Can complex systems be reduced to simpler parts without losing function?

  • Thread starter garytse86
  • Start date
In summary, the lecturer went into detail about how some complex systems can be broken down, and still work. He also mentioned how a watch is a simple device with only a few subsystems, and how it can still function without any composite parts. He also mentioned that biological systems are dynamic, and that things are added/changed/removed over time. The lecturer went on to say that ID's claims of irreducible complexity have not been demonstrated, and that even if they were, it would not make the watch a complex system. Finally, the lecturer explained how a watch is not a complex system, and how time can be created from the movement of a shadow.
  • #1
garytse86
311
0
we had a lecture on intelligent design (or should I say - one against ID). the lecturer went into great detail as to how some complex systems that are apparently irredicubly complex can actually be taken apart, and the system still works. e.g. the blood clotting system.

what I don't appreciate is that how does one explain the design of a watch - obviously without any composite part the watch becomes dysfunctional. Any ideas?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
actually I've got some ideas but have work for tomorrow.. will post later
 
  • #3
A watch is a simple device with only a couple subsystems, which can still perform their functions independently.

The primary complexity of a watch is simply cutting out the pieces accurately.
 
  • #4
Trying to prove irreductable complexity using analogies is wrong, whether you do it in one direction or the other.

Why is it wrong? Analogies are just illusions created by your brain; something that appears to be another thing, when there's only incidental resemblence.
 
  • #5
A watch is not a biological organism. Just because you can pull a piece off a human invention to make it stop working does not mean that everything complex is irreducably so. Like SF said, don't take an analogy too literally. Anyway, there are some parts of watch that you can remove and it can still function to tell time.

Biological systems are dynamic. Things are added/changed/removed over time. There could have been additional biochemical supports that helped the emerging biological system along which were later lost. So the current system superficially appears to be irreducable. Check out this link for an explanation...
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/flap_those_gills_and_fly/#continue

The point your instructor should have made is that ID's claims of IC have not been demonstrated. (i.e., ID has cited some examples of IC systems, like blood clotting, but further inspections of each of their claims have shown that they are not IC)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Take the minute hand out of the watch (one part). Stick it into the ground where it can form a shadow from the sun. Time emerges from the movement of the shadow. Watch is not a IC system, its function is to tell time, this can be done with one part from the watch plus energy from sun.

Consider virus--if you define life as a system having ability to reproduce using nucleic acids (as I do) then virus is a living system, but it not what I would call IC, since it only has two major functional parts (membrane & nucleic acid)--but perhaps virus, seen as a very simple "cell" is as close to the "concept" of an IC system in biology that we can find.
 

FAQ: Can complex systems be reduced to simpler parts without losing function?

What is an "irreducible complexity"?

Irreducible complexity is a concept in the field of biology that suggests certain biological structures or systems are too complex to have evolved gradually through natural selection and must have been created by an intelligent designer.

How is "irreducible complexity" different from "complexity"?

Complexity refers to the intricacy or difficultly of a structure or system, while irreducible complexity specifically refers to the idea that a structure or system cannot function without all of its individual components in place.

What evidence is there to support the concept of "irreducible complexity"?

The concept of irreducible complexity has been widely rejected by the scientific community as it goes against the principles of evolution and natural selection. There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that certain biological structures or systems could not have evolved gradually.

Can "irreducible complexity" be applied to non-biological systems?

No, the concept of irreducible complexity is specific to biological systems and is not applicable to non-biological systems. It is based on the assumption that biological structures or systems are too complex to have evolved gradually, which does not apply to non-biological systems.

How does the theory of evolution explain the existence of "irreducible complexity"?

The theory of evolution explains the existence of seemingly complex biological structures and systems through gradual changes and adaptations over time. It does not require a designer or a sudden creation of these structures or systems. Additionally, there is evidence of simpler, intermediate forms of these structures and systems in other species, indicating a gradual evolution rather than a sudden creation.

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top