Category: Irreducible Complexity
ID Foundations 23: Dr Stephen Meyer on The Design Inference on Complex [often, Functionally] Specified Information and the Origin of Cell-based Life (OoL)
|January 9, 2014||Posted by kairosfocus under Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Irreducible Complexity, The Design of Life|
This lecture by Dr Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute, with Q & A may be a good refresher and focus for thought on OoL, HT WK: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt WK — a useful blog to bookmark and monitor to see trends and issues — gives a helpful bullet point outline, in part: intelligent […]
Refereed paper in Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences uses “irreducible complexity” in same sense as ID theorist Behe?
|January 6, 2014||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, News|
Pitt physicist David Snoke notes, They are using “irreducible complexity” in the same sense as Behe. This is not a case of accidental use of the same phrase to mean something different.
|December 7, 2013||Posted by News under Irreducible Complexity, News|
Dr. Behe explains how his research into the complexity of biological systems at the molecular level led him to question the adequacy of the Darwinian paradigm, and why he now believes that the data point towards Intelligent Design.
|November 22, 2013||Posted by scordova under Darwinism, Genetics, Irreducible Complexity|
Wikipedia is known to be Darwin loving, but here is a moment of anti-Darwinian honesty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_redundancy Genetic redundancy is a term typically used to describe situations where a given biochemical function is redundantly encoded by two or more genes. In these cases, mutations (or defects) in one of these genes will have a smaller effect […]
Theistic evolutionist: Can we absolutely prove that the fruit fly with ant decals on its wings could not happen by chance?
|November 15, 2013||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, News|
Meanwhile, Darwin’s man Jerry Coyne is “too harried to think about alternatives now.”
|November 9, 2013||Posted by DLH under Cell biology, Complex Specified Information, Darwinism, Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Genetics, Genomics, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Origin Of Life, speciation, Symbiosis|
Bacteria demonstrate intra-species communication that is species specific using a partner with a communication molecule. Bacteria are also “multilingual” with a generic trade language for interspecies communication. Bacteria control tasks by signal producing and receiving receptors with a signal carrier. The tasks bacteria conduct depend on the concentration they sense of self bacteria versus generic […]
|October 17, 2013||Posted by News under Irreducible Complexity, News|
Close to a miracle
|October 2, 2013||Posted by News under Irreducible Complexity|
Here. Why don’t they just revoke the science creds of anyone who thinks there is more to know than Darwin ((“the best idea anyone ever had”) did? Alternatively, life has moved on.
UD Pro-Darwinism essay challenge unanswered a year later, I: Let’s get the essence of design theory as a scientific, inductive inference straight
Today marks a full year since I issued an open challenge to Darwinists to ground their theory and its OOL extension and root, in light of actually observed capabilities of blind watchmaker mechanisms of chance and necessity through an essay I would host here at UD. The pivot of the challenge is the modern version […]
|September 22, 2013||Posted by News under Irreducible Complexity|
Behe: Dr. Lacey, most publications consider it responsible journalism to publish letters by well-known advocates of views attacked in articles. Yes, but Lacey can get a salary from suppressing dissent.
|September 22, 2013||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity|
The claim is that evidence from hundreds of laboratories shows that the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex.
|September 21, 2013||Posted by johnnyb under Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Origin Of Life|
There are three main approaches to current origin-of-life studies – metabolism-first, replication-first, and membrane-first. The problem with each of these approaches is that they ignore the reality of irreducible complexity in self-replicating system.
|September 19, 2013||Posted by scordova under Darwinism, Irreducible Complexity, News|
Selection after something exists is not the same as selection before something exists, except in confused, illogical thinking of Darwinists. This is the heart of the problem that Behe’s Irreducible Complexity poses for Darwinism. I once offered a Darwinist $100 if he could figure out the 40 letter password I’d written on a piece of […]
|August 19, 2013||Posted by News under Irreducible Complexity|
Can’t see where the comments box is, but no doubt it will soon be chock full of vituperation from the friends of Darwin. Tomorrow is Tuesday, after all.
|July 25, 2013||Posted by News under American Scientific Affiliation, Irreducible Complexity, News|
Calvin College prof presented his model at the recent ASA meet.
|July 19, 2013||Posted by scordova under Irreducible Complexity|
Yeah, only in Dawkins’ dreams. Look at the right atrium in these four creatures from Encyclopedia Britannica: How did that right atrium evolve from one side to the other along with changes in its connection to the pulmonary artery? In the crocodile and snake the right atrium is on the right ventricle but in the […]
|June 17, 2013||Posted by scordova under Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity|
Irreducibly Complex systems are those systems (man-made or otherwise), where removal of critical core parts results in malfunction. By way of contrast, fault tolerant systems allow removal of parts or entire sub-systems, yet intended function is still retained. Removable parts or subsystems in fault tolerant architectures are also contrasted with useless parts which serve no […]
|June 2, 2013||Posted by DonaldM under Biology, Complex Specified Information, Darwinism, Design inference, Evolution, Evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Philosophy, Selective Hyperskepticism|
This my third installment of a discussion I began here and continued here on the validity of the claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, or what I call the EC-EE claim. In the first installment we looked at the EC-EE claim itself and asked whether the EC-EE claim is an example of an EC-EE […]
|May 19, 2013||Posted by kairosfocus under Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization, ID Foundations, Irreducible Complexity, Origin Of Life, Video|
In Illustra Media’s Darwin’s Dilemma, there is a clip on proteins as islands of function in amino acid sequence space: embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt Food for thought. As a stimulus to such, let us next note how the bloggist Wintery Knight has given an interesting summary of the challenges involved if a chance-dominated process […]
A “simple” summing up of the basic case for scientifically inferring design (in light of the logic of scientific induction per best explanation of the unobserved past)
In answering yet another round of G’s talking points on design theory and those of us who advocate it, I have outlined a summary of design thinking and its links onward to debates on theology, that I think is worth being somewhat adapted, expanded and headlined. With your indulgence: _______________ >> The epistemological warrant for […]
Let us note the comparable utility of punched paper tape used in computers and numerically controlled industrial machines in a past generation:
Given some onward objections, May 4th I add an info graphic on DNA . . .
And a similar one on the implied communication system’s general, irreducibly complex architecture:
In turn, that brings up the following clip from the ID Foundation series article on Irreducible Complexity, on Menuge’s criteria C1 – 5 for getting to such a system (which he presented in the context of the Flagellum):
But also, IC is a barrier to the usual suggested counter-argument, co-option or exaptation based on a conveniently available cluster of existing or duplicated parts. For instance, Angus Menuge has noted that:
For a working [bacterial] flagellum to be built by exaptation, the five following conditions would all have to be met:
C1: Availability. Among the parts available for recruitment to form the flagellum, there would need to be ones capable of performing the highly specialized tasks of paddle, rotor, and motor, even though all of these items serve some other function or no function.
C2: Synchronization. The availability of these parts would have to be synchronized so that at some point, either individually or in combination, they are all available at the same time.
C3: Localization. The selected parts must all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed.
C4: Coordination. The parts must be coordinated in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a flagellum are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant.
C5: Interface compatibility. The parts must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if a paddle, rotor, and motor are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly.
( Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science, pgs. 104-105 (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004). HT: ENV.)
In short, the co-ordinated and functional organisation of a complex system is itself a factor that needs credible explanation.
However, as Luskin notes for the iconic flagellum, “Those who purport to explain flagellar evolution almost always only address C1 and ignore C2-C5.” [ENV.]
And yet, unless all five factors are properly addressed, the matter has plainly not been adequately explained. Worse, the classic attempted rebuttal, the Type Three Secretory System [T3SS] is not only based on a subset of the genes for the flagellum [as part of the self-assembly the flagellum must push components out of the cell], but functionally, it works to help certain bacteria prey on eukaryote organisms. Thus, if anything the T3SS is not only a component part that has to be integrated under C1 – 5, but it is credibly derivative of the flagellum and an adaptation that is subsequent to the origin of Eukaryotes. Also, it is just one of several components, and is arguably itself an IC system. (Cf Dembski here.)
Going beyond all of this, in the well known Dover 2005 trial, and citing ENV, ID lab researcher Scott Minnich has testified to a direct confirmation of the IC status of the flagellum:
Scott Minnich has properly tested for irreducible complexity through genetic knock-out experiments he performed in his own laboratory at the University of Idaho. He presented this evidence during the Dover trial, which showed that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex with respect to its complement of thirty-five genes. As Minnich testified: “One mutation, one part knock out, it can’t swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We’ve done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.” [Dover Trial, Day 20 PM Testimony, pp. 107-108. Unfortunately, Judge Jones simply ignored this fact reported by the researcher who did the work, in the open court room.]
That is, using “knockout” techniques, the 35 relevant flagellar proteins in a target bacterium were knocked out then restored one by one.
The pattern for each DNA-sequence: OUT — no function, BACK IN — function restored.
Thus, the flagellum is credibly empirically confirmed as irreducibly complex. [Cf onward discussion on Knockout Studies, here.]
The kinematic von Neumann self-replicating machine [vNSR] concept is then readily applicable to the living cell:
HT CR, here’s a typical representation of cell replication through Mitosis:
And, we may then ponder Michael Denton’s reflection on the automated world of the cell, in his foundational book, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (1986):
An extension of this, gives us reason to infer that body plans similarly show signs of design. And, related arguments give us reason to infer that a cosmos fine tuned in many ways that converge on enabling such C-chemistry, aqueous medium cell based life on habitable terrestrial planets or similarly hospitable environments, also shows signs of design.
Not on a prioi impositions, but on induction from evidence we observe and reliable signs that we establish inductively. That is, scientifically.
Added, May 11: Remember, this focus on the cell is in the end because it is the root of the Darwinist three of life and as such origin of life is pivotal:
Multiply that by the evidence that there is a definite, finitely remote beginning to the observed cosmos, some 13.7 BYA being a common estimate, and 10 – 20 BYA a widely supported ballpark. That says, it is contingent, has underlying enabling causal factors, and so is a contingent, caused being.
All of this to this point is scientific, with background logic and epistemology.
Not theology, revealed or natural.
It owes nothing to the teachings of any religious movement or institution.
However, it does provide surprising corroboration to the statements of two apostles who went out on a limb philosophically by committing the Christian faith in foundational documents to reason/communication being foundational to observed reality, our world. In short the NT concepts of the Logos [John 1, cf Col 1, Heb 1, Ac 17] and that the evident, discernible reality of God as intelligent creator from signs in the observed cosmos [Rom 1 cf Heb 11:1 – 6, Ac 17 and Eph 4:17 – 24], are supported by key findings of science over the past 100 or so years.
There are debates over timelines and interpretations of Genesis, as well there would be.
They do not matter, in the end, given the grounds advanced on the different sides of the debate. We can live with Gen 1 – 11 being a sweeping, often poetic survey meant only to establish that the world is not a chaos, and it is not a product of struggling with primordial chaos or wars of the gods or the like. The differences between the Masoretic genealogies and those in the ancient translation, the Septuagint, make me think we need to take pause on attempts to precisely date creation on such evidence. Schaeffer probably had something right in his suggestion that one would be better advised to see this as describing the flow and outline of Biblical history rather than a precise, sequential chronology. And that comes up once we can see how consistently reliable the OT is as reflecting its times and places, patterns and events, even down to getting names right.
So, debating Genesis is to follow a red herring and go off to pummel a strawman smeared with stereotypes and set up for rhetorical conflagration. A fallacy of distraction, polarisation and personalisation. As is too often found as a habitual pattern of objectors to design theory.
What is substantial is the evidence on origins of our world and of the world of cell based life in the light of its challenge to us in our comfortable scientism.
And, in that regard, we have again — this is the umpteenth time, G; and you have long since worn out patience and turning the other cheek in the face of personalities, once it became evident that denigration was a main rhetorical device at work — had good reason to see that design theory is a legitimate scientific endeavour, regardless of rhetorical games being played to make it appear otherwise.>>
In short, it is possible to address the design inference and wider design theory without resort to ideologically loaded debates. And, as a first priority, we should. END
Figure 4: Superimposition of Functional Sequence Complexity onto Figure 2. The Y1 axis plane plots the decreasing degree of algorithmic compressibility as complexity increases from order towards randomness. The Y2 (Z) axis plane shows where along the same complexity gradient (X-axis) that highly instructional sequences are generally found. The Functional Sequence Complexity (FSC) curve includes all algorithmic sequences that work at all (W). The peak of this curve (w*) represents “what works best.” The FSC curve is usually quite narrow and is located closer to the random end than to the ordered end of the complexity scale. Compression of an instructive sequence slides the FSC curve towards the right (away from order, towards maximum complexity, maximum Shannon uncertainty, and seeming randomness) with no loss of function.