June 2nd

Discussion questions


Jun 2

1. What does Behe mean by a structure that is irreducible complex?

What Behe seems to be saying is that the cell is so complex and so specifically "designed" that if one piece of it were to be removed, and you were able to test it by removing a piece, then it would not be able to function.

2. Is the mammalian ear irreducibly complex? Why?

According to the text, there is debate about whether the workings of the inner ear is irreducibly complex or not, because the construct of the ear can be evolutionary explained rather than have just occurred. Further, before the parts were complete, they still functioned and served in certain ways. For instance, the lower jaw still functioned for chewing while still allowing the mammal to hear. This disregards the concepts of irreducibly complex because before the whole was complete, the parts still functioned.

3. Behe claims that the eukaryotic cilium as an irreducibly complex structure, arguing that the 9+2 pattern of microtubules is essential for the cilium to beat. Test this hypothesis scientifically.

Figure 5.2 shows that although the 9.2 standard is most common, it does not mean that other arrangements are nonfunctional. 3+0 flagellum is fully functional without the microtubules center, which is evident in the fly Monarthropalpus buxi. This proves that although the eukaryotic cilium is complex, it is not irreducibly complex without the central microtubules.

4. Explain how blood clotting evolved.

This is one system that Behe suggests is irreducibly complex because without one part the whole system would not work. In order to prevent blood loss, many mammals with a closed-circulatory system have clotting abilities: "clot-makers" (fibrinogen) makes up about three percent of protein in blood plasma. The clot-makers get sticky when clots form, and the Factor X steps are necessary to continue the process. This complex step suggests that it did not evolve.