Originally posted by kingdanwa
Irreducible Complexity--Rubbish Science
A basic mouse trap, without a spring, catches how many mice? Let's say it had a spring, but no lever? A complete mouse trap can catch mice. If any of its components is missing, it not only ca ...[text shortened]... all its parts are in place. A mouse trap is irreducibly complex.
Irreducible complexity is fallacious on these grounds:
The blood clotting process in humans is said to be irreducibly complex because it requires the interaction of ten proteins. Ten protein all of which interact, must be too complex to happen by chance and there usually follows some maths demonstrating that had there been a large pile of amino acids being jumbled together the chances of those particular proteins forming is very small.
This assumes that the ten specific proteins are all unique and all required, I've never studied blood clotting but I have studied plant enzymes and one this I have learned is that functional proteins occur in different forms in individuals within a species (even in siblings) so we are not looking at one unique outcome but a number of outcomes (yet the maths always seems to ignore this). I also know that the functional domain of proteins is often a small part of the whole structure so the so called complexity is exageragted as only the form and function of the active domain need be conserved, yet this too is ignored in the maths. Looking slighly aside we find that many nonhuman animals have the same functionality for blood clotting yet they use different combinations of ten proteins which further reduces the irreducible complexity and others use fewer proteins. Yet the maths of irreducibly complexity ignores all of this which is what makes it rubbish science.
Oh, the mouse trap. You are describing the classic 'break-back mouse trap' There are other designs of mouse trap; I have two in my shed. They have no springs, no levers but they catch mice. Along with blood clotting, mousetraps are not irreducibly complex