It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

page: 1
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Evolution is theorized to work through step-by-step mutations to add new functions to an organism. As Darwin admitted himself:



So, if we can find examples of functions that rely on other functions, organs that relies on another organs, cells that rely on other cells, etc, then we can demonstrate clearly that evolutionary theory is invalid. The examples I am about to show are some of the countless mechanisms in biological organisms that fall under this category called "irreducibly complex".



Skunk Spray



The skunk's spray involves at least two known chemicals: (E )-2-butene-1-thiol and 3-methyl-1-butanethiol. So already we run into the dilemma of irreducible complexity. Even if the skunk managed to randomly create one of these chemicals, it would be useless without the other! The smell of a skunk spray requires these two chemicals to be mixed to create the atrocious odor. These chemicals would also have to be properly separated so they didn't mix inside the gland.

As if that weren't difficult enough, the skunk would also have to have this gland hard-wired to the fear sections in its brain. If it were improperly wired, the skunk could either be firing the odor all the time, or not at all. Neurological circuits do not simply happen that easy either. Even intelligently guided surgeons cannot repair a severed spine. So how could random mutations be able to wire this gland to the proper fear centers in the skunk's brain? Because keep in mind, the gland, even if it managed to get the proper chemicals, is useless, or even harmful, without proper brain control.



A Mosquito Bite



These infernal pests have a most devious little syringe used to suck blood from its victims. Scientists are even using the design of the mosquito to create ideal syringes. The mosquito bite is also irreducibly complex on multiple levels:

1) it inserts its proboscis by vibrating it at a 15Hz frequency to allow it to pierce the skin
2) it releases a numbing agent to make the victim unaware of the blood vessel insertion
3) Once numb, the tip of the mosquito's proboscis searches and enters a blood vessel by vibrating at a 5Hz frequency.

Note that all this requires intricate muscle control to properly get through the skin without alerting the victim, and also an insertion tube that allows the numbing agent to come from local glands. There is also the lighter-than-a-feather landing that the mosquito performs with its super thin legs.

So think for your self on this one. How could one mutation have allowed all of these necessary functions to arise at once? They would not have come to be sequentially, because they would be useless without the other functions. Even if by miracle all of these came to be for the mosquito to draw blood from a victim, it would be useless if the mosquito couldn't digest blood! Also, if the mosquito didn't have the proper sensory mechanisms, it would not be able to find a victim either.

So given these difficulties, mosquitoes could not have come to be by sequential step-by-step mutations. These creatures of Cain breed in still water, and therefore love victims that resemble stagnancy.



Venus Fly Trap



Before I explain in my own words, think for your self why this organism would be irreducibly complex. Thinking for your self is key to looking past the deception of evolutionary theory. Knowing biological concepts and asking how they could have formed through sequential modification will show you clearly that life could not have formed according to this theory.

The Venus fly trap has a vast array of chemicals to attract flies. Sensation received when a fly lands causes an electrical current to run through each lobe to make a pressure gradient that causes the trap to close on its victim. Then another slew of chemicals is released to allow digestion.



So even if a plant randomly mutated an ability to sense the fly landing on it, it would also have to have a mechanism to close its lobes, and it would also have to have the proper chemicals to allow digestion of a fly. There are also over 60 known chemicals required for a venus fly trap to attract its prey. The venus fly trap also has digestive enzymes that allow it to metabolize the body of a fly into useful energy. Any of these functions alone would not allow a venus fly trap to successfully trap and extract energy from a fly. Therefore, it could not have come to be by the theorized mechanisms of evolution.



Bat Sonar

Imagine you had the first device that emitted a radar signal. Even though you could emit a radar signal, that signal is useless without something to receive the signal. The same logic applies to bat sonar. The ability for a bat to emit a sonar signal is useless unless it also has sensory devices detect the emitted signal. Not only that, but it also has to be able to send these signals to brain processing centers that allow it to make sense of the signal it is receiving. These signals recognized by the brain must then be able to cause very quick muscle movement to allow it to catch the very allusive bugs that it eats as prey.



As discussed earlier, wiring neural circuits is no easy task. Especially for random mutations. Random mutations have never been proven in a lab to be able to make new useful neural circuits, let alone sonar emitting or receiving apparatuses. And also, what if, after all this, the bat doesn't even like to eat flies? This is a clear example of irreducible complexity. Echolocation could not have come to be by evolution, it is an intelligently designed function that allows the animal to have its niche in the environment.



Stomach Acid

Stomach acid consists of three chemicals - HCl, NaCl, and KCl. When food enters the stomach, it triggers stomach cells to release this slew of digestive chemicals. But, how does the stomach avoid being digested in the process? Cells in the lining of the stomach produce a buffer solution, that prevents that acidity from digesting the stomach lining. So which came first, the acid to digest the food? or the stomach lining to protect from self-digestion? Obviously both are needed for proper functioning. This is irreducible complexity.



It is not as if stomach acid is easy to produce either. Ion pumps in parietal (stomach) cells need to pump H+ protons against a concentration gradient up to ratios of 3,000,000 to 1. Even if this great feat was somehow sufficed by sequential mutations, it would need to be tightly regulated both chemically and neurologically. Mutations have never been shown to add novel interconnected functions like this.

The body then has indicators to show when the food is properly digested. This triggers the pyloric sphincter to open



If not for this valve, food would not have its proper time in the stomach, and without the proper signaling cues, it would behave erratically. This is just the very basics of all the necessary functions for a stomach to work. At the cellular level it gets even more interdependent and finely tuned. It is impossible for all of these functions to have come to be by step-by-step mutation, because all of these components are necessary for proper functioning.



There are countless other examples. It's time for us to start thinking past the evolution illusion.
edit on 9-7-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Well I disagree with your "proof"
Tonsils,
Appendix,
Wisdom teeth, did you know today that 1 in 4 people are born without at least 1 wisdom tooth?

Dinosaurs...


The idea that some all knowing omnipotent being snapped his fingers is even more ridiculous.
Who created god?
He couldn't have just existed.

The sooner the world gives up all the fantasies of religion the better off we will be.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: cooperton

Well I disagree with your "proof"
Tonsils,
Appendix,
Wisdom teeth, did you know today that 1 in 4 people are born without at least 1 wisdom tooth?

Dinosaurs...


The idea that some all knowing omnipotent being snapped his fingers is even more ridiculous.
Who created god?
He couldn't have just existed.

The sooner the world gives up all the fantasies of religion the better off we will be.


The issue with folks like the OP is that organisms evolved over hundreds of millions if not billions of years. The human mind can't really process how long of time frame that is and how an organism can change over that amount of time.


+2 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated


The issue with folks like the OP is that organisms evolved over hundreds of millions if not billions of years. The human mind can't really process how long of time frame that is and how an organism can change over that amount of time.


What does that have to do with what has been presented in the original post? His post explains what you're talking about and you didn't even catch it.


+7 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   


The idea that some all knowing omnipotent being snapped his fingers is even more ridiculous.
a reply to: Bluntone22

I don't think OP mentioned any type of god figure once in his or her post. Triggered much?

if Darwin himself recognized the potential for his theory to be disproved, i think it's scientifically prudent to at least entertain the idea that we have become "satisfied" with the wrong explanation. to just yell back "oh what so you think GOD did it; you dolt!?" doesn't address the issue of irreducible complexity. which would invalidate the theory of evolution, and doesn't in any way point to divine intervention.

Evolution vs Creationism is a false dichotomy.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So I have my own doubts about evolution, however none of these examples are any cause of concern for me.

1. The Skunk Spray, I could easily see how the first "skunk" just farted regular farts, then one eventually had chemicals formed randomly that allowed for a slightly more skunky flavor but not perfect yet, then millions of years later another skunk randomly created another chemical, and yes while the first chemical might have "made no sense" on its own but millions of years later the companion chemical helped one particularly lucky skunk to survive and propagate. They're may have been thousands of other chemical mixtures and many other skunks that simply didn't work as well, and those skunks didn't get to have babies



2. Mosquito Bite, I can even more easily see an insect that liked blood slowly over time some producing an easier piercing, some producing a saliva which helps them go undetected, etc etc etc. this one is much easier to see for me.

3. Venus Fly Trap... same as the mosquito bite, just a plant at first, eventually over time slowly creating little evolutions that helped it survive. Or maybe it wasn't a plant? maybe it was an animal that decided staying still was a lot easier, and th eons that stayed still did a better job and getting the flies?

4. Bat Sonar, this one is harder to see like the Skunk Spray, but as long as you see that not every evolution is automatically "good" but just an evolution or mutation, you can see it easier. Maybe it was just a bat, without sonar or an of those fancy devices, and it was simply good at catching flies, maybe the first bat to develop sonar didn't even use it, or maybe the first bat to develop sonar detection simply used it on it's own without allowing to send out it's own signal. The detection process seems like something that could develop on it's own and allow a bat to have a slight advantage over other bats and then millions of years later one lucky bat was able to emit it's own sonar.

5. Stomach acid, stomach was developed, had many different chemicals over times, lining most likely came first and then the chemicals were slowly mutated and evolved over time.


Ok again, I have my own doubts about evolution, but if you follow the premise of millions and billions of years small changes over time, those five examples you gave, I could see how over time they developed. Again it doesn't mean that there was a Bat and then the next day some magic bat came to being, mutations aren't always positive, and there are probably billions of mutations that die off for every one mutation that survives, and SOME mutations survive simply based on dumb luck.

Later on maybe Humanity will receive a mutation that allows Humans with an Appendix to have a huge advantage over others... and I'll be very sad that day as they stole my Appendix in a Hospital



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Edumakated


The issue with folks like the OP is that organisms evolved over hundreds of millions if not billions of years. The human mind can't really process how long of time frame that is and how an organism can change over that amount of time.


What does that have to do with what has been presented in the original post? His post explains what you're talking about and you didn't even catch it.


Because the entire concept is faulty. It assumes that biological functions do not evolve over time to reach a certain state. Just because something is complex now, does not mean it couldn't have evolved.

For example, the OP uses the spray mechanism of skunks as an example of irreducible complexity because two chemicals are combined and he posits that there is now way that could have evolved since if you remove one chemical it doesn't work.

However, if one steps back, you can easily see how the spray gland could have evolved. It may have started off like many animals that defecate in fear. Over time it may have evolved into just one chemical as a form of defense. Then another to make it more potent. The more potent skunks survive and ultimately you have a modern day skunk.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

No, it didn't explain it.

It made a lot of assumptions about the various processes and organs though.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

There are more examples proving evolution than discrediting it. What is overlooked though is the inherent intelligence of life. It’s all put down to trial and error and while there is much of that going on it is after all a sure way of problem solving. Life does in fact know what it’s doing. Nature is the ultimate chemist, biologist and physicist going. Evolution is the process nature uses to fill all possible niches it can, it’s more about adapting than Radom mutations.

Many of our so called inventions were in fact invented by nature first.

Velcro for instance, we ripped that off nature.


edit on 9-7-2019 by surfer_soul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

May I point out what forum the topic is posted in?

Origins and "creationism"

So is it a big stretch to get the impression that the OP was leaning towards the belief of creation?
How about we let the OP himself answer if he was pushing for the creation explanation or not.

Maybe if you weren't so triggered you would have waited for a response.
See how I used "triggered"?

And yes, Darwin always called his work a theory left to change as new information arises.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



I think what you are missing is that the complex systems you see in animals were not random one off full creations. They were minute changes, adaptations proliferated by survival of the fittest.

Take the skunk as an example.

The early skunk probably did not start off with all.of the chemicals fully developed. And the glands and strength to "shoot it's stench"

It probably happened like so...

-Small 4 legged skunk like rodent animal with no real special characteristics.
-These rodents reproduce easily, because environment for them is rough, they are basically food for predators.
-As time goes on, thousands of years, some of the skunks start immediately expelling their bowels when a predator is near.
-Over time, the skunks who do this, on average live longer and mate more, it becomes ingrained in the next generation of skunks.
-After that,.of course, the Skunks whos excrement smells worse (based on their biochemistry) on average live longer and reproduce more, it gets passed down.
-Some skunks have stronger sphincters than others, and are able to poop farther... They survive longer and mate more.
-It just so happens some skunks are born with larger anal glands .. this allows some stench and material to build.up more for a longer period before it is excreted when neccesary making it stink more. They live longer, reproduce more.
-A few skunks are born with a mutation that causes an additional chemical to build up in their glands.. it makes the stink a tad bit worse, they reproduce more and live longer...

Then another chemical...
Then more strength...

So on and so forth


Tiny little changes that give a microsopic edge over other played out over a massive amount of time that makes a huge difference.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Adaptation is not evolution , Everything adapts to their environment if the environment changes so do the species in that environment - Why where the Dinosaurs so large ? Because the World had a lot more Oxygen at the time as the oxygen became less species got smaller . That's not evolution that's adaptation .

I stick to my theory that Humans are transplanted from a dying Mars .
edit on 7/9/2019 by Gargoyle91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22




May I point out what forum the topic is posted in?


you may, and duly noted. that's my bad.

i still think its a false dichotomy...



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Interesting op, though i do disagree, as other members stated evolution is a long complicated process and cherry picking the examples we can not explain adequately enough does not disprove it. How or better with what should we replace the theory of evolution?



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

how not? after millions of years and countless adaptations would it not be a different organism? or had evolved?



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Aryabhata

Everything would have to be pre-programmed to evolve that would mean that there's a final where said species would stop evolving DNA only holds a certain amount of information - Adaptation is on the fly , Adapt or go extinct.
edit on 7/9/2019 by Gargoyle91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gargoyle91

an interesting view but modern science takes another stance.
DNA is a dynamic and adaptable molecule. As such, the nucleotide sequences found within it are subject to change as the result of a phenomenon called mutation. Depending on how a particular mutation modifies an organism's genetic makeup, it can prove harmless, helpful, or even hurtful.



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Ever heard of the bombardier beetle? These guys fit well into your theory. Even the MIT fella is a bit bamboozled.


edit on 9-7-2019 by seaswine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: cooperton

Well I disagree with your "proof"
Tonsils,
Appendix,
Wisdom teeth, did you know today that 1 in 4 people are born without at least 1 wisdom tooth?

Dinosaurs...


The idea that some all knowing omnipotent being snapped his fingers is even more ridiculous.
Who created god?
He couldn't have just existed.

The sooner the world gives up all the fantasies of religion the better off we will be.


Oh gosh that’s so dumb
A lack of wisdom teeth is not proof of evolution, you have less teeth, less power to chew, less jaw strength
How is that good

Who created God, who created your lack of intelligence, please think before posting

Tonsils, stops infection in the heart, google search it
Appendix, first line of defence against virus
Have you done any real research into vestigial organs, they don’t exist, it’s a lie for dummies

So disappointed in what people believe because they have never put in any effort to understand what they don’t believe
I was once an evolutionist, not that stupid anymore, not stupid enough to believe in vestigial organs



posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

With all due respect, the sooner people stop simplifying intelligent design in order to disprove it the better. People hear "intelligent design" and can't comprehend anything other than a robed man in the sky creating everything in a matter of days.







 
28
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join