Irreducible Complexity (a formulation of Intelligent Design)

[MedicMan]

There are features of the natural world which, it must be said, can be imagined to have 'evolved' naturally - the neck of the girraffe would have gradually got longer as time progressed, since they were able to reach food that others couldn't.


However, there are also features of the natural world that could not have 'evolved' to the point they exist now, at least not directly. For example, many bacteria possess an organelle called a 'flagellum' - this appears like a tail as seen on spem (in fact, sperm are bacteria and the tail is a flagellum, but there you go). The flagellum provides the cell with motility (mobility) through its motion - the flagellum rotates at speeds of up to 240 rpm, moving the cell much like a propeller moves a boat.

Now, the motion of the flagellum is produced by a structure known as the 'basal body', which is in turn made up of smaller sub-structures of cells - a pair of molecular rings, and the end of the actual 'tail' of the flagellum (the filament) which becomes much thinner within the basal body, becoming (from outside of the cell to inside), first a wider section called the hook and then a very narrow helix-shaped section (known again as the filament) which pierces the cell membrane and enters the cytoplasm. Energy (in the form of adenosine triphosphate, ATP) is trasferred to this filament, which causes it to rotate, the movement of which is regulated and assisted by the rings. We do not yet know how the energy actually causes the filament to rotate, as yet.


Now, that may have seemed very long-winded, but it will help to prove my point, which is this: how could the flagellum have evolved, without the simultaneous evolution of the basal body, the filament, and the process by which ATP and the proteins within the ring enable motility in the first place? Put another way, no single element of the whole structure of the flagellum (filament, hook, et al) would have any effect whatsoever without the presence and co-operation of all its sister structures. The flagellum is said to be irreducibly complex: we cannot break its structure down to a simpler level, where the components still retain use independent of their sisters.

My argument is simply this: that since such a structure as the bacterial flagellum cannot have come about by chance, it must have been designed, by whatever power exists to design living things. In my opinion this is God, and if He created the bacterial flagellum (a structure of little importance except to bacteria) then surely it is a logical progression that it is within His power to create more complex life-forms, and so therefore did?


Thoughts please

~MedicMan~

Note: you may read about the mechanics of the basal body at http://people.ku.edu/~jbrown/flagel.html under the subheading How Does a Flagellum Work?

 

[m9lc]

millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

[us38]

However, there are also features of the natural world that could not have 'evolved' to the point they exist now, at least not directly.

There are also numerous buildings which could not have been built by just puttin the parts in as is. One could say that they are irreducibly complex. However, each one of these building had a common feature in their building: scaffolding. Scaffolding (or, specifically, the removal thereof) can make a simply built building irreducibly complex.

Now, that may have seemed very long-winded, but it will help to prove my point, which is this: how could the flagellum have evolved, without the simultaneous evolution of the basal body, the filament, and the process by which ATP and the proteins within the ring enable motility in the first place?

It couldn't have. In fact, such an organelle appearing out of the blue would be evidence against evolution. It is not hard to imagine, however, that a bacteria that can move would live longer and reproduce more than one that could not. By the same token, a bacteria that could move faster than others would survive longer and reproduce more than the slower (through food or space competition, predators, pollutants, whatever).

Put another way, no single element of the whole structure of the flagellum (filament, hook, et al) would have any effect whatsoever without the presence and co-operation of all its sister structures. The flagellum is said to be irreducibly complex: we cannot break its structure down to a simpler level, where the components still retain use independent of their sisters.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Long story short, one can take out 20 (two-thirds) of the flagellum's proteins and still have a biological function, thus defeating IC.

My argument is simply this: that since such a structure as the bacterial flagellum cannot have come about by chance,

Then it is an extremely good thing that evolution does not rely purely on chance.

it must have been designed, by whatever power exists to design living things. In my opinion this is God, and if He created the bacterial flagellum (a structure of little importance except to bacteria) then surely it is a logical progression that it is within His power to create more complex life-forms, and so therefore did?

No. While it would certainly be rational to believe such a god did create more complex beings, it does not necessarily follow that that happened. You have to prove, in each case, that evolution is impossible, and thus design is required.

Thoughts please

Argument from ignorance.

This link has some background info on the flagellum. This link gives a detailed explanation on how flagellum could have evolved.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[Tynan]

In my opinion this is God

Why not the devil or Shiva ?

Thoughts please

My honest thoughts ?

You perhaps approach a subject with an already formed view of what the results should indicate and are not entirely aware of this.

Of course I may be wrong, but it seems like a reasonable suspicion.

 

[billwald]

The Term, "Irreducibly complex," was invented in the 50's by Claude Shannon for his invention of information theory. The IDers have preverted the meaning. Google information theory

 

[sbvera13]

"Irreducible Complexity" fails as a scientific principle on several counts.

1. It is fallacious. It impossible to prove a negative. You can't say "there's no way it could have evolved" as a positive statement. You can only say "We don't know how it evolved." or perhaps "It's extremely unlikely to evolve." It's the same problem as trying to prove that there is no pink unicorn. The best you can do is not find it, which might mean it's there and just havn't found it yet. This reduces ID to a philosphical supposition and not a scientific theory.

2. All so-called examples of irreducible complexity have been proven not to be irreducibly complex. The bacterial flagellum, when about 3/4 of it's parts are removed, becomes the Type III Secretory System- basically a microscopic syringe that nasty little things like the Black Death bacterium use to inject poison into our cells. To be irreducibly complex, there should be NO POSSIBLE alternate configuration of these parts. Since there is an alternative, they are not IC. The same is true for the blood clotting cascade, bombardier beetle, and other examples- there are alternatives that we have REAL, LIVING examples of, so you can't pass it off as hypothetical either.

3. If we accept the premise (which we shoudln't based on 1 and 2), how to you get to God from designer? Suppose we do eventually find proof that life on earth was designed. Would there be a rash of sudden conversions to Raelianism? Who's to say it was God instead of green men in flying saucers that did the designing? You can't say why, other than "I have faith," because there's no evidence. Now that's a good reason, but it's not science. It's not religion either, because this "Designer" could be anything.

To summarize, if you want to believe in God, do it, but don't believe in intelligent design- it doesn't do what you think it does. If you want scientific evidence, don't believe in ID either, because it doesn't have any.

 

[The Nihilist]

WRONG FORUM. Take your prats somewhere else.

 

[MedicMan]

It couldn't have. In fact, such an organelle appearing out of the blue would be evidence against evolution. It is not hard to imagine, however, that a bacteria that can move would live longer and reproduce more than one that could not. By the same token, a bacteria that could move faster than others would survive longer and reproduce more than the slower (through food or space competition, predators, pollutants, whatever).

Yes, the flagellum would enable a bacterium to survive longer. However, given the complexity of the flagellum and its attendant structures, my point is that it could not have come about by a single mutation - either it was designed, or several spontaneous mutations occured simultaneously in the same cell.

Then it is an extremely good thing that evolution does not rely purely on chance.

I'm sorry? You mean that there is something guiding evolution? Surley, according to an atheist's view of evolution, the adaptations that give the organisms the advantages occur at random, as a result of mutation. How can this not rely purely on chance?

1. It is fallacious. It impossible to prove a negative. You can't say "there's no way it could have evolved" as a positive statement. You can only say "We don't know how it evolved." or perhaps "It's extremely unlikely to evolve." It's the same problem as trying to prove that there is no pink unicorn. The best you can do is not find it, which might mean it's there and just havn't found it yet. This reduces ID to a philosphical supposition and not a scientific theory.

Then why do scientists continually claim that they are 'disproving God'? Why do people believe that the Big Bang 'disproves God'? Surely the claims should be limited to 'we don't know whether there is a God or not' or 'it's extremely unlikely that God exists'.

2. All so-called examples of irreducible complexity have been proven not to be irreducibly complex. The bacterial flagellum, when about 3/4 of it's parts are removed, becomes the Type III Secretory System- basically a microscopic syringe that nasty little things like the Black Death bacterium use to inject poison into our cells. To be irreducibly complex, there should be NO POSSIBLE alternate configuration of these parts. Since there is an alternative, they are not IC. The same is true for the blood clotting cascade, bombardier beetle, and other examples- there are alternatives that we have REAL, LIVING examples of, so you can't pass it off as hypothetical either.

Is there a link you could give me to this? I don't doubt you as such (it would be foolish for anyone to say somethign like that without a way of backing it up) but it would be interesting. But anyway, back to the argument, I do not believe that is the definition of IC. The point of IC is that specific biological structures could not have evolved by chance, because the individual structures either have functions unrelated to those of the final structure, or have no function whatsoever. How could the type III secretion system possibly develop into a flagellum? They are completely different in purpose.

~MedicMan~

 

[us38]

Yes, the flagellum would enable a bacterium to survive longer. However, given the complexity of the flagellum and its attendant structures, my point is that it could not have come about by a single mutation - either it was designed, or several spontaneous mutations occured simultaneously in the same cell.

You have missed the point. If a single mutation allows for mobility, that bacteria will live longer. If another mutation increases that ability to move, it will get passed on. The flagellum is simply the result of a large amount of mutations that got selected.

I'm sorry? You mean that there is something guiding evolution? Surley, according to an atheist's view of evolution, the adaptations that give the organisms the advantages occur at random, as a result of mutation. How can this not rely purely on chance?

Natural selection guides evolution. While the mutations that cause advantages are random, what an advantage actually is is not determined by chance. In this example, a bacteria that can move is better off then one that can't. The advantage of bein able to move is not determined by chance. The mutation that causes mobility would be random, but the selection of that mutation to be passed on is not.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[us38]

Then why do scientists continually claim that they are 'disproving God'? Why do people believe that the Big Bang 'disproves God'? Surely the claims should be limited to 'we don't know whether there is a God or not' or 'it's extremely unlikely that God exists'.

I know of no scientist who is practicing science when they say "God does not exist". Any scientist who does such is overstepping their bounds.

Is there a link you could give me to this?

The link has already been given to you twice. Here it is again.

The point of IC is that specific biological structures could not have evolved by chance, because the individual structures either have functions unrelated to those of the final structure, or have no function whatsoever.

No the point of IC is that something could not have evolved. If something could have evolved, then IC is defeated. It doesn't matter if it had a different function, if it could have evolved, then you can't use the IC argument.

How could the type III secretion system possibly develop into a flagellum? They are completely different in purpose.

Again, I already gave this link to you. Here it is again. The next time someone posts links, please look at them. It's quite frustrating when you give a link explaining something, only to have it ignored and the question that it answers asked again.

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[Upisoft]

Put another way, no single element of the whole structure of the flagellum (filament, hook, et al) would have any effect whatsoever without the presence and co-operation of all its sister structures. The flagellum is said to be irreducibly complex: we cannot break its structure down to a simpler level, where the components still retain use independent of their sisters.

My argument is simply this: that since such a structure as the bacterial flagellum cannot have come about by chance, it must have been designed, by whatever power exists to design living things.

You argument is not logical. You assume that the parts had to do something about movement. That is not what the theory of evolution say, so you have to give an excuse for your assumption.

Anyway, this is wrong forum for your question.

 

[sbvera13]

Then why do scientists continually claim that they are 'disproving God'? Why do people believe that the Big Bang 'disproves God'? Surely the claims should be limited to 'we don't know whether there is a God or not' or 'it's extremely unlikely that God exists'.

Scientists do not claim (or should know better, because it is logically inconsistent if they do) that this disproves God. By having a possible natural solution, they simply remove God as a nessecary cause. That is not disproof; it is only the lack of proof. This makes the claim "it is highly unlikely" the correct one. You mistake trying to prove evolution with trying to disprove God. Not everyone requires the Bible to be innerrant for their faith to survive.

Is there a link you could give me to this?

Sadly I can't post links yet, so remove the asterisks for them to work.

ht*tp://youtube.c*om/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg - an excellent discussion of ID by Dr. Ken Miller, Prof. of biology, U. of Colorado. About an hour long, plus comments after. Non-confrontational and very thorough. Discusses the flagellum, blood clotting sequence, and DNA evidence against ID, as well as historical info about the ID movement and it's implications on society.

ht*tp://ww*w.talkorigins.o*rg/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.ht*ml - breaks down possible ways the flagellum could have evolved naturally. Also points out that it is not IC because sometimes we find them with certain parts missing naturally, but it still functions.

htt*p://ww*w.pandasthumb.or*g/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.h*tml - discusses the biochemical parts of the flagellum, and why almost none of them are unique to the purpose of the flagellum and actually serve other purposes within the cell.

ht*tp://ww*w.talkorigins.or*g/faqs/bombardier.h*tml - talkorigins again, this time about the bombardier beetle, another supposedly IC beastie.

ht*tp://w*ww.millerandlevine.co*m/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.ht*ml - Explains how the blood clotting cascade mechanism likely evolved, right from step one, which proteins were involved, why they were there, and how they functioned.

htt*p://ww*w.nmsr.or*g/nylon.ht*m - discusses Falvobacterium sp. k172, the Nylon eating bacteria, what mutation formed the new digestive enzyme, and how it occured.

The point of IC is that specific biological structures could not have evolved by chance, because the individual structures either have functions unrelated to those of the final structure, or have no function whatsoever. How could the type III secretion system possibly develop into a flagellum? They are completely different in purpose.

~MedicMan~

IC forgets that structures and their antecedents do not need to have the same purpose. All but 2 of the proteins involved in the flagellum are known to have other purposes. Those other two may simply have not been discovered yet, my sources do not say. The structures do not need to have the same purpose- any purpose that helps the organism survive will do. Once they are already there, they could be recombined into another structure with another purpose- like a flagellum. Saying exactly what those steps are is beyond my knowledge, and afaik is currently being studied.

Peace, and thanks for discussing

 

[MedicMan]

Scientists do not claim (or should know better, because it is logically inconsistent if they do) that this disproves God. By having a possible natural solution, they simply remove God as a nessecary cause. That is not disproof; it is only the lack of proof. This makes the claim "it is highly unlikely" the correct one. You mistake trying to prove evolution with trying to disprove God. Not everyone requires the Bible to be innerrant for their faith to survive.

Not all scientists claim this, agreed. However some do (notably Richard Dawkins, and my senior school physics teacher ), and many philosophers take these scientific principles and work them into proofs of God's non-existence.

us38 - many apologies for not reading the links the first time round, my browser was being narky. Having read the article, I do concede now that a flagellum could possibly have evolved.

I went into this discussion with a certain level of knowledge, and now that I've been taught more I realise that I was perhaps premature in presenting my conclusions. Thanks

~MedicMan~

P.S. Not lost the faith yet, though xD