[OPEN] Irreducible Complexity

[MattyJames]

Hello to all,

I'm a new member to this part of CF so i'm not about to make out that I know all the arguments and I'm ready to teach.

However, in light of my reading, I would classify myself as YECist, holding to the literal version of Genesis.

With this in mind, I want to find out what you all think of "Irreducible Complexity". I, of course, agree with it totally, after all, it fits my theory and world view. I've been aware of it sense early highschool days, and have seen the sence in its claims.

But...like many of us, I have not gone out of my way to find a negative argument against the theory. Would also like to hear such in this thread.

My thanks to all,

Matt James

 

[Numenor]

Why don't you outline to us what you think Irreducible Complexity is, just so we know where to start.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the solution to IC in biological organisms* is co-option and exadaption. the way to show it is to find precursors of each element in other systems and show how the genes duplicated and mutated to give the new functionality.

that is exactly how the IC for flagellum has been dismissed by the scientific community. all the elements of a flagellum have been seen to have antecedents.


note*

it is important to note that this is in biological organisms for in Behe's book one example to show IC is a mousetrap, which is not biological.

 

[Chief117]

It is my understanding that co-opting and exadaption are insufficient to "dismiss" IC concepts. Although, I'd love to hear more on the topic. I've not gotten around to reading thoroughly on this subject.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is my understanding that co-opting and exadaption are insufficient to "dismiss" IC concepts. Although, I'd love to hear more on the topic. I've not gotten around to reading thoroughly on this subject.

i've read the google hits for:
"irreducible complexity" flagellum behe

then looked at:
"blood clotting" proteins cascade doolittle evolution

as well as:
hemoglobin "gene duplication"


the first two search strings get you right into the literature on the first page of hits, the 3rd one will be a bit more work but you have what is needed to study the issues for yourself.

 

[stumpjumper]

I'm a TE and I've read portions of Behe's book and I think he might have a point in some regards... His point, despite what some would like to believe, does not really contradict the theory of evolution...

Let's look at flagella... All bacterial flagella have the same basic structures so they were either created (in some form) or evolved very early on in our history... I don't mean to make a dichotomy between creation/evolution but it's hard not too...

I'd have to pull a book off the shelf to get in more depth...

 

[gluadys]

Hello to all,

I'm a new member to this part of CF so i'm not about to make out that I know all the arguments and I'm ready to teach.

However, in light of my reading, I would classify myself as YECist, holding to the literal version of Genesis.

With this in mind, I want to find out what you all think of "Irreducible Complexity". I, of course, agree with it totally, after all, it fits my theory and world view. I've been aware of it sense early highschool days, and have seen the sence in its claims.

But...like many of us, I have not gone out of my way to find a negative argument against the theory. Would also like to hear such in this thread.

My thanks to all,

Matt James

In principle there is nothing wrong with the concept of irreducible complexity. The challenge is to find an actual example of it in biology. To date, Behe et al have been unable to produce one.

As I said in another thread, Darwin's original comment on complexity still stands:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.​

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, the tts structure proposed as a percurser to the flagellum has been shown to be a degraded form, not a precursor. Just about nobody would dispute that mutations can cause something to degrade.

Here's a link to some of the research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10939240&dopt=Citation
( and yes, its way deeper into biology than I can understand right now )

 

[MattyJames]

Actually, the tts structure proposed as a percurser to the flagellum has been shown to be a degraded form, not a precursor. Just about nobody would dispute that mutations can cause something to degrade.

Thats what I understood.

What about DNA?? What do you TEist say about its 'evolvement'?

I find Irroducable Complexicy a highly commendable theory. Realizing that it takes very little to upset the chain of creation, I think that Irroducable Complexity also applies to life itself...but thats just my little theory.

I feel that the Flagellum is a very good example, and am really sceptical that TEist are grasping at straws with this one.

But becaues I am by no means versed in the debate, I am in no place to debate the topic. lol...I can hardly understand half of the posts so far!

My thanks to all that have replied.

Matt James

 

[artybloke]

Theologically, Irreducible Complexity is no more than a God of the Gaps argument: the bit that "God did" gets smaller and smaller as scientists find perfectly naturalistics explanations for more and more complex interactions.

It ignores the fact that God is just as capable of creating life using those perfectly natural means that scientists keep discovering, and makes God into a kind of "tinkerer."

It won't do, theologically or biologically, and seems to me to be just another symptom of the creationist tendency to reduce God to a kind of showman who has to perform supernatural tricks to convince us to believe in Him.

 

[laptoppop]

Theologically, Irreducible Complexity is no more than a God of the Gaps argument: the bit that "God did" gets smaller and smaller as scientists find perfectly naturalistics explanations for more and more complex interactions.

(emphasis added)

One thing I find interesting is the standard of proof seems to be extraordinarily low. Once a conceivable explanation has been detailed, the discussion is declared over - even in the absence of direct physical evidence supporting the particular developmental methodology. I'll admit to being wrong - obviously I am working from way too few examples - but it seems to be enough to just say how it might have happened, without showing evidence that it happened that way.

If you believe we have a fossil record over millions of years, shouldn't there be detailed physical evidence for each transition?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Actually, the tts structure proposed as a percurser to the flagellum has been shown to be a degraded form, not a precursor. Just about nobody would dispute that mutations can cause something to degrade.

assuming you are using TTS to be type 3 secretion system, then you have to show that it is a degraded system, actually you need to show that AiG when it uses this idea really knows what they are talking about.

But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp?vPrint=1

unable to follow the footnotes
http://www.idurc.org/yale-minnich.html
is unavailable
if anyone finds:
Bacterial Flagella: Spinning Tails of Complexity and Co-Option
could they post the current URL i've been unable to locate it.


since this idea that the flagellum degrades into the TTS is unique to AiG (afaik)

all the other science i've seen points to cooption of these secretory proteins to create pieces of the flagellum


so at this point, i'll believe hundreds of scientific articles rather than a few lines without support i can followup on AiG.

 

[artybloke]

One thing I find interesting is the standard of proof seems to be extraordinarily low. Once a conceivable explanation has been detailed, the discussion is declared over

The discussion is never declared over... this is just the usual creationist spin. Evidence is always coming and theories are always being adjusted to fit the evidence (as they should be.)

At the moment, all the massive amounts of evidence points towards evolution; unless you have some evidence that doesn't that you've so far not presented?

And it's not really an answer to the point I made, is it? Which was a theological point, not a scientific one. Not being a scientist, my main objection to Irreducible Complexity is that it reduces the power of God to create only to those "special" "miraculous" events we can't yet explain. The God of IC is too small.

 

[laptoppop]

assuming you are using TTS to be type 3 secretion system, then you have to show that it is a degraded system, actually you need to show that AiG when it uses this idea really knows what they are talking about.

But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8
from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp?vPrint=1

unable to follow the footnotes
http://www.idurc.org/yale-minnich.html
is unavailable
if anyone finds:
Bacterial Flagella: Spinning Tails of Complexity and Co-Option
could they post the current URL i've been unable to locate it.


since this idea that the flagellum degrades into the TTS is unique to AiG (afaik)

all the other science i've seen points to cooption of these secretory proteins to create pieces of the flagellum


so at this point, i'll believe hundreds of scientific articles rather than a few lines without support i can followup on AiG.

This is not from AiG -- not that I would consider that a problem. This is "gold standard" peer-reviewed research.

Sorry - I added a link to the post later, I didn't have time to do it at the time. Here's one specific link. AFAIK, this was the seminal article, but there have been a number of followup/related ones.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
( and yes, its way deeper into biology than I can understand right now )

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is not from AiG -- not that I would consider that a problem. This is "gold standard" peer-reviewed research.

Sorry - I added a link to the post later, I didn't have time to do it at the time. Here's one specific link. AFAIK, this was the seminal article, but there have been a number of followup/related ones.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation
( and yes, its way deeper into biology than I can understand right now )

thank you for the link.
however the article does not support your idea that the TTS is a degraded flagellum system.

in fact, one of the authors of this paper wrote:
http://nsm.uh.edu/~dgraur/ArticlesPDFs/gophnaetal2003.pdf

whose very point is this idea.
the paper refutes it and contends for gene duplication and horizontal transfer as being important for the creation of both TTS and flagellum.

only the quoted link i referred to above from AiG uses the term degraded. this last link explicitly states that TTS and flagellum are both ancient systems and appear to derive from a common ancestor.


at this point, i see nothing in the science that hints at TTS = degraded flagellum. but rather lots of good science saying that irreducible complexity can be explained with ideas like co-option, exadaption, gene duplication, natural selection, phylogenic trees, etc.


note:
for those who wish to review the literature

google string
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...protein+secretion+systems.&btnG=Google+Search
has been the most profitable for me.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

One thing I find interesting is the standard of proof seems to be extraordinarily low. Once a conceivable explanation has been detailed, the discussion is declared over - even in the absence of direct physical evidence supporting the particular developmental methodology


i'm not sure that you mean "developmental methodology", the philosophy of science along with it's methodology is well developed, it is not in some stage of trying to figure out how to investigate the physical world. Rather it is trying to apply a well established methodology to new and under-understood domains and questions.

The standard of evidence in scientific is roughly equivalent to that in law. Preponderance of evidence gets your foot in the door with a conjecture or early theorizing, evidence beyond reasonable doubt gets a theory to the point of being well established and widely believed.

i see no evidence, especially in biology that current highly regarded ideas have low standards of evidence backing them up, however the discussion would certainly be more profitable if you could bring up a very specific issue so that we can see exactly what you are referring to and how it fits into the overall system of biology.

 

[laptoppop]

The last line of the abstract reads "We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems." Its interesting that one of the authors has moved in a different direction. However, common ancestor does still not explain how this interdependent system came into being.

Thanks for the search link. One of the referenced articles (http://www.idthink.net/biot/tales/index.html) had this to say:
"The secretory system has substantial homologues with the flagellum (Hueck 1998), and some critics imagine the simple secretory system as a precursor to the more complex flagellum. This, however, is at odds with the concensus of the scientific community, which is that it was the secretory system that evolved from the flagellum, not the other way around (e.g. Stephens & Shapiro 1996; Macnab 1999; Nguyen 2000), though see Gohpna, Ron & Graur (2003) for a dissenting opinion and Saier (2004) for a response. Contrary to acting as a "steppping stone" in the evolution of flagella, the secretory system is the result of reducing selection, a common fate for organisms living in close symbiotic relationships (Andersson & Andersson 1999)."

At this point, I would call this far from settled science - even in the evolutionary community.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

but note carefully:

only AiG contends that TTS is a degraded flagellum, this is inline with their big idea of "no new information" only devolution is possible.

This is certainly not what any of the science is teaching.

what is clear is that everyone of the science articles:

uses TofE to analyze, sort and structure the information.

is arguing not about if TofE is an adequate theory but are discussing very low level items like the exactly relationship of the proteins in the two systems and how they might have evolved.

it is fundamentally the use of the term degraded that i object to because there is simply no evidence for this at all and it is AiG's big point, where they are simply wrong and missing the science because of their commitment to "no new information" ideals.

 

[gluadys]

it is fundamentally the use of the term degraded that i object to because there is simply no evidence for this at all and it is AiG's big point, where they are simply wrong and missing the science because of their commitment to "no new information" ideals.

I agree. "Degraded" is a red-flag word. I can understand the visionless eyes of blind cave fish being referred to as "degraded". But precursor, descendant or cousin to the bacterial flagellum, in what sense is a functioning secretory system "degraded"?

 

[laptoppop]

I apologize - no "red-flag" intended. I used "degraded" simply to indicate a simpler system which instead of being a precursor to a more complex system is seen as having the more complex system as its precursor.

The only reason that this makes any difference is the use of the TTS as showing how the interdependent parts of the flagellum came about. (I love the flagellum - whether by evolution or direct design, it is elegant and wonderful -- an incredible bit of engineering! I may doubt that evolution is sufficient to explain its design, but I think we can all agree on how cool the flagellum itself is.)