Definition av ett Oreducerbart Komplext system.
|
Med - oreducerbart komplex
- menar jag ett odelat system bestående av flera väl avpassade och
samverkande delar som alla bidrar till grundfunktionen, där avlägsnandet av
en del gör att systemet helt upphör att fungera. Av definitionen
följer att ett oreducerbart komplext system omöjligen kan ha uppstått
genom små, successiva förbättringar av tidigare system. Detta innebär således
att det inte finns någon funktionell föregångare till ett - oreducerbart
komplext - system. |
|
|
Råttfällan: Ett exempel på ett
"oreducerbart komplext" system |
Ögat: Ett oreducerbart biologiskt system
När det gäller ögats evolution är det många biologer som inte
"förstått" motsättningen med funktionalitet och strukturell
uppbyggnad dvs att en successiv strukturell utveckling inte åtföljs av
motsvarande funktionsförmåga. Ett "strukturellt halvfärdigt" öga ger
inte motsvarande synförmåga, precis som fyra femtedelar av råttfällan inte ger
fyra femtedels funktion eller fångst Detta grundläggande faktum har
biologer länge sopat under mattan. Prof Richard Dawkins tar dock upp problemet
i boken "Den blinde urmakaren", men hans förklaringar visar att han
mera är ute efter att propagera för darwinistisk materialism än att försöka
lösa problemet med "irreducibelt komplexa" system. Sålunda skriver
han:
"En synförmåga som är 5 procent av vår är mycket värd i förhållande till
ingen syn alls. Likaså är 1 procent synförmåga också bättre än total blindhet.
Och 6 procent är bättre än 5; 7 procent bättre än 6 och så vidare genom den
gradvis sammanhängande serien."
Att ett öga som fungerar till fem procent är bättre än inget öga alls, måste nog betraktas som en självklarhet. Ingen motsäger detta. Men felet Dawkins gör är att han ser funktions- och strukturförändringar som parallella skeenden. Långtifrån alla skulle hålla med honom om att" 5 procent av ett öga" är detsamma som " 5 procent av normalt seende". Och vad värre är, denna samstämmighet måste i princip fylla varje lucka mellan fullständig blindhet och hundraprocentig synförmåga. Något utrymme för "strukturella nymodigheter (språng)" ges inte, eftersom det skulle vara förödande för funktionen. Utan funktion ingen evolution. Vill du läsa mera? Om Ögat - ett oreducerbart system eller om skillnaden mellan mikro- och makroevolution eller allmänt om irreducible complexity?
(Extract from the
article: Mutations)
To be a precursor in Darwin's sense we must show that a motorcycle can
be built from "numerous, successive, slight modifications" to a
bicycle.
To clarify the point, consider this sequence: skateboard, toy wagon, bicycle,
motorcycle, automobile, airplane, jet plane, space shuttle. It seems like a
natural progression, both because it is a list of objects that all can be used
for transportation and also because they are lined up in order of complexity. They
can be conceptually connected and blended together into a single continuum. But
is, say, a bicycle a physical (and potentially Darwinian) precursor of a
motorcycle? No. It is only a conceptual precursor. No motorcycle in history,
not even the first, was made simply by modifying a bicycle in a stepwise
fashion. It might easily be the case that a teenager on a Saturday afternoon
could take an old bicycle, an old lawnmower engine, and some spare parts and
(with a couple hours of effort) build himself a functioning motorcycle. But
this only shows that humans can design irreducibly complex systems, which we
knew already. To be a precursor in Darwin's sense we must show that a
motorcycle can be built from "numerous, successive, slight
modifications" to a bicycle.
So let us attempt to evolve
a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose
that a factory
produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let
us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle,
then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes,
and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like
biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and
spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change
can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a
preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle.
So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the
diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the
rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any
of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would
immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in
true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market.
Given these conditions, can
we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by
making the seat
more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our
customers prefer the "biker" look) imitating the overall shape in
various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has
nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part
of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky
accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle
factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the
right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle
parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by
natural selection acting on variation--by "numerous, successive, slight
modifications"--and in fact there is no example in history of a complex
change in a product occurring in this manner. A bicycle thus may be a
conceptual precursor to a motorcycle, but it is not a physical one.Darwinian
evolution requires physical precursors. (end quote)
In Summary
Mutations are not able to
provide the necessary information needed to build the new and specialized
systems required by the neo-Darwinian "amoeba to man" transformation.
Furthermore, because of the random nature of biological mutation,
beneficial mutations are extremely rare. If you want to
read the whole article, CLICK HERE
|
|
|
|
|
|
