When Can a Child Understand an Issue More Clearly Than Two Ph.Ds Combined? When a Shibboleth of NDE is at Stake.
| March 11, 2013 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
The basic idea of irreducible complexity developed by Michael Behe is simple and elegant. Dr. Behe posits that a biological system such as the iconic bacterial flagellum (UD’s mascot – see the picture at the top of our homepage) is irreducibly complex if each part of the system is indispensable to function. In other words, if one removes any part of an irreducibly complex system, one winds up not with degraded function but with no function at all.
This idea is important to the debate over Neo-Darwinian Evolution (NDE), because NDE is grounded absolutely in the notion that every complex biological system evolved from a simpler precursor in a stepwise fashion in which each step provided a net fitness gain.
It is obvious that an irreducibly complex system cannot have evolved in a stepwise fashion for the simple reason that all of the parts must be in place at once for there to be function. By definition, you can’t add the parts one after the other in a stepwise fashion and have function at each step of the process.
An automobile engine is an example of a system with an irreducibly complex core. There are hundreds of parts in an engine, some of which are part of the irreducibly complex core and some of which are not. For example, the bolt holding the battery in place is NOT part of the core. We can remove that bolt, and the battery will flop around, but the car will still run. The battery itself, on the other hand, is part of the irreducibly complex core. As anyone who has ever turned the key on a car with a dead battery knows, no battery equals zero function.
Irreducible complexity poses a serious problem for NDE, which various NDE researchers have attempted to meet (so far unsuccessfully). The latest attempt to address this conundrum comes from Kelly Hughes and David Blair of the University of Utah, two of the world’s leading experts on bacterial flagellar assembly, in chapter 38 of the new book Microbes and Evolution: The World that Darwin Never Saw. They write:
It is clear that the flagellum is a complex structure and that its assembly and operation depend upon many interdependent components and processes. This complexity has been suggested to pose problems for the theory of evolution; specifically, it has been suggested that the ancestral flagellum could not have provided a significant advantage unless all of the parts were generated simultaneously. Hence, the flagellum has been described as “irreducibly complex,” implying that it is impossible or at least very difficult to envision a much simpler, but still useful, ancestral form that would have been the raw material for evolution.
Our JonathanM has a detailed review over at Evolution News and Views. Hughes’ and Blair’s essential idea is that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because sub-components within the flagellar structure are homologous to other bacterial organelles. In other words, some of the components of the flagellum can be found in other molecular structures. For example, as JonathanM points out in his review, they correctly point out that the stator proteins MotA and MotB are homologs of ExbB and ExbD, which form part of the TonB-dependent active transport system.
Let’s explore this argument in the context of a vehicle engine. Just as with the flagellum an engine has parts that are, in a sense, homologous with parts in other kinds of machines. Examples abound. An engine has nuts, bolts, a battery, belts, wires, pistons, reservoirs for various fluids. All of these components can be found in other types of machines. Therefore, according to Hughes’ and Blair’s analysis, an engine is not irreducibly complex.
You will say that conclusion is not only wrong, it is laughable, and you will be right. It is glaringly obvious to even the most casual observer that the mere existence of an irreducibly complex system’s parts is a necessary – but far from sufficient – condition for the system’s function. Suppose I have every single component of an engine in my garage. Do I have a functioning engine? Of course not. Suppose further that I take all of those components and put them in a big bag and shake them up. Do I have an engine now? Of course not. Even a child would understand that having the parts is not enough even if all of the parts are in the same place at the same time.
Function requires simultaneous coordination of the parts. Certainly simultaneous coordination can be achieved in a stepwise fashion. Indeed, it is hard to imagine it being achieved any other way. There is no way to build an engine such that all of the parts come together in an instant. The mechanic starts with the block and inserts the pistons and attaches the rods and so on and so on until the engine is built and functions. Notice, however, that each step does not give the engine “a little more function.” Each individual step gives the engine no function at all. There is function only when all of the steps are completed.
The distinction between merely “stepwise” and “stepwise with each step improving function” is vital. A mechanic is an intelligent agent. When he builds an engine he has a distant goal in mind (a functioning engine), and he achieves that goal one step at a time. It makes no difference to him whether he gets a little bit of improved function at each step. Indeed, if there are 500 steps, he is content with zero function for steps 1 through 499. NDE cannot build an engine that way. By definition there must be a net gain in function for steps 1 through 499. Why? Because natural selection “selects” a new trait for one and only one reason – the new trait increases the fitness of the organism. Therefore, if the new trait does not increase the fitness of the organism there is nothing there that natural selection can select for.
In summary, as I mentioned above, any child can see that the idea of irreducible complexity is not defeated by the mere existence of the parts of the system. Why can’t these highly educated biologists see what any child can see? Because they are blinded by their metaphysical suppositions. To them, the bacterial flagellum just had to evolve in a stepwise fashion. It is quite literally unthinkable for it to have come about any other way. And if it had to have happened that way, then any explanation for how it happened that way is sufficient, even if the explanation is patently absurd.
UPDATE
In the first comment in the combox we get this from Neil Rickert:
The battery itself, on the other hand, is part of the irreducibly complex core. Anyone who has ever turned the key on a car with a dead battery knows, no battery equals zero function.
Early automobiles did not have a battery. They were started with a crank. The battery was added later, to allow electrical starting. But the crank remained, and buyers insisted on having it. So, even then, the automobile could be started using the crank and without a battery.
Later, after the electrical starter had proved itself successful, automobiles were built without a crank.
So here, in your own example, we have a system with an appearance of irreducible complexity, yet whose development history was one of stepwise change
Here’s my response:
The fact that an engine designed to start without a battery can get along without a battery has no bearing on whether an engine designed to start with a battery can get along without a battery.
As Joe and BA point out (and as I explained in the OP), both systems were designed. A designer can design a system to accomplish the same thing in various ways. (piston/rotary or battery start/crank start). This says nothing about whether NDE can build an IR system in a stepwise fashion.
You have committed what Phil Johnson calls “Berra’s blunder,” i.e., using an example that is obviously the product of intelligent agency to attempt to make a point about a non-intelligent process.
Berra’s Blunder:
If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what paleontologists do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people…
The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.
Tim Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, 1990, pg 117-119
Phil Johnson:
Of course, every one of those Corvettes was designed by engineers. The Corvette sequence — like the sequence of Beethoven’s symphonies to the opinions of the United States Supreme Court — does not illustrate naturalistic evolution at all. It illustrates how intelligent designers will typically achieve their purposes by adding variations to a basic design plan. Above all, such sequences have no tendency whatever to support the claim that there is no need for a creator, since blind natural forces can do the creating. On the contrary, they show that what biologists present as proof of “evolution” or “common ancestry” is just as likely to be evidence of common design.
Phillip Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, pg 63.
Even a moment’s reflection would suffice to make it clear that the “crank to battery/crank to battery only” analogy does not address the argument of the OP. But Mr. Rickert did not take a moment to reflect, because he, like the two Ph.Ds referred to in the OP, has ideological blinders on. These blinders cause him to make analogies that even a child could see have no bearing whatsoever on whether NDE – as opposed to an intelligent agent – can build an irreducibly complex system. Thank you, Mr. Rickert, for illustrating the point of the OP so beautifully.
103 Responses to When Can a Child Understand an Issue More Clearly Than Two Ph.Ds Combined? When a Shibboleth of NDE is at Stake.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Early automobiles did not have a battery. They were started with a crank. The battery was added later, to allow electrical starting. But the crank remained, and buyers insisted on having it. So, even then, the automobile could be started using the crank and without a battery.
Later, after the electrical starter had proved itself successful, automobiles were built without a crank.
So here, in your own example, we have a system with an appearance of irreducible complexity, yet whose development history was one of stepwise change.
And Mr. Rickert, was this ‘stepwise change’, from crank to battery, derived by improved human knowledge/intelligence or by neo-Darwinian processes?
Neil Rickert:
So what? They needed something else that blind and undirected processs couldn’t produce. IOW they were still IC.
By DESIGN. And it is IC. IC can be achieved by design.
I think the question is can you stepwise transition (via a blind undirected process) from a piston engine to a rotary engine or vice versa.
And the obvious answer to this is that you can’t.
A piston engine is in its own IC domain.
A rotary engine is in its own IC domain.
Neil Rickert’s response goes back to something I said in another thread – these guys aren’t trying to understand the concept; they’re just mechanically (or habitually) processing denials, diversions and dismissals, whether they are relevant or not, and whether they make any sense or not, in service of their ideological commitments.
Irreducible complexity kills Darwinian evolution dead. In a sane word, IC would have ended the evolution debate a long time ago. DE would have been recognized for what it is, a false religion. This would have meant the end of the teaching of evolution in our schools but, unfortunately, we don’t live in a sane world.
Mr Arrington:
I am more and more convinced that there is too often a want of genuine exchange of minds on design issues.
I think a good place to begin is with Menuge’s criteria C1 – 5 for IC systems, clipping from the ID foundations series no 3, two years ago:
Let’s see if there is an actual response on the merits.
KF
WJM: I hope you are wrong, but fear that — far too often — you are right. KF
Barry:
Good post and some good points. One minor clarification, though:
While the concept of each step providing an advantage is consistent with Darwin’s theory and has been an important part of the evolutionary storyline for a long time, more and more often I am seeing this abandoned by evolutionists, not across the board necessarily, but particularly when confronted with specific biological systems.
What I am now seeing regularly, and what we have seen often in recent threads here, is an effort to avoid the irreducible complexity issue altogether by arguing that there is no need for a step-by-step process. Indeed, many opponents of design now argue that stuff just accumulates until one day it comes together to form a useful whole. Nevermind that this is even more preposterous than the long chain of step-by-step beneficial changes, it is a very common approach that attempts to dismiss the challenge of irreducible complexity.
The argument from irreducible complexity is still a very current and applicable argument and there is great value in keeping it at the forefront. We should be grateful that irreducible complexity has forced the committed materialists out of the shadows and into the light where we can see that as they abandon Darwin’s reliance on slight, successive, beneficial changes, they are instead left to rely on pure chance and wildly-improbable fortuitous accumulations of unspecified stuff at unspecified times in unspecified ways.
Stuff Happens.
GEM and WJM:
Agreed.
In my update in response to Neil’s comment I say that it took a “moment’s reflection” to see that his response was way off base. And that’s the problem. Too many people are willing to take Berra’s blunder or Neil’s nonsense at face value without reflecting on it. It takes 30 seconds of thought to see though to the other side. But thinking is hard and 30 seconds is a long time. If all I am interested in is reinforcing the conclusions compelled by my pre-existing metaphysical commitments, I am not willing to do the work or spend the time.
Therein lies a cautionary tale for us all. I presume that Berra is neither stupid nor evil. I presume the same thing about Neil. Intelligent, articulate people on the other side of the argument sometimes say foolish things because they are prodded along by their metaphysical commitments. Are we on this side of the ID argument exempt from that phenomenon? No. Let’s not get lazy and say foolish things in support of ID. And if we do, let us hope that one of our Darwinist friends is there to slap us around a little.
As to
Or put another way
And to glimpse that ‘mystical world’ of the bacterial flagellum,, Last 30 seconds of this following video has a excellent animation of the flagella in action:
Here is a interesting quote:
Barry, that was an excellent post, simply but vividly illustrated: thank you very much. Straight from the middle chamber of KST!
Our opponents – people who believe everything made itself by accident, denying the existence of free-will and objective morality while they’re at it – will never really understand your post. Why? Because it uses only flawless reasoning and compelling evidence. That’s no good to people who have fortified themselves against us with emotion and other personal issues.
But, to those of us who will follow the evidence wherever it lead and who have fully studied both sides of the argument, your post throws down a gauntlet that demands a proper response. I’ll keep an eye out for one, but won’t hold my breath.
Eric,
Indeed. There seems to be no limit to the absurdities that committed materialists will employ in their frenetic efforts to prop up their bankrupt worldview.
Your example is anticipated in the OP where I say that even if the mechanic has all of the parts of the engine and puts them in a bag and shakes them up, he will not get function. Yes, the parts are necessary. But the parts are not sufficient. The coordinated arrangement of the parts into a unified whole is also necessary. No known natural process is even remotely capable of the latter, and appeals to random change such as those to which you allude are nothing more than a crude chance-if-the gaps argument.
Chris, thank you.
Yeah, keep em coming, Barry! These utterly inappropriate analogies are bound to change the course of evolutionary biology one day!
And the cake is iced with utterly uncomprehending comments about the basic mechanism of natural selection.
UD is on a roll!
Alan, with all due respect, why can’t you just put forward a rebutal, or form an argument, rather than make silly comments.
Please
Anyone who would like to study the Ipse dixit logical fallacy can go to this Wiki article, which is quite good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit
Those who would like to see Ipse dixit in action need look no further than Alan Fox’s comments at 15 and 16.
The Ipse dixit is Alan’s favorite tactic. Note that he never favors us with an argument of his own to support his conclusion. We are supposed to accept his assertions simply because he has asserted them. With friends like Alan, the Darwinians don’t need enemies.
PeterJ @ 17 asks in frustration: “Alan, with all due respect, why can’t you just put forward a rebuttal, or form an argument, rather than make silly comments. Please.”
Just so Peter. Just so. I harken back to the OP. For Alan to put forward a rebuttal or form an argument would take 30 seconds of thought, and thinking is hard and 30 seconds is a long time. Far easier to just dash off a one line dismissal. If one does not care to engage with one’s opponents on the merits of their arguments, one line huffs are good enough.
Alan Fox:
Natural selection is just differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. It doesn’t do anything. And it doesn’t prevent accidents. It is one way accidents accumulate, Alan.
Alan’s on a roll!
Might there be a way of getting someone who can actually make an argument for evolution to comment here? It would be much more interesting than the drive-by slapstick comedy offered by the evolutionists thus far… Not to say it isn’t amusing, though.. if not highly revealing of the strength of their position.
Hi Lifespy, in a word ‘no’. Because evolutionists have already lost the argument. The clever ones realise this and stay away: it’s no fun trying to win an argument when facts and reason are on your opponents’ side. The stupid ones on the other hand don’t realise this… and, like Monty Python’s Black Knight, keep coming back for more punishment.
The rest is just internet atheists hating non-atheists and haters gotta hate.
LP, guess why the challenge and invitation here to do just that — I have personally promised to host — is approaching six months now with no cogent answer. And there is no mystery on what chance variation and differential reproductive success of sub populations in eco-niches is, the issue is whether it suffices to incrementally explain microbes to Mozard level body plan origins, on empirical observational warrant. Suffice to say, that that requires massive steps of FSCO/I and the ONLY empirically warranted source of that is design, and this is backed up by needle in the haystack search by blind sampling analysis. And, we haven’t got to the root of the tree of life — OOL — where a metabolising automaton with self replication and self assembly driven by codes and algorithms has to be explained without recourse to “natural selection.” As, there is no reproduction until the mechanism for it is in place. What strikes me is that a mechanism that explains minor adaptations reasonably adequately, is being stretched beyond all reason through imposed a priori materialism dressed up in a lab coat (often disguised as a “mere” methodological constraint). KF
Animal right groups make the argument – all mammals have the same value because they are basically the same. A giraffe is the same as an elephant or a human. Yet even a two year old can see the difference between a giraffe and an elephant. Even if they all contain the same parts, the parts are arranged uniquely in each case to fit their environment. Are they not also irreducibly complex?
Look here, there are no irreducibly complex biological systems; besides, Darwinian evolution is perfectly capable of building them.
lifepsy and Chris Doyle, per your comments you guys might be interested in this article:
Where are the honest atheists? – March 8, 2013
http://theweek.com/article/ind.....t-atheists
CR at #24.
Ipse dixit (see #18 for translation)
IT: I think CR was being tongue in cheek. KF
Sorry Ian, that’s just the way it is. Darwinian evolution is perfectly capable of generating irreducible complexity, which doesn’t exist in biological systems. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I’m not.
No irreducibly complex biological systems? There are no irreducibly complex systems of any sort! Complexity is just a creationist term used to confuse children! There is no such thing as “information” because no real scientist uses that word. Google Scholar the term “information” and tell me if anything comes up that says anything about “special creation” or “Jesus”. See? SEE?
Hi Bornagain77, I came across that article last week thanks to an Android app called Zite. It’s a good article, I’m glad you highlighted it here. There is no bigger obstacle to progress in this debate than atheism. While you’re dealing with people who claim to believe that life, the universe and everything made itself by accident you are dealing with people who must overcome a serious case of cognitive dissonance before they will open their minds to the facts and evidence explained by Intelligent Design theory.
So much for atheists, I want to know why some theistic evolutionists have such a problem with Intelligent Design. After all, they don’t believe that life made itself by accident: they surely believe it was all part of a plan – a Grand Design, surely? Where is Nick Matzke when you need him?
KF, you can’t blame Ian for not seeing the tongue in cheek. Chance Ratcliff sounded EXACTLY like an atheistic evolutionist! Exaggeration required next time I think
Post #1 by Neil. deja vu “Wow! Just Wow!”
I’m just awestruck by the fact that 50,000+ generations of bacteria can’t even produce a new functional gene, but evolutionists believe throwing 400 million years of culled mutations at a fish will produce a human… It’s like living in the twilight zone. Are we really here debating this?
KF, tongue in cheek is not irreducibly complex. Most animals have them.
Chris Doyle, Ian Thompson is probably a creationist, in that he probably believes in irreducible complexity; see William J Murray above.
Must try harder, Chance Ratcliff: your posts on this thread have contributed more to the debate than the ones we are supposed to be taking seriously from the “free-will is an illusion and existence is meaningless” brigade!
Come on, really try and make it obvious that you are taking the micky
Lifepsy, spot on. How can you cite bacteria as the best evidence for neo-darwinism when they are virtually the same today as they have always been? Why did the less evolutionary-favoured eukaryotes turn into men by NS+RM when the best that bacteria could do was break a protein to acquire immunity from antibiotics (millions of years before there were any antibiotics!)?
In all seriousness, mousetraps are not irreducibly complex because you can exchange each of their parts with other parts that do the same job and still have a functional mousetrap. Plus it can be used as a tie clip. I used to be an intelligent design proponent until I saw that video.
You mean you can catch mice… with a tie clip? No way! Next you’ll be telling me that I can crush a bug by… dropping my iMac on it! If I ever see that, then that will prove once and for all that my iMac made itself by accident. Who needs Apple? I bet they don’t even exist. Just some sick con to make stupid people (who believe that specified functional complexity requires Intelligent Design) part with their money.
CR#37 really made me laugh.
Thanks
Isn’t it strange though how the usual voices that cry out in defense of evolution have gone rather silent on this topic.
I think it’s the simple way in which Barry puts it that makes it harder for them. You either engage him with a counter argument, or else say something rather silly because their really is only one line of argumentation you can follow.
I would like to hear some well laid out counter arguments on this. After all almost every pro-evolution site will have a section declaring how the evidence for Irreducible Complexity has been ‘utterly demolished’.
C’mon guys, Discuss. Please.
I think that a good example of irreducible complexity is random mutation and natural selection. A lot of the time in evolution both of those are required.
OT: Primate Phylogenetics Challenge Darwin’s Tree of Life – podcast
http://intelligentdesign.podom.....2_08-07_00
PeterJ, I hope I’ve disabused you of any notion that intelligence is required for information such as that in my posts above. If Miller is wrong, I don’t want to be right!
Stepwise evolution might be going out of fashion. I think the new fad is sudden de novo function and lots of horizontal gene transfer. At least that is the feeling I get reading about all the orphan genes they’re finding.
Check out this tick species
59% of the functional genes assessed have no trace of ancestry
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1.....5/abstract
10-30% orphans appears to be the average for other species.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23348040
Am I crazy or didn’t sequence homology used to be used as evidence for common descent?
This new direction solves the irreducible complexity problem, though. Now evolution can just skip all those bothersome incremental steps and simply generate the whole apparatus at once. Simple.
At least somebody gets it. Welcome to the “at least I’m not a creationist” club.
At least somebody gets it. Welcome to the “at least I’m not a creationist” club.
So I have a new idea for Ken Miller, building off of his tie-clip hypothesis. This time he can walk out with a Magician’s Bag labeled “HGT”, and pull out the fully functional mousetrap. Voila! That will shut those dumb creationists up.
computerist,
First you need to prove that it’s impossible to make a transition from one engine to another by simple substitutions, then you need to show that it’s impossible for random processes to do it, with natural selection. And don’t just go out to your garage and try it, and then just throw up your hands and say, “well I guess god did it.”
Barry:
I disagree. Alan is more of an oopsie dipsh!t in action.
Just sayin’…
‘Irreducible complexity poses a serious problem for NDE,…’
I think you are being too polite. An ‘insoluble’ problem, rather, isn’t it? Totally, utterly, ineluctably, axiomatically intractable, insoluble – and what ever else a thesaurus (or ‘thess – arus’, as some people are wont to pronounce it) might indicate.
It’s time they grew up and accepted plainly incontrovertible truths.
If our rebellious jackeens have made their general confession by Trinity Sunday, maybe there’ll be some progress.
I’ve just read mapou’s #6.
#6
‘Irreducible complexity kills Darwinian evolution dead. In a sane word, IC would have ended the evolution debate a long time ago. DE would have been recognized for what it is, a false religion. This would have meant the end of the teaching of evolution in our schools but, unfortunately, we don’t live in a sane world.’
Could have spared myself the effort of writing #48.
lifepsy and others, I don’t really know what to make of this following study as to getting a solid ORFan gene count/percentage out of it or if it will even be useful at all,, but it looks interesting,,, maybe one of you guys can make more sense out of it than I could and tell me if it is useful:
Here is what caught my eye;
Excerpt: We found 5,737 putative protein-coding genes that do not exist in the reference, whose protein-coding status is supported by homology to known proteins. On average 10% of these genes are located in the genomic regions devoid of annotated genes in 12 other catalogs. Our statistical analysis showed that these ORFs are unlikely to occur by chance.
http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0054210
The name of the article is: Finding Protein-Coding Genes through Human Polymorphisms
Chris Doyle @38:
Great example. I’m stealing that from you and using it from now on.
No. Just a sick con to make stupid people (who believe that a fruit-shaped logo on the back is worth an extra $500) part with their money.
As Jack Sparrow was wont to say, “Sorry mate, couldn’t resist!”
BA77,
Well I am by no means an expert here, (anyone feel free to correct me) but from what I gather, they tested a dozen different racial groups of people for genetic polymorphisms(differences), and discovered a total of 5,737 novel genes that do not exist in the standard human genome reference.
Most of these share at least some overlapping codons with the reference genome, but on average, 10% (~500) of those novel genes exist in human genome regions that have not previously been annotated(identified) as having protein-coding regions, and do not overlap at all with other human sequences in the database. So it sounds like these are “within species” orphan genes, meaning they have no signal of ancestry even within other humans.
What’s also interesting is the comparison they did with 25 other non-human species…(Table 5)
If you look at the table you see the human genes had more similarity to the opossum, dog, rat, cow, and several other mammals than it did to a chimpanzee.
And the human genes were more closely related to a lizard, a frog, and three different species of fish, then it was to another mammal, the Panda.
Huge discrepancies like this seem to be common on a gene by gene basis… They justify it somehow by saying when you total it all up, we’re more related to rats than fish, I guess..
lol
Yep, no need for that antiquated stepwise stuff anymore. New genes “regularly appear” now.
Chance, re. 46:
You have the burden of proof on the wrong shoulders. It is the Darwinists who claim that the neo-Darwinian synthesis has been established, even that it is a “fact”. It is they who need to show how a bacterial flagellum (and other such complex systems) could have arisen by step by step Darwinian processes, including specific mutations with a calculation that they could have arisen within the probabilistic resources avaialable and a demonstration that each such mutation improved organismal fitness. Absent such a demonstration, Darwinism is no better than mere speculation. To my knowledge, so far no one has come close to such a demonstration.
And by the way, the system of the flagellum, to be useful to the organism has to include more than just the organ itself. The bacterium has to be able to control its operation so that it moves it in beneficial directions. This means that in addition to the flagellum itself, there need to be control mechanisms and sensing mechanisms present also.
I have never seen these neo-darwinists on here go so quiet on a topic as they have on this one. Surely, the weight of evidence is on their side? What with all the refutations the internet has to offer.
In fact I was fairly sure that it would be a mere formality for them to rubbish this post with all the evidence they have at hand. But it seems not.
lifepsy,,,
Wow lifepsy, This could be a very interesting turn of events! I wonder, besides racial groups, if these ORFan genes could possibly extend all the way down to the level of each individual??? That would just completely devastate the neo-Darwinian position (which seems to be a common occurrence these days!
)Thanks so much for ‘deciphering’ the paper for me lifepsy! ,,, Anyone else, who may have more experience in this area (gpuccio?), want to look at this paper and see if they can glean any more out of it?
Finding Protein-Coding Genes through Human Polymorphisms – 2013
http://www.plosone.org/article.....ne.0054210
OT: Russia finds ‘new bacteria’ in Antarctic lake – March 7, 2013
Excerpt: Russian scientists believe they have found a wholly new type of bacteria in the mysterious subglacial Lake Vostok in Antarctica, the RIA Novosti news agency reported on Thursday.,,,
Lake Vostok is the largest subglacial lake in Antarctica and scientists have long wanted to study its eco-system. The Russian team last year drilled almost four kilometres (2.34 miles) to reach the lake and take the samples. Bulat said that the interest surrounded one particular form of bacteria whose DNA was less than 86 percent similar to previously existing forms.,,,
“If this had been found on Mars everyone would have undoubtedly said there is life on Mars. But this is bacteria from Earth.”
http://phys.org/news/2013-03-r.....tml#ajTabs
Hi PeterJ,
“I have never seen these neo-darwinists on here go so quiet on a topic as they have on this one.”
That’s a testament to the quality of Barry’s post. It goes straight to the heart of the matter leaving no wriggle room for the “microbe-to-man-by-accident” brigade.
It really is very simple: any internet atheist – and be sure, Barry’s post has been well read by internet atheists – could come on here (posting under a false name if they’ve been banned before) and refute irreducible complexity in the terms Barry has laid out. The only reason they haven’t is because they are incapable of doing so: irreducible complexity truly is irrefutable.
Continued silence and/or evasion by our opponents confirms that fact.
ba77,
I think in the end the bacteria was found to be just a contamination. I quick search yielded: contamination
Nothing related but I though this was interesting: go rna go
All I ask of Darwinists is to show me how non-intelligence can give rise to intelligence…. How can an effect ever be greater than its cause?
Show me, then I’ll believe your stories!
Hahahahahahahahaha
If it’s not evolution its reversible evolution…. Man these guys crack me up!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....093424.htm
bw, thanks
As to,,
I would like to point out a few semi-related notes:
Apparently it takes a lots and lots of higher (re)education to deny this inherent ability:
Verse and music:
A real “eye-opener” post that demonstrates great skill in elucidation.
As I build my own catalog of ID information (which is probably about 0.001% of BA77′s
) The link to this post will be a five star entry !
F/N: Actually, there have been any number of UD original posts that objectors have tip-toed around until they could figure out a way to pull discussion off track through a red herring led away to a favourite strawman duly soaked in ad hominems and ready for lighting up to polarise, cloud and poison the atmosphere. The real difference is, that this thread has had a circle of supportive comments, which means that is will be hard to pull off track. So, one last trick — on track record — is to leave it alone, hoping it will fade away over the next few days as newer posts come up and be quietly forgotten. KF
F/N 2: I also think it would be wise for those who are ever so dismissive about analogies, to understand that a lot of induction builds on analogical comparisons, deemed relevant.
In the case of perhaps the most famous, the watchmaker, I have for several years found it ever so instructive that Darwinist dismissals centre on the watch vs stone in Ch I of Paley’s work, but skip over the self-replicating watch thought exercise in the second (as I have long clipped on here) — which was introduced exactly to address the objection that watches are poor analogies to living systems:
Of course, now that we have elucidated ever so much of the mechanisms involved in cell based life, the real problem with Paley’s analogy is that his machines were too simple!
Now, let us extend to a self-replicating car with an engine, and the point still stands.
KF
Lifespy, here is a semi-related note as to potentially finding ORFan genes at the individual level,,,
Hmmm? makes me wonder,,, and because there is such a great deal of variability that they found it wouldn’t surprise me too much if ORFans genes were also confirmed to the individual level.
Music,,,
kf @67:
Indeed. Payley’s watch analogy has never been adequately addressed by materialists, much less refuted.
The “but organisms self replicate” is such a joke of a response, but is the typical refrain. Thanks for reminding us that Payley already addressed it.
BA77,
There is emerging data on non-random mutations targeted to specific regions of the genome. And even enzymatic preference to causing mutations over non-mutations during recombination.
Makes me wonder if.. like epigenetic processes turning access to genes on and off.. there are also reverse-transcription type systems for writing in new genes that were totally absent from ancestor genomes, but predictably and non-randomly. Sort of a genome-plasticity where it can add new DNA code based on environment needs. I guess it would simply act like a non-random retrovirus.
BA77 and Lifepsy
There are two things I’m wondering about this study.
1) How did this effect the science of population genetics? If we found all these ORFan genes at the individual level, does that mean that there would have to a new evaluation?
2) If this non-random process of creating new DNA is valid, doesn’t it refute the claim that natural evolution has never been shown to create new body plans? After all, isn’t the blueprints of new body plans found in the DNA and if new DNA can be created then so can new body plans? Am I off on this?
Andre @62, your ‘reversible evolution’ (mite) paper made it up on ENV:
As well it seems some scientists who favor panspermia have published an ID peer-reviewed paper
And what objection can arch atheist Richard Dawkins possibly have to that ID paper?
JLAfan2001, as to:
Well seeing as Darwinists pretty much already ignore what population genetics is telling them,,,
This ORFan study is just icing on the cake,,,But, ignoring the fact that population genetics already falsifies neo-Darwinian evolution, IF ORFans are found at the individual level this, IMPO, would just dig the burial hole that much deeper for neo-Darwinism since the ORFans are apparently arising at a level far quicker than Natural Selection can have a chance to fixate them in a population. Moreover, there is the question, that lifepsy would be sure to ask, do the ORFans persist or are they merely a part of the phenotypic plasticity of a species? My bet is on the latter that the ORFans (whether at the individual or just ‘within the species’ level) are a part of phenotypic plasticity. (and if the origination of ORFan genes question gets pushed much further than phenotypic plasticity can handle, then, IMPO, one would be forced to appeal to a purely Theistic answer since front-loading would be exhausted as a source)
as to:
If Darwinists give up randomness their game is over as is any claim they have to the word ‘natural’! (‘non-randomness’ is exactly why James Shapiro, of natural genetic engineering fame, is getting such a cold shoulder from Darwinists),, moreover body plans are not encoded solely in DNA.
Here are a few notes on just how mysterious ‘body plan’ information is:
Bruce David:
“Run and tumble” is all that is needed. No steering and no planning. But it works! Animation here.
Alan Fox, re. 74:
In the text that accompanies the animation, the following two sentences appear:
“The runs tend to be longer when the cell senses an increase in the chemoattractant” and “When moving away from the attractant the tumbles become more frequent.”
This is exactly what I was referring to. The “sensing mechanism” is the cell’s ability to sense “an increase [or decrease] in the chemoattractant”, and the control mechanism is the ability to link the sensing of these into clockwise or counterclockwise rotation of the flagellum.
I didn’t know how precisely it worked (thank you for the link, by the way), but I knew that there had to be some kind of sensing mechanism that would indicate to the bacterium in which direction it would be beneficial to move linked some kind of control so that the flagellum could be utilized to propel it in that direction. Otherwise, the flagellum would be totally useless to the organism.
Addition to 75:
My point is that any Darwinian explanation of the emergence of the flagellum has to include an explanation of how the sensing and control mechanisms became available at the same time and in the same organism as the flagellum did. Otherwise, the existence of the flagellum would contribute a negative fitness to the cell due to energy being diverted to the construction and maintenance of a useless structure.
Alan Fox, master of the citation bluff, Scores! Again, it is a point for his opponents! Way to go, Alan! Keep up the good work!
Exactly. It’s random and unguided all the way down, from the random association of atoms into molecules, through the random assembly of molecules into proteins, to the random assemblage of proteins into clumps of proteins. No guidance is needed for any of this, and it’s obvious from “run and tumble” that the sensory control mechanisms are random also. Get a clue, creationists. Look at one of those “artificial intelligence” robots that run around and bump off of walls. How smart do they really look? Sheesh. It’s like saying that my Roomba is a product of intelligent design, when it barely does better than a bacterium. I’d like to see how well they do against a unicycle in the quarter mile. You know, chance assemblage of supposedly complex structures may be just about the most ridiculous idea on the face of the planet, but at least it’s not as stupid as pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. You guys are a joke.
Think about it, how much sophistication is really needed to implement “run and tumble”? That’s only two things: run, and tumble. Is that supposed to be irreducibly complex, creationists? First there is “run” then just add “tumble”. It would be one thing if Darwinism had a lot of explaining to do, but as we can see from Alan’s example, it sure doesn’t have to explain much does it?
Bruce David,
Look, if I were the one telling you that some mysterious, obscure, unknown force can build numerous complex and intricate designs exhibiting technological sophistication on a nano-miniature scale, then maybe I would have the burden of proof; but since I’m not, you have it.
Eric Anderson,
That’s not how evolution works. It works by–
Well if you don’t know I’m not going to tell you. Obviously you don’t understand, or you would believe it. I’m not going to do your homework for you, look it up.
Link about evolution
The information is out there if you creationists would just bother looking for yourself. How many scientific articles mention evolution, and how many mention god? This point was brilliantly driven home by William J. Murray above.
I’m sick of this thread. I’m going back to youtube where the real debate is happening.
Press Release:
Chance Ratcliff’s tongue is so intricately enmeshed into his cheek that a team of surgeons, headed by none other than Dr. Ben Carson, has been assembled to effect a separation. The procedure is anticipated to take more than 18 hours. Success is estimated to be less than 75%. Your thoughts and prayers are much appreciated.
Can you please find someone who is not a creationist please? I want my surgeon to be thinking about Science, not irreducible complexity.
JLAfan2001
Well it just makes the neo-darwinian model more ridiculous than it already is. It has always been described as a very gradual process that builds complex structures by tiny, individually beneficial increments. Orphan genes present a picture of entire functional genes, appearing rapidly, so rapidly that they leave no trace of ancestry behind them. Orphans on average make up 20% of genes in a species… so if you have, say, 20,000 protein-coding genes in species X, than that’s 4,000 orphan genes, each thousands of base pairs in length, that have appeared since the species last supposed divergence from an extant sister group.
This is a good overview article.
New Scientist – Orphan Genes 2013 Helen Pilcher
http://ccsb.dfci.harvard.edu/w.....n_2013.pdf
How Can There Be Orphan Genes? 2012 Ken Weiss – Professor of Anthropology and Genetics
http://molecularevolutionforum.....genes.html
It’s one of those rare moments when evolutionists are candidly admitting neo-darwinism doesn’t make any sense.. But ad-hoc, orphans are already being chalked up to a combination of gene duplication and frameshift fixation, de novo functionalization, horizontal gene transfer, ‘rapid evolution’, etc.
Also, from the perspective of being a scientific theory, orphan genes really push the non-falsifiable nature of evolution into the spotlight. Darwinists are pretty much sending the message that no genetic discovery, no matter how shocking, could possibly overturn their hypothesis.
Well, as BA77 pointed out.. it’s not really about finding evidence of rapidly introduced function. Evolutionists/Atheists need the individual changes to be random/blind. They can’t have large amounts of function appearing *before* it did its hypothetical walk-about on the fitness landscape and became fixated by natural selection. That is basically antithesis to the whole theory of evolution.
Anyways, those are some of my thoughts on the subject…
Also of interest:
ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson
http://vimeo.com/17132544
edit: …that have appeared since the species last supposed divergence from the last common ancestor of an extant sister group.”
Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything?
Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution.
Evolution explains everything.
Chance my man, I give you the Most Faithful Darwinist of the Year award!
You are amazing!
“Look here, there are no irreducibly complex biological systems; besides, Darwinian evolution is perfectly capable of building them.”
If you could actually prove all your bold claims, that would be something!
Good luck!
TJ,
I’m fairly certain Chance was being facetious. Having a little fun.
WJM:
Brilliant! If I may add to the list:
Astonishingly complex, optimal and beautiful design: Evolution
Alleged erroneous and dumb design: Evolution.
I am no biologist and rarely comment here; I prefer to read and be enlightened, informed and challenged in my thinking. But, as a sidenote to this conversation, isn’t irreducible complexity a phenomenon that occurs at more than the molecular level? Couldn’t one argue that sexuality/gender is an irreducibly complex structure? I know that Darwinists have “just so” stories for the emergence of sex, but from a realistic, empirical standpoint, doesn’t it stand to reason that it is better explained by ID? Just my two cents!
OldArmy94:
Yes. And true, darwinism cannot explain sexual reproduction.
Hi,Joe,
You said, “…darwinism cannot explain sexual reproduction.”
What explains it?
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaaVbWD3USI" Sexual Reproduction Explained
Sexual Reproduction Explained.
OldArmy94:
This is an interesting idea. I cannot think of any reason why not. If you remove one part the system doesn’t function.
–
WJM, thanks for that link
Daniel King:
Only something with planning, forethought and purpose.
Planning and forethought because you would know that if you just keep doubling the number of chromosomes, that the cell wouldn’t be viable after a few generations as the nucleus would be too big and “explode”. Therefor you would need to have the process of reducing the number of chromosomes that each parent passes down. That process, which darwinism cannot explain (it just happened isn’t an explanation), is meiosis.
Planning, forethought and purpose because you would need to package all of the non-material information into one cell such that it will create the same type of organism that the parents were, AND you would need the material hardware to carry that out.
We don’t have an explanation for it, therefore the “pink unicorn of hypleadies” is the best explanation.
Someone should start a new thread: The Rash of Sarcasm.
Joe, Darwinism “explains” other stuff, therefore it is the best explanation for the arrival of sexual reproduction.
No, guys, Chance is right.
Never fear, Horizontal Gene Transfer is here!
As any fule kno, you don’t have to write a research paper by typing it all in yourself, you can just copy and paste!
William J Murray, I just quoted post 85 in an on-going debate about evolution elsewhere: it’s a cracker, thank-you!
Evolution: falsied time and again. At least it would be if it wasn’t non-falsifiable!
Bruce David:
The E. coli bacterium feeds by absorbing nutrients such as sugars from the human gut where it lives. It seems reasonable that being able to maintain itself in an optimum position in the gut, where the constant flow from mouth to anus would otherwise tend to eliminate it, is advantageous. For the “run and tumble” system to work, all the data the bacterium needs is the change in nutrient level, whether it is rising or falling. It has three responses. Do nothing, run or tumble. There is no directional response. No steering. No control. It can remain going with the flow, it can swim in the direction it is pointing or it can reorient itself (tumble) so that it can then swim in (most likely) a different direction.
Alan Fox:
Of course there is control. At a minimum there has to be controls between those three states.
Run and Tumble –
JonathanM has an article up on EnV highlighting chemotaxis function in e.coli with a video presentation. It’s just run and tumble all the way down.
RE: my #102 on Run and Tumble,
JonathanM’s EnV article about chemotaxis
The chemotaxis video