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
CJYman- I would like to know what type of antenna is required to capture signals that do not occur in nature? (I can't stop laughing)Virgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
Virgil @213 ... you beat me to the punch. RDFish can't be serious?!?!?!?!?CJYman
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington- You won't believe the gift RDFish has given us:
Moreover, you don’t seem to realize that SETI explicitly says that they are looking for signals that do not occur in nature.
I wonder where SETI is looking for those signals that do not occur in nature.... BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish:
Moreover, you don’t seem to realize that SETI explicitly says that they are looking for signals that do not occur in nature.
That has got to be the stupidest thing you have said in an ocean of stupid things you have said. SETI is looking at nature to find signals that don't occur in nature? Really? SETI is looking at nature to find signals that nature, operating freely, cannot produce. They are looking for ARTIFICIAL signals that do occur in nature. Our artificial signals occur in nature, RDFish. You must be one of the dimmest people ever. Nice job destroying what little credibility you had. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
RDFish, how are you not seeing the inconsistency in your application of logic? We are a civilization of “Intelligence”. We build semiotic systems to be distinguishable from "natural chemical reactions," and if we lived on some other planet and/or at some other time, we would do the same thing there. So, we look for "intelligence" with at least some characteristics like us that lived before us by looking for semiotic systems that would predate us. Get it? How is intelligence defined? How is life defined? Hopefully, I'll have time to rejoin and add a few more $.02 (adjusted for inflation, of course).CJYman
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
Now you get to tell me how they detect “life as we know it” from a narrow-band radio wave.
Sure! We are a civilization of "life as we know it". We build narrow-band radio wave transmitters to be distinguishable from natural radio sources, and if we lived on some other planet, we would do the same thing there. So, we look for civilizations of beings like us that live on other planets by looking for narrow-band radio waves. Get it?
If your argument is coherent, then the radio wave must present some identifiable characteristic that establishes the variable “life as we know it”,
Just as I explained above. We figure that there are others like us out there in the universe someplace. The characteristic is that we use those sorts of signals. Oh, and you dodged the point about SETI seeking signals not found in nature, while your signals are found in nature. Oh, and you really dodged this: So, what is your justification for all these inferences about the cause of living things? How can you justify your inference to consciousness, general linguistic abilities, novel problem solving abilities, and all of the other abilities associated with the concept of “intelligence”? Stop dodging. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
SETI - a project that seeks extra-terrestrial civilizations of life as we know it.
I told you in my previous post why your arguments are irrelevant to the actual process of detecting intelligence. One really might think you'd take the clue, but "life as we know it" is the most important thing to you -- so you didn't. Now you get to tell me how they detect "life as we know it" from a narrow-band radio wave. If your argument is coherent, then the radio wave must present some identifiable characteristic that establishes the variable "life as we know it", and has the capacity to overturn any other positive result. If your argument is incoherent, then you will not be able to identify this characteristic.Upright BiPed
December 9, 2015
December
12
Dec
9
09
2015
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
We’ve already had this conversation.
Yes, but you seem to have forgotten why your argument here fails. You cannot counter my argument regarding your failure to provide evidence of any particular mental ability that must be responsible for mechanisms of protein synthesis. Instead, you rely exclusively on an analogy to SETI - a project that seeks extra-terrestrial civilizations of life as we know it. 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. 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. All you have in response is to ignore what SETI researchers say about what they looking for, and pretend that ID is still analogous. Moreover, you don't seem to realize that SETI explicitly says that they are looking for signals that do not occur in nature. Well, guess what? Protein synthesis exists in nature. SETI is not analogous, period. So, what is your justification for all these inferences about the cause of living things? How can you justify your inference to consciousness, general linguistic abilities, novel problem solving abilities, and all of the other abilities associated with the concept of "intelligence"? Answer: You can't. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
We’ve already had this conversation. When we search for an unknown intelligence among the stars, we do so by looking for a specific parameter – a carrier wave that’s only a few Hz wide. There is no variable in this process for an accounting of consciousness. There is no adjustment for mental abilities or an IQ score. The test is not altered by the expectations of the researcher. These things literally do not impact the way in which the presence of the intelligence is identified, and they are therefore irrelevant to it. If the reception of a narrow-band signal is validated, the results of the test will be accepted (as is) across the whole of science. However, you’ve created an escape hatch in your rhetoric against ID, saying that you would object if someone proposed that the source of the intelligence is somehow different than “life as we know it”. Your escape hatch is also irrelevant to the test, but you are welcome to it. In the end, your argument boils down to personal incredulity, not a failure of either the evidence or the methodology. You’ll need to ignore those.
Please, UB – honestly, I’m asking you.
No one made you get on this thread, lie about your recorded history on the subject, and go on the attack. Your entire involvement here was fairly unnecessary. cheersUpright BiPed
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
You’ve been given an operational definition that’s based on the unique physical conditions of semiosis using spatially-oriented representations and a reading frame code.
Uh, yes, I just said that: "You make up some particular operational definition for “intelligence” that matches what we observe in biology". If you don't read what I write, we aren't going to get anywhere.
your counter-arguments are irrelevant to the observations and methodology in the argument.
I have explained this many times now: My comments have nothing to do with your observations and methodology. I have not, and never have, challenged any sort of argument regarding establishing irreducible complexity, complex specified information, or any other features that people feel demonstrates that evolutionary processes cannot account for them - including "spatially-oriented representations and a reading frame code". I have explained this over and over and over and over again, yet you for some bizarre reason you never listen, never understand.
Instead of using your obvious intelligence to pursue observation, you’re using it to negotiate your way through it. And now you’re in the position of having to ignore specific empirical evidence.
I have accepted all of the empirical evidence from the start, and have never argued against it. I have made perfectly clear from the very beginning of this thread, and endless times before, that I never argue for evolutionary (or any other) explanations for these intricate mechanisms (and yes, codes) we find in biology. They cry out for an explanation, and I do not believe (Zachriel's able defense notwithstanding) that evolutionary processes can account for them. So for once, can you please just drop your obsession with the matters we are, and have always been, in agreement (at least arguendo) on, and just for once at least acknowledge the part we disagree on, so at least we can argue about it? In case you actually still don't know what it is I disagree about, I just said it for the 100000th time in my last post to you:
An IQ test is representative of general human mental abilities (even though even those test are controversial in many ways), including learning abilities, short- and long-term memory, common sense knowledge, generation and comprehension of general-purpose languages, solving novel problems (that is, problems the subject has not seen before) in mathematics and logic, and so on. Irreducibly complex mechanism in cells do not suggest that all of these abilities were somehow involved in their coming into existence. Perhaps none of these abilities were involved.
Can't you understand this? Your operational definition of intelligence does NOTHING AT ALL to approach the problem! You have no reason to conclude any particular mental abilities that are required to produce spatially-oriented representations and a reading frame code! If you did have such a reason, you could actually say "I have shown that the cause of such representations and codes requires a source that has learning abilities, common sense reasoning, general language abilities, the ability to solve novel problems in math and logic" and so on. But you can't say anything of the sort, because you have no justification for making any such claims. Yet you pretend that it is the case that you have justified such conclusions, by using these ambiguous and leading terms like "intelligence" and "design". When people hear these words, they imagine human-like intelligence - a conscious mind that has learning abilities, common sense reasoning, natural language use, and so on. Please, UB - honestly, I'm asking you. You can of course disagree with my position here, but just stop pretending that my position has anything to do with anything you've written about semiotics, instead of the implicit conclusions that you draw. For the 1000000th time, I have agreed arguendo with everything you have said about semiotics from the start. Just respond that you actually do understand this point that I have labored to make clear to you so many times over, and, if you can, explain why you think my point is not valid. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Fishing Questions: Are you saying that the cause of life had mental characteristics and abilities that are like those of humans, except that they are superior? No one knows what life is. For example, are you saying the cause of life is conscious, can learn new skills, solve novel problems, and could take an IQ test and score very highly on it? No one knows what life is. What is your evidence that this is the case? How can you support that claim? No one needs to provide evidence for claims not in evidence.Mung
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
It's rather big of Mr. Fish to finally admit that Upright BiPed was right all along. That took some Fish guts.Mung
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
VC, "RDFish doesn’t understand that it is metaphysics to say the mind can arise via physicochemical processes." Absolutely! Whatever one's claim on these subjects, it is bound to be metaphysical.EugeneS
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
RDFish:
AGAIN: What you are calling intelligence, or decision-making, may itself be due to nothing but physical mechanisms processing information in your brain.
AGAIN: If anyone can ever demonstrate such a thing then ID would be in deep trouble. And it is very telling that RDFish cannot grasp that simple fact. RDFish doesn't understand that it is metaphysics to say the mind can arise via physicochemical processes. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish:
You are ASSUMING, with no scientific warrant at all, that mental abilities somehow transcend physical cause.
Science makes assumptions like that all of the time. The scientific warrant is as simple as the fact that there isn't any evidence to support the claim that mental abilities can emerge from physical cause. It's as if RDFish is proud to be scientifically illiterate. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
RDFish, I was clear on my operational definition of intelligence. This should be enough for this discussion. I am not discussing anything to do with consciousness. If you do not agree with the objectivity of choice as causality (and with its independence from law-like necessity and chance), direct your arguments to Aristotle. Choice is beyond the potentiality of nature but can effectively use it. What is the problem with that? Nature does not choose because it does not care. It can only make available indifferent equilibrium states. Choosing from among them e.g. based on formal considerations is an exclusive prerogative of intelligence. Intelligence can choose in order to extract non-physical formal utility, e.g. a halting series of instructions to produce a specific recommendation in the context of decision making. Nature does not care if anything works (= produces utility) as a complex whole. Intelligence can use nature in order to organize and control physical entities via physical means. Intelligence can use physicality but is irreducible to it. What is the problem with this approach? Is that really hard to grasp? Why are you asking questions irrelevant to this discussion? "You are ASSUMING, with no scientific warrant at all, that mental abilities somehow transcend physical cause. " Nothing of the sort. Why do you keep bringing in mentality here? Do you know what control is? Why do you keep asking about transcendence? What relevance does it have to the discussion? "What you are calling intelligence, or decision-making, may itself be due to nothing but physical mechanisms processing information in your brain." Maybe, maybe not. Where are your appeals to being scientific now? Soap films solving problems... Is this what you call scientific warrant?EugeneS
December 8, 2015
December
12
Dec
8
08
2015
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT
I can’t tell if you understand or not.
It’s a matter of situational awareness, RD. You’ve been given an operational definition that's based on the unique physical conditions of a semiotic system that uses spatially-oriented representations and a reading frame code. You’re not particularly competent on the subject matter, and your counter-arguments are irrelevant to the observations and methodology in the argument. Instead of using your obvious intelligence to pursue observation, you’re using it to negotiate your way through it. And now you’re in the position of having to ignore specific empirical evidence.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
RDFish: That would be really cool – especially if said correlations were associated with conscious thoughts. Heh, yeah, I failed to mention that, but you figgered it out. :Dmike1962
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Hi mike1962,
If we get the point were we can detect the reduction of the super-positions of billions of quantum brains states, say, among sub-neural particles, where an expectation of random reduction states per our current understanding of quantum events, is in fact falsified due to an unexpected correlation of said particles, that is, when otherwise completely stochastic events are forced into a inexplicable correlation, that would be suggestive of something “other”, or at very least “primary”, would it not?
You bet! That would be really cool - especially if said correlations were associated with conscious thoughts. (I should have said nobody can think of an experiment we can currently perform...) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
RDFish: Now, this may be true, but it may also be false, and nobody in the world can think of any sort of experiment that will tell us the answer. If we get the point were we can detect the reduction of the super-positions of billions of quantum brains states, say, among sub-neural particles, where an expectation of random reduction states per our current understanding of quantum events, is in fact falsified due to an unexpected correlation of said particles, that is, when otherwise completely stochastic events are forced into a inexplicable correlation, that would be suggestive of something "other", or at very least "primary", would it not?mike1962
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
Yes RD, we all understand the drill.
I can't tell if you understand or not. In any case, you are unable to answer these questions. You keep saying that you want me to "refute your observations", and I keep telling you that I have never questioned your observations, and my comments have nothing to do with your observations. You keep saying that my questions are irrelevant, but they are absolutely fundamental to the point you are pretending to make. Without saying what "intelligent agency" or "design" actually means, you have concluded nothing at all. You keep saying that your "methodology" somehow answers this question, but that's ridiculous. You make up some particular operational definition for "intelligence" that matches what we observe in biology, and then you pretend that this definition actually indicates the sorts of general mental abilities that we humans have. Not only do you not make the case for this, or address the obvious problems with such a conclusion, but you don't even recognize the need to do so! An IQ test is representative of general human mental abilities (even though even those test are controversial in many ways), including learning abilities, short- and long-term memory, common sense knowledge, generation and comprehension of general-purpose languages, solving novel problems (that is, problems the subject has not seen before) in mathematics and logic, and so on. Irreducibly complex mechanism in cells do not suggest that all of these abilities were somehow involved in their coming into existence. Perhaps none of these abilities were involved. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Hi EugeneS,
Scientific evidence (notably biosemiosis, statistics, physics, information theory) suggests that the cause of terrestrial life must have been intelligence
What do you mean by "intelligence" here?
i.e. it suggests that law-like necessity and/or chance are not enough to produce the semiotic core of life. It must therefore have arisen by design.
You are implying that "intelligence" is something that transcends chance and necessity. This is tantamount to metaphysical libertarianism, which is not a scientifically supportable belief.
Intelligence is quite simply the ability to plan ahead, foresee the results and control the flow of the process of using means to achieve a set goal:
Now you are adding various characteristics that are necessary for something to be called "intelligent". When you say that intelligence requires the ability to foresee results, that seems to imply that intelligence requires consciousness. Is that what you are saying? If so, what evidence do you have that intelligence requires consciousness? Cognitive scientists note that many of our mental abilities proceed without conscious awareness, and there is no theory or understanding of how consciousness is related to mental abilities such as planning, scheduling, and so on. And if not (if you aren't saying consciousness is required), then what does it mean to "foresee" something without conscious awareness?
Of the three types of causation, namely (i) law-like necessity, (ii) chance, and (iii) decision/choice from among physically indistinguishable alternatives (equilibrium states), it is only the latter that has the potentiality of producing decision making systems, of which biological systems are a subset.
So you folks read this stuff in ID books and just believe it, repeating it as though it is some sort of scientific set of facts? Bad brainwashing: This has nothing to do with science - it is metaphysics. You are ASSUMING, with no scientific warrant at all, that mental abilities somehow transcend physical cause. Now, this may be true, but it may also be false, and nobody in the world can think of any sort of experiment that will tell us the answer. If there was such an experiment, this ancient debate would have been settled long ago. AGAIN: What you are calling intelligence, or decision-making, may itself be due to nothing but physical mechanisms processing information in your brain. These physical mechanisms may be nothing more than the physics we understand today, or it may require physics that we do not (yet) understand. Or, it may exist independently of all physical cause and somehow interact with it, as dualists (like you) believe. But all this is nothing but metaphysics, not science. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
EugeneS: You don’t have to post any citations. They are no good until you understand the basics There are a variety of measures of complexity. Adami et al. provide one such measure based on Shannon entropy.Zachriel
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT
Zachriel, You don't have to post any citations. They are no good until you understand the basics ;) A OR NOT(A) What a good theory!EugeneS
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
Same questions for you as EugeneS
Yes RD, we all understand the drill. You keep asking questions and injecting topics that are entirely irrelevant to the observations and methodology used in this argument. In complete defiance of this fact, you keep asking these same irrelevant questions for the obvious reason that you can't refute the observations or the methodology on the table. If I choose to play along with your defense, you will be just as incapable of refuting the irrelevance of your questions (to this argument) as you have been in refuting the argument itself. About this, you have left no doubt. And if I am unwilling to play along, then you'll accuse me of simply not answering your questions - allowing yourself an intellectual escape that includes no less that the abject denial of empirical evidence. In other words, you end up at the same place regardless of the science. This is pure ideology, RD. And there is no appeal to fact or reason that can stop you from it.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
EugeneS: Please educate yourself. Read here. See Adami et al., Evolution of biological complexity, PNAS 2000.Zachriel
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Zachriel, "We are talking about..." Please educate yourself. Read here.EugeneS
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
RDFish, It is very simple. In fact, it is so simple that a high school student is able to understand the idea. I doubt very much that people like you have genuine difficulties in understanding it. You simply choose not to accept it whatever we say to you. I can't help it. Nobody except you can. There it goes for the umpteenth time. Scientific evidence (notably biosemiosis, statistics, physics, information theory) suggests that the cause of terrestrial life must have been intelligence i.e. it suggests that law-like necessity and/or chance are not enough to produce the semiotic core of life. It must therefore have arisen by design. Intelligence is quite simply the ability to plan ahead, foresee the results and control the flow of the process of using means to achieve a set goal: in this case, a metabolizing and self-replicating semiotic state heterogeneous whole. Of the three types of causation, namely (i) law-like necessity, (ii) chance, and (iii) decision/choice from among physically indistinguishable alternatives (equilibrium states), it is only the latter that has the potentiality of producing decision making systems, of which biological systems are a subset. Neither (i) nor (ii) nor any combination thereof are practically capable of producing a metabolizing self-replicating semiotic state heterogeneous whole very far from equilibrium, a whole that has the capacity of computing its own state and make survival decisions. Decisions and the other two causation types in principle are not mutually exclusive. There can be decisions that harness/utilize chance and the laws of nature to extract non-physical (formal) utility such as control and state maintenance. I consider all other questions like IQ etc. purposeful distractions to obscure the glaring unwillingness to accept design, which is the only remaining option, after law-like necessity and chance have been ruled out as a plausible cause of life.EugeneS
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
EugeneS: If you reduce entropy, you will reduce the amount of information you get with every realization of the random variable. We're talking about the incorporation of information about the environment into the genome. If there is no incorporation, then entropy is maximum. When incorporated, entropy is reduced accordingly. EugeneS: This is why I think that selection reduces information. Selection reduces variation in a population, not in individuals.Zachriel
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed, Same questions for you as EugeneS: Are you saying that the cause of life had mental characteristics and abilities that are like those of humans, except that they are superior? For example, are you saying the cause of life is conscious, can learn new skills, solve novel problems, and could take an IQ test and score very highly on it? What is your evidence that this is the case? How can you support that claim? You have no answers to these questions, which is why all your work has nothing to do with intelligence or a theory of what caused living things. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 11

Leave a Reply