“No Major Conceptual Leaps”

_{William Dembski

March 26, 2009

Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I periodically get emails from individuals who are sympathetic to ID but then read Francis Collins’ THE LANGUAGE OF GOD and find themselves wondering what to think. Thus I recently received the following email:

Dear Dr. Dembski,

I … have read, I think, three of your books — the most recent “The Design Revolution”. I have been thoroughly convinced of your position in these books.

I was encouraged by a friend of many years, who was Professor of Science at … for 40 years … to consider the book by Francis S. Collins — “The Language of God”, which I have just read. This was in exchange for his reading “The Design Revolution.” I’ve not heard from him after reading it.

In “The Language of God”, there is this statement on pp 191-192:

“A particularly damaging crack in the foundation of Intelligent Design theory, arises from recent revelations about the poster child of ID, the bacterial flagellum. The argument that it is irreducibly complex rests upon the presumption that the individual subunits of the flagellum could have had no prior useful function of some other sort, and therefore the motor could not have been assembled by recruiting such components in a step-wise fashion, driven by the forces of natural selection. Recent research has fundamentally undercut this position.”

Assuming that you have read this statement, I’m sure you have a ready answer.

What would be your response to thiis?

Thank you.

I replied to him that Collins makes this statement without citation, and that Collins can’t justify it — that he’s “bluffing.” I suggested that he contact Collins himself and also look at the following piece that I posted here at UD some time back: response to Philip Klebba.

This person then did go ahead and contact Collins. Collins responded by sending him the Pallen-Matzke review article on the flagellum (Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, “From The Origin of Species to the Origin of Bacterial Flagella,” NATURE REVIEWS MICROBIOLOGY 4 (Oct 2006): 784-790.

This paper is remarkable for what it demands (or fails to demand) of evolutionary theory. The key passage is this: “designing an evolutionary model to account for the origin of the ancestral flagellum requires no great conceptual leap.” Of course it doesn’t — one can always imagine some way that natural selection might have brought about the system in question. In the Origin of Species, Darwin played the same game: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” To this Darwin immediately added: “But I can find out no such case.”

Requiring no great conceptual leaps or being unable to find a case where Darwin’s theory could not possibly apply is not the same thing as providing evidence. Sure, the proteins in the flagellum may have homologues that serve functions in other systems. And we can imagine that the parts were co-opted over time by selection to produce the flagellum. But so what? We can imagine lots of things. Where’s the evidence that it happened that way? And why isn’t the exquisite engineering that we observe in the flagellum evidence for ID?

Collins, Pallen, Matzke and all other evolutionists who hold that a Darwinian explanation of the bacterial flagellum has been adequately confirmed are bluffing.

Comments

As two coordinated mutations cannot effectively occur, the numerous coordinated changes from bear to whale are, shall we say, astronomically remote?
Extremely remote, given that no one today thinks whales descended from bears.madsen_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

Charles Darwin found as plausable:
In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
Origin of Species, 1st Ed. Ch IV p 184 (1859) Dissenter expresses a few difficulties with Darwin's hypothesis:
a few words-baleen, blowhole, blubber, fins, fluke, giving birth and suckling underwater, echo location, physiology of deep diving, whale song, migration navigation. AND all of this to be achieved by natural selection acting on random mutations, the latter of which, as has been discussed, produces only degeneration. Downhill genetic entropy may occasionally be helpful or at least not harmful, as in sightless cave dwelling fish or degenerate and sick haemoglobin which confers resistance to malaria, but random mutation does not build new structures, nor is there the slightest evidence or sound theoretical basis that it ever could. But Darwin saw no difficulty with bears turning into whales. May I suggest that this was because he was blind? Blinded by his infatuation with his beloved 'theory'.

Dissenter is a General Medical Practitioner (GP) with a special interest in skin disease, particularly the use of dermoscopy for the early detection of melanoma skin cancer.
Each of those "small" changes requires numerous effective mutations. Behe shows that the limit of even two necessary mutations occurring together is the practical limit. See Edge of Evolution. See Behe's blog, discussing: "Waiting longer for two mutations" As two coordinated mutations cannot effectively occur, the numerous coordinated changes from bear to whale are, shall we say, astronomically remote?DLH_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Thats actually Re 46 not 41.Mack G._{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Re 41: If flagella were arbitrary structures that served no purpose I might be inclined to agree, but seeing as how they serve very distinct purposes, I find it hard to believe that the proteins they are comprised of just happened to stumble into their functional structures by chance on more than one occasion.Mack G._{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Mack G.,
Its preposterous enough to think of all the proteins that make up the flagellum coming together functionally by chance once let alone twice.
Couldn't the fact that several different types of flagella exist be used to argue for the opposite conclusion? At least three distinct types are known to exist. How many other potential flagellum-type structures could have arisen but didn't? That's unknown---but we definitely do know there's more than one way to do it. Therefore, perhaps it's not so remarkable that flagella of some sort or another arose.madsen_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

mynym asks:
This is just a thought experiment about biological observations. If you were able to design organisms how would you go about communicating yourself as a singular/common designer to those studying your creations while avoiding the notion that they came about by a process of common descent?
Easy. Use common features (and common genes), but distribute them in a way that precludes the inference of a nested hierarchy. Darwinian evolution predicts a nested hierarchy; common design does not.skeech_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

PaulN:
The real test is whether the same bacteria would/could regain its original functional complexity if it were re-introduced to its original environment, which is another selective pressure on its own.
A note on “Dollo’s Law”: once a trait is lost through degradation of the genes required, the sequence of mutations required to bring it back into existence is too improbable to occur. "Can Evolution Reverse Itself?” http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/547686/steveO_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Do you stand behind that statement? Irreducible complexity can be observed to be and is already known to be linked to the impact of intelligence on matter, so Darwinian attempts to reduce it to blind processes like natural selection are precluded by the evidence. And what ever gave you the idea that Darwinian evolution is compatible with all possible biological observations? Nothing gave me that idea. It is to Darwin's credit that Darwinian evolution is not the equivalent of the hypothetical goo typical to "evolution" in general. However, much of what he specified has been falsified and what has been verified has revealed possible edges to evolution so it seems that notions about creative and progressive "evolution" are generally returning hypothetical goo. Ever hear of Haldane’s rabbit? Despite the claims that some make about falsification/verification with respect to hypotheses of evolution in general a rabbit would be discarded if possible and if not then the way that evolutionists imagine things about the past would simply evolve. There would be more claims about "Much earlier than previously thought..." and so on. This type of pattern is already evident because “evolution” is still generally unfalsifiable hypothetical goo despite Darwin's best efforts. Has a “Darwinist” ever told you that toads could give birth to giraffes? Oddly, Darwinists sometimes cite facts which would greatly help hypotheses of evolution as if they would not fit into their mythological narratives of naturalism. Maintaining a philosophy of naturalism is their main concern, even if they are theists. That's why they're so upset with Behe and not Miller, although both are theists one questions philosophic naturalism and naturalistic narratives while the other does not. This is just a thought experiment about biological observations. If you were able to design organisms how would you go about communicating yourself as a singular/common designer to those studying your creations while avoiding the notion that they came about by a process of common descent?mynym_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

The fact that prokaryotic/bacterial cells and eukaryotic cells have flagella that have different structures yet serve similar purposes makes it all the more unlikely that any random, chance driven mechanism could account for either. The two are composed of different substances-flagellin in prokaryotes and tubulin microtubules in eukaryotes-and eukaryotic flagella have a plasma membrane while prokaryotic flagella do not. Its preposterous enough to think of all the proteins that make up the flagellum coming together functionally by chance once let alone twice.Mack G._{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

iconofid @38, When an increase in complexity arrives in that system I'm sorry, I really don't mean to badger, but the lack of real evidence for these statements is what prevents me from going with the rest of the scenario. Are there any examples that you can refer me to in order to shut me up? I mean when we already have a lot of trouble proving any new novel functional complexity in fruit flies that have undergone grossly increased mutation rates across a vast amount of generations, receiving your statement above becomes difficult.PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

iconofid: I am no expert of fish blood clotting, but I do know the human. First of all, you have to consider that mammals blood clotting is formed by two different systems: the tissue (extrinsic) system, which was certainly the oldest one, and the contact (intrinsic) system, which appeared later. If I rememebr well, Behe speaks of the first, and not of the second. However, here are a couple of quotes from a recent paper about the puffer fish and the evolution of blood clotting. First the abstract: "The blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes, has been reconstructed on the basis of orthologs of genes for mammalian blood clotting factors being present in its genome. As expected, clotting follows the same fundamental pattern as has been observed in other vertebrates, even though genes for some clotting factors found in mammals are absent and some others are present in more than one gene copy. All told, 26 different proteins involved in clotting or fibrinolysis were searched against the puffer fish genome. Of these, orthologs were found for 21. Genes for the ‘‘contact system’’ factors (factor XI, factor XII, and prekallikrein) could not be identified. On the other hand, two genes were found for factor IX and four for factor VII. It was evident that not all four factor VII genes are functional, essential active-site residues having been replaced in two of them. A search of the genome of a urochordate, the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis, did not turn up any genuine orthologs for these 26 factors, although paralogs andor constituent domains were evident for virtually all of them." And then the initial quote: "Blood clotting follows the same fundamental pattern in all vertebrates, from the early diverging jawless fishes to mammals (1). In all cases the principal event is the thrombin-catalyzed conversion of a soluble plasma protein, fibrinogen, into an insoluble polymeric fibrin clot. Thrombin is a serine protease, itself the product of a series of proteolytic events. It is well established that all groups of fish (cyclostomes, elasmobranches, and teleosts) generate thrombin by pathways involving vitamin K-dependent factors, exhibit factor XIII-dependent fibrin crosslinking, and manifest a fibrinolysis that is inhibited by the same agents as inhibit fibrinolysis in mammals (1–3). In contrast, thrombin-generated fibrin clotting has not been reported in nonvertebrate chordates or other invertebrate animals." That looks like IC to me...gpuccio_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Gil: first of all thank you for your perfect statement about cooption: "As for the “co-option” of naturally-selectable parts to create an IC system, this is just a totally made up, pie-in-the-sky fantasy, with no foundation in evidence or even trivial logic." No one could say it better. And "pie-in-the-sky fantasy" is still a generous understatement! At first, when I read about the cooption "argument", I immediately thought "They cannot mean that seriously!" But unfortunately, they did and they still do. By the way, we have briefly addressed the flagellum controversy in the "FAQ" (it should be at point 33). In case someone is interested...gpuccio_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

StephenB "If I remember Behe’s argument correctly (and it’s been a while since I’ve read Darwin’s Black Box), one of the things he looked at was the literature related to the blood clotting cascade—a system which is relatively well-understood and which has been extensively studied. He noted that in this series of many, many steps, if one was subtracted, removed, changed, or switched with another, the whole system failed. Thus, the system is IC. Subtracting components is easy. Subtracting components without damaging (or killing) the system is what’s the trick. On a side note, one of the reasons I find Behe and his arguments so convincing is that he talks about real systems, with real research histories and what they actually can and cannot do. Many of Behe’s critics counter with high-level prognosticating about stuff like co-option and how “plausible” it is.. Thanks, Stephen. I was hoping someone would mention that very system. In us, reducing the bloodclotting system causes severe disadvanteges, but in our ancestors, according to evolutionary theory, that cannot have been the case. Further up the thread I asked whether enthusiasts for IC had ever checked out whether a system that was IC in one organism existed in a reduced version in another. This is one such. Fish have a reduced version of it, and simpler jawless fish, an even further reduced version. It has evolved with our lineage. When an increase in complexity arrives in that system, it would initially have been merely advantageous, but not indispensible. It could enable a further advantage to develope later, like an increase in blood pressure in land animals. When that's there, take away the non-fish feature in the blood clotting cascade, and you've got problems. So, something that is IC in modern organisms is not necessarily so in their ancestors, when it is surrounded by different features.iconofid_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Pendulum, There are many, many experiments that show "evolution" happening when bacterial cells develop resistances to antibodies or harmful chemicals, but at the same time show that there's normally a costly tradeoff in other functions. My argument is not whether or not said bacterial cells could regain their original functions by increasing in complexity, but whether or not they actually do. Again, you could come up with as many theoretical situations as you want on how things could happen, but whether or not they reflect what happens in vigorous empirical lab experiments is a different story. So basically what I was getting at was this: If you can test and show functional adaptation via reductions in complexity in bacterial cells in lab experiments, then should you not be able to test the opposite(increases in complexity) by reversing the process? I see this as the minimum requirement in proving Darwinian mechanisms because in this specific scenario, you might still have the information available to transition back to a similar form of functionality. The next step is to show how a biological system can increase in functional complexity without already having the information to do so.PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

PaulN @ 33, Sorry, I don't follow your argument at all. Let's say an animal that could see in the near UV (as birds do) lost that ability when for whatever reasons of survival its ancestors become nocturnal. (kind of like the cavefish example, but less dramatic.) A gene has become a pseudo-gene. Some time later, a descendant species is back in the daylight, and there is strong selective pressure for better vision. Sure, a mutation or two or three could come along and repair that pseudo-gene, but I think it is actually easier for a duplication and exaptation sequence to deliver the goods. In the duplication/exaptation scenario, the new stretch of DNA is always doing something useful. Even if you did recover function in the pseudo-gene, it might not be exactly the original function. I just don't see what you're asking for as a 'test' or 'proof' is testing or proving much. I should say that I've never read any research on the prevalence of pseudo-genes returning to function, or how you could tell that a functioning gene was once a pseudo-gene. But I have seen research explaining that random walks can explain the gradual increase in the maximal complexity of species.Pendulum_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

iconofid,
A very simplified illustration would be: Characteristic A arrives, a large feature that gives the organism some advantage. overtime, mutations add B,C,D,E,and F to A, all of which would have been useless on their own, but which improve the function of A. Then, a rare double mutation adds G and H, useless on their own, but capable of combining with B through F in a way that improves the system, and renders A obsolete.
I very very much understand what you're saying, and I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate, but again I'm asking for empirical proof of said illustrations and not just more elaborations or reiterations of the illustrations. I say this because Irreducible complexity is an empirical observation, illustrations and imaginations of various conceived Darwinian pathways are not. I believe this goes back to the central theme of this whole post.
I’m trying to illustrate why the fact that subtraction happens makes IC useless as an attack on evolutionary theory.
This does indeed clarify alot now that you mention your intentions =). But in respect to what you've stated so far, doesn't the fact that subtraction happens kinda put it's own damper on evolution when you don't witness novel additions?PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

iconofid @ 28, We can be sure, for example, that you couldn’t evolve an elephant from a sponge in a few hundred thousand generations, so an elephant in the Pre-Cambrian would blow out the modern theory as an explanation for natural history and the origin of species. I'd be careful here. Nilsson's famous calculation for time necessary to form a camera eye from a light sensitive spot was less than half a million years. The point is not that it couldn't happen, but rather that we don't know any natural set of selection pressures that could make it happen.Pendulum_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Pendulum, Sorry, the real test of what? If cavefish lose their eyes or icefish lose their hemoglobin in order to survive, what do they care for the past or the future? The real test of an organism's ability to increase in complexity to adapt, or re-adapt in this case to an selective pressures in an environment. I mean this should be the minimal level of proof required, because the genetic information for regaining that original complexity might still be available to draw upon or reshuffle, however how can you explain systems that can increase in functional complexity where the information isn't present in the first place, requiring completely new DNA code?PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

PaulN First off scaffolding is, as of our current position in understanding biological systems, completely theoretical in the biological realm is it not? Have we ever witnessed modern cells or biological systems with scaffolding? This would verify such a clue in the first place right? Scaffolding is a misleading term, although its useful in this respect, and I should have been clearer. Organisms do not, of course, deliberately put up scaffolding to build complex features! Anything can become scaffolding, and would only be described as such in retrospect. A very simplified illustration would be: Characteristic A arrives, a large feature that gives the organism some advantage. overtime, mutations add B,C,D,E,and F to A, all of which would have been useless on their own, but which improve the function of A. Then, a rare double mutation adds G and H, useless on their own, but capable of combining with B through F in a way that improves the system, and renders A obsolete. A becomes "dead wood" and slightly disadvantageous as such, so disappears, and we are left with an inexplicable IC system. It's A that we would call scaffolding, with hindsight. I'm trying to illustrate why the fact that subtraction happens makes IC useless as an attack on evolutionary theory. Sorry about that!iconofid_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

PaulN @ 24, The real test is whether the same bacteria would/could regain its original functional complexity if it were re-introduced to its original environment, which is another selective pressure on its own. Sorry, the real test of what? If cavefish lose their eyes or icefish lose their hemoglobin in order to survive, what do they care for the past or the future?Pendulum_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Rob
Dr. Dembski, thanks for the clarification. So when you speak of imagining some way that natural selection might have brought about the system in question, you’re not speaking of imagining a plausible way.
I can't speak for Dr. Dembski, but there is a huge difference between conceivable and plausible. The bluff so often made by Darwinists is to conflate the two giving the appearance that any imagined evolutionary scenario is the actual scenario.DonaldM_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

mynym The real question is what can’t evolution do and where is its edge? Ironically it shouldn’t be up to reformers like Behe to go on a search for the edge of evolution, edges should have been specified by proponents long ago. What sort of biological observations would falsify or limit “evolution”? If it can add, subtract, keep things the same and explains all biological observations then how can it be verified? On current knowledge, "specifying" the "edge" of evolution would be impossible. However, I think you're talking about its limits, something in which evolutionists firmly believe. We can be sure, for example, that you couldn't evolve an elephant from a sponge in a few hundred thousand generations, so an elephant in the Pre-Cambrian would blow out the modern theory as an explanation for natural history and the origin of species. Michael Behe seems to make the mistake of viewing evolution as having a target. I'll try to explain. If we looked at the original species of cat, the one from which all the family descends, and asked what the chances of its genome evolving into that of a tiger over, say, 12 million years, the answer would be "extremely slim, or remote". But looking from the present, we know that one group of that cat species did become tigers. They could have become one of the other extant species of cats, but there's a whole, uncountable field of possible cats that have never existed to consider, and they could have become those as well. So, when you give evolution a specific long term target, it's not going to hit it. When we look at the necessary mutations to get our proto-cat to a tiger, they will seem improbable as a sequence, but think of all the other sequences that didn't happen, and we see that "improbable" doesn't come into it. So, it's easy to see edges in evolution if you view it as having to head somewhere specific. But it doesn't do that.iconofid_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Also, I've seen video of a college professor in evolutionary biology say "With enough time evolution can change ANYTHING into ANYTHING." I would definitely suggest you search for yourself and make sure that no evolutionary biologists make such statements before calling the cards on that one.PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Satire works best when it bears some resemblance to what is being satirized.skeech_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Skeetch,
Can you name a single evolutionary biologist that holds either of these strawman positions?
If you gave me enough time on google I probably could(I'm at work right now believe it or not) =P. But obviously(or not) I was exercising satire when I made those statements, so I wouldn't take them too seriously. However don't think for a second that IDers and their arguments haven't been viewed in that light by much of the Darwinist population.PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

iconofid, I suppose you're absolutely right about selection for function instead of complexity, I let my satirical side get the best of me. But now that you've got me turning the gears in my critical thinking...
Two things though, Paul. Firstly, the removal of components once they’re obsolete doesn’t necessarily decrease the complexity. It’s like taking away the scaffolding when you’ve finished building the house, and this is one of the clues as to how IC systems can form.
First off scaffolding is, as of our current position in understanding biological systems, completely theoretical in the biological realm is it not? Have we ever witnessed modern cells or biological systems with scaffolding? This would verify such a clue in the first place right? And as far as reducing complexity to increase function I agree with the premise, however I think there's a catch. One example would be certain strains of bacteria reducing in complexity to gain antibacterial resistance/immunity under selection pressures. The real test is whether the same bacteria would/could regain its original functional complexity if it were re-introduced to its original environment, which is another selective pressure on its own. I don't disagree with the reduction of complexity for function, because we see this all the time, I argue against the increase in complexity for function in some cases where an increase is required. If the bacterial flagellum did indeed follow the TTSS, then that would logically require an increase in complexity. The proof is in the pudding. As of right now the pudding cup is empty.
We mirror evolution in that respect. If we can simplify a machine and get the same result, it’s cheaper and has less parts that can go wrong.
Actually we mirror improvements in intelligent design in that respect.PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

PaulN wrote:
Because natural selection is the perfect ratchet that hugs every microscopic detail of the bolt its turning and never, EVER slips or changes direction. You’re delusional and a creationist if you believe otherwise.
...and...
But then again you’re a creationist and delusional and irrational if you believe random mutation could EVER reduce something in complexity without natural selection terminating it with extreme prejudice.
Paul, Can you name a single evolutionary biologist that holds either of these strawman positions?skeech_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

mynym, You wrote:
IC doesn’t preclude evolution, it precludes Darwinism.
Do you stand behind that statement? And what ever gave you the idea that Darwinian evolution is compatible with all possible biological observations? Ever hear of Haldane's rabbit? Has a "Darwinist" ever told you that toads could give birth to giraffes?skeech_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

iconofid, PaulN: Wait a minute, you have a tail and scales? Man you lucked out. I’m stuck with bunny ears and a duck bill. Doesn’t quite go over well with the ladies, and I also have an inexplicable attraction to lakes, docks, and people with bread in their hand. You have my deepest sympathy. We have only the designer to blame. But then again you’re a creationist and delusional and irrational if you believe random mutation could EVER reduce something in complexity without natural selection terminating it with extreme prejudice. I wasn't suggesting that the reduced version came second. Two things though, Paul. Firstly, the removal of components once they're obsolete doesn't necessarily decrease the complexity. It's like taking away the scaffolding when you've finished building the house, and this is one of the clues as to how IC systems can form. Secondly, evolution being a march towards complexity for the sake of complexity is a common misconception. Selection is for function, and increased complexity is only selected for when advantageous. Decreases in complexity could also be advantageous. We mirror evolution in that respect. If we can simplify a machine and get the same result, it's cheaper and has less parts that can go wrong. (Perhaps this isn't the best place to use a design analogy!!)iconofid_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT}

Sorry, forgot to close that blockquote tag.PaulN_{March 26, 2009
March
03
Mar
26
26
2009
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply