Is Irreducible Complexity a Problem for Evolution? | DapperDino Vs Otangelo

rossum

Active member
Is Irreducible Complexity a Problem for Evolution?

No it isn't. IC systems can evolve.
 

rossum

Active member
Not likely. Show the research.
Certainly:

1. Thornhill and Ussery (2000). This covers the four possible routes of evolution. IC is indeed a problem for one of the routes: serial direct. It is not a problem for the other three routes, which are indirect. For example, the scaffolding route (elimination of functional redundancy) builds a non-IC system with many parts and then removes parts until what is left is IC. Like the scaffolding used to support an arch while it is being built and is then removed to leave the IC arch. This is how a sea-arch forms, yet another example of a naturally formed IC system.

2. Lenski (2003). This shows that IC systems can evolve and gives the entire line of descent for those IC systems.

3. Behe and Snoke (2004). Yes, that is the same Professor Behe. This shows that a simple IC system can evolve in a reasonable timescale. This paper was brought up in evidence at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe was questioned about it. He agreed that his paper showed that a simple IC system could evolve in a relatively small population of bacteria in about 20,000 years.

Science has a huge amount of data behind it. When we on the science side say something there will nearly always be research to back up what we say. Usually a lot of research.

Behe's IC was an interesting hypothesis. It triggered a spurt of research -- look at the dates of those three papers -- and was partly accepted into the standard theory: IC systems cannot evolve by the direct route. However, since IC systems can evolve by the indirect routes then IC is not a reliable marker of design.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Certainly:

1. Thornhill and Ussery (2000). This covers the four possible routes of evolution. IC is indeed a problem for one of the routes: serial direct. It is not a problem for the other three routes, which are indirect. For example, the scaffolding route (elimination of functional redundancy) builds a non-IC system with many parts and then removes parts until what is left is IC. Like the scaffolding used to support an arch while it is being built and is then removed to leave the IC arch. This is how a sea-arch forms, yet another example of a naturally formed IC system.
Thornhill and Ussery write that something they call serial-direct-Darwinian-evolution “cannot generate irreducibly complex structures.” But they think it may be able to generate a reducible structure, “such as the TCA cycle". And some people just don't seem able to grasp that point and use this paper as evidence against IC.

2. Lenski (2003). This shows that IC systems can evolve and gives the entire line of descent for those IC systems.
Lenski (2003) - This is referred to as the Avida paper since avida is the tool used to supposedly invalidate IC through computer simulations. Avida and GA's were debunked as by Dembski, Marks, and Ewert because they were using oracles of information not available to an evolutionary search. This input information was the only way that the programmers were able to get the program to converge on the desired results - unlike Tierra which would never converge on their requirements (that was the real program that knew what's what).Avida, the only program that claimed to model speciation, has been relegated to teaching undergrad biology students but left out of the post grad program because post grad involves research and avida and GA's are not an option for post-graduate research anymore. Hey, weren't GA's used by NASA to develop paper clip like antennae currently circling the earth. It was able to do this by feeding it information about fully functional antennae. Close but no cigar.

3. Behe and Snoke (2004). Yes, that is the same Professor Behe. This shows that a simple IC system can evolve in a reasonable timescale. This paper was brought up in evidence at the Kitzmiller trial and Behe was questioned about it. He agreed that his paper showed that a simple IC system could evolve in a relatively small population of bacteria in about 20,000 years.
I don't have the information from the Dover trial but I believe this might be in reference to two nucleotide mutation that give function. While technically an IC because you don't have function without both in place, this might be achieved in stated time span of 20,000 years. But it has not been classified as an IC struction by Behe or the Discovery Institute such as has the flagellum motor. What evolutionist like to do is classify their own IC systems and then tear them down.

This is an except from the Behe, Snoke paper.

"The fact that very large population sizes – 10^9 or greater — are required to build even a minimal MR feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 10^8 generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes." - Michael J. Behe & David W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, Vol 13:2651-2664 (2004).

Science has a huge amount of data behind it. When we on the science side say something there will nearly always be research to back up what we say. Usually a lot of research.

Behe's IC was an interesting hypothesis. It triggered a spurt of research -- look at the dates of those three papers -- and was partly accepted into the standard theory: IC systems cannot evolve by the direct route. However, since IC systems can evolve by the indirect routes then IC is not a reliable marker of design.
The indirect routes that you refer to are actually hypothetical pathways that have their evidence from computer simulations by computer programs that have been debunked as research tools.
 
Last edited:

rossum

Active member
Thornhill and Ussery write that something they call serial-direct-Darwinian-evolution “cannot generate irreducibly complex structures.” But they think it may be able to generate a reducible structure, “such as the TCA cycle". And some people just don't seem able to grasp that point and use this paper as evidence against IC.
They give four routes of evolution. Three of those routes can produce IC systems. One such example is the evolution of the Venus Flytrap from the closely related Sundew. Sundews close slowly, in minutes, so they use glue to hold the insect in place while they close. The Flytrap sped up the closure and then lost the glue, which was no longer needed. That is an example of Thornhill and Ussery's elimination of functional redundancy. The glue was no longer needed.

Avida and GA's were debunked as by Dembski, Marks, and Ewert
Who are/were completely disinterested members of the ID promoting Discovery Institute. Do you have any relevant criticism of Avida from non-DI sources?

I don't have the information from the Dover trial but I believe this might be in reference to two nucleotide mutation that give function. While technically an IC because you don't have function without both in place, this might be achieved in stated time span of 20,000 years. But it has not been classified as an IC struction by Behe or the Discovery Institute such as has the flagellum motor. What evolutionist like to do is classify their own IC systems and then tear them down.
The transcript of the Dover trial is here. Behe's testimony is on days 10, 11 and 12.

The two part system meets the definition of an IC system: it does not work unless all the parts are present. Agreed it is a simple IC system, but it meets the definition. Having started with a simple IC system, evolution is perfectly capable of adding further parts to make it more complex. Once the simple system is working then evolutionary process will apply.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
They give four routes of evolution. Three of those routes can produce IC systems. One such example is the evolution of the Venus Flytrap from the closely related Sundew. Sundews close slowly, in minutes, so they use glue to hold the insect in place while they close. The Flytrap sped up the closure and then lost the glue, which was no longer needed. That is an example of Thornhill and Ussery's elimination of functional redundancy. The glue was no longer needed.
I am awaiting a response from Gateway for your publication. In the mean time your Venus Flytrap example exhumes more questions than answers since it can survive without the flytrap subsystem. And from the literature that I have read, there exists no explanation as to how the Venues Flytraps could have evolved and developed a digestion system since it could have left that up to other pre-existing systems such as bacteria. In fact, it can survive like other plants without the flytrap so losing the glue was not necessary for its survival and an example of an improvement from foresight not normally attributed to natural processes.

Who are/were completely disinterested members of the ID promoting Discovery Institute. Do you have any relevant criticism of Avida from non-DI sources?
Do you know of any research using Avida performed after 2016 - the date that they published their work.

The transcript of the Dover trial is here. Behe's testimony is on days 10, 11 and 12.

The two part system meets the definition of an IC system: it does not work unless all the parts are present. Agreed it is a simple IC system, but it meets the definition. Having started with a simple IC system, evolution is perfectly capable of adding further parts to make it more complex. Once the simple system is working then evolutionary process will apply.
You do realize that you are talking probability here and not evolution since natural selection is not involved nor can it be until after the two base pairs are in place. And the probability decreases exponentially as the number of base pairs increases. So if you want to argue that a non-complex system that needs its two components to function and which falls within the range of stochastic processes is a falsification of the IC argument for complex systems, I hope that you don't mind if we don't accept that as a valid argument.
 

rossum

Active member
You do realize that you are talking probability here and not evolution since natural selection is not involved nor can it be until after the two base pairs are in place.
Yes, of course. That is what Behe and Snoke did, they calculated probabilities. And evolution was involved since neutral drift is a part of evolution. A neutral mutation is invisible to natural selection so it is subject to neutral drift, as given in Kimura (1968).

Evolution covers more than just random mutation and natural selection. There is neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection etc. The theory has been changing since 1859 with more details being added.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Yes, of course. That is what Behe and Snoke did, they calculated probabilities. And evolution was involved since neutral drift is a part of evolution. A neutral mutation is invisible to natural selection so it is subject to neutral drift, as given in Kimura (1968).

Evolution covers more than just random mutation and natural selection. There is neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection etc. The theory has been changing since 1859 with more details being added.
The same thing was the case with geocentrism. It had to get re-patched every time they made an observation that didn't fit the pattern.
 

rossum

Active member
The same thing was the case with geocentrism. It had to get re-patched every time they made an observation that didn't fit the pattern.
That is what science does. Theories are changeable to fit new discoveries. Kimura's work did not necessitate a complete revision of the theory, it just covered a previous gap. Natural selection ignores neutral mutations so there was a gap in the then existing theory which Kimura filled.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
That is what science does. Theories are changeable to fit new discoveries. Kimura's work did not necessitate a complete revision of the theory, it just covered a previous gap. Natural selection ignores neutral mutations so there was a gap in the then existing theory which Kimura filled.
Snizzle, snizzle, it little patch here and a little patch there and eventually you need a whole new theory. But secularists will still want to hold that old blanket.
 

rossum

Active member
Snizzle, snizzle, it little patch here and a little patch there and eventually you need a whole new theory. But secularists will still want to hold that old blanket.
So, you have no evidence, just a snizzle snizzle because you don't like evolution.

If you want to disprove evolution then find evidence that birds (Genesis day 5) existed before land animals (genesis day 6). There is no reason I can see that your intelligent designer could not have done in that way.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
So, you have no evidence, just a snizzle snizzle because you don't like evolution.

If you want to disprove evolution then find evidence that birds (Genesis day 5) existed before land animals (genesis day 6). There is no reason I can see that your intelligent designer could not have done in that way.
Who wants to disprove evolution? Evolution is an alright Joe, in my book, as long as you keep it in its cage. The enemy of ID is not evolution since natural selection and random mutations are viable forces. The enemy of ID is naturalistic materialism which includes origin of life and unguided and non-designed evolution. Many of the experiments performed by evolutionists fall within the realm of ID as well. But evolutionists want to point at all this experimentation as evidence against ID. There have been no experiments to support materialism (which I used to refer to as naturalism) because materialism is not falsifiable which leaves its opposite, which is design, as the default to the best explanation because evolutionists are stammered at the "origin of life".
 

rossum

Active member
There have been no experiments to support materialism (which I used to refer to as naturalism) because materialism is not falsifiable
Yes is is falsifiable. For example, just show that any god, goddess or other supernatural entity responds to prayers. That is a perfectly feasible scientific experiment, and has been done: Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer.

because evolutionists are stammered at the "origin of life".
Not correct. Abiogenesisists are currently working on the origin of life, but still have work to do. There is as yet no theory of abiogenesis; all we have are a number of possible hypotheses. It is a work-in-progress, so is too soon to say whether or not that work will be successful.

Creationists however have no explanation for the origin of life. They assume, without evidence, that life has always existed. That is not a viable scientific position.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Not correct. Abiogenesisists are currently working on the origin of life, but still have work to do. There is as yet no theory of abiogenesis; all we have are a number of possible hypotheses. It is a work-in-progress, so is too soon to say whether or not that work will be successful.
Referred to as the science of the gaps. We don't have a working theory or even an explanation but I'm sure we will.

Creationists however have no explanation for the origin of life. They assume, without evidence, that life has always existed. That is not a viable scientific position.
Here you have changed the definition of life to include non-biological life. IOW, you have expanded the meaning of life to include spiritual life along with biological life when the subject matter was originally biological life. And yes we do have an explanation of biological life which is a Spirit which has always existed and thus requires no beginning or cause.
 

rossum

Active member
Here you have changed the definition of life to include non-biological life.
I changed nothing. Your earlier post said "life" with no qualification. You are the one adding the qualifications, not me. A classic (and common) example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

For purely material life I am content to look for a purely material origin: material -> material. For spiritual life a non-material origin is reasonable.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
I changed nothing. Your earlier post said "life" with no qualification. You are the one adding the qualifications, not me. A classic (and common) example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Science hasn't reached the point where it is attempting to find the origin of spiritual life. It only deals with what is measurable. So the context is evident.

 

GeneZ

Active member

Is Irreducible Complexity a Problem for Evolution?​


The problem is the Young Earth Creationists base their belief on devotion without understanding what the Hebrew has been saying for thousands of years.

To try to tear Young Earth Creationists away from their devotion to their misapplied Scripture has been just a futile as trying to tear the Catholics away from praying to Mary while clinging to their Rosary.

That's the real problem. Both sides are natural antagonists devoid of a resolve they can not have because they reject sound doctrine.

The Bible when properly understood explains why the evolutionist finds what he does in the prehistoric evidence. The Young Earth explanation is a false witness and makes the Young Earth Creationists look moronic to the evolutionist who knows better. The Young Earth attributes the evolutionist's attitude to the fact they are ruled by Satan's sphere of influence. Both are being tricked into a perpetual war that has no end.
 

Cisco Qid

Member
Religion hasn't reached the point where it can show that spiritual life actually exists.

It's had thousands of years to try, too.
Science is experimentally based and believes only what it sees while religion is ceremonially based with a mixture of faith. Christianity is Jesus based with faith in Jesus Christ where the Greek word for faith is pistis (rely on, cling to, trust in) and is a gift without merit.
 
Top