Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jonesy · 08-01-2002, 08:23 AM

Can someone please explain to me how something that is alive and 'irreducibly complex' could have evolved 'the usual darwinian way' if, since it is irreducibly complex, an earlier version of this living thing could not have functioned at all and thus the process of 'darwinian evolution' cannot apply to this 'living thing'?

Honestly, I cannot find anything better in the evolution/creation debate than 'irreducible complexity'. My thinking is that evolution, 'if at all true' only applies to things that are not irreducibly complex.

To me, if there IS Irreducible Complexity (this has been proven) AND if there exist mutations in nature (this has, as far as I know also been proven), then this suggests that 'God created the world and evolution itself', designing some things to 'evolve' into themselves and to 'keep on evolving', while designing other things to their 'irredicibly complex' state from the start.

Well, one might say, 'the Intelligent Creator (if he/she/it exists) is just like any engineer - designing some things in secret and then releasing these into the physical world as 'irreducibly complex' and designing other things to a certain state and, with a 'clever programming installed', releasing these into the physical world, with the 'programming' allowing these to be 'altered' (eg. 'natural selection rules') - hence this could explain the existence of any 'mutations in nature'.

Another way to look at it:

1. some things originated from 'secret' experiments - i.e. we did not see God's 'design process' of the irredicubly complex things - he put these into the physical world AFTER they were already 'designed and made'

2. some things are 'not secret' experiments: God has invented a clever program to make things 'evolve' according to the program's rules - and also released these things into the physical world, except that with these (and this is additional speculation to this current Point 2), God's programming governs that perhaps there are 'some' final states of these things that the program would recognise as 'optimum' and 'the evolution' of these things would then cease.

I argue that since both concepts have been proven to exist (mutations in nature and irreducibly complex living things) - then the very fact that these exist implies that an Intelligent Creator programmed some things to evolve and some things to be Irreducibly Complex from the start.

After all, as my original (see top) question states, how could you have 'no designer of certain things' if these things could not exist in a previous state?

NOTE: my argument ALLOWS and recognises the fact that the 'Intelligent Creator' 'has made mistakes' himself and keeps on making these - who knows, perhaps he continuously alters the 'programming of evolution' if he sees that 'something is not evolving into something that he/she perhaps predicted' - just like good experimentation - the drawing of conclusions from past experiment(s) and modifying any current and future experimentation.

Nat · 08-01-2002, 08:32 AM

Actually, irreduciably complex (IC) systems can evolve in a simple Darwinian fashion. One suggested method is the scaffolding approach. In such scenarios, IC systems evolve by slowly step by step into less efficient systems that are functional and beneficial (at least nominally so) at every step Then, the system starts losing extraneous parts and optimizing because those parts are no longer necessary and yet still have a biochemical cost.

Another way IC systems could have evolved is by changing function as they evolved. A system that works well current and couldn't have its current function without all of its pieces now, could easily have had a different yet still beneficial function earlier.

Funny thing is, I've seen even Behe admit that these scenarios show that there is at least a possible method for some IC systems to evolve, but he still won't say his hypothesis is falsified even though he said in Darwin's Black Box that his ideas should be rejected if one plausible method of IC evolution could be suggested.

Cheers

pz · 08-01-2002, 08:43 AM

Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution, even though it is represented that way. It's actually trivial to evolve things in a stepwise way that will subsequently fail completely if a single piece is removed.

The standard analogy is an arch. Pull a single stone out of an archway, and the whole thing tumbles down. By all definitions of the term, it is irreducibly complex...so how did it get built? The answer is that it was supported during construction by a scaffold, and that only after the scaffold was removed did the remaining assembly become 'irreducible'.

This is what has happened in many biological pathways that are being labeled as irreducibly complex. They became more complex by a proliferation of redundant components; individual components subsequently became specialized; those specializations became essential, so the redundancy was lost.

The other flaw in the IC argument is the presumption that current function is the same as past function -- pull out a piece of the flagellum, and it no longer works as an organelle for motility, therefore it couldn't have evolved. However, the flagellum did not evolve with the intent of becoming a motor. It was a fortuitous side effect of a completely different function. There are enzymes and structural proteins in cells that have the peculiar property of rotating during operation -- ATPases and secretory pores come to mind -- and the flagellum is almost certainly derived from a precursor to a modern secretory pore complex.

nogods4me · 08-01-2002, 09:07 AM

A) who says there is "irreducible" complexity
and
B) Wanna buy a goofy t-shirt?

Oolon Colluphid · 08-01-2002, 03:48 PM

Hiya Thia, I thought you'd gone for good...? Well, welcome back. (To nogods: we'll bring up the t-shirts as and when, yeah? But for now, let's play nice.)

Okay Thia, let's have some examples of this irreducible complexity that's been 'proved'. Wanna bet?

And, let's take the idea of intelligent design at face value. An intelligence (of some unspecified sort) is behind biological complexity... righty-ho. So why did this intelligence cock up so badly in so many other ways? (Do you really want me to list a few?)

This 'intelligence' is only present when it feels like it.... IOW, when there's something a bit difficult to explain. Elsewhere, it is absent. (In fact, it has an antithesis, that pops up when needed, to explain the really stupid stuff like snake pelvises.) It is, therefore, no more than a 'god-of-the-gaps', and those using it are just arguing from personal incredulity.

Thia, given your past record of credulity, I'm surprised that you find anything sufficiently unlikely... how come step-by-step accumulation of small changes doesn't work for you, but space aliens do?

TTFN, Oolon

Doubting Didymus · 08-01-2002, 04:09 PM

I was going to post a link to that site that shows how a mousetrap could have evolved with small mutations, but its down.

<a href="http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is the link, in case it comes back.

The point is, that Behe is thinking about it the wrong way around. Something complex disproves evolution, not if it stops when you remove something, but if you cannot get there from a simple start location.

Kevin Dorner · 08-01-2002, 04:21 PM

I never understood the "aliens made us" subset of ID.

If you can't accept that human life arose through natural processes, then obviously (implied to be more advanced) alien life couldn't have either. Obviously if one worships or admires aliens as creators and insists we couldn't have existed otherwise, one has focussed one's attention too low on the cosmological ladder.

Obviously, life had to start somewhere. Can one describe a more perfect place for it than the earth? Atmosphere, liquid water, tides, continental drift, good mix of elements, enough carbon, not too high or low gravity, tilted axis for seasons, right size of sun (too large and it burns out before life starts, too small and if the earth is close enough for liquid water temperatures then it would suffer "tidal lock" and one half would always face the sun... half boils and half freezes.)

And before one says that "well earth is so perfect this proves it was designed for us" there are billions of stars that are totally unsuitable, and none of the recently discovered planets would be. This is what is referred to as the "anthropic principle"... earth appears perfect because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to say it was!

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

scigirl · 08-01-2002, 04:26 PM

Excellent post Kevin,

Yeah saying "life was created by aliens" doesn't really explain anything does it.

scigirl

Albion · 08-01-2002, 04:52 PM

It isn't meant to explain anything, it's there to give plausible deniability to ID adherents when people ask them, "but this has to be about God, doesn't it?" If ID ever gets accepted into the school curriculum, those ETs will be dropped faster than you could believe.

Otherwise, why are they so keen to see all this cultural renewal and science extended beyond methodological naturalism? None of that would be necesary if they were taling about designers rather than a Designer.

I guess the use of ETs at this stage in the ID process is a bit like irreducible complexity, really - a component necessary to build up the system but removed once the system's in place. In this case, the ETs are the scaffolding.

Albion · 08-01-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

To me, if there IS Irreducible Complexity (this has been proven)

It has? where? I didn't think it had even been usefully defined, never mind proved. All I ever see is descriptions, which aren't enough to apply to a system to see if it's irreducibly complex. We seem to have to wait for Michael Behe to tell us what's irreducibly complex and what isn't, and so far his track record hasn't been exacly perfect.

08-01-2002, 08:23 AM	#1
Jonesy Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Melbourne Posts: 121	Irreducible Complexity & Darwin. Evolution: could both be possible at the same time? Can someone please explain to me how something that is alive and 'irreducibly complex' could have evolved 'the usual darwinian way' if, since it is irreducibly complex, an earlier version of this living thing could not have functioned at all and thus the process of 'darwinian evolution' cannot apply to this 'living thing'? Honestly, I cannot find anything better in the evolution/creation debate than 'irreducible complexity'. My thinking is that evolution, 'if at all true' only applies to things that are not irreducibly complex. To me, if there IS Irreducible Complexity (this has been proven) AND if there exist mutations in nature (this has, as far as I know also been proven), then this suggests that 'God created the world and evolution itself', designing some things to 'evolve' into themselves and to 'keep on evolving', while designing other things to their 'irredicibly complex' state from the start. Well, one might say, 'the Intelligent Creator (if he/she/it exists) is just like any engineer - designing some things in secret and then releasing these into the physical world as 'irreducibly complex' and designing other things to a certain state and, with a 'clever programming installed', releasing these into the physical world, with the 'programming' allowing these to be 'altered' (eg. 'natural selection rules') - hence this could explain the existence of any 'mutations in nature'. Another way to look at it: 1. some things originated from 'secret' experiments - i.e. we did not see God's 'design process' of the irredicubly complex things - he put these into the physical world AFTER they were already 'designed and made' 2. some things are 'not secret' experiments: God has invented a clever program to make things 'evolve' according to the program's rules - and also released these things into the physical world, except that with these (and this is additional speculation to this current Point 2), God's programming governs that perhaps there are 'some' final states of these things that the program would recognise as 'optimum' and 'the evolution' of these things would then cease. I argue that since both concepts have been proven to exist (mutations in nature and irreducibly complex living things) - then the very fact that these exist implies that an Intelligent Creator programmed some things to evolve and some things to be Irreducibly Complex from the start. After all, as my original (see top) question states, how could you have 'no designer of certain things' if these things could not exist in a previous state? NOTE: my argument ALLOWS and recognises the fact that the 'Intelligent Creator' 'has made mistakes' himself and keeps on making these - who knows, perhaps he continuously alters the 'programming of evolution' if he sees that 'something is not evolving into something that he/she perhaps predicted' - just like good experimentation - the drawing of conclusions from past experiment(s) and modifying any current and future experimentation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2002, 08:32 AM	#2
Nat Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: USA Posts: 100	Actually, irreduciably complex (IC) systems can evolve in a simple Darwinian fashion. One suggested method is the scaffolding approach. In such scenarios, IC systems evolve by slowly step by step into less efficient systems that are functional and beneficial (at least nominally so) at every step Then, the system starts losing extraneous parts and optimizing because those parts are no longer necessary and yet still have a biochemical cost. Another way IC systems could have evolved is by changing function as they evolved. A system that works well current and couldn't have its current function without all of its pieces now, could easily have had a different yet still beneficial function earlier. Funny thing is, I've seen even Behe admit that these scenarios show that there is at least a possible method for some IC systems to evolve, but he still won't say his hypothesis is falsified even though he said in Darwin's Black Box that his ideas should be rejected if one plausible method of IC evolution could be suggested. Cheers

08-01-2002, 08:43 AM	#3
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	Irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution, even though it is represented that way. It's actually trivial to evolve things in a stepwise way that will subsequently fail completely if a single piece is removed. The standard analogy is an arch. Pull a single stone out of an archway, and the whole thing tumbles down. By all definitions of the term, it is irreducibly complex...so how did it get built? The answer is that it was supported during construction by a scaffold, and that only after the scaffold was removed did the remaining assembly become 'irreducible'. This is what has happened in many biological pathways that are being labeled as irreducibly complex. They became more complex by a proliferation of redundant components; individual components subsequently became specialized; those specializations became essential, so the redundancy was lost. The other flaw in the IC argument is the presumption that current function is the same as past function -- pull out a piece of the flagellum, and it no longer works as an organelle for motility, therefore it couldn't have evolved. However, the flagellum did not evolve with the intent of becoming a motor. It was a fortuitous side effect of a completely different function. There are enzymes and structural proteins in cells that have the peculiar property of rotating during operation -- ATPases and secretory pores come to mind -- and the flagellum is almost certainly derived from a precursor to a modern secretory pore complex.

08-01-2002, 09:07 AM	#4
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	A) who says there is "irreducible" complexity and B) Wanna buy a goofy t-shirt?

08-01-2002, 03:48 PM	#5
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Hiya Thia, I thought you'd gone for good...? Well, welcome back. (To nogods: we'll bring up the t-shirts as and when, yeah? But for now, let's play nice.) Okay Thia, let's have some examples of this irreducible complexity that's been 'proved'. Wanna bet? And, let's take the idea of intelligent design at face value. An intelligence (of some unspecified sort) is behind biological complexity... righty-ho. So why did this intelligence cock up so badly in so many other ways? (Do you really want me to list a few?) This 'intelligence' is only present when it feels like it.... IOW, when there's something a bit difficult to explain. Elsewhere, it is absent. (In fact, it has an antithesis, that pops up when needed, to explain the really stupid stuff like snake pelvises.) It is, therefore, no more than a 'god-of-the-gaps', and those using it are just arguing from personal incredulity. Thia, given your past record of credulity, I'm surprised that you find anything sufficiently unlikely... how come step-by-step accumulation of small changes doesn't work for you, but space aliens do? TTFN, Oolon

08-01-2002, 04:09 PM	#6
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I was going to post a link to that site that shows how a mousetrap could have evolved with small mutations, but its down. <a href="http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is the link, in case it comes back. The point is, that Behe is thinking about it the wrong way around. Something complex disproves evolution, not if it stops when you remove something, but if you cannot get there from a simple start location.

08-01-2002, 04:21 PM	#7
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	I never understood the "aliens made us" subset of ID. If you can't accept that human life arose through natural processes, then obviously (implied to be more advanced) alien life couldn't have either. Obviously if one worships or admires aliens as creators and insists we couldn't have existed otherwise, one has focussed one's attention too low on the cosmological ladder. Obviously, life had to start somewhere. Can one describe a more perfect place for it than the earth? Atmosphere, liquid water, tides, continental drift, good mix of elements, enough carbon, not too high or low gravity, tilted axis for seasons, right size of sun (too large and it burns out before life starts, too small and if the earth is close enough for liquid water temperatures then it would suffer "tidal lock" and one half would always face the sun... half boils and half freezes.) And before one says that "well earth is so perfect this proves it was designed for us" there are billions of stars that are totally unsuitable, and none of the recently discovered planets would be. This is what is referred to as the "anthropic principle"... earth appears perfect because if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to say it was! [ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

08-01-2002, 04:26 PM	#8
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Excellent post Kevin, Yeah saying "life was created by aliens" doesn't really explain anything does it. scigirl

08-01-2002, 04:52 PM	#9
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	It isn't meant to explain anything, it's there to give plausible deniability to ID adherents when people ask them, "but this has to be about God, doesn't it?" If ID ever gets accepted into the school curriculum, those ETs will be dropped faster than you could believe. Otherwise, why are they so keen to see all this cultural renewal and science extended beyond methodological naturalism? None of that would be necesary if they were taling about designers rather than a Designer. I guess the use of ETs at this stage in the ID process is a bit like irreducible complexity, really - a component necessary to build up the system but removed once the system's in place. In this case, the ETs are the scaffolding.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.