Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Irreducible Complexity: the primordial condition of biology

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

nutshell

In 1996, Lehigh University professor of biochemistry, Michael Behe, published his first book Darwin’s Black Box, which famously advanced the concept of irreducible complexity (IC) to prominent status in the conversation of design in biology. In his book, Professor Behe described irreducible complexity as: A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

In illustrating his point, Behe used the idea of a simple mousetrap — with its base and spring and holding bar — as an example of an IC system, where the removal of any of these parts would render the mousetrap incapable of its intended purpose of trapping a mouse. Further, he provided examples of biological IC systems; each one dependent on several distinct parts in order to accomplish its task. Behe’s point in all this was that ALL the parts of the mouse trap are simultaneously necessary in order for a mousetrap to trap mice. And in a biological sense, if critical functions require several parts, then those functions would not occur until the various parts became available.  Read More

 

Comments
EugeneS: There is no circularity here. You can measure complexity and make a probabilistic inference to design if the measured amount of functional complexity in a given configuration is beyond a practical plausibility threshold. Didn't say it was circular. The claim that something requires consciousness doesn't mean it isn't consistent with physicalism, as physicalism implies that consciousness supervenes on the physical. As for the empirical aspects of life, the claim that it requires consciousness is contradicted by the evidence. Mung: People continue to deny the cell is a semiotic system and they continue to deny that anything actually is IC and they do so for obvious reasons. RDFish @8: I stopped by, and was unsurprised to find that you write a great deal about semiosis and irreducible complexity – aspects of biology that I for one have never had any trouble accepting. -- ETA: assuming a cladistic definition of fish.Zachriel
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
Is that all you’ve got? A second grade level “neener neener neener”? Sad.
Come on Barry. RDFish deserves more credit than you're giving him. He also has a third grade level response.Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
In the context of the current debate, the whole materialism/physicalism thing is a red herring. People continue to deny the cell is a semiotic system and they continue to deny that anything actually is IC and they do so for obvious reasons. Heck, I can't even get ID critics to agree that the genetic code is a code.Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Excellent article! And thanks having that link to David Abel's newest book. I was not aware of it. Primordial Prescription: The Most Plaguing Problem of Life Origin ScienceMung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Zachriel, There is no circularity here. You can measure complexity and make a probabilistic inference to design if the measured amount of functional complexity in a given configuration is beyond a practical plausibility threshold.EugeneS
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Darwinists like RDFish, the polite but devious and deceiving kind that wastes your time with a mountain of crap, are the worst kind of Darwinist trolls. RDFish is lucky that this site is not mine. I would have banned his arse ages ago. I have no patience for Darwinist trolls. Just one man's opinion. :-DMapou
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
RDFish, Living organisms can be described as decision making systems. Decision making is one of the properties of life which set it apart from non-life. From experience, decision making systems themselves can only plausibly be a (not necessarily immediate) result of conscious decision making. Naturalism is inadequate in explaining the origin of decision making systems because it employs only non-telic causation that could not care less about pragmatic utility of decisions. And yet, living systems are undeniably telic. Naturalism is a bankrupt.EugeneS
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
gpuccio: My best suggestion would be “reductionist naturalism”, defined as follows: “The assumption that everything that exists (nature?) can be explained in terms of the laws of physics (or of science) as we understand them at present." Of course, not all naturalists are reductionist, or even think that humans know much about the natural world. gpuccio: Design is always, empirically, the origin of complex functional information, of semiosis, and of irreducible complexity. You define design as the result of conscious planning. Then you claim that only design can empirically account for complex functional information. This presupposes that consciousness doesn't have a material basis, and that you are correct concerning your empirical claim.Zachriel
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
UB, A very good OP! Yes, I agree, they must apologize to Dr Behe. They must have the guts to acknowledge he was right. Will they? I laughed at Ken Miller's 'counter-argument' of using the mousetrap as a catapult when I learned about it. There must be an intelligence to decide to switch the function anyway. As GP puts in in another thread, intelligence may be 'frozen', but it is intelligence all the same, not an accident. They are constantly trying to safeguard themselves by saying 'we don't yet know'. You are quite right.EugeneS
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
1) What do you mean by “materialism”?
The standard and accepted definitions will do.
2) How does anything you’ve argued regarding irreducible complexity or semiotics in biology undermine materialism (or physicalism, if that is what you mean)?
Materialism doesn't have a testable mechanism capable of producing IC.
3) What exactly does it mean to explain something by reference to “design”?
The same thing it means for archaeologists, forensic science and SETI. Namely that some intentional agency was required to produce what we are investigating.
4) Why do you think that undermining evolutionary or abiogenetic theories somehow provides support for “design”?
Science 101- science mandates that all design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance explanations. And when you divide the categories into design or not then eliminating the "not" side adds credence to the "design" side. Again, science 101
I just think we can fully explain how music boxes operate without invoking anything but the classical physical causes.
Except there aren't any known classical physical causes that produce thoughts, ie immaterial information. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
RDFish:
You do mention what it is you are arguing against – namely “materialism” – but you never say anything about what you think “materialism” entails.
Learn how to use the internet and look it up for yourself.
Now, what your evidence really argues against is “evolutionary theory” and theories of “abiogenesis” rather than materialism.
Both of those are aspects of materialism. BTW there isn't any "evolutionary theory". cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
UB: If I had to suggest one example of irreducible complexity in biology, I would definitely mention cell differentiation in metazoa. Indeed, although we still do not understand it, and we lack a lot of fundamental parts of the process, we already know that it is a global process involving at least: a) The genome: genes, promoters, enhancers, and many other parts b) The genome methylation c) The histone modifications, configuring the histone code with all its complexities d) The transcription factor system e) The 3d structure and nuclear localization of chromatin f) The chromatin remodeling system g) Post transcriptional modifications, like alternative splicing e) Post translational modifications f) The whole complex system of transcriptional regulation mediated by non coding RNAs of all types: miRNAs. lincRNAs, and so on. and: g) Whatever we still don't understand (and believe me, it's a lot, and probably more than we can imagine). All these parts are complex, and they interact in an extremely complex way to determine a multiplicity of different differentiation programs, in a context that is partly deterministic and partly stochastic, but always strictly regulated. Of course, there are redundancies (indeed, redundancy is one of the complex aspects of the system), and some parts in some contexts can be "lost", and the system still work. But, even with those exceptions, the system as a whole is an example of wonderful irreducible complexity.gpuccio
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
Thanks GP. RD's questions are a sideshow. What I think about the concept of materialism, or the concept of design, or the concept of tennis shoes has nothing whatsoever to do with RD backing up the claims he's made. He doesn't back his claims because he can't.Upright BiPed
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
02:36 AM
2
02
36
AM
PDT
UB (and RDFish): UB: very good article. Great balance and objectivity of thought. My compliments! I am not a great fun of discussing with RDFish (it has been really tiring to do that in the past, and scarcely constructive). However, as he asks (to you) precise questions, and I love precise questions, I will try to answer (for me, obviously). Let's see if some good discussion can ensue). So, RDFish, here are my personal answers: 1) What do you mean by “materialism”? I can agree with you that, as matter has not been the only component of physical theories for a long time, the term "materialism" is not the most accurate. You suggest physicalism: maybe it is a little better, but still I would have difficulties in saying waht "Physical" means, vs non physical. My best suggestion would be "reductionist naturalism", defined as follows: "The assumption that everything that exists (nature?) can be explained in terms of the laws of physics (or of science) as we understand them at present. Obviously, any reductionist will admit that there are new details to be discovered, but the point is that the reductionist is convinced that the essential framework of reality has been already understood by science as it is today. Typical attitude of reductionists is to deny that consciousness (something that science cannot yet explain in any way) is a fundamental part of reality, without which many parts of reality (for example, complex functional information, semiosis and irreducible complexity) cannot be explained. 2) How does anything you’ve argued regarding irreducible complexity or semiotics in biology undermine materialism (or physicalism, if that is what you mean)? See point one. Complex functional information, semiosis and irreducible complexity are 3 aspects of reality which are explained by design, and only by design. Any map of reality which does not consider consciousness and design as fundamental components cannot explain them. 3) What exactly does it mean to explain something by reference to “design”? Very easy. As I have said many times, design is a purposeful process where some specific form is implemented into a material object starting from a conscious representation in a conscious agent. IOWs, in design the form exists before in the consciousness of the designer, and is then outputted to the material object. Design is always, empirically, the origin of complex functional information, of semiosis, and of irreducible complexity. 4) Why do you think that undermining evolutionary or abiogenetic theories somehow provides support for “design”? Because neo darwinian evolution and abiogenetic theories are the only "semi serious" attempt at explaining complex functional information, semiosis and irreducible complexity, as observed in biological objects, without introducing design as part of the process. They fail, but they are still the only scientific attempt. As I always say: there are only two games in town to explain those aspects of biological objects: neo darwinism (including more or less related OOL theories) and design. When neo darwinist theories fail (and they do!), design remains the only credible scientific explanation. OK, that's it.gpuccio
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
You've gone off the rails again RD. You argued things that you can't back up. You were called out on it, and you failed. You said in bold letters: "The system proceeds in a way that is reducible without remainder to physical cause", You said it with all the petty attitude that is common to your posts, but the problem is you can't explain yourself, and pretending that you need some answer from me before you can make your case is simply incoherent. I'm not biting. The rest is hot air. All your snide little comments can't hide the fact that you are both spectacularly wrong and totally incompetent on the details.Upright BiPed
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
Hi UB,
You want to talk about these other things because you can’t back up the things you say, and I’m calling you on it.
Over and over I ask you to simply engage a discussion, and you refuse. Not once have you ever responded to a single point, not a single question. You're a joke. You won't address my points because you realize you can't, and you are horrified to think that all your silly, pretend-science is meaningless. On the other hand, I always engage what you write, because I know that full disclosure and discussion is on my side - because I'm right. So yes, once again, you refuse to answer: 1) What do you mean by “materialism”? 2) How does anything you’ve argued regarding irreducible complexity or semiotics in biology undermine materialism (or physicalism, if that is what you mean)? 3) What exactly does it mean to explain something by reference to “design”? 4) Why do you think that undermining evolutionary or abiogenetic theories somehow provides support for “design”? And yes, once again, I engage your bizarre questions as best I can:
Tell me how the operation of a music box is “reducible without remainder to physical cause”.
I suppose it’s not possible to disprove that some immaterial agency – a tiny angel or elf or spirit or something – sneaks into music boxes and somehow affects their operation. I just think we can fully explain how music boxes operate without invoking anything but the classical physical causes. Why would you think anything else is involved?
And stop feigning ignorance.
Uh, no - that would be you, not me. And you're not feigning, I'm afraid.
I’ve already made my case.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahaha! So hilarious! You refuse to respond to a single question, a single argument, and then.... you say you've made your case!
You can find the bibliography here, and navigate from there.
You have no arguments, no response... so you post a list of books! Does that, in your bizarre mind, somehow constitute a response to what I'm asking here? Stop, really, you're too much.
Now answer the question: Tell me how the operation of a music box is “reducible without remainder to physical cause”.
All you do is repeat the question, even though I have answered it - twice now. Here is my answer, for the third time: I suppose it’s not possible to disprove that some immaterial agency – a tiny angel or elf or spirit or something – sneaks into music boxes and somehow affects their operation. I just think we can fully explain how music boxes operate without invoking anything but the classical physical causes. Why would you think anything else is involved? What else would you like to know? Do you have some reason to think something immaterial is involved in the operation of a music box or not? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy (p.s. So sad that the best you can do here is to make jokes about "potty pads". Really? How old are you, UB?)RDFish
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
1) What do you mean by “materialism”? 2) How does anything you’ve argued regarding irreducible complexity or semiotics in biology undermine materialism (or physicalism, if that is what you mean)? 3) What exactly does it mean to explain something by reference to “design”? 4) Why do you think that undermining evolutionary or abiogenetic theories somehow provides support for “design”?
You want to talk about these other things because you can’t back up the things you say, and I’m calling you on it. Tell me how the operation of a music box is “reducible without remainder to physical cause”. And stop feigning ignorance. I’ve already made my case. You can find the bibliography here, and navigate from there.
You failed to answer. You’ve failed to respond to any point, any question, any request for clarification. The reason: You are afraid to engage my questions. It really is cowardice, nothing else.
By all means, let me get you a potty pad. Now answer the question: Tell me how the operation of a music box is “reducible without remainder to physical cause”.Upright BiPed
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Hi Barry, When you decide to respond to a single argument I make, we can have a discussion. But it's just not worth it while you're pulling your usual schoolyard bully act. Read what I've written here and respond if you can. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy (p.s. The thought of you "schooling" me is hysterical. It's like a duck trying to kill the hunter :-))RDFish
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Hi UB,
If you want to talk RD...
Yes of course I want to discuss this, which is the purpose for my post. But you refuse, just as you always refuse. You refuse to engage a single thing I say. You refuse to answer a single question, or provide a single clarification. I've asked this: 1) What do you mean by "materialism"? 2) How does anything you've argued regarding irreducible complexity or semiotics in biology undermine materialism (or physicalism, if that is what you mean)? 3) What exactly does it mean to explain something by reference to "design"? 4) Why do you think that undermining evolutionary or abiogenetic theories somehow provides support for "design"? You failed to answer. You've failed to respond to any point, any question, any request for clarification. The reason: You are afraid to engage my questions. It really is cowardice, nothing else. Since I am not a coward, I shall do my best to answer your question, as weird as they are:
If you want to talk RD, why don’t you tell me how you can specify middle C from the pins on a brass cylinder in a music box.
I really don't understand what it means to "specify middle C". If the pin hits a reed that vibrates with the appropriate frequency, then I suppose you'd say the pin "specifies" middle C. Can you explain better what you mean here?
Tell me how the operation of a music box is “reducible without remainder to physical cause”.
I suppose it's not possible to disprove that some immaterial agency - a tiny angel or elf or spirit or something - sneaks into music boxes and somehow affects their operation. I just think we can fully explain how music boxes operate without invoking anything but the classical physical causes. Why would you think anything else is involved? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT
RDFish,
You don’t understand the discussion.
Wow RDFish. It must have been really embarrassing for you when you got schooled by someone who doesn't even understand the discussion. Here. Barry Arrington
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT
RDFish, Is that all you've got? A second grade level "neener neener neener"? Sad.Barry Arrington
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Behe rightly is famous and makes the great point of IC. Its still the point of complexity is impossible to create itself as the bible, and the watch in the forest, and the airplane out of the junk yard concepts all said. now ID thinkers bring a scientific investigation to the same point and will prevail because its the truth.Robert Byers
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
(NOTE: the bolding is all yours in the original) UB produced an example of a music box which he says has physical discontinuities. I responded with an example of the water-drops, and asked if that system also had physical discontinuities. Your response and UB’s response: RUN AND HIDE. I explained that the “representation” that UB says is in his system is not inherent in the system, but only is a concept that human beings use to understand the system. The system proceeds in a way that is reducible without remainder to physical cause and the effects are determined by the antecedent causes. Your response and UB’s response: RUN AND HIDE!
...and now you think you can insult me into giving you cover? You must not be paying close attention. If you want to talk RD, why don't you tell me how you can specify middle C from the pins on a brass cylinder in a music box. Tell me how the operation of a music box is "reducible without remainder to physical cause". Let's see how long it takes you to assume your conclusion, or obfuscate the simple fact that you've been wrong all along.Upright BiPed
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Hi Barry, You don't understand the discussion. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
You are here to push the laughable front that “I knew it all along”, and you are here to do so with as much disdain as you can muster. The more disdain, the more distraction from the truth of the matter. Unfortunately for you, I know you are being willfully dishonest, and I’ve come to expect nothing more from you.
First, you suggest I've changed my mind about something, but fail to mention what it is. Second, you suggest I'm attempting to distract somebody from the "truth of the matter", but you fail to say what my distraction is, nor what the truth of the matter is. Third, you accuse me of being willfully dishonest, but fail to say what you think I've lied about. Finally, you present quotes from some discussion we've had in the past, but you fail to say what you think the relevance is to what I've said here. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU????? Can't you simply debate my points, instead of tossing out these insane, cryptic evasions? This is what I've said here: 1) Your evidence undermines evolutionary theory and abiogenetic theories, yet you pretend to have undermined a metaphysical position called "materialism" instead. 2) You have failed to even say what you mean by "materialism", which you would realize is ambiguous if you had a passing familiarity with philosophy, and as I've tried to explain to you many times. 3) You pretend that by undermining evolutionary and abiogenetic theories, you somehow support an alternative explanation, which you refer to as "design". Yet you refuse to say how a single word can constitute a scientific explanation for all of these phenomena, and refuse to even discuss what you might actually mean by that term. Come on, UB. You love to play scientist, obviously - why not actually talk science for a change? Here's how we do it: We ask each other questions, provide each other answers and clarifications, make specific claims about observable phenomena, and provide empirical justifications for our claims. It's really fun once you get the hang of it. Or, if that's just too hard for you, continue with your oblique insults, your refusal to answer straighforward questions and requests for clarifications, and your misplaced arrogance. That way you'll never actually have to face that fact that all of your work is nothing but meaningless crackpottery. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
RD, It’s always an interesting spectacle to watch you sprint – your mad dash – towards what is unknown. But this time we get to watch you primp in front of the mirror as well. It’s quite a display. You are here to push the laughable front that “I knew it all along”, and you are here to do so with as much disdain as you can muster. The more disdain, the more distraction from the truth of the matter. Unfortunately for you, I know you are being willfully dishonest, and I’ve come to expect nothing more from you.
(NOTE: the bolding is all yours in the original) UB produced an example of a music box which he says has physical discontinuities. I responded with an example of the water-drops, and asked if that system also had physical discontinuities. Your response and UB’s response: RUN AND HIDE. I explained that the “representation” that UB says is in his system is not inherent in the system, but only is a concept that human beings use to understand the system. The system proceeds in a way that is reducible without remainder to physical cause and the effects are determined by the antecedent causes. Your response and UB’s response: RUN AND HIDE!
Try being straight up for a change RD. Give your ego a rest already.Upright BiPed
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Welcome back Barry. You were missed.joehalfgallon
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
Fish:
If the former, physicists haven’t believed in materialism for 100 years – why beat a dead horse? If the latter, where is your evidence that physicalism is false?
"Dead horse" Fish says as he posts the "scientists have not believed in materialism for 100 years even though millions of them use the word on a daily basis" meme for the 100th time. Give it a rest Fish.Barry Arrington
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
I noticed that Dr Liddle had spent some time on UD recently, perhaps she’ll stop by and argue that there is nothing semiotic in the cell.
I stopped by, and was unsurprised to find that you write a great deal about semiosis and irreducible complexity - aspects of biology that I for one have never had any trouble accepting. You do mention what it is you are arguing against - namely "materialism" - but you never say anything about what you think "materialism" entails. Now, what your evidence really argues against is "evolutionary theory" and theories of "abiogenesis" rather than materialism. That is what you should be arguing against. But instead you claim to be taking on materialism - although you never actually do so. If you actually wanted to argue against materialism, the first step would be to describe just what you mean. Do you really mean "materialism", or do you mean "physicalism"? If the former, physicists haven't believed in materialism for 100 years - why beat a dead horse? If the latter, where is your evidence that physicalism is false? None of the evidence that you go to such lengths to document is inconsistent with physicalism, so please don't start going off about how there is no possible chemical or physical explanation for the origin of semiosis in the cell. Of course there isn't. What that tells us is that chemistry and physics can't account for these biological systems, not that physicalism is false. If you'd like to get a sense of what physicalism is all about and what you might need to do to argue against it, you can start here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/#UndPhyInt (I'm not particularly interested, though - as I am not a physicalist). Worse yet is that you (as always) forget to explain what it is you might be arguing for. I understand that the word "design" that you refer to here and there is your little head-nod to what you might believe to be the answer to these questions of origins, but you (as always) neglect to mention what you might mean by that ambiguous little word, or provide some sort of description of it so we might actually go about deciding if it was responsible for biological systems. You've wasted a tremendous amount of effort pointing out what many people already knew - that we do not understand the way biological systems came to exist. You've failed to even begin to say how that somehow refutes physicalism, or what it is you think might be a scientifically testable explanation for what we observe in cells. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
J-Mac, you are entirely correct. It was 1996. (I had Theory in Crisis in my head when I typed that). Thanks for pointing it out.Upright BiPed
November 30, 2015
November
11
Nov
30
30
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
1 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply