Irreducible Complexity

[LordTimothytheWise]

Isn't that irrelevant?

Behe himself adheres to macroevolution. Frankly, I think that macro-evolution occurs has no bearing on his irreducible complexity argument. Behe seems to be going after the mechanism of evolution, not that change occurs.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Starting with what, though? At which taxonomic level does macroevolution no longer apply?

I'd say anytime you get above the genus level it does not apply.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

I'd say anytime you get above the genus level it does not apply.

Thanks for finally replying to my question.
I will point out that you are simply redefining the term 'macroevolution' to suit your agenda. Macroevolution, as defined by scientists, is speciation (and higher level selection). It is therefore an observable fact. Chosing to redefine macroevolution so as to exclude speciation is just ignoring the issue. For your new definition to have any value, you would also have to be able to objectively define what a genus is.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Behe's entire argument of Intelligent Design rests on the argument of irreducible complexity (IC). Behe describes a bio-chemical 'system' to be IC if it is "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".

Further, and to his argument for ID, he states that these interacting parts have no function on their own, and thus would not be 'selected' via evolution. Consequently, the IC system would have to evolve in toto, and the probability of such a complete system coming into existence via natural selection would be so small as to be effectively zero. Ergo, the only way such a system can exist is via the intervention of a designer.

This hypothesis is indeed both testable and predictive. For testability, one has to observe none of the component pieces of an IC system anywhere else. For all the given examples of IC systems (eyes, bacteria flagellum, bombadier beetles, blood clotting protein cascade, kreb's cycle, etc.), the test has failed. 'Sub-systems' for all the above are observed elsewhere in nature, though their function is completely different from the IC system in question. For example, in the bacteria flagellum, a good portion of the structure is found, intact, in the Type III Secretory System. The TTSS is used by some pathogenic bacteria to inject protein toxins into host cells. Quite a different function from the molecular motor base of the flagellum, but there it is. Additional proteins involved in the flagellum are also found elsewhere, and thus the hypothesis of IC is proved false:
Component pieces of an IC system do indeed arise independently in organisms via evolution. Which means the examples put forward are not irreducibly complex, by definition. And therefore natural selection 'explains' the examples and there is no need for a designer.

Conversely, IC predicts that since components parts of an IC system are only involved with the IC system, they should not be able to be found outside the IC system. The above paragraph shows this to be false, and thus IC fails as a hypothesis via predictability.

Similar situations have been presented for every system put forward by Behe as an IC system. The fatal flaw in the hypothesis is the assumption that the components of the IC system can have no other function than that performed within the IC system. The crystallin protein in the lens of the human eye, used to help focus light, starts out embryonically as a liver protein!

Additionally, scientists have also shown there are straightforward paths of evolution for these IC systems, and thus ID is not the only way these systems could arise, as stated by Behe.

Additionally, scientists have pointed out other similar systems to Behe's examples which perform similar functions, but are comprised of simpler components, thus negating the functional irreducibly complex aspects of his examples.

Thankyou for your response here and contributing to my thread on IC. Indeed many of the consituents of systems exist in other already functioning systems. This is the arguement used by evolutionist to show that a scaffolding system could be employed to evolve other systems. However, to say this is indeed a testable hypothesis is suspect in my opinion. Maybe you could enlighten me but I don't think we have ever observed a system like the TTSS actually producing a flagellum in a bacterium that didn't have one before even by manipulatory influence by man. These organisms experience mutations faster than any other known life form because of their rapid reproduction,( billions of generations per year ). Do you know of any that show a intermediate TTSS system moving into flagellar structure? Just curious.

In reponse I would like to say that the best point for IC is really found inside the cell itself. Look here:
http://www.creationevolution.net/irreducible_complexity.htm
and consider some of the things this author says about IC and the cell.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Thanks for finally replying to my question.
I will point out that you are simply redefining the term 'macroevolution' to suit your agenda. Macroevolution, as defined by scientists, is speciation (and higher level selection). It is therefore an observable fact.

Not quite, we don't observe nor do we see in the fossil record anything but static solidarity. I think one of the largest mistakes has been assuming one can show clear progression from one family to another etc. There has been no good intermediates to show that this has happened at all.

Chosing to redefine macroevolution so as to exclude speciation is just ignoring the issue. For your new definition to have any value, you would also have to be able to objectively define what a genus is.

Define or as you would like to say "re-define"? Taxonomically genus is defined like this:
genus Definition

ge·nus (jē′nəs)
noun pl. gen′·erajen′ər ə or ge′·nuses

1. a class; kind; sort
2. Biol. a major category in the classification of animals, plants, etc., ranking above a species and below a family: it can include one species or many similar species: the Latinized genus name is capitalized and italicized, and precedes the species name, which is italicized but not capitalized (Ex.: Homo sapiens, modern man)
3. Logic a class of things made up of subordinate classes or species

The list goes like this:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family , Genus , Species.
Using a dicotymous key one can classify about any living thing as long as it has been classified before. IF it hasn't then you get to name it after yourself for making a new discovery .

In nature you will not find anything that goes above the level of genus mating or reproducing. No reproduction no macro-evolution.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Not quite, we don't observe nor do we see in the fossil record anything but static solidarity. I think one of the largest mistakes has been assuming one can show clear progression from one family to another etc. There has been no good intermediates to show that this has happened at all.

That's just plain false. There are many good examples of transitional fossils. Denying them doesn't make them go away. Even AiG advocates against using this falsehood:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
If you want to discuss specifics, we can do that, too.

Define or as you would like to say "re-define"? Taxonomically genus is defined like this:
genus Definition

ge·nus (jē′nəs)
noun pl. gen′·erajen′ər ə or ge′·nuses

1. a class; kind; sort
2. Biol. a major category in the classification of animals, plants, etc., ranking above a species and below a family: it can include one species or many similar species: the Latinized genus name is capitalized and italicized, and precedes the species name, which is italicized but not capitalized (Ex.: Homo sapiens, modern man)
3. Logic a class of things made up of subordinate classes or species

The list goes like this:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family , Genus , Species.
Using a dicotymous key one can classify about any living thing as long as it has been classified before. IF it hasn't then you get to name it after yourself for making a new discovery .

In nature you will not find anything that goes above the level of genus mating or reproducing. No reproduction no macro-evolution.

This doesn't answer my question as to whether you can define what a genus is. The definition you give is a post hoc description of what we have subjectively come to define as a group of related species. But if we have five species A, B, C, D, and E, what sort of definition of 'genus' would you use to distinguish whether A, B, C belong to one genus, and D and E belong to another?
The point is that you cannot objectively define what a genus is because variation across taxa is continuous and we have no objective way of deciding, say, whether Tyrannosaurus rex and Tarbosaurus bataar actually belong to the same genus.

 

[Jimlarmore]

That's just plain false. There are many good examples of transitional fossils. Denying them doesn't make them go away. Even AiG advocates against using this falsehood:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
If you want to discuss specifics, we can do that, too.

Yes, I would love to discuss specifics. Please give me a good example of an intermediate species between two major ones that is irrefuteable. The Coelacanth used to be considered an intermediate and extinct for millions of years until one was found alive in 1938. Also while you are at it maybe you could show me the intermediate speciation between the pre-cambrian and the cambrian's species.

This doesn't answer my question as to whether you can define what a genus is. The definition you give is a post hoc description of what we have subjectively come to define as a group of related species. But if we have five species A, B, C, D, and E, what sort of definition of 'genus' would you use to distinguish whether A, B, C belong to one genus, and D and E belong to another?
The point is that you cannot objectively define what a genus is because variation across taxa is continuous and we have no objective way of deciding, say, whether Tyrannosaurus rex and Tarbosaurus bataar actually belong to the same genus.

It all boils down to morphology my friend. The work of taxonomy is to place genus' together into similar morphological characteristics so yes we can make some objective determinations as to what a genus is or what genus an animal should be placed into. For instance since it's been discussed here look at the Canus genus. This genus is the one that contains what we would call the dog family. All of those species within this group have very similar morphologies and can be placed there based on that. Now if you are speaking of genus on a genome level that is another matter.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

Yes, I would love to discuss specifics. Please give me a good example of an intermediate species between two major ones that is irrefuteable.

Certainly.
What about Probainognathus, a therapsid with a double jaw-joint -- one like that of a reptile, and one like that of a mammal?
Or what about Triadobatrachus, a stem batrachan sharing features with both frogs (e.g., large sphenethmoid, fused skull roof, and large orbits) and more primitive labyrinthodonts (e.g., urostyle absent, free ilium, increased vertebral count)?
Or what about Onychonycteris, a primitive bat incapable of echolocation?
These are all transitional morphologies predicted by evolution. I would be interested in knowing how you think each of these do not fit the evolutionary scenario. And why neocreationism does a better of job predicting these morphologies.

The Coelacanth used to be considered an intermediate and extinct for millions of years until one was found alive in 1938.

You appear to think that the coelocanth is but one species of fish. It is not.
In fact, coelocanths are living representatives of a group of lobe-finned fish (called sarcopterygians) that gave rise to primitive vertebrates ca. 370 million years ago. This is why coelocanths are thought of as intermediates -- because they belong to a group of fish that gave rise to tetrapods (though obviously living coelocanth species did not).

Also while you are at it maybe you could show me the intermediate speciation between the pre-cambrian and the cambrian's species.

Sure. Do some research on Kimberella, Arkarua, Spriggina, or Parvancorina. These have all been posited as primitive Ediacaran bilaterians.

It all boils down to morphology my friend. The work of taxonomy is to place genus' together into similar morphological characteristics so yes we can make some objective determinations as to what a genus is or what genus an animal should be placed into.

Excellent. You seem to be capable of doing what no biologist thus far has been able to: objectively defining what a genus is. So again, I ask, what is it? How can I objectively tell whether the skulls below belong to one, two, or three genera? What am I looking for, specifically?

For instance since it's been discussed here look at the Canus genus. This genus is the one that contains what we would call the dog family. All of those species within this group have very similar morphologies and can be placed there based on that.

You're being very vague. What similarities, specifically, allow us to place domestic dogs and wolves together in the same genus, to the exclusion of, say, foxes or bushdogs? What objective criteria are you applying to define Canis that can also be applied to other groups to determine genus-level affinities?

 

[gluadys]

In nature you will not find anything that goes above the level of genus mating or reproducing. No reproduction no macro-evolution.

No reproduction because macroevolution has already occurred.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Certainly.
What about Probainognathus, a therapsid with a double jaw-joint -- one like that of a reptile, and one like that of a mammal?
Or what about Triadobatrachus, a stem batrachan sharing features with both frogs (e.g., large sphenethmoid, fused skull roof, and large orbits) and more primitive labyrinthodonts (e.g., urostyle absent, free ilium, increased vertebral count)?
Or what about Onychonycteris, a primitive bat incapable of echolocation?
These are all transitional morphologies predicted by evolution. I would be interested in knowing how you think each of these do not fit the evolutionary scenario. And why neocreationism does a better of job predicting these morphologies.

What you are calling transitional morphologies creationists call stasis within kinds. Again, showing extremely small similarities in morphology does not confirm transitionalism anymore than a chloroplast confirms the formation of leafs. If you want to show transitionalism you need to show much larger similarities in morphologies of one form turning to the other. These are just not there. Even Stephen Gould admits this.

Here: http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/98/cm9803.html
is an article on living fossils that show stasis in the biota.

You appear to think that the coelocanth is but one species of fish. It is not.
In fact, coelocanths are living representatives of a group of lobe-finned fish (called sarcopterygians) that gave rise to primitive vertebrates ca. 370 million years ago. This is why coelocanths are thought of as intermediates -- because they belong to a group of fish that gave rise to tetrapods (though obviously living coelocanth species did not).

The fact that there is virtually no difference between the living and the fossilized remains of the once thought extinct specimens shows that evolution didn't happen the way they think it did.

Excellent. You seem to be capable of doing what no biologist thus far has been able to: objectively defining what a genus is. So again, I ask, what is it? How can I objectively tell whether the skulls below belong to one, two, or three genera? What am I looking for, specifically?

You're being very vague. What similarities, specifically, allow us to place domestic dogs and wolves together in the same genus, to the exclusion of, say, foxes or bushdogs? What objective criteria are you applying to define Canis that can also be applied to other groups to determine genus-level affinities?

Foxes are in the canus group. The objective criteria are the similar morphologies of the group. Foxes, wolves, coyotes and dogs all have nearly identical morpholgies.

God bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Mallon]

What you are calling transitional morphologies creationists call stasis within kinds.

This is a meaningless statement, though, since neocreationists are unable to define "kind". The problem is the same one you face with defining "genus". There's no objective way to define these terms.

If you want to show transitionalism you need to show much larger similarities in morphologies of one form turning to the other.

And I did when I provided you with examples of transitional fossils between higher level groups above. You never addressed these. Shall I take it you now concede these are indeed intermediary forms? If not, why not?

These are just not there. Even Stephen Gould admits this.

It strikes me as obvious that you've never read Gould, so I ask that you would please refrain from misrepresenting his ideas.
Yes, Gould noted stasis in the fossil record. But the other half of the story you're not telling is that he noted this stasis is punctuated by periods of (geologically) rapid change. That is, species remain static in static environments, and then, over a period of tens of thousands of years, undergo phyletic speciation in response to changing environmental conditions.

Here: http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/98/cm9803.html
is an article on living fossils that show stasis in the biota.

In light of the many transitional fossils we know about, do you not think the author of this article is being dishonest in presenting only evidence for stasis in the history of life? What about "pelycosaurs"? What about labyrinthodonts? What about stem maniraptorans? Dr. Helder is clearly only telling one side of the story (one which doesn't contradict evolutionary theory, as she seems to think). Her dismissal of the "Volkswagon effect" is demonstrably false, as exemplified by a study published just last month concerning accumulating genetic change in Sphenodon:
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/abou...ving-faster-than-any-other-species-01-03-2008

The fact that there is virtually no difference between the living and the fossilized remains of the once thought extinct specimens shows that evolution didn't happen the way they think it did.

Another misrepresentation. In fact, there are differences between fossils and their descendant "living fossils". The coelacanths in the fossil record are not the same coelacanths alive today. They are different species. Certainly, they haven't changed much in a few hundred million years, but no one is arguing that evolutionary rates are continuous for all lineages.

Foxes are in the canus group. The objective criteria are the similar morphologies of the group. Foxes, wolves, coyotes and dogs all have nearly identical morpholgies.

It's spelled Canis.
And, in fact, foxes do not belong to the genus Canis. They belong to Vulpes, which just further demonstrates my point that you are unable to objectively distinguish between different genera because you do not have a working biological definition of what it means to be a "genus". This in turn leads back to my original point that your redefinition of macroevolution to include evolution above the genus level is without merit or integrity.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Sorry , I meant Canidae or dog family I was one off. The genus of foxes vary greatly. Alopex is the artic fox, Dusicyon is the south american fox, Nyctereutes is a rare racoon like dog/fox, Otocyon is the bat eared fox, the list goes on.

God bless
Jim

p.s. I refuse to concede anything concerning your total buy into the mainstream paradigm of the fossil record containing intermediate life forms. Your's is a prime example of showing similar morphologies and then grasping at that and calling it transitional. You just as well say any four legged animal is a transitional to any other four legged animal because they have four legs. To be valid you need to show now that any animal or plant could naturally reproduce outside of the family or genus level taxonomically. BTW, since we are in a christian forum I'm curious. Are you a christian or do you even believe in God?

 

[Mallon]

Sorry , I meant Canidae or dog family I was one off. The genus of foxes vary greatly. Alopex is the artic fox, Dusicyon is the south american fox, Nyctereutes is a rare racoon like dog/fox, Otocyon is the bat eared fox, the list goes on.

So are you now redefining macroevolution as anything that happens above the family level? Your position is difficult to pin down.

p.s. I refuse to concede anything concerning your total buy into the mainstream paradigm of the fossil record containing intermediate life forms.

Why? I will point out that you haven't actually addressed any of the transitional fossils I have brought up so far, despite the fact that you're the one who first asked about them. Instead of just telling me that Probainognathus isn't a transitional form, why not explain, with detailed reference to its morphology, WHY it isn't transitional. Because I have already detailed why everyone else thinks it is.

To be valid you need to show now that any animal or plant could naturally reproduce outside of the family or genus level taxonomically.

You're not getting the point I've been trying to make all along, which is this: Any taxonomic level above species is a subjective human convention. They're just categorical boxes. Since you cannot provide biological definitions of what genera/families/orders are, you have no way of showing that animal or plant lineages cannot evolve to produce new ones.

BTW, since we are in a christian forum I'm curious. Are you a christian or do you even believe in God?

Why do you ask? What does any of this discussion have to do with my belief in God? You're not implying that I cannot be saved unless I accept your concordist interpretation of the Bible, are you, Jim?

 

[Jimlarmore]

Mallon,
I am just curious about your belief in God. Your words are very much like many atheists I've debated before. So again I ask you . Do you believe in God or not?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. I'll comment on the other aspects of your post tomorrow, I gotta go for now .

 

[pgp_protector]

Mallon,
I am just curious about your belief in God. Your words are very much like many atheists I've debated before. So again I ask you . Do you believe in God or not?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

p.s. I'll comment on the other aspects of your post tomorrow, I gotta go for now .

I think there Bio ( http://christianforums.com/~mallon ) Answers your question.

 

[Mallon]

Your words are very much like many atheists I've debated before.

In what way? Are you referring to my use of facts and evidence in discussing common descent? I sound a lot like an atheist when I talk about changing a tire, too (I don't cite miracles).

Do you believe in God or not?

Of course I believe in God. But I fail to see what my belief in God has to do with the discussion we are having now concerning the reality of macroevolution. Can you please elaborate? Perhaps your rejection of macroevolution is religiously motivated?

 

[huldah153]

Darwinism appeals to Yuppies who take their Porsche down to their dealer when it needs an oil change, because they are incapable of carrying out such a simple task on their own. But for the working people who earn their living where the rubber meets the road, and routinely tear down, repairing and rebuilding complex machinery, the idea of random self-assembly is so ludicrous as to be laughable.

IC systems have as much chance of self-assembling as a tornado assembling a Jumbo Jet from an aviation wrecking yard.

 

[Assyrian]

Mallon,
I am just curious about your belief in God. Your words are very much like many atheists I've debated before.

It just shows the way large sections of the church have abandoned science. It's tragic really.

 

[birdan]

Thankyou for your response here and contributing to my thread on IC. Indeed many of the consituents of systems exist in other already functioning systems. This is the arguement used by evolutionist to show that a scaffolding system could be employed to evolve other systems. However, to say this is indeed a testable hypothesis is suspect in my opinion. Maybe you could enlighten me but I don't think we have ever observed a system like the TTSS actually producing a flagellum in a bacterium that didn't have one before even by manipulatory influence by man. These organisms experience mutations faster than any other known life form because of their rapid reproduction,( billions of generations per year ). Do you know of any that show a intermediate TTSS system moving into flagellar structure? Just curious.

That was not the point of my post. In Darwin's Black Box, Behe sets out a fairly straightforward definition of irreducible complexity, which has been shown to be false. The mere existence of TTSS falsifies his premise that such a system would not be found vis a vis the flagellum. I have not read Behe's new book - has he reworked his definition of irreducible complexity to correct the flaws in his original definition?

 

[Jimlarmore]

So are you now redefining macroevolution as anything that happens above the family level? Your position is difficult to pin down.


Why? I will point out that you haven't actually addressed any of the transitional fossils I have brought up so far, despite the fact that you're the one who first asked about them. Instead of just telling me that Probainognathus isn't a transitional form, why not explain, with detailed reference to its morphology, WHY it isn't transitional. Because I have already detailed why everyone else thinks it is.

There's a few reasons why they are not transitional.

1. We see several similarities in morphology thru out the animal kingdom. For instance birds with wings that can fly and birds with wings that can't fly. Are the ones that can't fly transitional to the ones who can? I don't think so. Animals that have distinct phenotypical expressions are limited to passing this on to future generations.

2. There are now and as far as the evidence suggests distinct barriers to sexual reproduction beyond the genus level especially in animals.

3. Transitional morphologies do not represent new genetic information but phenotypical expressions of already existing alleles.

You're not getting the point I've been trying to make all along, which is this: Any taxonomic level above species is a subjective human convention. They're just categorical boxes. Since you cannot provide biological definitions of what genera/families/orders are, you have no way of showing that animal or plant lineages cannot evolve to produce new ones.

Yes I can. I can show from the available evidence active in nature today that there is no viable mechanism in place to create new genetic information that is not already in the genome, especially in animals. Certainly mutations don't create new genetic material. Neither does natural selection.

The bottom line here is sexual reproduction. Today, you don't see animals in nature going outside of their species or genus and mating with other animals, i.e. robins mating with finches or dogs mating with cats. If it happens at all the end result is either a no go on a new life at all or in cases like the horse and the donkey an infertile hybrid that cannot pass on it's new mixture of genes to the gene pool.

Why do you ask? What does any of this discussion have to do with my belief in God? You're not implying that I cannot be saved unless I accept your concordist interpretation of the Bible, are you, Jim?

I think because our discussion/debate has been adversarial you think I would want to do anything I could to invalidate you or put you down. You couldn't be further from the truth my friend. Believe it or not, I love you as my brother even though we have never met. I admire your apparent intelligence and knowledge base in biology. I would never point a finger at you and tell you that you were lost. God is the judge of all mankind not me.

God Bless
Jim Larmore