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

  • Thread starter Thread starter garytse86
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of irreducible complexity (IC) in complex systems, particularly in the context of intelligent design versus evolutionary biology. Participants explore whether complex systems can be simplified without losing their functionality, using examples such as watches and biological systems like blood clotting and viruses.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions a lecture on intelligent design, arguing that some complex systems can be taken apart and still function, citing the blood clotting system as an example.
  • Another participant questions the analogy of a watch, suggesting that without its composite parts, it becomes dysfunctional, and asks for ideas on this issue.
  • A different viewpoint states that a watch is a simple device with a few subsystems that can function independently, emphasizing the importance of accurate piece cutting for its complexity.
  • One participant argues against using analogies to prove irreducible complexity, claiming that analogies are misleading and only show incidental resemblance.
  • Another participant distinguishes between biological organisms and human inventions, asserting that biological systems are dynamic and can evolve over time, which may lead to a superficial appearance of irreducibility.
  • A participant suggests that the function of telling time can be achieved with a single part of a watch and energy from the sun, challenging the idea of watches being irreducibly complex.
  • Lastly, a participant discusses viruses, proposing that while they have minimal functional parts, they may represent a simple form of a living system, questioning their classification as irreducibly complex.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the concept of irreducible complexity, with some arguing against its validity and others defending the idea through analogies. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific examples and analogies, but there are limitations in the assumptions made about the nature of complexity and functionality in both biological and mechanical systems. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical or conceptual nuances involved in defining irreducible complexity.

garytse86
Messages
311
Reaction score
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
actually I've got some ideas but have work for tomorrow.. will post later
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K