Irreducible Complexity Debunked?

[Mallon]

They mistake Intelligent Design for Biblical Creationism because all they are focused on is God as an explanation for anything.

cdesign proponentists

 

[shernren]

cdesign proponentists

Two new gaps!

 

[mark kennedy]

Darwinian a priori assumptionalists, sad but true

 

[Drekkan85]

Darwinian a priori assumptionalists, sad but true

Since you seems slow on the uptake here the joke is that in the "Intelligent Design" textbook Of Pandas and People there was a curious development process. Found out at the discovery phase of Kitzmiller v Dover the OPaP book was examined through its various drafts. Prior to the 1987 USSC case that found that creationism was religious and thus could not be taught OPaP used the phrase "creationist". After 1987 they went to "Intelligent Design Proponents". What was fun is that in one update draft they found one "transitional form" where they'd essentially just replaced "creationist" with "design proponents" - but had used a poor choice of replacement macro and thus ended up with "cdesign proponentsist". Thus fairly conclusively showing the book in particular and (when combined with the rest of the evidence displayed at trial) ID in general is just creationism with a thin veneer of paint.

***
Honestly, one thing I've never understood is how creationists/IDers have to have such a small and petty God that he has to individually do everything. Indeed, my concept of a truly omnipotent and omniscient Lord is one that can create all by setting a system in place and allowing it to do His work without having to finangle everything himself.

 

[Drekkan85]

As you see, any new allele adds information. If you mean "useful function," rather than "information," someone's already given you an example. Would you like some more?

Technically I've given him 3

 

[busterdog]

You can calculate it for yourself:

Information is:

This is the Shannon equation for information as it applies to genetics. It means that the total information is the sum of the frequencies of n genes times the log of the frequency of n genes.Let's say that a population has two alleles for a certain gene, and a new allele mutations and eventually each has an equal frequency.

Original: ((0.5)*(log(0.5))+((0.5)*(log(0.5)) = (about 0.3)
After new allele: ((0.33)*(log(0.33))+((0.33)*(log(0.33))+((0.33)*(log(0.33))= (about 0.47)



As you see, any new allele adds information. If you mean "useful function," rather than "information," someone's already given you an example. Would you like some more?

Not very convincing. Better not to be so confident, at least not to appear so confident.

We all know that nylonase could easily be explained in terms of the origin of nylon -- ie, ancient organic compounds for which there were already known enzymes. Remember Pepper moth?

 

[busterdog]

Technically I've given him 3

I am tempted to ratchet up the rhetoric. But, what does that serve? There are counterarguments. You probably know them. So what is the point of making it appear that you can now declare victory. It just ticks people off.

 

[busterdog]

The absurdity is staggering, take away the bait trap and there is no point to the other parts. He even said it wouldn't attract many mice but if one were particularly stupid it would be just as dead.

Everyone makes mistakes. It would be nice to see Ken Miller admit that the mousetrap example he used was not one of intelligent redesign.

I still think the secreter example has something to say to IC. It certainly isnt proof of evolution, however.

They mistake Intelligent Design for Biblical Creationism because all they are focused on is God as an explanation for anything.

Got that right. Behe is not even YEC. He is in many ways TE. Apparently they shoot their (theologically) wounded in that camp.

 

[busterdog]

I'd still like to know how we can confidently say that we've positively identified an IC system. It strikes me that most proposed IC systems so far are, in fact, functionally reducible, and that ID proponents have been a little quick on the draw in labelling them as such. So if we can't distinguish between a supposed IC system and our ignorance as to how if might have evolved, can we really ever say with confidence that some system x was miraculously poofed into existence rather than having evolved that way? I'd like to hear some of the ID proponents here comment on this.

You know, I think the IC argument as an unassailable fact of biology is a naturalistic assumption. I think the argument against IC works in many ways the same as the attack on common descent.

I think it is still a reasonable argument and a useful way to analyze some systems. But, whether you have reached the point of absolute irreducibility is a question for which absolute confidence is probably not what you want to display.

I think you are begging the point. I am not familiar with the details of the systems under discussion, but as I understand the present debate, the flagellum consists of about 40 distinct parts. Having demonstrated a precusor to one or two out of 40 does not demonstrate that the others could have evolved.

I think Ken Miller inflated the Behe position until it was a suitably large target. Behe needs to assert that there is zero possibility for the flagellum to have functioning precursor with significantly fewer subparts. Sounds to me like Behe really said that it would be terribly hard for something less than a full flagellum to have evolved.

The notion that an irreducibly complex organ could evolve flies in the face of the basic concept of evolution, that is, natural selection of chance variations. natural selction would discard the various components as useless unless they were assembled in a workable form.

Hasnt modern Darwinism begun replacing chance with a theory of inherent qualities of biochemistry?

 

[Drekkan85]

I am tempted to ratchet up the rhetoric. But, what does that serve? There are counterarguments. You probably know them. So what is the point of making it appear that you can now declare victory. It just ticks people off.

Oh please do. I mean, yes, there were base elements in antiquity. However, there wasn't nylon. That particular configuration was man-made. Furthermore, it was highly toxic to life. It's a thing of evolutionary beauty for how organisms adapted and evolved to take advantage of it.

Nor does that address the point of 'additional information' of adding a function (nylon digestion, new stomach valve, or the digestion of citrate which is expressly against the very definition of what makes a particular type of bacteria).

Of course, it also depends on what you mean by "additional information". I once encountered someone that was moronic enough that to say that since all genetic code still used ATGC, it wasn't 'new information'.

***

Oh, and for those that want to see a slightly more sophisticated explanation for how the flagellum could have evolved via natural selection: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w[/youtube].

 

[busterdog]

Oh please do. I mean, yes, there were base elements in antiquity. However, there wasn't nylon. That particular configuration was man-made. Furthermore, it was highly toxic to life. It's a thing of evolutionary beauty for how organisms adapted and evolved to take advantage of it.

Does the enzyme eat the configuration or the base element? Some people say the latter.

And I agree that a new function is no more "new information" than a new configuration of base elements is a substance completely foreign to the capacity of bacteria created 6000 years ago.

 

[Chesterton]

But that's not an argument. How can you say something looks like an IC system if you don't know what an IC system looks like? That is the question, after all: What does an IC system look like? "I'll know it when I see it" isn't a particularly helpful answer since it is by no means objective.

If that’s not an argument, then even less so is the opposite “gradual steps” assertion, no? At least I can perceive a system; I cannot perceive the increments leading up to the system.

Science isn't in the business of offering facts. It's in the business of explaining them.

Okay, sorry, when I said “offer facts” I meant “offer explanations of facts”.

 

[busterdog]

If that’s not an argument, then even less so is the opposite “gradual steps” assertion, no? At least I can perceive a system; I cannot perceive the increments leading up to the system.

Good point.

 

[Mallon]

If that’s not an argument, then even less so is the opposite “gradual steps” assertion, no? At least I can perceive a system; I cannot perceive the increments leading up to the system.

"I can't imagine how it might have happened, therefore it didn't happen" is an argument from incredulity. In other words, a logical fallacy. It's also god-of-the-gaps theology. So I humbly disagree with busterdog -- I don't think you've made a good point.

 

[Chesterton]

"I can't imagine how it might have happened, therefore it didn't happen" is an argument from incredulity. In other words, a logical fallacy.

And... “I can’t imagine how it might have happened, therefore it happened” is an argument from credulity. Is it not a greater fallacy? And even when biologists are able to imagine how it happened (I think even I could come up with some fiction, if I put my imagination to it), would that make it true?

 

[Mallon]

And... “I can’t imagine how it might have happened, therefore it happened” is an argument from credulity. Is it not a greater fallacy? And even when biologists are able to imagine how it happened (I think even I could come up with some fiction, if I put my imagination to it), would that make it true?

I'm not really sure about what you're trying to say here.
You appear to be trying to depreciate the scientific method by saying that it is but simple guesswork and nothing more. That any imaginative story will do. This isn't the case. Scientific hypotheses must be testable to be useful, and therefore must make predictions. "Particular biological systems are irreducibly complex because I can feel it in my gut" meets none of the criteria of a scientifically valid hypothesis. The onus is on ID proponents to put forward a predictive model that can positively identify IC systems because it appears so far that they've only arguments from incredulity and god-of-the-gaps theology to offer. Simply defaulting to an explanation of IC because you cannot yet understand how a particular system might have evolved doesn't cut the mustard. As proposed, intelligent design offers only (supposed) negative evidence against evolution, rather than positive evidence in its own favour.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm not really sure about what you're trying to say here.
You appear to be trying to depreciate the scientific method by saying that it is but simple guesswork and nothing more. That any imaginative story will do.

I didn’t say that at all. I'm saying “show me the money”; that’s what science is about, right? Show me the money, or else your guess is as good as mine. (Actually my guess is a little better, since it’s based on something tangible.)

This isn't the case. Scientific hypotheses must be testable to be useful, and therefore must make predictions. "Particular biological systems are irreducibly complex because I can feel it in my gut" meets none of the criteria of a scientifically valid hypothesis.

But saying “particular biological systems are not irreducibly complex because” of any other unproved guesswork meets no criteria of either science or common sense.

Why would mindless nature build a propeller without a drive to turn the propeller? Why would mindless nature build a drive to turn a propeller while there is no propeller to be turned?

The onus is on ID proponents to put forward a predictive model that can positively identify IC systems because it appears so far that they've only arguments from incredulity and god-of-the-gaps theology to offer.

I think the onus is on opponents of common sense observations to forward a predictive model substantiating an alternative to common sense observations. (I don’t claim it’s impossible to defy intuition; it’s been done before, just not in this particular case.) The only evolutionary argument so far is “we already believe the theory of evolution, therefore the facts must conform to the theory”, which is an argument from credulity, and is therefore a fallacy.

Simply defaulting to an explanation of IC because you cannot yet understand how a particular system might have evolved doesn't cut the mustard.

But doesn’t defaulting to an explanation of gradual evolution of a system when you cannot yet understand how it could have happened cut even less of the mustard?

As proposed, intelligent design offers only (supposed) negative evidence against evolution, rather than positive evidence in its own favour.

As proposed, evolution of apparently IC systems offers only…what?...”we have some evidence from which we presume evolution to have happened, so we presume it must have happened even where we can’t imagine it to have happened.”

This is what’s perplexing to me – an atheistic evolutionist has to resort to leaps of logic, but a theistic evolutionist doesn’t. Don’t you agree that God intended and began living organisms somehow, so why the quibbling over when He began it – is flagellum more incredible than the initial genesis of life itself? If you agree that the Almighty can create “life”, is creating an outboard motor that big of a deal?

 

[Mallon]

I didn’t say that at all. I'm saying “show me the money”; that’s what science is about, right? Show me the money, or else your guess is as good as mine. (Actually my guess is a little better, since it’s based on something tangible.)

You just said earlier that your inference of IC systems is based on little more than gut feelings. "If it walks like a duck...", etc. But so far you haven't been able to tell us just what a "duck" is -- only what it isn't. That's not tangible!

But saying “particular biological systems are not irreducibly complex because” of any other unproved guesswork meets no criteria of either science or common sense.

First, many supposed instances of irreducible complexity have been discredited -- not based on "unproved guesswork", as you say -- but based on careful, scientific examination of the systems themselves. Read Miller's Finding Darwin's God if you'd like to learn more. Some of his examples have already been presented in this very thread.
Second, you don't get to label your own position the "common sense" position and then say I'm contradicting common sense by not agreeing with you. That's not a valid form of argument.

Why would mindless nature build a propeller without a drive to turn the propeller? Why would mindless nature build a drive to turn a propeller while there is no propeller to be turned?

For one, I don't believe nature is mindless. I believe the evolution of nature is teleological. After all, God is intimately involved with His creation.
Second, the answer to your question is exaptation. Exaptation, exaptation, exaptation! I've said this several times in response to similar questions lately, but people still don't seem to be listening. If it's simply that you do not know what exaptation is, here's a brief introduction:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE5cExaptations.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exaptation
Best to understand an idea before you discredit it.

I think the onus is on opponents of common sense observations to forward a predictive model substantiating an alternative to common sense observations. (I don’t claim it’s impossible to defy intuition; it’s been done before, just not in this particular case.)

Again with the appeal to "common sense". Not a valid argument. Common sense tells me that because I have a degree in science and you do not, I shouldn't take you too seriously on matters pertaining to science. What do you make of that?

The only evolutionary argument so far is “we already believe the theory of evolution, therefore the facts must conform to the theory”, which is an argument from credulity, and is therefore a fallacy.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here, but it's worth noting that evolution has a proven track record as an explanation for the origin for many biological systems. In fact, the theory of evolution is the working paradigm of biology today. If the theory is of any value, it certainly ought to be able to explain supposed irreducibly complex systems to some degree. And lo and behold -- it does! As I said earlier, all examples of IR systems that Behe has proposed so far have been shown with further study to have functional components independent of the system for which they have been exapted, as predicted by evolutionary theory. This is what I mean when I say the case for IC systems is based more on ignorance than positive evidence for such. The challenge I am putting forth is for the ID proponents to be able to distinguish between the two.

But doesn’t defaulting to an explanation of gradual evolution of a system when you cannot yet understand how it could have happened cut even less of the mustard?

As proposed, evolution of apparently IC systems offers only…what?...”we have some evidence from which we presume evolution to have happened, so we presume it must have happened even where we can’t imagine it to have happened.”

Again, I'm not sure of what you're trying to say here. It seems you're just trying to muddy the waters.

This is what’s perplexing to me – an atheistic evolutionist has to resort to leaps of logic, but a theistic evolutionist doesn’t. Don’t you agree that God intended and began living organisms somehow, so why the quibbling over when He began it – is flagellum more incredible than the initial genesis of life itself? If you agree that the Almighty can create “life”, is creating an outboard motor that big of a deal?

Sorry, I still don't understand you. I agree that God created life intentionally. And I agree that life is complex. What I don't agree with is that He did it all using His magic wand, because the evidence so far suggests that He created biodiversity using the natural processes He instated at the beginning of creation. Does that answer your question?

 

[Drekkan85]

Does the enzyme eat the configuration or the base element? Some people say the latter.

And I agree that a new function is no more "new information" than a new configuration of base elements is a substance completely foreign to the capacity of bacteria created 6000 years ago.

So you've stated on what "new information" is not. What is "new information"?

As for what it eats, please show the research studies that can identify the latter. Digestive processes typically don't work like that. They break food down into discrete blocks, not into individual carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen etc. That's why your body goes into ketosis (burning of fat for energy that would normally be supplied by carbs) when you go onto a low carb diet. Similarly that's why you starve to death if you ingest nothing but lean meat - your body can't use the proteins in the meat for anything else and thus it can't meet the needs of the body. Funnily enough this is also how poisonous and toxic substances work. Your body can't break them down, they build up, and cause adverse reactions.

This is why bacteria couldn't process nylon. They could get it into discrete chunks. They couldn't process it. It was an utterly foreign never before seen substance - and the bacteria adapted to it and evolved around it. Not all bacteria either - it's not like some designer said that all bacteria should now do this. Only bacteria exposed to high levels of nylon over a long period of time (or utterly insane saturation levels over what's still a rather long time for bacteria). It's a classic example of evolution to get to a new food source.

You also haven't engaged the citrate example. This is, if anything, more intriguing; E. Coli can't digest citrate. They just can't. It's one of the definitions of E. Coli. Until scientists attempted this long-term evolution experiment and discovered a group of their E. Coli evolved to be able to accommodate the citrate and use it as a food source. Funnily enough, they went back and tested frozen samples from earlier, and no matter what samples they tested, the ancestors for the current citrate processors showed a slight ability to process citrate and to 're-evolve' the citrate trait. None of the other colonies could. This was evidence that citrate processing was due to multiple point mutations that gradually accumulated leading to slight advantages in fitness.

Oh, and all of these colonies came from a single source bacterium.

***

As for your flagellum example question of why mindless things would create a propeller that doesn't work. It's because the process of evolution didn't create a propeller that doesn't work - they created other things that did work and gave an advantage. Over time these additions worked together and started fulfilling non-intended roles. Finally, when all the pieces came together a major advantage was conferred on those organisms with the flagellum. That was the whole point of the vid I linked and of Miller's mouse trap example. Not that things definitely happened like that, nor that a mouse trap without the bait is still a good mouse trap. But that just because losing one thing would stop it from functioning as a mouse trap doesn't mean it would stop functioning as something else that would give an evolutionary advantage, which is all that's needed.

 

[shernren]

Got that right. Behe is not even YEC. He is in many ways TE. Apparently they shoot their (theologically) wounded in that camp.

And then there's how AiG treats Hugh Ross. Shooting our wounded is a fact of life.

I don't know why you guys can never get the difference between TE and ID even though we explain it over and over again. The first big difference is that, to be blunt, ID proponents get scientific facts wrong. And they deserve to be corrected every time that happens, quite irrespective of their theological beliefs.

The second difference is this. TE says God is in evolution. ID says He isn't.

Pause and digest that for a moment.

As far as I am aware, Behe has never offered an irreducibly complex example on the level of macro behavior. So all his IC systems are biochemical, but he has never been able to show that, say, a mouse's ear is IC, or a rat's tail. That means that, as far as he is concerned, the Intelligent Designer packed His bags and left us billions of years ago. He got the biochemistry going ("and we can show with scieeeeence that it wouldn't have gotten going on its own!"), but then He left it to evolution to use the components He left lying around.

To ID, God got involved in 1% of nature.
To TEs, God gets involved in 100% of nature.

Do you see the difference? If someone told you "I can prove to you that God exists and that He runs 1% of your life, but you need to admit in turn that He's not there in the other 99%", would you give him any time of day? I certainly wouldn't.

The entire ID camp is of the position that evolution is godless, that we ought to acknowledge evolution where it occurred, but that we will fight it tooth and nail where we know for sure it didn't, so as to give God some kind of a niche (the thin end of a wedge?) so that intelligent people can still acknowledge Him. Are you kidding? That's like putting up a poster of Jesus of the Sacred Heart in a brothel and expecting a Christian whorehouse to materialize.

Either God's in all of it, or He might as well be in none of it.