Irreducible Complexity Debunked?

[Mallon]

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.

 

[Biblewriter]

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.





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.

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.

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.

If an organ could have evolved in gradual steps, it is not irreducibly complex. For that would be contadictory.

 

[busterdog]

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.

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.

If an organ could have evolved in gradual steps, it is not irreducibly complex. For that would be contadictory.

I think the figure was that a mechanism with about 40 parts corresponds to a mechanism with about 30-36 parts (proteins), and which has a different function. There are no other "transitional" forms. The question is whether we need them. I dont recall that the pathway from one form to the other was modeled or shown to be gradual, as opposed to a big jump to add the additional 15% or so missing from the flagellum.

So, I dont think the evolutionists proved evolution so much as they proved that Behe's mechanism was reducible, but for a different function. This is accepting their thesis and without going to AIG to hash out how accurate the presentation of the evidence was.

Now, you might suspect that beating Behe at tennis would support evolution for some folks.

But, it is nonetheless a surprising example that questions our ability to determine was is in fact categorically irreducible, as opposed to a system that is not likely to be irreducible.

The example is used for the proposition that Behe is a lousy scientists (and worse). I ignore just the latter for the purposes of trying to understand the arguments.

At this level of minutiae, there are very surprising things happening. So much so, that I would not invest a huge amount of confidence in Miller's thesis that the secreter is practically the same structure as the flagellum, but without about 15% of the parts missing. Arguments are made for the influence of environmental factors in "choosing" what these structures are to become -- and that is another can of worms

 

[Mallon]

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.

You should check out the body of work on evolutionary exaptation, because by what you've said here, it strikes me that you might not yet understand what it is, yet exaptation remains the key argument against IC systems.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

I come from simple folk. They would say "if it walks like an IC system, and quacks like an IC system, it's probably an IC system". I think it's science's job to prove them wrong.

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?

If we can't distinguish, then it's science's job to uncover facts which enable us to distinguish. That's my personal criteria; when science can offer facts which are so clear that simple folk life me can't refute them, it's then that science has fulfilled its job description. Otherwise, send in the clowns (philosophers).

 

[Mallon]

I come from simple folk. They would say "if it walks like an IC system, and quacks like an IC system, it's probably an IC system". I think it's science's job to prove them wrong.

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 we can't distinguish, then it's science's job to uncover facts which enable us to distinguish. That's my personal criteria; when science can offer facts which are so clear that simple folk life me can't refute them, it's then that science has fulfilled its job description. Otherwise, send in the clowns (philosophers).

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

 

[gluadys]

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.

According to Miller, in the clip earlier in this thread, almost all the 40 proteins in the flagellar system have functional proteins in other organisms. It is not just one or two precursors.

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.

No, it doesn't. It would only fly in the face of evolution if the precursors were, in fact, useless. That is why Miller is stressing the existence of functional precursors. If the precursors are selectable on their own, then they can be preserved by natural selection and kept available for exaptation into the IC system.

If an organ could have evolved in gradual steps, it is not irreducibly complex. For that would be contadictory.

No, that is not contradictory either. For a system to be IC it has to need all of its parts to function and fail to function if it is missing one of its parts. But you can get to such a system through evolution given such features as gene duplication, exaptation and scaffolding.

 

[shernren]

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.

If an organ could have evolved in gradual steps, it is not irreducibly complex. For that would be contadictory.

I think we should disentangle three questions:

1. Is System X irreducibly complex?
2. Could System X have evolved?
3. Did System X actually evolve?

What you are saying is that if we get an affirmative answer for 2, that automatically implies a negative answer for 1. I think that's a touch fallacious. The original definition of IC by Behe is:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box, 39)
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Irreducible_Complexity
[/FONT]​

You may answer that our definition of IC is different today, but I'd say that just shows that Behe should have thought a little harder before coming up with such a half-baked idea. If you feel that using this definition is manifestly dishonest or something do voice out.

Anyhow. Notice that this definition of IC doesn't actually say anything about whether or not a system could have evolved. Indeed it says nothing of the origins of a system. All that I need, to determine whether or not a system is IC, is to examine how it operates in the present, and to pull off components in the present. Could have evolved, might not have.

Also note that the interest of ID proponents isn't actually in IC per se, which is why they've been hassling about the definitions and changing them around. ID proponents really care about question 2. Answering question 1 is just an intermediate step in answering "no" to question 2. Likewise, anti-creationists aren't really concerned about question 1 either. Working biologists cooped up in their labs never quite care about whether their systems are IC. (If the mousetrap is irreducibly complex, what comfort is that for the mouse?) Again, the anti-creationists are more concerned to showing that the answer to question 2 is "yes".

Irreducibly complex or not, every time the evolutionists show that a particular system could have evolved, the ID case grows just that bit weaker.

 

[shernren]

No, that is not contradictory either. For a system to be IC it has to need all of its parts to function and fail to function if it is missing one of its parts. But you can get to such a system through evolution given such features as gene duplication, exaptation and scaffolding.

Indeed, one could almost say that evolved systems by and large should be "irreducibly complex". For suppose a system has redundant parts. Presumably each part has an associated production cost, and reducing the production cost of the overall system will confer a selective advantage.

In that case, evolution would tend to cause systems with redundant parts to shed those parts if possible. But a system with no redundant parts, by definition, is irreducibly complex. (Any part that could be removed without causing the system to effectively cease functioning would be redundant, and indeed it would be removed.)

 

[busterdog]

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.


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

In theory, you are right. But, the more I look at the arguments on both sides, I mostly see Chesterton's "simple" gut on such things. Even Ken Miller's example requires lots of really well-executed and precise change in order to go from secreter to flagellum. I would be hard pressed to say it was impossible. But, there is so much complexity, it takes lots of inference and extrapolation to get from secreter to flagellum. Sometimes the gut is all you got.

 

[The Barbarian]

In theory, you are right. But, the more I look at the arguments on both sides, I mostly see Chesterton's "simple" gut on such things. Even Ken Miller's example requires lots of really well-executed and precise change in order to go from secreter to flagellum.

So which change do you think could not happen by natural selection?

I would be hard pressed to say it was impossible.

Ya think?

But, there is so much complexity, it takes lots of inference and extrapolation to get from secreter to flagellum.

Science is all about making inferences from evidence. That's how it works. And it works exceedingly well.

Sometimes the gut is all you got.

If you have get it right, then gut isn't enough.

 

[LightHorseman]

I thought this ireducible complexity giberish was laid to rest years ago?!

 

[Mallon]

In theory, you are right. But, the more I look at the arguments on both sides, I mostly see Chesterton's "simple" gut on such things. Even Ken Miller's example requires lots of really well-executed and precise change in order to go from secreter to flagellum. I would be hard pressed to say it was impossible. But, there is so much complexity, it takes lots of inference and extrapolation to get from secreter to flagellum. Sometimes the gut is all you got.

I agree with you entirely, busterdog. Life is beautiful. Life is complex. And this beauty and complexity make me feel, deep in my gut, like life isn't simply some unplanned accident. I think this is largely what Paul was referring to in Rom 1:20.
But a gut feeling isn't science. Gut feelings cannot be objectified because not everyone will share that feeling. For example, I don't agree with your gut feeling that beauty and complexity necessarily imply irreducible complexity. Apparently, complexity CAN be evolved. But that doesn't mean life is any less complex or beautiful -- or that God wasn't involved with its unfolding.

 

[Mallon]

I thought this ireducible complexity giberish was laid to rest years ago?!

It was, among scientists.

 

[Breckmin]

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?

Careful Buho, you are asking for actual real evidence and observation
for something that has been "assume" without that evidence and
observation.

That might actually frustrate someone who thinks they are practicing
real science.

Michael

 

[Breckmin]

So which change do you think could not happen by natural selection?

petitio principii: How do you even know so called "natural selection" itself
can increase any information in a genome?

Please give an example where "added information" was observed that
formed a new gene,(or where the information was not already present).
Please be specific.

Michael

 

[Drekkan85]

Nylonase in bacteria. Not only first observed in nature, but then was observed experimentally. The genetic information for nylonase didn't exist prior to having the substance of nylon to consume.

As for multicellular life - wall lizards on the Island of Macau off of Croatia (I think there's an accent somewhere there) evolved an entire new valve in their stomach to cope with a conversion from insects to plants for food.

Nylonase information. It IS a wiki, but use it for links to a variety of scientific papers on nylonase (including both natural observation, genetic research on how the mutation occured, and how natural selection pressures can cause the population to evolve the gene for nylonase).

Alternatively (yet again) there's citrate metabolizing in E. Coli taking part in the E. Coli long-term evolution experiment - not being able to metabolize citrate is one of the defining traits of E. Coli. No longer having a negative defining trait (citrate metabolization created a huge growth spurt and was highly beneficial) is what one could easily call "new information".

Of course, this all depends on what you mean by "information" - if you could define it, that would help.

 

[shernren]

But, there is so much complexity, it takes lots of inference and extrapolation to get from secreter to flagellum. Sometimes the gut is all you got.

I think that's true of just about any field of science nowadays. It probably takes as much inference and extrapolation to get from anywhere really to, say, atoms.

 

[The Barbarian]

petitio principii: How do you even know so called "natural selection" itself
can increase any information in a genome?

You can calculate it for yourself:

Information is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory#cite_note-Reza-7

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)

Please give an example where "added information" was observed that formed a new gene,(or where the information was not already present). Please be specific.

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?

 

[mark kennedy]

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. Behe was actually published on the subject of gene duplication (if memory serves) and the response that was published was unbelievably unprofessional, not a single reference to peer reviewed scientific papers. They dumb it down because all they really want is to see is creationism attacked and their fallacious assumptions affirmed. They mistake Intelligent Design for Biblical Creationism because all they are focused on is God as an explanation for anything.