(March 20, 2021 at 6:12 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:(March 20, 2021 at 5:57 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Irreducible complexity is not an argument against evolution because irreducible complexity is not an argument, it is a concept.
And what do we make of this Wikipedia entry:
”Irreducible complexity is the argument [emphasis added] that certain biological systems cannot have evolved [emphasis added] by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function."
This is something biologists wonder about when tracing evolution back sometimes. But instead of just throwing their hands up and saying "Evolution is false. Grab a Bible," they do some further analysis.
Sometimes they solve the mystery. With other things they say, "We don't know how x might have evolved. More study and observation are needed."
Look at it this way: Newtonian physics could not explain peculiarities in the orbit of Mercury. But the theory was too damn good to be thrown away because of that. It took Einstein to come along and solve the mystery. But, in the end, Newton was mostly right about physics. His theory needed to be improved upon. Not scrapped.
Same goes for evolution and mysteries of biology we have yet to solve.