Irreducible Complexity Debunked?

[busterdog]

I have been listening to Ken Miller's argument against irreducible complexity. In another thread, sophophile gave some conclusions about the refutation of irreducible complexity.

A simplistic view of the issue was that if you could model a step-wise progression toward a flagellum that you would have disproved the main tenet of the IC argument. So the question in my mind is that if you can model the steps, how is that the same as saying that life can overcome the difficulties in real life? Is it fair to say that Behe is debunked if the process can be modelled?

One of the first things I looked at Ken Miller's argument about mousetraps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieKDLtrBXs0

Miller thinks that showing you can make a trap with fewer parts, essentially modelling the transition, is proof that Behe is wrong. Maybe I misunderstood, but frankly thinking this proved anything was nonsense. The notion that having an answer such as this is "debunking" anything is very odd to me. What it does do is illustrate the form of reason, and a valid form of reason, that could be used to attack the argument, but only given sufficient evidence in nature -- and that is where all the meat is.

Then I looked at Miller's modeling of the progression in development of the flagellum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

If Behe had said that you can never have a model for step wise development of the mousetrap or flagellum, I guess Miller would have a point that Behe is not that bright. But does anyone really think that this is what Behe meant? I mean the notion of imagining step wise develoment of anything was always part of EVERYONE's thinking about the problem anyway. We roll this around in our heads and wonder whether it is really possible. Good question.

Should have been a good question to Miller. Had it been a good question, he would have been more effective at meeting the substance of the argument.

Miller's use of the plague organism was interesting. I said, now we are getting somewhere. But, it really does still beg the question. Yes, you can model the steps from plague to flagellum, but I kind of want to see it in life not in a model.

Lets be honest about what Behe had in mind. I suppose he thought step wise development would be impossible. But, aren't we really talking about very long odds? So much has to happen just right for this to happen.

Would Behe possible say that no intermediate and similar structures could ever exist in similar organisms? He did suggest that you wouldn't have purposeless, ineffective intermediate structures. Miller found well-suited and effective, but similar structures in different organisms. Again, a rhetorical flourish can be made of this. But, we all have the same question, dont we? How do you put them together and make them work all at once?

Could Behe not have seen that coming? Is that enough of a step toward "debunking" Behe?

Part of the argument is that there was very little evidence of intermediate structures of similar composition. Miller found one. Does it mean anything that we are talking about different organisms and completely different functions?

I am interested in finding what Behe thought of similar structures with different functions. If finding similar structures halfs the long odds for the flagellum, half of an astronomically large number is still pretty big. But, that is not to say that it isnt interesting at this level. Miller does make it interesting by changing the odds somewhat. But, in order to engage with Miller and think it through, I need to put aside words like "debunk", because he didnt bebunk anything and it is annoying to deal with such presumptions.

Miller's example, however, is also a fully functioning mousetrap of its own. Honesty about that fact would make me know that maybe we could expect some progress in thinking this through. To his credit, Miller did say this was an argument, not evidence. But, at the end of the presentation, he seemed to suggest that he said all he needed to say. And I am thinking, but its a mousetrap and you dont know where that came from.

"Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system missing a part is nonfunctional." This is a word game. If you take out part of the flagellum, it doesnt work. If you take out part of the secreter, it doesnt work. I see that they are similar, and yes, this is very interesting. But dont tell me this is game set and match.

AIG also has an answer for the plague secreter.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389

You know, I dont want to win this argument. I want to break it down, understand the presumptions on both side of the argument and get into some of the evidence. If you look at the surface of what is said about these arguments and how they are popularized, I dont people really have their arms all the way around the issues.

 

[gluadys]

If Behe had said that you can never have a model for step wise development of the mousetrap or flagellum, I guess Miller would have a point that Behe is not that bright. But does anyone really think that this is what Behe meant?

Yes, if you read Behe, this is his argument. He begins by defining irreducible complexity. (And let us note that his basic definition is not all that problematical. Miller does not actually attack the idea that a mousetrap or a flagellum is irreducibly complex.)

But then Behe goes from the concept of irreducible complexity to say that an IC system could not be the product of Darwinian evolution which depends on a step-wise assembly of component parts.

Why not? Because the component parts have no function until they are assembled into the IC system. And functionless parts are not produced/preserved by natural selection against future need.

So to get an IC system, you need the simultaneous production & assembly of all the sub-component parts. And that requires a non-Darwinian mechanism.

One can (but need not) move on from there to the concept of intelligent design.

To counter this, one needs to show that the components of the IC system do function apart from the IC system and therefore are preserved via natural selection prior to the final assembly in the IC system.

That is what Miller's presentation is about. Showing that the sub-components are not functionless on their own.

Would Behe possible say that no intermediate and similar structures could ever exist in similar organisms?

Maybe not today. But that would certainly be implied in his original thesis. If similar intermediate functioning structures could exist in similar organisms they could also exist in ancestors of flagellated bacteria.

But, we all have the same question, dont we? How do you put them together and make them work all at once?

Do you remember the story of the campers threatened by a bear? "You can't outrun a bear" says one. "Don't have to", the other replies. "I just need to outrun you."

Its an important concept to remember when dealing with the evolution of complex structures. Sure, the finished product as we see it today is very finely tuned to its function. But in the beginning it didn't have to be. A poor, inefficiently functioning gerry-rigged system cobbled together from spare parts is still ahead of no system at all.

Don't we see the same thing in engineering? Someone needs a tool or system no one has thought of yet. So they put together some other things originally made for other purposes and make a prototype of what they want. Twenty years later a much sleeker more sophisticated version is on the market that works much better because it was specifically designed for this task.

Could Behe not have seen that coming? Is that enough of a step toward "debunking" Behe?

It takes away a significant part of his argument: that precursors to an IC system are functionless.

"Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system missing a part is nonfunctional." This is a word game. If you take out part of the flagellum, it doesnt work. If you take out part of the secreter, it doesnt work. I see that they are similar, and yes, this is very interesting. But dont tell me this is game set and match.

You see the secreter as part of the flagellar system, and you are thinking "the rest of the flagellar system doesn't function without the secretor". True. But the point is that the secretor itself is also a precursor to the flagellum, and it does function without the rest of the flagellar system.

So the original statement "Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system missing a part is nonfunctional." is false. The secretor is a precursor to the irreducibly complex system of the bacterial flagellum. It is missing a part of that system (the non-secretor assembly). Yet it is functional.

 

[busterdog]

Yes, if you read Behe, this is his argument. He begins by defining irreducible complexity. (And let us note that his basic definition is not all that problematical. Miller does not actually attack the idea that a mousetrap or a flagellum is irreducibly complex.)

Assuming that Behe did not mean something more, in context, why not simply go and redefine the problem for him?

You see the secreter as part of the flagellar system, and you are thinking "the rest of the flagellar system doesn't function without the secretor". True. But the point is that the secretor itself is also a precursor to the flagellum, and it does function without the rest of the flagellar system.

Well, the secreter is a simpler structure in a different organism.

Or, have it your way them, its a flagellum. But, isnt it still a kind of mousetrap? Ken Miller found a simpler flagellum. What evidence is there that allows us to extrapolate backward to presume a precursor for the secreter?

Now we need to do what, look for transitional forms? We all know how much fun it is to discuss transitional forms!!

So the original statement "Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system missing a part is nonfunctional." is false. The secretor is a precursor to the irreducibly complex system of the bacterial flagellum. It is missing a part of that system (the non-secretor assembly). Yet it is functional.

Wait a minute. It is simpler than a flagellum, by why is it necessarily a precursor? Maybe the secreter is just the Lowest Common Denominator?

There is some other science on the secreter, but for the moment, lets stick with the notion of a "precursor" and assume this to be a valid argument. Lets look at the problem a different way. How about if Behe's mistake was not in picking the right mousetrap? Maybe he should have simply used the secreter as his example. Then what? If there is something simpler than the secreter, then what? Why isnt that the mousetrap?

On one hand, if you continue one step at a time from the front of the room toward the back of the room, at what point are you assured that you will reach the back of the room? Certainly creationists have camped on the wrong assumption about how many steps one can possibly take toward the back of the room. But, at what point do you have the right to assume that you will or must reach the back of the room?

Lets assume continued progress toward the goal of understanding transitional forms 100fold better than where we are now. Creationists need to understand that distinct possibility, at least in some areas. If that were to happen, what do we say? We could say that we may be surprised, but actually, if we assume a young earth creation, by what right would we assume that there would not be a similarity of structure or transitional forms? Maybe even greater similarity of form is what we are supposed to see, except that we never get something to a cell in terms of being a simple cell less that last essential protein that allows life? Or perhaps we get to the point where the transitional forms specialze or are built, in reproduction, out of which there is no apparent organizing force other than God?

At this point, what are we talking about? The odds that science can, as the footall lovers say, be productive in the red zone -- it can not just march down the field, but it can also score once it gets close to the goal line. But, if we are talking about odds in terms of ultimate questions, how much logical sense does that make? How about th Cambian explosion? Must science necessarily push through that barrier, or is that the point of Goddidit?

Somewhere along the line the possibility of a unique intervention will always exist. It can exist in terms of making many, many species or transitional forms within the six days.

Maybe Ken Miller, like Napolean, advances quickly in victory, not realizing how big Russia really is, nor how much ground God can afford to give and still be literally right in Gen. 1-3.

I can understand why evolutionists are encouraged by the plague secreter. But, why the confidence that this is the end of the IC issue? Why assume that there are no later IC walls that biology wont get through? Is that what he is doing?

I think what he is doing is saying, "Oh come on, if we got this far, common sense says we will finish to find all necessary transitional forms?" Is that really science?


Here is the creationwiki piece on this issue:

Kenneth Miller, a well-known evolutionary biologist from Brown University, points out that certain subsystems of the bacterial flagellum would still be in working order if other parts were removed. The overall flagellar motility system requires around 50 different types of proteins (and underlying genes to code for them). However, it is quite interesting to note that 10 of these genes and the resulting structure within the flagellar motility system also code for what is known as a type III secretory system (TTSS). The TTSS is used as a toxin injector by some especially nasty bacteria that attack both animals and plants. Therefore, Kenneth Miller argues that it is mistaken to use the flagellar system as an example of a truly irreducibly complex machine since around 40 different parts could be removed from the machine without a complete loss of function. Miller also points out that the majority of the protein parts of the flagellar system have other functions as parts of other systems within bacteria.[2]
What now? Has Miller disproved Behe's notion of irreducible complexity? It sure seems like he has - at first glance anyway. However, what Miller seemingly fails to consider is that the function of flagellar motility is still irreducibly complex regardless of other subsystems functions are or are not maintained with various flagellar system reductions. Without a sizable number of specifically arranged protein parts the function of flagellar motility cannot exist. In fact, all systems of function are irreducibly complex. It doesn't matter if subsystem function is maintained. This is like arguing that the motility function of an automobile is not irreducibly complex because the lights still work even if the engine or tires or drive shaft are removed.

http://creationwiki.org/Irreducibly_complex

As I read the creationwiki piece, the function that Behe was referring to is motility, not any function at all for a subset of the individual pieces. You can always you part of the mousetrap to stab someone.

Abstract by Minnich and Meyer:

The bacterial flagellum represents one of the best understood molecular machines. Comprised of 40 parts that self-assemble into a true rotary engine, the biochemistry and genetics of these systems has revealed an unanticipated complexity. An essential component to assembly is the subset of parts that function as a protein secretory pump to ensure and discriminate that the correct number of protein subunits and their order of secretion is precisely regulated during assembly. Of further interest is the recognition of late that a number of important plant and animal pathogens use a related protein secretory pump fused to a membrane-spanning needle-like syringe by which a subset of toxins can be injected into target host cells. Together, the flagellar and virulence protein pumps are referred to as Type III Secretion Systems (TTSS). The archetype for TTSS systems has been the pathogenic members of the genus Yersinia which includes the organism responsible for bubonic plague, Y. pestis. Our interest in the Yersinia centers on the coordinate genetic regulation between flagellum biosynthesis and virulence TTSS expression. Y. enterocolitica, for example operates three TTSSs (motility, Ysa, and Yop), but each is expressed under defined mutually exclusive conditions. Y. pestis has lost the ability to assemble flagella (the genes are present on the chromosome) and expresses only the Yop system at 37oC, mammalian temperature. Using a combination of microarray analysis, genetic fusions, and behaviors of specific engineered mutants, we demonstrate how environmental factors influence gene expression of these multigene families, where the influence is exerted within each system, and propose why segregating these systems is critical for the organism. Our model further offers an explanation as to why an important subset of human pathogens has lost motility during their histories.

http://www.discovery.org/a/2181

 

[gluadys]

Assuming that Behe did not mean something more, in context, why not simply go and redefine the problem for him?

Why would one do that? Isn't the point to test out what he actually proposed? How do you do that if you unilaterally redefine the problem for him?

What evidence is there that allows us to extrapolate backward to presume a precursor for the secreter?

That wasn't the question under discussion. It would take a separate investigation of the ten proteins that make the secretor system to see which of them, alone or in combination, were functional before being assembled into the secretor.

But the question under discussion was the evolvability of the flagellum.

Wait a minute. It is simpler than a flagellum, by why is it necessarily a precursor?

Because it is a component of the flagellum. When you are assembling parts into a complex whole, the components to be assembled logically precede the final assemblage.

How about if Behe's mistake was not in picking the right mousetrap? Maybe he should have simply used the secreter as his example. Then what? If there is something simpler than the secreter, then what? Why isnt that the mousetrap?

That is possible, of course. But lets remember that the flagellum was not his first try either. Earlier he proposed the blood-clotting cascade. ID can propose as many IC systems as it wants. Then each can be investigated for functional precursors.

But it has already been shown that at least some IC systems (blood clotting cascade, bacterial flagellum) do have functional precursors. So the blanket statement "Any precursor of an irreducibly complex system....." has already been disproven. The best one can get now is possibly "some precursors of some irreducibly complex systems..."

On one hand, if you continue one step at a time from the front of the room toward the back of the room, at what point are you assured that you will reach the back of the room? Certainly creationists have camped on the wrong assumption about how many steps one can possibly take toward the back of the room. But, at what point do you have the right to assume that you will or must reach the back of the room?

Sorry, I don't follow the analogy.

Lets assume continued progress toward the goal of understanding transitional forms 100fold better than where we are now. Creationists need to understand that distinct possibility, at least in some areas. If that were to happen, what do we say? We could say that we may be surprised, but actually, if we assume a young earth creation, by what right would we assume that there would not be a similarity of structure or transitional forms? Maybe even greater similarity of form is what we are supposed to see, except that we never get something to a cell in terms of being a simple cell less that last essential protein that allows life? Or perhaps we get to the point where the transitional forms specialze or are built, in reproduction, out of which there is no apparent organizing force other than God?

Oh, you lost me way back somewhere.

But, if we are talking about odds in terms of ultimate questions, how much logical sense does that make? How about th Cambian explosion? Must science necessarily push through that barrier, or is that the point of Goddidit?

I don't think science deals with ultimate questions. Its whole realm of investigation is what used to be called "secondary causes". As for the Cambrian explosion, as far as I am aware, science pushed through that some time ago. That is why most ID material deals with molecular structure, not anatomy.

I can understand why evolutionists are encouraged by the plague secreter. But, why the confidence that this is the end of the IC issue? Why assume that there are no later IC walls that biology wont get through? Is that what he is doing?

Because it deals with the central question. Having shown that at least one IC system has a functional precursor, one can never go back to the blanket statement that IC systems cannot, by definition, have functional precursors. It's like finding the one black swan that proves not all swans are white. (In fact, Miller said the trial dealt with three examples.) IC is not an unambiguous indicator of design---even if some IC systems were designed. Because we always have on record the IC systems that did or possibly did evolve from functional precursors.

I think what he is doing is saying, "Oh come on, if we got this far, common sense says we will finish to find all necessary transitional forms?" Is that really science?

It's not really about transitional forms, though that would be another interesting question. It is about the alleged non-evolvability of IC systems.

Here is the creationwiki piece on this issue:

http://creationwiki.org/Irreducibly_complex

And here is where they misrepresent the issue.

Therefore, Kenneth Miller argues that it is mistaken to use the flagellar system as an example of a truly irreducibly complex machine since around 40 different parts could be removed from the machine without a complete loss of function.

Go through the videos again. Where does Miller argue that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex? What he argues is that it is not the case that "any precursor of an irreducibly complex system missing a part is nonfunctional." At least some precursors are functional. So the IC system does not have to be put together all at once due to the lack of functioning in precursor components as Behe contended. It can be assembled piece-meal, Darwinian fashion from already functioning components.

That doesn't mean the flagellum is not IC. It does mean--contra Behe--that Darwinian evolution can produce an IC system.

As I read the creationwiki piece, the function that Behe was referring to is motility, not any function at all for a subset of the individual pieces. You can always you part of the mousetrap to stab someone.

Doesn't matter what the function is. The question is whether it is an IC system, and whether the components of the system could have had functions of their own apart from the system. It is expected that on their own, the functions of components would be different from that of the IC system under study.

 

[The Barbarian]

As I read the creationwiki piece, the function that Behe was referring to is motility, not any function at all for a subset of the individual pieces. You can always you part of the mousetrap to stab someone.

Yes. Behe originally demanded that evolution not use exaption (the modification of a feature for a new use). But the evidence shows that is what evolution does.

If not, there could never be a new function, since by definition, new functions are those that did not previously exist. Yet, we see that the apparatus used by bacterial flagella (not "the flagellum", since there are various kinds of bacterial flagella, some of them simpler than others) can be used for other things.

BTW, Behe has since admitted that IC can evolve, although he thinks it would take too long. But bacteriologist Barry Hall has observed it to evolve in bacterial cultures.

Not only did the bacteria evolve a new enzyme, they also evolved a regulator. Which meant that the substrate, enzyme, and regulator had to be present for the system to work.

 

[shernren]

Irreducibly complex systems have actually been evolved in the lab:

http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/cacm99/node3.html

This is astonishing. During the single high-going pulse, we know that parts A and B of the circuit are `reset' to a static state within the first 20ns (the pulse widths are vastly longer: 500us and 50us correspond to 1kHz and 10kHz). Our observations at the output show that Part C is also in a static state during the pulse. Yet somehow, within 200ns of the end of the pulse, the circuit `knows' how long it was, despite being completely inactive during it.

This is hard to believe, so we have reinforced this finding through many separate types of observation, and all agree that the circuit is inactive during the pulse. Power consumption returns to quiescent levels during the pulse. Many of the internal signals were (one at a time) routed to an external pin and monitored. Sometimes this probing altered (or destroyed) the circuit's behaviour, but we have observed at least one signal from each recurrent loop while the circuit was successfully discriminating pulse-widths, and there was never activity during the pulse. (emphasis added)

This system is so irreducibly complex that you can't even look at any individual components without upsetting the system. And yet it evolved. QED?

 

[Sophophile]

I have been listening to Ken Miller's argument against irreducible complexity. In another thread, sophophile gave some conclusions about the refutation of irreducible complexity.

Hello again busterdog

A simplistic view of the issue was that if you could model a step-wise progression toward a flagellum that you would have disproved the main tenet of the IC argument. So the question in my mind is that if you can model the steps, how is that the same as saying that life can overcome the difficulties in real life? Is it fair to say that Behe is debunked if the process can be modelled?

Yes, it is fair to say Behe is debunked if the process can be modelled.

Darwin: If any biological structure is found that could not be formed by slight, successive modifications, evolution would be proven false.

Behe: Irreducibly complex (IC) structures are found in biology and could not be formed by slight, successive modifications because they have many parts and are useless until fully assembled. The partially assembled stages cannot survive the process of natural selection, thus evolution is proven false.

The problem for Behe is he has taken on the burden of showing by necessity (deduction) or example (induction) that partially assembled IC systems are useless.

Behe cannot show this by deduction unless he proves that functions for parts of IC system are logically impossible. This he tried to do by defining IC systems as being composed of parts with no function. Frankly, this was never going to work.

Behe also tries to show this by induction from a very small number of examples: the flagellum, the clotting cascade, the immune system, etc. For every one of his examples physical evidence has been found of plausible, functional precursors parts and systems. In any case, the number of examples was far to small to justify the argument that all IC systems have nonfunctional parts and precursors.

If Behe had said that you can never have a model for step wise development of the mousetrap or flagellum, I guess Miller would have a point that Behe is not that bright. But does anyone really think that this is what Behe meant? I mean the notion of imagining step wise develoment of anything was always part of EVERYONE's thinking about the problem anyway. We roll this around in our heads and wonder whether it is really possible. Good question.

I think Behe really did mean you could never have a model for step wise development of mousetrap or flagellum, if and only if there is no possible function for intermediate steps. This is what I was pointing out above. Of course you can have step wise development of anything if you do not have the limitation that intermediate stages must be functional.

"Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system missing a part is nonfunctional." This is a word game. If you take out part of the flagellum, it doesnt work. If you take out part of the secreter, it doesnt work. I see that they are similar, and yes, this is very interesting. But dont tell me this is game set and match.

This is definitely not a word game. Behe's claim was very clear and concise: "Any precursor to an irreducibly complex system missing a part is nonfunctional." All of Behe's caimed IC systems have been shown to have possible, even plausible, functional precursors or parts. This means you cannot rely on Behe's argument, because it contains the premise "there are no functional precursors to IC systems".

Behe himself did not continue the IC argument in his Edge of Evoluton book. In the Dover trial he did not attempt to defend IC under cross-examination, instead preferring to use the quite different argument of "purposeful arrangement of parts". Behe knows the argument from IC, as an argument against evolution, has failed.

 

[busterdog]

Irreducibly complex systems have actually been evolved in the lab:

http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/cacm99/node3.html

This is astonishing. During the single high-going pulse, we know that parts A and B of the circuit are `reset' to a static state within the first 20ns (the pulse widths are vastly longer: 500us and 50us correspond to 1kHz and 10kHz). Our observations at the output show that Part C is also in a static state during the pulse. Yet somehow, within 200ns of the end of the pulse, the circuit `knows' how long it was, despite being completely inactive during it.

This is hard to believe, so we have reinforced this finding through many separate types of observation, and all agree that the circuit is inactive during the pulse. Power consumption returns to quiescent levels during the pulse. Many of the internal signals were (one at a time) routed to an external pin and monitored. Sometimes this probing altered (or destroyed) the circuit's behaviour, but we have observed at least one signal from each recurrent loop while the circuit was successfully discriminating pulse-widths, and there was never activity during the pulse. (emphasis added)

This system is so irreducibly complex that you can't even look at any individual components without upsetting the system. And yet it evolved. QED?

No, RIF.

Resistance Is Futile.

Interesting example. A very good cautionary tale. Never say never?

I guess part of the question is how wedded Behe is to the notion of virtually impossible as opposed to impossible.

Now, the secreter is not a flagellum and it is a different organism. But, maybe this isnt such a hot place to draw a line in the sand. One thing IC does do is to caution anyone against drawing a similar line in the sand and daring an enormously complex living system to cross it. I am reminded, somewhat frivolously about what happened before the TRex ate the lawyer off the toilet: the cloned dinosaurs in Jurassic Park managed to change sexes.

Here is the statement by Behe:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. (p. 39)

"Cease functioning" is a bit ambiguous.

The creationists should note that beating up on IC takes away a challenge to evolution, but doesnt prove evolution -- but, therein actually lies one crux for the entire debate. Would the response to that be that Behe's position, construed very strictly as it has by evolutionists be that it, if Miller hasnt disproven IC, then IC is really too abstract to be disproven. Unless you actually show the evolution of a flagellum in real time, cant you always say the secreter and similar things just arent exactly the same thing? That is not completely dissimilar to one objection to evolution as an unprovable theory.

 

[Buho]

A simplistic view of the issue was that if you could model a step-wise progression toward a flagellum that you would have disproved the main tenet of the IC argument.

Imagination is one thing. Showing it (science) is another.

Is it fair to say that Behe is debunked if the process can be modelled?

No. It must be shown. Without lab experiments, who's to say the model accurately represents reality?

What further aggrivates this is that even if a process is shown, it does not prove that this is what happened in the past. Many evolutionists fail to recognize these two points.

If you'd like to see the problems with your first video, try playing it in reverse. Start with the simplest construct and ask yourself at every step: what specific and precise things must take place to progress from this step to the next, and ask yourself if random chance is able to perform this. If you detect two changes, the model is falsified, for the odds quickly soar to astronomical probabilities when two changes must be done simultaneously. For "the rest of the story," check out Behe's rebuttal from 2000: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm

 

[The Barbarian]

If you'd like to see the problems with your first video, try playing it in reverse. Start with the simplest construct and ask yourself at every step: what specific and precise things must take place to progress from this step to the next, and ask yourself if random chance is able to perform this.

I think you're arguing with yourself, again. No one who knows anything about it, believes it could happen in the absence of natural selection.

 

[busterdog]

Imagination is one thing. Showing it (science) is another.


No. It must be shown. Without lab experiments, who's to say the model accurately represents reality?

What further aggrivates this is that even if a process is shown, it does not prove that this is what happened in the past. Many evolutionists fail to recognize these two points.

If you'd like to see the problems with your first video, try playing it in reverse. Start with the simplest construct and ask yourself at every step: what specific and precise things must take place to progress from this step to the next, and ask yourself if random chance is able to perform this. If you detect two changes, the model is falsified, for the odds quickly soar to astronomical probabilities when two changes must be done simultaneously. For "the rest of the story," check out Behe's rebuttal from 2000: http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mousetrapdefended.htm

Thank you. I havent gotten to look much at Behe's defense.

I agree with you. But, then we agree because we are looking at how hard the process is, not that it is impossible, strictly speaking. That seemed to be Behe's point, that the odds are very long indeed, at least I inferred that this was where he was going.

If you predict the type of change represented, then yes, it is hard to imagine reasonable odds for the prediction to be fulfillfed.

And yet if determine to describe a world not yet invented, and you wanted to predict the chance that hydrogen and oxygen would bond just so to make six sided snow flakes, that would also be pretty hard to imagine that you would get it right. Modelling it is pretty darn difficult, if you are not almighty.

In fact, it would seem to me that maybe Behe is not succeeding in modelling the impossible.

However, knowing how these things bond and being able to describe them precisely is not exactly a resolution of why snow is what it is either. Just because you have the benefit of hindsight doesnt, that doesnt give you right right model the past as you wish to fit your retrospective view. That is another view of neodarwinism.

I am not seeing a huge advantage in either view on this particular problem.

The creationists have similar problems. There is some kind of process of evolution that we admit. The similarity between the secreter and the flagellum could represent some kind of micro-evolution. How would you prove the negative as such? Our retrospective view is not comprehensive either.

The TEs have pretty much no interest in this example, but if you look at the description of the molten sea, you see two figures that do not bear the relationship described by pi.

1Ki 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

The circumference, however, is not precisely described. Is it the interior or exterior? There is some hint of an answer in the text based upon the recorded reference to the misspelling of qav, which was recorded as qaveh. If the numerical values were taken as the units of measure, they would apparently represent the interior and exterior dimensions in a correct ratio and giving you 31.4 cubits for the exterior circumference. But, more interesting to me is the question posed by the text, which is left unanswered. It is best answered by the question of whether you simply accept the text as accurate, which would dictate the correct assumption.

I do like the argument that evolution is too complicated and impossible in 4 billion years. Things are not so simple that there should be great confidence in species arising without miracles.

But, flagellum example does suggest reasonable alternative assumptions about the same data, which is what the evolution debate has always been about. But, one of the assumptions takes God at his Word.

As for Ken Miller, even his description of a transition from secreter to flagellum -- how exactly does one measure the odds of that and end up being comfortable. I see the rhetorical advantage over IC. I see the ability to model it. But, what exactly are the odds? And isnt evolution about some very, very rough approximation of the greater likelihood of slow change?

 

[shernren]

The creationists should note that beating up on IC takes away a challenge to evolution, but doesnt prove evolution -- but, therein actually lies one crux for the entire debate. Would the response to that be that Behe's position, construed very strictly as it has by evolutionists be that it, if Miller hasnt disproven IC, then IC is really too abstract to be disproven. Unless you actually show the evolution of a flagellum in real time, cant you always say the secreter and similar things just arent exactly the same thing? That is not completely dissimilar to one objection to evolution as an unprovable theory.

I think the argument works a whole lot more effectively in reverse: even if you could disprove evolution doesn't mean you could prove intelligent design. If IC is too abstract to be disproven, then isn't it too abstract for any good in the scientific lab.

In the end, I'm not even sure what IC accomplishes for anybody. So the leading ID advocates declare that some structure or other is irreducibly complex. The leading anti-ID advocates* immediately cite lots of research pulling that structure apart. So what? Does it matter?

For example, Behe has long used the example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex system. Even if we accept that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex: Does the mouse care? A system can do its job exceedingly well and still be very reducible. For example, sensitive electronics in spacecraft are provided with multiple redundancies, which is about as far from IC as you can get - and yet those systems are designed. On the other hand, a system might be IC and yet be entirely horrible at what it's supposed to do. Take bureaucracy. You lose one form and all the officials lose their heads. Yet is it efficient?

Nowadays I don't think of ID as wrong; it's increasingly becoming irrelevant. It is entirely redundant in today's sociological scheme of things. It purposefully avoids the Bible, so old-school creationists can't possibly agree with it; it won't deal in methodological naturalism, so mainstream science doesn't have a place for it; it tries to evoke (as vague as possible) a sense of the numinous from arguments from improbability which couldn't possibly be verified, but we've been doing that since Cicero, entirely without the help of modern biochemistry (Behe notwithstanding); it can't even get into schools, which was just about the only place left for it anyhow since it is welcome neither in the church nor in the laboratory.

To me the only thing ID has ended up contributing to the discussion (other than court precedents which just about exclude any possibility of creationism re-entering schools in any way for a long time) is to inflame the passions of the already hard-headed fundamentalist atheists. Now they can point to the delicious irony of obvious religionists jettisoning the Bible to get God into schools. And now they have yet one more enemy against which they can paint themselves as nothing more than mild-mannered advocates of rationality and reason, opposed by the sinister forces of religion who, in a telling show of their immaturity, compose flatulent Flash videos after losing court cases.

Right now the biggest question I'm curious about isn't what ID is going to do. It's what comes after ID.

*A revealing comment in The Panda's Black Box by the editor (IIRC) : "The dispute isn't between evolutionists and creationists; it's between anti-creationists and anti-evolutionists."

 

[The Barbarian]

What comes after ID? A new name, of course. "Flood Geology" fell apart, so we got "Scientific creationism." The wheels fell of that, so they renamed it "Intelligent Design." No doubt, after the postmortem, they'll resurrect it with a new name.

And like Frankenstein's monster, it will rise again, lurching it's way across the internet, and occasionally making an appearance in political campaigns and rural schools, frightening children and rational people.

 

[Buho]

Regarding 1 Kings 7:23, has nobody noticed that the numbers accurately describe pi to one significant digit? I mean, it's not like it says its a diameter of ten and a circumference of 60. 30/10 = 3. One significant digit of pi = 3.

But yeah, it says nothing of a fluted lip, which could be.

It is best answered by the question of whether you simply accept the text as accurate, which would dictate the correct assumption.

Very good point.

Even if we accept that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex: Does the mouse care?

No, but the evolutionist should. If evolution is a falsifiable theory, IC is an attempt to falsify the theory. The world still goes 'round, but scientists need to re-evaluate theories and formulate new ones. That is, if IC succeeds.

It purposefully avoids the Bible, so old-school creationists can't possibly agree with it

It's useful, but not an end-all. IC is sand. The Bible is the Rock.

I've a higher opinion of ID than shernren. ID as a system of thought has made some good (albeit insufficient) attempts to formalize a way to determine if object X has an intelligent origin or not. We intuitively know that a rock on the ground does not have an intelligent origin, but a small rock carving of a turtle on the ground does. How do we know? Beats me, but the ID people have been trying to formalize this. In other words, intelligent agents in the world do exist and create things, and we can recognize these things, but we haven't a clue how this mechanism works!

ID goes much farther than the origins debate. You see it already in SETI (although they vehemently deny it, ask Shostak), it's already in the field of biomimetics, it's already in archaeology and paleontology, teachers are already using it to discern plagiarism, it's already in CSI and murder trials.... It's only when evolution is challenged with ID do people get uppity.

 

[Mallon]

ID as a system of thought has made some good (albeit insufficient) attempts to formalize a way to determine if object X has an intelligent origin or not. We intuitively know that a rock on the ground does not have an intelligent origin

So God didn't create rocks, but he did create flagella and blood-clotting cascades? Doesn't sound very Christian to me. I think ID proponents ought to take a closer look at what they're advocating here because I think the resultant theology is weak at best. As Christians, we believe a priori that God created everything, so it's meaningless to try to develop a methodology that can discriminate between what He did and did not create.

 

[shernren]

I've a higher opinion of ID than shernren. ID as a system of thought has made some good (albeit insufficient) attempts to formalize a way to determine if object X has an intelligent origin or not. We intuitively know that a rock on the ground does not have an intelligent origin, but a small rock carving of a turtle on the ground does. How do we know? Beats me, but the ID people have been trying to formalize this. In other words, intelligent agents in the world do exist and create things, and we can recognize these things, but we haven't a clue how this mechanism works!

Correction: humans do exist and design things, and humans can recognize these things. This raises the obvious explanation that humans recognize human artifacts because, well, they are human.

Suppose a race of aliens from a distant rocky planet came to Earth. The planet where they come from has extremely hard minerals which are naturally formed with jagged edges and which are very hard to work. Only the best and the brightest artisans can create a perfectly smooth, round stone, and so smooth round stones are greatly prized by aliens.

For some reason they land next to a riverbed. Now, here on Earth water erosion tends to work stones into smooth round shapes, but the aliens don't know that (they don't have rivers either, I suppose). They are jubilant. "This planet must be bustling with greatly skilled sculptors!" they rejoice. "Look at how smooth, how round, how perfectly symmetrical these stones are, rivaling the work of our best and brightest! Of course these stones have been sculpted by master artisans for the express purpose of being round and smooth and beautiful!"

This short story expresses some of the flaws associated with the ID philosophy:

1. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we design ourselves. Over the past century we have become a very mechanistic race, depending on technology and machinery to fulfil our every whim and fancy. No wonder the intricate bits and pieces of the cell seem designed to us! But I wonder if an Amish would be as impressed.

2. What we recognize as design depends greatly on what we understand of the capability of non-design processes. The aliens had never seen smooth stones produced naturally before, so it was only understandable that they would think smooth stones must have been designed to be smooth. So if ID advocates do not understand evolution (and there is some evidence suggesting that this is the case ) then surely they will think that biological mechanisms have been designed.

3. What we recognize as design, to a large extent, has nothing to do with whether or not something is actually designed. Most people wouldn't understand modern art pieces as "designed" - especially the ones which look like just random splatters of paint. (What about aleatory music? Is that designed or random, or both, or neither?) On the other hand, ancient people thought the skies were "designed", and named recognizable constellations after their mythological heroes. Nobody believes that now.

ID goes much farther than the origins debate. You see it already in SETI (although they vehemently deny it, ask Shostak), it's already in the field of biomimetics, it's already in archaeology and paleontology, teachers are already using it to discern plagiarism, it's already in CSI and murder trials.... It's only when evolution is challenged with ID do people get uppity.

Of course: we know that humans communicate, humans create artifacts, humans plagiarize, and humans commit crime. But we have never observed any design process for biochemical systems, and therefore postulating such processes is far less scientific.

 

[busterdog]

I think the argument works a whole lot more effectively in reverse: even if you could disprove evolution doesn't mean you could prove intelligent design. If IC is too abstract to be disproven, then isn't it too abstract for any good in the scientific lab.

Quite possibly this is true. I think it works better as a way to eyeball the odds and say that evolution is just too improbable to happen without divine help.

In the end, I'm not even sure what IC accomplishes for anybody. So the leading ID advocates declare that some structure or other is irreducibly complex. The leading anti-ID advocates* immediately cite lots of research pulling that structure apart. So what? Does it matter?

ID is pretty limited notion. It is sort of a tombstone for religion in the classroom. We hope that God will not be forgotten, since, if He is remembered, maybe He will be worshipped. The latter is a big stretch from the notion of ID.

But, ID really is something else. It is also a check on the notion that science can do its job with confidence. ID represents a set of major, unknown variables in every inquiry, or at least the possibility that they may exist.

IC is an interesting component in that it adds some specifics to the notion of barriers to evolution. I think there certainly is some content in the notion of that systems are assembled with requisite parts that must work together. If we were just made out of pixels or legos, the odds of evolving would be much increased. Probably the biological community had some awareness that living systems were complex. ID helps the layman get a bit of a handle on the odds and practical hurdles to evolution. But, in the end, these things are so complex that we do seem to be eyeballing it and finding that the glass is half empty.

Let me ask you whether Ken Miller's argument is of much use either in proving evolution? And for that matter, if we simply assume an arbitrarily short period of time, evolution as an origin of species is not all that necessary to biology anyway. NeoDarwinists are already finding that the components of life are sort of rigged in work in astounding ways to overcome the odds. And it is hard for the creationists to argue against that -- we just attribute a specific cause during a much shorter time frame. If you accept the argument that the simple manufacture of proteins is seems almost impossibly complex and hugely unlikely to kick out the proteins necessary to survive the next half hour of Babylon 5, why is evolution necessarily more miraculous, given enough time?

Right now the biggest question I'm curious about isn't what ID is going to do. It's what comes after ID.

ID is IC. (A bit tongue in cheek.) ID is about the most boiled down simplistic sense of religious acknowledgment, that one could hardly imagine it evolving from anything. What ID leads, theoretically is religion, or a philosophy of science in which you have to incorporate the miraculous, or something like that.

*A revealing comment in The Panda's Black Box by the editor (IIRC) : "The dispute isn't between evolutionists and creationists; it's between anti-creationists and anti-evolutionists."

The anti-evolutionist science is the best kind of science. No argument there.

 

[shernren]

Let me ask you whether Ken Miller's argument is of much use either in proving evolution?

I don't know. It's of use in dismantling irreducible complexity.

Again, this isn't a dispute between evolutionists and creationists. Evolutionists, by and large, simply don't see any problems with the science they are doing. Yes there's a bunch of strange people out there saying that their lab work and half of biology for the past two centuries is wrong; do they care? As long as the observations and results keep coming in, and as long as evolution makes sense of them, then they'll keep being evolutionists.

And a lot of creationists don't see any problems with evolution as a whole. I have creationist friends (good friends, mind you) who know I'm evolutionist. They ask me to pray for them; I ask them to pray for me. Sure they don't agree with me about Genesis 1-11, but that doesn't stop them from studying the Bible with me. (Not everybody trusts me that much, of course; but some do.)

It's the anti-evolutionists and anti-creationists who are duking it out in the public arena. Ken Ham and his ilk, the DI people, people like MK on this very board, don't just believe evolution is wrong - they believe evolution is bad. World of difference. The DI says materialism is taking hold of young minds, AiG at one point ran a graphics campaign linking evolution to rape and violence, and so on. To them accepting evolution is not simply an individual decision about evidence, it's also a sociological cause of bad stuff.

On the other side, of course, there are the anti-creationists, who again not only believe creationism is wrong, they believe creationism is bad. Whether it's because they believe that a society needs proper science education to prosper, or they believe flat out that religion is for morons who need to be reprogrammed, they attach negative social consequences to the widespread adoption of creationism.

So when you ask whether Ken Miller's example is useful you gotta ask, To whom? Probably not to evolutionists. They don't care. They work it out in the lab. Telling them about creationism or ID is a bit like trying to tell me about aether (and c-decay ). I play with lasers every other day. If such things were around I would've seen them by now. Case closed. I have a friend also doing summer scholarships but over in the biology department, who apparently spends most of her time staring down microscopes at tiny crustaceans. She probably has more time for her microscope than for creationists.

But to evolutionists, it's really just a matter of personal preference. The way I see it, I wouldn't be concerned whether or not my mechanic believes in plate tectonics. He fixes my car equally well (or equally shoddily) either way. So why would I bother with evolution, either? Would my lawyer (or you ) care about whether I know what habeas corpus is? I doubt so. Of course, when it comes to renting a house I'd better know what all the legalese means. But evolution isn't often so directly applicable to life.

But to anti-creationists, it makes a lot of difference. It makes a difference that a certain Michael Behe made a rather hasty argument which later turned out to be wrong on just about every level imaginable. Not that my friend staring at little critters cares, of course. But if you genuinely believe that creationism is going to eat society up from the inside out then you'll cheer every time a shot is dealt to them.

Regarding the argument itself: I think it's a good one. The ID case is basically, "System X had no reasonable chance of evolving." I don't think any ID advocate has ever said of a system that "System X had a reasonable chance of evolving, but well, we don't think it did anyway."

Because the ID challenge is posed in such a way, it suffices on the anti-ID side to show that a system did indeed have a reasonable chance of evolving. For the ID advocate to then say "That doesn't show that it did evolve!" misses the point. The ID position wasn't that a system didn't evolve, it's that it couldn't, probabilistically speaking.

You know law, so you should understand this. In court the prosecution has presented a complete case: who did it, what was the motivation, the weapon's connection to the suspect, the modus operandi, the witnesses to the crime, and the lack of alibi. After all that, if the defense simply stood up and said:

"Your Honor, the prosecution has presented a convincing case, but they cannot prove that it indeed happened that way, no matter how plausible it seems."

If the defense stopped at just that without being able to offer alternative explanations or point out actual flaws in the prosecution's case, how would the judge respond?

 

[Biblewriter]

This entire of having debunked IC is nonsense. If a portion of a supposed IC system is demonstrated to be functional on its own, this does not mean that IC is debunked. It only mans that the purported IC system was not indeed an IC system.

So even assuming your entire argument to be correct, the only thing that has been demonstrated is that several systems that have beed proposed as IC systems are nit indeed IC. This IN NO WAY proves that there are no IC systems.

It remains true that if even one system can be demonstrated to be irreducably complex, then the organism containing that system could not have evolved.

 

[gluadys]

This entire of having debunked IC is nonsense. If a portion of a supposed IC system is demonstrated to be functional on its own, this does not mean that IC is debunked. It only mans that the purported IC system was not indeed an IC system.

It doesn't even show that. The IC system could indeed still be an IC system. But it is an IC system that could have evolved from functional pre-cursors. That is the point Miller makes.

You are quite right in saying this in no way proves that another IC system (yet to be identified) also had functional precursors from which it may have evolved. Each proposed IC system would need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

But the main point has been made. At least some IC systems do have functional precursors and could have evolved from them. One can never again make the case that no IC system could evolve for lack of functional precursors.

It remains true that if even one system can be demonstrated to be irreducably complex, then the organism containing that system could not have evolved.

Not quite. We know that an IC system can evolve as long as it has functional precursors. But if it can be demonstrated that no part of the system could be functional prior to the assembly of the system (i.e. there were no functional precursors), then that system could not have evolved.