What Is Irreducible Complexity?

Atheists are making scientific test devices and methods with intelligent designs to prove God and His intelligent designs don't exist - creatures using creation to prove God the Creator didn't create creation - while criminals who would harm atheists actualize atheistic subjective morality thinking that atheists support.

Darwin you stoopid!!!!

The problem with this argument is it assumes what the evolutionary path must be. We are looking at a flagellar motor as it exists today, in optimized form, and they assume the last step in the path must have been to add a component. There is a vast number of possible paths in which the last step is to remove a component. A structure might be irreducible, but that doesn't mean it's unchangeable. A challenge in trying to estimate the time for a rare event to occur, is you can only estimate an upper bound. As long as other pathways exist, the time for an evolution will be lower than you think. If you're ignoring as much of the path space as these guys, then the time for an evolution will be A LOT lower than you think.

“I don’t know the answer to that question, therefore God.” - every “intelligent designer” ever

Great video series and Dr. Behe explained the irreducible complexity. We can associate this in nature and Bio life.

Good video. But I have some questions, I'd be glad if you could answer those. A lot of places points Intelligent Design is not science and point to a certain case in USA where ID (Intelligent Design) got banned from teaching in public schools. Also they say ID lacks data and enough evidence to outlast evolution theory. No peer-reviewing and etc.

The idea that a mass of dry inorganic matter could evolve into an organic blob with RNA and DNA is ludicrous. Of course, then there is cell structure and tissue connection, chromosome division, etc. In the beginning, God. 'nuff said.

Michael Behe, one of my heroes of science! Thanks for your MAJOR contribution to truth.

Behe's example using a mousetrap is so elegant and obvious that it should have convinced everyone the first time they read it. But, it shows the stubborn nature of man that, in the face of clear logic, they will ignore it on the basis that "there is no God and therefore evolution MUST be true". You can't argue with 'logic' like that, you just have to shake the dust from your shoes and move on.

8 Oct 21, Science Mag p. 148 describes an epoxy anchor mussels create by mixing vanadium and protein. Vanadium has very few uses amongst organisms. Is this not an example of Irreducible complexity?

Irreducible complexity is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function.

The human eye is very complex. But if the rods are removed, the eye will still function. If the cones are removed the eyes will still function.

In your face logic! Amazing! Thankyou!

This theory can be misleading…
This video ignores the probability that an accumulation of seemingly worthless (neutral) mutations leading to seemingly worthless proteins could not eventually form the bacterial flagellum. It certainly could… and when you factor in the age of bacteria (3.5 billion years) and their high mutation rate, and their ability to obtain DNA from the environment, and the fact that they replicate exponentially, all of a sudden it becomes more reasonable that these events could occur.
Probability statistics proves Darwin’s theory and probability statistics disproves irreducible complexity.

I think I must miss understand something, the boat motor is hard medal man made material item designed to operate with a piece of man made spinning curved fins, a propeller to move another piece of man made material (a boat) to move a living person in or over water , this is not a living organism that will end at nothing to either continue to survive or establish a better means for the next generation to survive weather the living life(not a motor) has awareness of this all out effort or not. The boat motor will NOT struggle to adapt to a jet to propel its future offspring. If I am not mis understanding then this dismisses those who support this seemly ridiculous claim...

It's almost as if microbes must have existed without the flagellum! Huh... Sounds like such a thing doesn't exist!
Well, yes, in fact, they do.
His argument is like saying Humanity couldn't have lived without a car, because how else would they have gotten to the supermarket to buy groceries? Humans must have been born with cars and supermarkets, and there must have been a god to create all of that for them.
No, everything starts out very simple and grows more and more complex over time.

Surely there were motors before outboard motors?

Behe, a liar and fraud. Read the dover transcripts, he was destroyed. His ideas are not science. Get your science from peer reviewed science not a charlatan like behe.

Funny how Atheistic Evolutionists scream "Give us the argument against evolution and get a Noble Prize!!", when it's right here in their face.

The evolution of flagellum is explained and understood, and there is no way anyone can prepare for making this video, and spending time reading up on the subject, and still not knowing this.
(It took me 1 minute to get a simple explanation of this evolution online.)

I don't feel like people truly are processing the magnificence of the complex existence of God.

Michael behe is the problem. Eye is computer vision. Eye has evolved in software.❤ Its a camera.

Who cares? God or not, evolution or not, what difference does any of it make?

Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument has already been sufficiently debunked and relegated to the garbage pile by scientific discoveries/advances.

As is usual with these tipical "god of the gaps" arguments.

Check Professor Michael Behe taking about how irreducible complexity refutes theory of evolution; search for a video called: what is irreducible complexity Professor Michael Behe

The bacterial flagellum could not have evolved with all of its diverse interconnected cellular components working as it does in bacterial locomotion. However this truth is a red herring because it’s actually not what evolutionary biologists claim. There are many many precursor steps that evolved much simpler component parts of the flagellum that got inherited and then stepwise over many generations adapted into the more complex flagellar system of locomotion. Do a search on the evolution of the flagellum and learn how scientists explain it. Just saying something is too complex to have evolved without studying how it actually could have evolved is intellectually bankrupt.

Its interesting then, that god brought forth so many different types of flaggella that differ in structure but serve the same function. the flagella of Bacteria, Archaea, Eukaryota, sperm cells, spores, plants, etc. all have a different structure. Of course it makes sense that evolution bringths forth something that had the function to move things. Intitially, it might just be a protruding thing that gets a push from water and from there things mutate. Mwny useless things will evolve along the way that come and go away.

The notion of irreducible complexity is bogus. It preys on people’s ignorance, appeals to incredulity, and relies on the errant assumptions that a simpler version of the structure couldn’t have existed and that an “incomplete” version could not be of use to the organism.

Yes, and Gall's law states that you cannot comporehend a complex system by tearing it aparts. Complex systems evolve from simpler ones, so you have to go back and see what the first simple system tooked like, and make sense of the evolving relationship between the parts that emerged

more than 6000 fossils have been found throughout the world for ancient human fossils and evolution is impossible because; "irreducible complexity" and God from above sees "GREAT AND CRAZY" Nobel Creation has led to the foundation of civilization; " makes sense"

Embarrassingly bad argument

False dichotomies, wrong comparisons and cursory reasoning.

What Is Irreducible Complexity? A long-debunked creationist talking point.

Behe is a biochemistry professor, which makes the way he states his arguments even more surprising. He knows that proteins that can only do 1 thing, can gain the ability to do other things through the course of evolution, and later loose their ancestral functions. He knows that proteins are known to have multiple often not even closely related functions. He knows that that ATP is an energy carrier, a source of phosphate groups for phosphorylation performed by kinases, and one of the building blocks for RNA. Yet he still dares to make his claim that at every stage of evolution only advantage a flagellum could provide is by allowing motion. I guess by that logic a small piece of wood, a spring, a bent wire and a small cube of cheese have no other possible uses than being a part of a mousetrap. Did he sleep through his evolutionary biology course and ignored his colleagues when they mentioned exaptation?

Individual pieces can serve other purposes and come together to serve another purpose like this one.