution had a potentially serious flaw.
Namely irreducible complexity and the nature of mutation.
He knew that if it could be demonstrated that any organ existed that could not have possibly been formed by repeated successive iterations using slight modifications his theory would experience a complete breakdown.

Could it be safe to say that much of the scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution has centered around this requirement ?

Yes, but it has also been demonstrated to be incorrect, both the quote from darwin and that irreducible complexity is not an issue in evolution, so im not really sure that they are all that concerned about it.

Also remember that they did actually lose the Dover trial which judged in favour of evolution and that Intelligent design was simply creationism with a new and fancier name.

The Dover trial:

Its some time since I watched it, but im pretty sure that if you watch the documentary about the Dover trial you will see that everything you have written have been refuted and demonstrated to be wrong.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

it may be a noble goal to prove a theory wrong, but what is your purpose should you succeed?

 

[blü 2]

Darwin feared that his theory of gradual evolution had a potentially serious flaw.
Namely irreducible complexity and the nature of mutation.

You may recall the Dover trial in 2005, where "irreducible complexity" was argued in court, notably by Michael Behe. The Court found that all the examples proposed by Behe ─ the flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade and the immune system ─ were explicable, and explained, as examples of exaptation. (Exaptation is where a body part or system evolved for purpose A further evolves to perform purpose B instead. That's how the small bones in our ears began as bones of our ancestors' jaws, for instance.)

This left Behe with no examples of irreducible complexity to offer. He had stated in 2000 or thereabouts that he was aware his argument did not take exaptation into account and hoped to fix that shortly; but it's now 2021 so it doesn't look too promising.

The number of examples of irreducible complexity presently on the table, to the best of my understanding, remains at nil.

Should a person want to, what could we replace evolution with?

As mentioned, evolution does not have the problem you attribute to it. But to play with your question anyway ─

Belief in a divine architect and creator ?

If we answer this by saying God chose evolution as [his] method, we'll run into problems, not least about God's benevolence and good taste. But that's surely the most simple solution, no?

Put it in the "Cannot be answered" folder ?

No, the folder marked "Examined closely and answered Dover 2005".

I am also aware that no scientist has proved it a fact.

I suspect you're not reading the scientific news.

In science there are problems within the theory of evolution but they generally relate to the correct location on the evolution "tree" of particular species, especially very ancient ones where the evidence is scanty; and sometimes as to the precise workings of the biological procedures involved. But those problems are not challenges to the fact of evolution, nor to the theory of evolution's descriptions and explanations about how evolution works.

 

[AlexanderG]

"Could it be safe to say that much of the scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution has centered around this requirement?"

There is no scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution. It has made thousands of novel predictions that have shown to be accurate and successful when tested, in multiple disciplines of science, and it has been contradicted by zero evidence. Can you find a handful of PhD scientists who are creationists? Yes, but their religious convictions are not supported by science and offer nothing in the way of evidence that can challenge science. The apologist challenges are not in fact challenges.

"To begin with a system that is irreducibly complex cannot be produced by successive modification of a precursor system, because any such precursor is by definition nonfunctional."

This comment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the verified mechanisms of evolution. Functional systems can have many functional precursors. This has been thoroughly observed. These precursors can have a separate function, or a gene involved in the precursor can be duplicated by a mutation, and this extra copy in the DNA can then freely mutate to add a new feature/function in parallel to the continued functionality of the precursor. This is entirely understood, expected, observed, and explained. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked and proven false, and it is simply not an idea entertained by science.

"Goldscmidt's theory "called hopeful monster theory" which attempst to integrate "sudden appearance" with gradual mutation is replete with speculations and empty of convincing arguments."

The Hopeful Monster hypothesis is from 1940, decades before we had discovered DNA, its structure, or its function. I would therefore fully expect its ideas about mutation to be speculative. Maybe challenge evolution with a notion that isn't over 80 years old and incorporates modern data and modern analysis? Either way, to the extent evidence confirms his hypothesis, the scientific consensus will accept it.

"Unlike irreducible complexity, minimal function is hard to describe, but is an important part in a working system.
For instance:
A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.
A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction."

Again, as in my first response above, any scientist who understands evolution doesn't even perceive this as a problem because it is so trivially easy to explain using the confirmed mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. It's like protesting to a store clerk that clothes can't possible hang up in stores without crumpling into heaps, and the store clerk stares at you blankly while explaining the existence of coat hangers and wracks, while calmly pointing at the hangers and wracks. The solution to your evolution "problem" is literally that obvious to a biologist. Literally. This is essentially a perfect analogy. All the apologetics and lawyers in the world can't help you in this kind of scenario.

"Until these and similar issues are answered, do you think that evolution should be considered a scientific fact or be relegated to the section: Fiction and fantasy?"

Evolution, meaning the change in allele frequency in populations of species over time, is an observable fact. The theory of evolution by natural selection, meaning the conceptual model that incorporates all the facts of evolution into a predictive tool that enables us to successfully predict which layers transitional fossils will be found in, predict how bacteria will evolve resistance to antibiotics, and much much more, is demonstrated to be useful by its myriad successes and lack of failures. Faith has never shown any such success beyond giving its believers good feelings, and religious faith has identified no tools to reliably confirm any supernatural religious claims. It has never confirmed or demonstrated any such claims. That is why religion is not science, and science is not religion.

Frankly, my advice to you is to stop getting your "education" about evolution from apologists who don't actually understand it, and instead learn about evolution from biologists whose knowledge is reflected in the scientific consensus.

 

[blü 2]

irreducibly complex

I should add that you can read the judgment in the Dover case >here<. You may find pages 64, 76, 79 and 88-89 of particular interest.

 

[Valjean]

The 'problem' of irreducible complexity has long been solved. Biology has advanced considerably from Darwin's day, just as medicine has since Galen. Proponents of ID don't seem to have noticed this.

 

[danieldemol]

All the above is my opinion

Of course it is, you would be shunned by any Jehovah's Witness friends and family members if it wasn't.

 

[night912]

A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.

And do you know what we called that thing that's made of paper?

Answer: Not a mouse trap.

You do realize that a whale is not a fish, right?

A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction.

Eventhough this bird........

.....the peregrine falcon, is considered to be not only the fastest bird, but the fast animal in the world, It can't do this......

 

[ChristineM]

Darwin feared that his theory of gradual evolution had a potentially serious flaw.
Namely irreducible complexity and the nature of mutation.
He knew that if it could be demonstrated that any organ existed that could not have possibly been formed by repeated successive iterations using slight modifications his theory would experience a complete breakdown.

Could it be safe to say that much of the scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution has centered around this requirement ?

From Mivart's critisism to Margulis dismissal of gradual mutation, I think that critics of evolution have demonstrated that this criterion of failure has been established. eg. https://michaelbehe.com;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

How do we know that biological systems could not be formed by succesive and repeated modification?
To begin with a system that is irreducibly complex cannot be produced by successive modification of a precursor system, because any such precursor is by definition nonfunctional.
We have to keep in mind that natural selection can only select a pattern that is already working.

This means that if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to suddenly come into existence as a fully funtioning and integral unit for natural selection to continue its course. Simply stated its either gradual or sudden.

Goldscmidt's theory "called hopeful monster theory" which attempst to integrate "sudden appearance" with gradual mutation is replete with speculations and empty of convincing arguments. We might as well propose that the whole earth "with all of it's current features" as we know it today suddenly sprang into existence . Using luck to explaine a process is not science but metaphysical speculation.

Additionally, there is another difficulty for Darwin's theory. It's called "minimal function capability",
Not only do "all" of the parts for a irreducible system require to be present for a component to work but the part have to be made of the 1/right material and 2cd work in prescribed manner.
Unlike irreducible complexity, minimal function is hard to describe, but is an important part in a working system.
For instance:
A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.
A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction.

For the theory of evolution to be even fleetingly considered scientific these two issues (and others) would have to be satisfactorily resolved, they never have.

Until these and similar issues are answered, do you think that evolution should be considered a scientific fact or be relegated to the section: Fiction and fantasy? or religion and faith?

Should a person want to, what could we replace evolution with?
Belief in a divine architect and creator ?
Put it in the "Cannot be answered" folder ?

Note:
I am aware that many scientists are supportive of evolution. I am also aware that no scientist has proved it a fact.
Please do not expect me to read reams of information supporting this pseudo-science, I have already done my share of searching and reading (ad nausea) to find legitimate support for evolution.
However if you want to share information in your own words about evolution, I would appreciate that.

All the above is my opinion and is not presented with the purpose to annoy.

So you want an argument against irreducible complexity of which no example has ever been found. An argument against a made up nonsense but one cannot use scientific argument to counter a pseudo scientific claim. Hey thats cool, no argument here.

 

[sayak83]

Darwin feared that his theory of gradual evolution had a potentially serious flaw.
Namely irreducible complexity and the nature of mutation.
He knew that if it could be demonstrated that any organ existed that could not have possibly been formed by repeated successive iterations using slight modifications his theory would experience a complete breakdown.

Could it be safe to say that much of the scientific skepticism surrounding the theory of evolution has centered around this requirement ?

From Mivart's critisism to Margulis dismissal of gradual mutation, I think that critics of evolution have demonstrated that this criterion of failure has been established. eg. https://michaelbehe.com;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

How do we know that biological systems could not be formed by succesive and repeated modification?
To begin with a system that is irreducibly complex cannot be produced by successive modification of a precursor system, because any such precursor is by definition nonfunctional.
We have to keep in mind that natural selection can only select a pattern that is already working.

This means that if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to suddenly come into existence as a fully funtioning and integral unit for natural selection to continue its course. Simply stated its either gradual or sudden.

Goldscmidt's theory "called hopeful monster theory" which attempst to integrate "sudden appearance" with gradual mutation is replete with speculations and empty of convincing arguments. We might as well propose that the whole earth "with all of it's current features" as we know it today suddenly sprang into existence . Using luck to explaine a process is not science but metaphysical speculation.

Additionally, there is another difficulty for Darwin's theory. It's called "minimal function capability",
Not only do "all" of the parts for a irreducible system require to be present for a component to work but the part have to be made of the 1/right material and 2cd work in prescribed manner.
Unlike irreducible complexity, minimal function is hard to describe, but is an important part in a working system.
For instance:
A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.
A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction.

For the theory of evolution to be even fleetingly considered scientific these two issues (and others) would have to be satisfactorily resolved, they never have.

Until these and similar issues are answered, do you think that evolution should be considered a scientific fact or be relegated to the section: Fiction and fantasy? or religion and faith?

Should a person want to, what could we replace evolution with?
Belief in a divine architect and creator ?
Put it in the "Cannot be answered" folder ?

Note:
I am aware that many scientists are supportive of evolution. I am also aware that no scientist has proved it a fact.
Please do not expect me to read reams of information supporting this pseudo-science, I have already done my share of searching and reading (ad nausea) to find legitimate support for evolution.
However if you want to share information in your own words about evolution, I would appreciate that.

All the above is my opinion and is not presented with the purpose to annoy.

Evolution is considered by science to be one of the most well established scientific theories currently existing (at par with Quantum Mechanics). That is a fact.
The objections like irreducible complexity are pseudoscientific nonsense long debunked and not considered seriously by scientists at all.
The objectors have failed to find even a single structure that is irreducibly complex.
So there is nothing to discuss here at all as no such structure has been found yet...

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kudos to all defenders of the Theory of Evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To begin with a system that is irreducibly complex cannot be produced by successive modification of a precursor system, because any such precursor is by definition nonfunctional.

This is false and has been demonstrated false many times over.

What cdesign proponentsists label "irreducibly complex" completely ignores the repurposing of parts. It happens all the time. The function of structures change and subsequently get optimized for that new role. During this optimization, shedding of parts that are no longer required occurs.
"irreducibly complex" structures are the result.


Here's an easy example that you can visualize - but the same happens at the molecular level: wings.

This silly argument has also been used on wings. How did wings evolve? You can't fly with half a wing!!!
Well, it ignores that wings can be used for more then just flight.
Pinguins don't fly. Ostriches don't fly. And it's not that their wings are "broken". Their wings have other functions in the larger organism - and are optimized for those functions.

We might as well propose that the whole earth "with all of it's current features" as we know it today suddenly sprang into existence .

Eum.... isn't that pretty much what you believe?
Not that you mentioned it, but since you are arguing against evolution with christian creationist apologetic arguments, I'm assuming you are a biblical creationist.

Using luck to explaine a process is not science but metaphysical speculation.

Indeed. It's also a strawman of evolution theory.

A mousetrap requiring 5 solid parts could not work if all the parts were made of paper.

It would, if its function was something besides capturing mice.
Perhaps it's just to scare them, like a scare crow.

A plane could not work if the propellers turnes at 1 rpm, regardless of otherwise proper construction.

Unless the function of the plane was something besides flying, where turning at 1 rpm is actually an advantage.

You know, like with the ostrich wings. Certain wing changes that would be great for the ostrich, would be terrible for the albatros.

For the theory of evolution to be even fleetingly considered scientific these two issues (and others) would have to be satisfactorily resolved, they never have.

They have. You're just not upto speed and too much taken in by cdesign proponentsists propaganda.

Until these and similar issues are answered, do you think that evolution should be considered a scientific fact or be relegated to the section: Fiction and fantasy? or religion and faith?

Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.
Species changing overtime, to the point of speciation, is an observed fact.
So the process of evolution is a fact. It occurs.

The Theory of Evolution, is a theoretical model that explains the mechanisms that drive this process.

Should a person want to, what could we replace evolution with?

It doesn't need replacing.

But if it were overturned tomorrow, then the answer would be "we don't know".
Note however that all the actual facts would remain. Species still share ancestry. Species still change over time. Speciation still occurs. The process still happens.

The only thing that would be overturned is the actual mechanism: mutation followed by natural selection (in a nutshell)

Belief in a divine architect and creator ?

How would that address and explain the facts?
Remember what the facts are?

Note:
I am aware that many scientists are supportive of evolution. I am also aware that no scientist has proved it a fact.

Theories never become facts. Theories explain facts.
Theories also never are considered proven. Only supported.
Which evolution is. Very well supported. Ridiculously well supported, actually.

Please do not expect me to read reams of information supporting this pseudo-science, I have already done my share of searching and reading (ad nausea) to find legitimate support for evolution.

It sounds like your sources weren't the best.

However if you want to share information in your own words about evolution, I would appreciate that.
All the above is my opinion and is not presented with the purpose to annoy.

Cool. It nevertheless still annoys me though. But that's on me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Then numerous such steps have been found.

“been found”? Nope. Suggested, maybe.... but that’s philosophy.

if you think these steps have been found, where?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“been found”? Nope. Suggested, maybe.... but that’s philosophy.

if you think these steps have been found, where?

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia