Examples Of Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity

This is a common point of disagreement between pro-evolutionists and anti-evolutionists. The irreducible complexity argument from anti-evolutionists states that complex structures like the human eye cannot arise from a process of natural selection and evolution alone. This is because if you take parts away from the eye it fails to function, leading one to conclude the eye must have been made in one act of creation by a supernatural intelligence, the same way a watch would have had to be made from start to finish by an intelligent watchmaker with the intention of an end-goal which would be the final watch itself. Half a watch, or three-quarters of a watch would serve no practical purpose.

Pro-evolutionists counter this

Now, much has been documented on the evolution of the wing in order to allow for flight, and how a part wing can actually incur functional benefit to the creature to which it belongs. This is because a part wing can be used for purposes other than flight, such as gliding, and this could save the life of a creature falling from a great height. Thus, it is not inconceivable to suggest a wing stub could through a process of natural selection, gradually evolve into a fully functional wing. But, the problem with this is that it seems highly unlikely that the first random mutation leading to the very beginning of the wing (and by the way we are presuming the wing mutations occur on both sides) would incur a functional benefit – is it not more likely to be a stub that serves no beneficial purpose? And if so, then it would have no reason to be selected favourably by natural selection. Pro-evolutionists use examples of creatures with partial wings that enable gliding (as supposed to flight), such as the flying tree squirrel, the flying lima, and the gliding lizard, but all of these flying/gliding devices are actually flaps of skin between the limbs which specifically offer the function of gliding and not flying. Clearly, these cannot be used as examples for demonstrating how the wings of birds developed as they are completely different structures, offering a completely different function, which anyway would have appeared to have evolved

Venom is a complex structure. It is composed of intricately complex molecules which can lock onto and attack certain proteins in the victim. Venom has various different actions of mechanism; some paralyze nerves, some damage muscles, and some interfere with the blood clotting mechanism. Evolutionary biologists will be the first to tell you that they don’t really have a good idea of how the venom function has evolved independently in so many animals. Now, not only is venom itself a very complex structure, but the equipment needed to store, transport, and deliver the venom is very complex stuff too. In a cobra, the venom is delivered through its fangs. In a scorpion, the venom is delivered through its tail. The venom can be executed in various ways – through spit, through a bite, through a sting, through ingestion of the venom producing animal, etc. If we think about it, venom could be likened to the perfect weapon, perhaps a gun. The venom could be considered the bullet, and the infrastructure for delivering the bullet (i.e. the gun itself) would be the anatomical structures of the animal which produce, store, transport, and deliver the venom. Now, a gun relies on all its parts in order to successfully shoot a bullet. Even if one part of that gun fails or is removed, there is a good chance the bullet will not fire. The gun cannot be built in parts, with each part offering a higher level of functioning. Similarly, venom is a weapon. Either it a successful weapon