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
And so...the second scientist "wouldn't bother" to read the frequency display becuase ... their methodology is to test their hypothesis. Okay.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: So SETI sets up a search methodology, but those monitoring the search results won’t “bother” to see if they find a signal that meets their criteria. SETI set up a search methodology to *test* their hypothesis, as encapsulated in the Drake Equation. http://www.seti.org/drakeequation "What, did you think they were swimming completely naked?" By the way, you seem to keep missing the question. The hypothesis is that technological beings evolved “at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball.” Otherwise, why look at stars? Why look for watery worlds? Why look at radio emissions?Zachriel
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
UB: The first scientist leans over and reads the frequency display on the spectrum analyzer and it reads that the signal is x Hz wide. What does the display read when the other scientist looks at it? Zach: The second scientist probably wouldn’t bother.
Okay. So SETI sets up a search methodology, but those monitoring the search results won't "bother" to see if they find a signal that meets their criteria. Got it. Thanks. Perhaps that's why they haven't found anything.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
The hypothesis is that technological beings evolved “at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball.”
But the earth isn't a deep gravity well and it has technological beings on its surface. Your hypothesis is crap, as usual.Virgil Cain
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: The first scientist leans over and reads the frequency display on the spectrum analyzer and it reads that the signal is X Hz wide. What does the display read when the other scientist looks at it? The second scientist probably wouldn't bother. But if she did, she reads the same result, but draws no conclusion. That's the difference between data and evidence. Now, try to answer the question. The hypothesis is that technological beings evolved “at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball.” Otherwise, why look at stars? Why look for watery worlds? Why look at radio emissions?Zachriel
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
If we discover a planet containing self-replicating radio transmitters it would only prove that radio transmitters are perfectly natural.Mung
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
UB: we use a frequency counter to determine if a signal is of the narrow-band variety or not. The output of that frequency analyzer does not change depending on what we assume is sending the signal. Zach: By definition, evidence has to be about something...
Geez, the desire to obfuscate this simple point is a little weird. Zach, two scientists are monitoring the board on the day that a potential signal is received. The first scientist believes that anything that sends a narrow-band signal will meet the expectations that you describe. The other scientist, perhaps having been around a while and seen many things, doesn't think that the sender need be anything like what is expected. The first scientist leans over and reads the frequency display on the spectrum analyzer and it reads that the signal is x Hz wide. What does the display read when the other scientist looks at it?Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
However, intelligence doesn’t necessarily imply consciousness.
That depends on what anal-retentive definitions you are using and which you omit.
It depends on the hypothesis that technological beings evolved “at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball.”
That isn't an argument.
Nor does detection of a narrow-band emission necessarily ‘prove’ the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence.
It does, scientifically, and for the reasons provided by SETI.
Any such emission will, if discovered, be subjected to exceptional scrutiny, and additional evidence will be required to support the hypothesis, perhaps some message independent of the medium.
As if we could tell. Anyway SETI has said what they are looking for and why. Zachriel's attempt at obfuscation is just a sign of his desperation. Cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
CJYman: Is it possible to be technological, yet unintelligent, according to the common dictionary definition of ‘intelligence?’ intelligent: having or showing the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations technology: the use of science in industry, engineering, etc., to invent useful things or to solve problems Probably not. However, intelligence doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. Upright BiPed: we use a frequency counter to determine if a signal is of the narrow-band variety or not. The output of that frequency analyzer does not change depending on what we assume is sending the signal. By definition, evidence has to be about something. Scientific evidence is an empirical observation that supports or contradicts a hypothesis. In this case, the hypothesis is based on the knowledge that life arises on watery worlds, then eventually evolves technological organisms that use narrow-band emissions for communications. Upright BiPed: The bandwidth of the signal is the determining factor in SETI’s operational definition of intelligence, not whether we think the sender is a blue-eye blonde or a worm. It depends on the hypothesis that technological beings evolved "at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball." Otherwise, why look at stars? Why look for watery worlds? Why look at radio emissions? Nor does detection of a narrow-band emission necessarily 'prove' the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. Any such emission will, if discovered, be subjected to exceptional scrutiny, and additional evidence will be required to support the hypothesis, perhaps some message independent of the medium.Zachriel
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
UB: the researchers could say anything or nothing at all and it would change absolutely nothing in the process of detecting the intelligence. Zach: Of course it would. Everything SETI does is based on human knowledge of how intelligent life arose on Earth.
Zach, we use a frequency counter to determine if a signal is of the narrow-band variety or not. The output of that frequency analyzer does not change depending on what we assume is sending the signal. The bandwidth of the signal is the determining factor in SETI’s operational definition of intelligence, not whether we think the sender is a blue-eye blonde or a worm. Certainly, we may someday be fascinated to find out that in some deep corner of the universe intelligent worms build radio transmitters, but that has nothing to do with establishing the presence of an intelligence. And where we choose to point the dish is not even the question. The same thing occurs in the detection of intelligence at the origin of life. The criteria is the observation of a dimensional semiotic system, using spatially-oriented representations, requiring the additional constraints of a reading frame code to enable system. These criterion have been unambiguously observed during protein synthesis. Therefore, a universal correlate of intelligence has been established in the organization of the living cell.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
The earth isn't a deep gravity well...Virgil Cain
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Hello Zachriel, Is it possible to be technological, yet unintelligent, according to the common dictionary definition of 'intelligence?'CJYman
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT
es58: Certainly if SETI finds what they’re looking for, they’re not expecting that it was produced by “humans”. Rather, it was produced by some entity that share certain common features with humans. (what feature might that be?) Evolved, technological organisms "living at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball."Zachriel
December 11, 2015
December
12
Dec
11
11
2015
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
RDF: proteins exist in living cells, which are not the result of human action – i.e. they are natural. Your statement that uses the word human seems imprecise. Certainly if SETI finds what they're looking for, they're not expecting that it was produced by "humans". Rather, it was produced by some entity that share certain common features with humans. (what feature might that be?) If this is correct, we could modify your statement to read: proteins exist in living cells, which are not the result of the action of entities that share certain common features with humans (whatever those features might be - I might suggest intelligence is one of them) – i.e. they are natural. If someone does genetic engineering on a genome, and produces a new, desirable effect, which modifies a resulting protein, would that not be artificial? If so, on what basis can you confidently make such a statement that proteins are not the result of "entity" action, since we see that certainly can be.es58
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Everything SETI does is based on human knowledge of how intelligent life arose on Earth.
That is incorrect. It is based on how intelligent life acts on Earth. No one knows how intelligent life arose.
Why, then, is SETI so interested in detecting narrow-band emissions from watery worlds circling nuclear fireballs?
They aim towards the host stars. And thanks to the pro-ID "The Privileged Planet" they know exactly what to look and aim for.
For instance, with regards to biosemiosis, the lack of an independent message tends to undermine the conclusion.
That is your opinion but no one needs to heed it. It doesn't mean anything. But I am sure saying it makes you feel special. Cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Brain? What brain? It's the "void", meaning devoid of a brainVirgil Cain
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Why not point their telescopes into the void? Because they are not interested in studying your brain.Mung
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed: the researchers could say anything or nothing at all and it would change absolutely nothing in the process of detecting the intelligence. Of course it would. Everything SETI does is based on human knowledge of how intelligent life arose on Earth. Upright BiPed: And yet still, these things have no impact whatsoever on the process of detecting intelligence. Why, then, is SETI so interested in detecting narrow-band emissions from watery worlds circling nuclear fireballs? Why not point their telescopes into the void? Upright BiPed: We could say, “anything like *this system* requires the capacity of a human-like intelligence in order to come into being” and by your standard we would be completely valid in doing so. You are confusing a hypothesis, that a narrow-band emission is a signature of a technological civilization, with a conclusion. Detecting a narrow-band emission is just the first step in making any determination. Similarly, someone might have hypothesized that a semiotic system was a signature of an intelligent agent, but detecting a semiotic system is just the first step in making any determination. For instance, with regards to biosemiosis, the lack of an independent message tends to undermine the conclusion. Upright BiPed: And on the day that SETI receives their first signal, they will have an example of a narrow band radio wave that could not possibly have come from a human. To be consistent with the looniness of your standard, we would have to invalidate it as an inference to intelligence. The reach-the-conclusion-wipe-your-hands-and-go-home method of scientific investigation. No, to be consistent, you would then subject the narrow-band emissions to scrutiny. The lack of an independent message would tend to undermine the conclusion. Perhaps it's a signal beacon with no message, but more information would be sought.Zachriel
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
RDF, "All it does is tells us what did not produce biological systems." Oh, yes, your PC has printed a letter "A" on a piece of paper. Of course, human intelligence did not have anything to do with it...EugeneS
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Upright BiPed:
For instance, if we were now living in a pre-DNA era... But once we discovered DNA...
Spot on. The absurd position of Mr. Fishy is exposed.Mung
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Mung at 252,
RDFish: …the existence of irreducible complexity in biology is old news, and simply tells us nothing about what produced biological systems. All it does is tells us what did not produce biological systems. How does it tell us what did not produce biological systems?
Good Question.Upright BiPed
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
VC at 250 I have had a chance to talk with a modest number of working researchers and others over the course of the past 5 years. One thing that stood out to me immediately was that none of them threw up the types of silly things found in threads like this. None of them played definiton derby, or similar games. I think it was simply beneath them to suggest the kinds of things that are routinely demanded by the critics of ID found here.Upright BiPed
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
UB bases his argument on an analogy with SETI.
Nonsense. The observations of semiosis in the cell existed long before any discussion of SETI. The thing that is analogous between them is that they use the same methodology. End.
I’ve shown that his analogy with SETI fails for two reasons. First, SETI assumes that the sender of the signal is “life as we know it”, which is the basis for hypothesizing the sender may be similar in various ways to us
SETI reasonably assumes that the source of the intelligence is a conscious entity. But their assumption does not alter the methodology of detecting a narrow band signal. It is therefore irrelevant to the detection of the intelligence. [It is still worth noting your adoration: SETI hypothesizes that the sender is like us, because they assume it upfront]
Second, SETI looks for signals that are not known to be caused by anything except living things like us. But the signal found in cells was obviously not produced by anything living like us.
This line of reasoning would invalidate SETI on the day they receive their first signal. In a desperate attempt to avoid the facts of semiosis, you‘ve now tied the ontological reality of a thing to the time in which humans discovered it. Again, you jam the researcher right into the middle of the research. For instance, if we were now living in a pre-DNA era, the unique facts of semiosis could serve as an inference to any other systems we discovered to be like it. We could say, “anything like this system requires the capacity of a human-like intelligence in order to come into being” and by your standard we would be completely valid in doing so. But once we discovered DNA (and we discovered that it operates exactly like what was previously known to require a human-like intelligence) you are suggesting that we can no longer use semiosis as an inference to intelligence because we now have an example of the system that could not have possibly come from a human. And on the day that SETI receives their first signal, they will have an example of a narrow band radio wave that could not possibly have come from a human. To be consistent with the looniness of your standard, we would have to invalidate it as an inference to intelligence. Of course, this is just one of many aspects of this inane idea. For instance, when you complain that ID searches for signals that are “produced in nature“, you are simply assuming the very thing that is to be determined. And what is it that we have to turn to in order to gain a perspective on the answer? Yes, it would be the simple fact that the only other examples of these unique systems are produced by intelligence. There are no other counter-examples. So the problems with your position just go on and on. Entire swathes of science and reason would fall to the wayside, just so that you could avoid the empirical details of semiosis in the cell.Upright BiPed
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
No, I haven’t been forced to admit anything, sorry. I simply explained to you why SETI researchers pick narrow-band transmissions – because they are looking for “life as we know it”, and we know from our own experience that “life as we know it” transmits narrow-beam signals.
Again, it’s not physically possible to search for “life as we know it” from a trillion miles away. You either understand the research implications, or you don't. As far as characterizing SETI as a search for “life as we know it”, the researchers could say anything or nothing at all and it would change absolutely nothing in the process of detecting the intelligence. This is why I keep saying that your clamoring about consciousness has no bearing on the actual research – it’s because it has no bearing on the actual research. Even so, you claim that a SETI researcher, by merely stating upfront that he’s looking for “life as we know it”, gives “meaning” to the research. Your position is a logical deformity, where the value of the research is increased by making a statement which is totally irrelevant to the process. It’s lunacy.
Their thinking is pretty easy to understand, really, and based on assumptions, yes: Since life evolved here on Earth, and because there are so many other planets…
And yet still, these things have no impact whatsoever on the process of detecting intelligence. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, at no time in the process of detecting a narrow-band signal is there anything altered, adjusted, changed, or modified to account for the laundry list of things you’ve argued for. The signal either fits the criteria or it doesn’t. Period.
You’ve just conceded that you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms
I’ve conceded nothing of the sort; instead, I’ve told you repeatedly that neither of these ideas (the testing of an unknown intelligence in the cosmos or at the origin of life) has any method to test for “consciousness”, or “intentionality” or “IQ” or the ability to “predict a lunar eclipse”. Instead, both use an operational definition based on a measurable artifact of intelligence, (this is what is analogous between them). In the first instance, the measurable artifact is a narrow band radio signal. In the second instance, the measurable artifact is a semiotic organization using a finite set of spatially-oriented representations. Both of these definitions are clearly defined and entirely detectable, making both of them valid for their purpose. But instead of discussing the merits of the evidence (which you won’t touch with a ten foot pole) you want to argue that SETI may make reasonable assumptions about additional attributes of an unknown intelligence (if they should ever receive a signal), while ID proponents may not make any reasonable assumptions in association with intelligence. You‘ve convinced yourself that you have justification for this hypocrisy, and you’ve shared it with us. So let’s take a look at what you’ve said. The following passage is a perfect snapshot of your justification. It’s only two sentences long. Here’s the first sentence:
RD: I have explained to you that the context of SETI – their assumption that they are looking for something we are familiar with as a civilization of life forms – underlies their inferences regarding what might be responsible for narrow-band transmissions.
This first sentence tells us that SETI researchers will assume (by “life as we know it”) that a conscious entity is responsible for the existence of a narrow band radio signal (should one ever be received). Of course, they wouldn’t have actually *tested* for consciousness, and so by your standards, they wouldn’t actually have any “scientific justification” for it -- but regardless, you see it as a reasonable assumption given that an intelligence has indeed been detected. But then there is your second sentence:
RD: I have explained to you that without those assumptions, they would not be justified in making any inferences regarding what characteristics may be true of the source of those signals.
So, you say -- without making the assumption that the source of the signal was conscious, they would not be justified in inferring that the source of the signal was conscious. This appears to be another RDFish logical dumpster fire. Perhaps it’s akin to your other claim that rivers choose their paths to the ocean -- it needn’t make sense. So to me you say:
#226: … you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms. #236 … you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms in living cells. #243 … you have no scientific justification for inferring that conscious thought was involved in the producing the protein synthesis mechanisms
And following your underlying theme, the reason that I have no “scientific justification” for inferring any reasonable attributes of the intelligence is because I did not assume them upfront. Perhaps the only thing that can enhance the deformity in this reasoning is to simply remember it doesn’t matter whether I assume them or not -- they are completely irrelevant to the methodology of the test. That’s some powerful thinking there RD. The bottom line is that it is ad hoc, incoherent, and remains irrelevant. Perhaps the only real explanation for this morass is your deep need to avoid talking about the observable facts of semiosis in the cell.Upright BiPed
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
RDFish: ...the existence of irreducible complexity in biology is old news, and simply tells us nothing about what produced biological systems. All it does is tells us what did not produce biological systems. How does it tell us what did not produce biological systems?Mung
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
RDFish: First, SETI assumes that the sender of the signal is “life as we know it” Like bacteria. Intelligent radio-bacteria.Mung
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Thankfully neither RDFish nor Zachriel has any input that scientists listen too. Thankfully neither RDFish nor Zachriel are scientists who actually investigate phenomena. Cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
With SETI, the hypothesis is encapsulated in the Drake Equation.
The Drake equation has been superseded, twice.Virgil Cain
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: Yet you maintain it is the sheer act of making the assumptions that gives the project “meaning”. It's called hypothetico-deduction. With SETI, the hypothesis is encapsulated in the Drake Equation. http://www.seti.org/drakeequation evidence, something {observation} which shows that something else {hypothesis} is true {supported}.Zachriel
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT
RDF, Well, I already stated what I meant by intelligence. I mean the ability to plan and use means to achieve it. Intelligence is the only option available for describing the origin of telic systems such as complex human-made systems and living organisms. I deliberately avoid discussing consciousness issues because they are a different kettle of fish. I do not think they are relevant to the question of classification. The question is, why do you insist that apart from classifying something as a design we absolutely need to know the IQ level of the designer? Certain things just do not happen naturalistically. With the OOL, even finding the 'magical' initial conditions will not solve the problem because control, which is a telic thing, is absolutely key to it. As I said, control and symbolic constraints are reliable markers of intelligence at work given the evidence in exactly the same manner as narrow band signals are. As to what other characteristics this intelligence happens to have, this is irrelevant to classification. I can see no justification for raising issues about IQ.EugeneS
December 10, 2015
December
12
Dec
10
10
2015
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 11

Leave a Reply