Jump to content


Photo

Irreducible Complexity.


  • Please log in to reply
149 replies to this topic

#21 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 September 2009 - 02:23 PM

Again, convergent evolution means that homology failed. That they just stick something in the tree of life and label the change as convergent evolution as some sort of scientific explanation.

View Post

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Homology isn’t something that can “pass” or “fail”. A homologous structure is one that is exists because of common lineage. To give an example even that creationists will agree on, the tail of a poodle is homologous to the tail of a terrier because they both share a common ancestor. Convergence doesn’t mean homology failed, it means homology was never even a factor! You can’t fail the test if you’re not taking the course in the first place. In convergence, the common ancestor never had the given feature, and it appeared later in separate forms to meet the same requirement.
As for all this about eyes, I agree with CTD that we’re straying from the main topic. I didn’t want to get into a debate about eye evolution; I just chose it as an arbitrary example to better explain my view on IC. However I disagree that the evolution of the eye lacks evidence. There is definitely evidence out there, take a look at this article if you have the time: http://www.scienceag...trunc_sys.shtml.

#22 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 September 2009 - 03:11 PM

A homologous structure is one that is exists because of common lineage.

View Post

Is this a scientific necessity? Is this a universal statement?

#23 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 10 September 2009 - 04:38 PM

Is this a scientific necessity? Is this a universal statement?

View Post

That is the definition of a homologous structure in biology. Is it universal? In biology, yes. We divide it into two categories: homologous and analogous. Homologous results from divergent evolution, analogous from convergent.

#24 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 September 2009 - 06:25 PM

That is the definition of a homologous structure in biology. Is it universal? In biology, yes. We divide it into two categories: homologous and analogous. Homologous results from divergent evolution, analogous from convergent.

View Post


I must say that the evos have so calmly addressed analogous structures. I wonder if "unguided" really means to them what it means to me. Wings have appeared three different times--four times if you side with the evos who question bird-dino linage.

It is not like you could hypothesize that there were dormant genes that reactivated. Each set of wings is completely different, BUT WORK IN THE RELATIVE SAME WAY.

One time would seem quite amazing. Twice improbable. Three or four times impossible.

#25 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 06:47 PM

Yes, but there is no evidence that any eye has evolved from a simpler eye, let alone a spot. So, a closed eye is as bad as no eye at all.

View Post


Thought I'd take a quick look into this "no evidence" claim. As suspected, of course there is evidence. It's shocking what 5 minutes and Google can reveal.

Eye Evolution:PBS

I found this site interesting as it gives an outline of what we would expect to find if the eye had evolved, then compares it to what we've found in other species in the fossil record. Amazingly they match. An evolutionary prediction? Maybe.

Evolution of the eye: wikipedia

Wiki claims modern eyes have evolved 50-100 times. It then goes into more detail about stages of development.

There's plenty more sites out there with evidence. But I thought I'd share what I found in 5 minutes of research. If you're really interested spend half an hour on it. You'll probably be blown away.

Regards,

Arch.

#26 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 07:07 PM

One of the primary methods of science is the experiment. Irreducible Complexity says "if even one part is removed from certain devices, they will fail to function." The experiment is suggested right there !!! Remove a part, and see what happens.

It doesn't get any more scientific than that, and it doesn't get any more obvious, and it doesn't get any simpler to see.

View Post


Yep, CTD is bang on the buck. Not only is it an easy experiment, but it's been done!
I'd be surprised if people here haven't seen this one before, but just in case, here it is again.

Ken Miller Irreducible Compexity: youTube

Ken Miller shows how the bacterial flagellum can be broken down at every evolutionary step.

Regards,

Arch.

#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 10 September 2009 - 08:04 PM

I must say that the evos have so calmly addressed analogous structures.  I wonder if "unguided" really means to them what it means to me.

View Post

From seeing the term 'unguided' employed by evolutionists in multiple contexts, it clearly means "guided by a crypto-goddess". The religion involves many crypto-goddesses, who evolutionists are forbidden to publicly name or acknowledge too directly. Their indirect acknowledgements more than suffice to communicate their faith.

Careful and close observation is the key to good evolutionology. Monitoring what they say under which circumstances is critical to assessing the progression of the disease.

#28 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 10 September 2009 - 08:10 PM

That is the definition of a homologous structure in biology. Is it universal? In biology, yes. We divide it into two categories: homologous and analogous. Homologous results from divergent evolution, analogous from convergent.

View Post

'Homology' is another term which has been altered in order to promote evolutionism. "The study of sameness" is the obvious literal, original meaning; they've added the part about ancestry - it didn't used to be there.

What has it to do with biology? Nothing, in its present form.

#29 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 10:51 PM

I don’t understand what you mean by this. Homology isn’t something that can “pass” or “fail”. A homologous structure is one that is exists because of common lineage. To give an example even that creationists will agree on, the tail of a poodle is homologous to the tail of a terrier because they both share a common ancestor. Convergence doesn’t mean homology failed, it means homology was never even a factor! You can’t fail the test if you’re not taking the course in the first place. In convergence, the common ancestor never had the given feature, and it appeared later in separate forms to meet the same requirement.
As for all this about eyes, I agree with CTD that we’re straying from the main topic. I didn’t want to get into a debate about eye evolution; I just chose it as an arbitrary example to better explain my view on IC. However I disagree that the evolution of the eye lacks evidence. There is definitely evidence out there, take a look at this article if you have the time: http://www.scienceag...trunc_sys.shtml.

View Post


Hi Isabella,


Convergent evolution has been hypothesized to explain the numerous examples of homology in which the available evidence suggested that the animals under consideration were not closely linked by descent.

Homology is now shown to be entirely subjective by many recent studies which have undergone genetic comparison (or gene sequencing) studies. The tradition tree of life has been turned upside down. Convergent evolution is now being used in areas where evolutionist thought they had strong homologous relationships. This new classification of convergent evolution wasn't based on the fossil record or any other standard; Rather, it is used like a "get out of jail free card". In other words no scientific standards were used to classify the fossils. Below are two articles that demonstrate that the classification standards (taxonomy) were extremely subjective and mostly wrong:

Huge Genome-scale Phylogenetic Study Of Birds Rewrites Evolutionary Tree-of-life

Bushes in the Tree of Life


So why is avian taxonomy suddenly in such a state of upheaval?  The precise evolutionary relationships between major groups of birds have long been contentious because they underwent an explosive radiation event sometime between 65 million and 100 million years ago.  Nearly all of the major avian groups arose within just a few million years -- a very short period of evolutionary time.  As a result, those groups of birds, such as parrots, doves and owls, that are united by distinct morphological characteristics seem to have appeared suddenly because there are few, or no, known evolutionary intermediates that provide clues to their deeper relationships with other avian groups.


From the second article.

Here we discuss how and why certain critical parts of the TOL [tree of life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available.  We do not mean this essay to be a comprehensive review of molecular systematics.  Rather, we have focused on the emerging evidence from genome-scale studies on several branches of the TOL that sharply contrasts with viewpoints—such as that in the opening quotation—which imply that the assembly of all branches of the TOL will simply be a matter of data collection.  We view this difficulty in obtaining full resolution of particular clades—when given substantial data—as both biologically informative and a pressing methodological challenge.  The recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics.  Now, as the field is transformed from a data-limited to an analysis-limited discipline, it is an opportune time to do so.


Common design is a much better answer to why something as complicated as an eye or a wing could have evolved nearly the same way multiple times.

The article you presented does not undercut intelligent design. In fact when you dig a little it creates a strong case for intelligent design. But we should start a new thread and not completely hijack this thread.

Bruce

#30 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 11:13 PM

Yep, CTD is bang on the buck. Not only is it an easy experiment, but it's been done!
I'd be surprised if people here haven't seen this one before, but just in case, here it is again.

Ken Miller Irreducible Compexity: youTube

Ken Miller shows how the bacterial flagellum can be broken down at every evolutionary step.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


Hi Arch,

All Dr. Miller discussed was TTSS which amount to ~1/4 of the proteins involved. He has not explanation of how the other 3/4 of proteins required evolved.

Also, studies show that it the virus acquired TTSS from the flagellum via devolution rather than visa verse: virus injecting TTSS via horizontal gene transfer.

#31 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 10 September 2009 - 11:30 PM

All Dr. Miller discussed was TTSS which amount to ~1/4 of the proteins involved.  He has not explanation of how the other 3/4  of proteins required evolved.

View Post


My mistake, I did say every evolutionary step. I imagine the complexity of the flagellum would be too much to break down in a 6 minute talk. Take this as a proof of concept :huh:

Also, studies show that it  the virus acquired TTSS from the flagellum via devolution rather than visa verse: virus injecting TTSS via horizontal gene transfer.

View Post

I wouldn't have the foggiest as to how flagellum evolved (devolved, gene transferred, etc). In regards to irreducible complexity, how relevant is it? As long as we can show that each step had a purpose does it matter if it were a backwards or forwards step?

Regards,

Arch.

#32 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 03:52 AM

If you removed the trigger from the mousetrap, it would make quite a good paper clip.  It's only irreducibly complex if your test for fitness is the ability to trap mice.

View Post


Where in the definition does it say that none of the other parts will have any function?

So if the function of the mouse trap is to trap mice then a mouse trap is IC?

#33 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 11 September 2009 - 04:04 AM

Is it universal? In biology, yes.

View Post

What evidence allows this assertion to be made? What can you demonstrate to validate that all homologies in biology must be interpreted in the light of ancestry?

If it doesn't apply to other areas why must it apply to biology?

#34 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 11 September 2009 - 04:44 AM

Thought I'd take a quick look into this "no evidence" claim. As suspected, of course there is evidence. It's shocking what 5 minutes and Google can reveal.

Eye Evolution:PBS

I found this site interesting as it gives an outline of what we would expect to find if the eye had evolved, then compares it to what we've found in other species in the fossil record. Amazingly they match. An evolutionary prediction? Maybe.

Evolution of the eye: wikipedia

Wiki claims modern eyes have evolved 50-100 times. It then goes into more detail about stages of development.

There's plenty more sites out there with evidence. But I thought I'd share what I found in 5 minutes of research. If you're really interested spend half an hour on it. You'll probably be blown away.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


And, of course, in your five minute search, you totally skipped over the fact that there was no real evidence provided. Just more speculation :lol:

#35 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 06:34 AM

Yep, CTD is bang on the buck. Not only is it an easy experiment, but it's been done!
I'd be surprised if people here haven't seen this one before, but just in case, here it is again.

Ken Miller Irreducible Compexity: youTube

Ken Miller shows how the bacterial flagellum can be broken down at every evolutionary step.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


CTD did nail it for sure.

Thanks for the link Arch, I remember seeing the full version of this a while ago.

Well I guess that talk by Ken Miller did test the definition and falsified it in regards to the bacterial flagellum.

But wait, lets test that test and see if it was actually testing what you claimed it tested.


<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_HVrjKcvrU&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>


0:25-he provides a definition of IC from Michael Behe
1:05-he gives an ambigous definition of IC, it is not clear what he means by "there is no function", (the parts or the system)
1:24-he introduces the bacterial flagellum
1:35-Some funny anecdotes
2:35-he pretends he is about to define and clarify the definition, acts like he is going to get back into the heart of the matter
2:55-he presents a different definition of IC than the one from Behe (notice the space Miller gets between Behe's definition and his own). Behe's definition does not say that the individual parts will have no function on their own
3:39-Miller further enforces his own definition
4:22-tests his own definition
5:20-the smoke is so thick now that Miller can go back to Behe's definition and pretend that is what he is testing
5:44-presents interpretation of facts as facts, ("what that means" at 5:58)

Talks like this further confirm to me that evolutionists are far better at pursuasion than providing real science and reason to support evolution.

Did Ken Miller never see the difference between the two following statements in the whole time he was preparing his talk?

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Darwin's Black Box, page 39.

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the parts can have no other function.


It is not a hard concept, certainly not too hard for someone like Ken Miller. And to think, all he had to do was show how taking away any one part of a functioning bacterial flagellum left us with a functioning bacterial flagellum.

#36 Ryyker

Ryyker

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Age: 38
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Brisbane, Australia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 07:25 AM

Although irreducible complexity may apply to man-made machines, I think it gives a false perspective of how evolution works. I’ll use the eye as an example. If you were to remove the lens or the retina from the eye, it would no longer work the way it does now. Depending on the part you take out, it might not function at all. This could suggest that all the complex parts needed to evolve simultaneously in order to produce a functioning eye, which obviously sounds impossible. However this isn’t how evolution works.

It may be true that our modern eyes are irreducibly complex, but that doesn’t mean a primitive, less complex eye served no purpose. An organism with a single light-sensitive cell would be able to navigate its surroundings more efficiently than a completely blind organism (I’m not talking about the complex cone and rod cells in our eyes. I simply mean a neuron that is able to relay information to the brain regarding whether it is light or dark). And an organism with several of these cells would do even better. If the cells could detect color as well as light and dark, even better. And so on.

This brings us to the idea that while our eyes require all the parts they now have, a primitive eye could function with very primitive versions of these parts... And would not necessarily need all of the parts. The lens is only required if the eye needs to focus on details. And the pupil is only necessary if the organism needs to adjust to both very bright and very dark conditions. Therefore it’s not hard to imagine an intermediate stage: an organism with some control over focusing and some control over how much light enters the eye.

So irreducible complexity may be true in the sense that the biological machine could no longer function at its former capacity. But as long as it still functions, it’s providing an advantage to the organism. And these advantages are the basis of natural selection.

View Post


OK, so that is one evolutionist who agrees that IC might exist. Progress.

Why do you say that "irreducible complexity may apply to man-made machines", which part do you think might be unnecessary in a mouse trap for the mouse trap to trap mice? If you have one lets hear it and we can discuss it.

Can I get some feedback from others on what would be a fair amount of agreement/non-disagreement from evolutionists* on this forum about the existence of IC so we can move on to the implications of IC - 5/10/15 evolutionists, allow 1/3/5 months for counter arguments etc. If we can reach a mutually agreed level of agreement on IC we can then test evolution against it. Mouse traps are boring, the implications of IC are not.


*of course they may also be some non-evolutionists who don't agree IC is real

#37 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 10:47 AM

My mistake, I did say every evolutionary step. I imagine the complexity of the flagellum would be too much to break down in a 6 minute talk. Take this as a proof of concept :lol:
I wouldn't have the foggiest as to how flagellum evolved (devolved, gene transferred, etc). In regards to irreducible complexity, how relevant is it? As long as we can show that each step had a purpose does it matter if it were a backwards or forwards step?

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



Hi Arch,

For Dr. Millers theory to be viable the building blocks have to be available for assembly. If the building blocks can be proven not to be available then scenario falls apart.

Bruce

#38 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 03:58 PM

Did Ken Miller never see the difference between the two following statements in the whole time he was preparing his talk?

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Darwin's Black Box, page 39.


By irreducibly complex I mean a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the parts can have no other function.

View Post


I agree, there is a strong difference between the two statements. The problem is the second quote doesn't necessarily address IC in regards to biology. It is the overall system we need to be testing, not the individual components.

It is not a hard concept, certainly not too hard for someone like Ken Miller. And to think, all he had to do was show how taking away any one part of a functioning bacterial flagellum left us with a functioning bacterial flagellum.

View Post


I'm sorry, but that's not how I understand IC. Removing parts needs to allow the subject (the flagellum in this case) to still work. How it works is irrelevant. That's why the mousetrap example is so hilarious. It doesn't need to function as a mousetrap any more, it just needs to have a function.

So no, removing a part and still being left with a functioning flagellum isn't what we should expect.

Regards,

Arch.

#39 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 04:02 PM

Sorry Ryyker, I have kind of ignored the original request in the OP. Isabella may be correct in saying IC could apply to man made contraptions. This is because man made things are built with a specific purpose, whereas biological creatures are not.

Although the mousetrap example shows this is not always the case.

Regards,

Arch.

#40 Bruce V.

Bruce V.

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,153 posts
  • Age: 54
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Northern Califiornia

Posted 11 September 2009 - 05:14 PM

I agree, there is a strong difference between the two statements. The problem is the second quote doesn't necessarily address IC in regards to biology. It is the overall system we need to be testing, not the individual components.
I'm sorry, but that's not how I understand IC. Removing parts needs to allow the subject (the flagellum in this case) to still work. How it works is irrelevant. That's why the mousetrap example is so hilarious. It doesn't need to function as a mousetrap any more, it just needs to have a function.

So no, removing a part and still being left with a functioning flagellum isn't what we should expect.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post



Hi Arch,

I really don't get what you are saying. It sounds like if the mouse trap loses function but still has a lesser purpose it proves IC wrong. I really hope that is not what you mean.

The larger point of IC is that life has very complicated integrated machines at all levels. How could life create an integrated machine by chance? The only mechanism that makes anything this complicated requires information and intelligence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users