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
Hi EugeneS,
In all honesty, that is not the case. We infer that intelligence was required for the origin of life.
What do you mean by "intelligence" here?
What kind of intelligence it was it is hard to say just yet. The only thing is that it must have been hugely superior to human.
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 test that claim? Human brains are by far the most complicated organ in the human body, and they enable us to learn, reason, and design things. Do you think the cause of living things had a brain, or something like a brain, that enabled it to design life? If not, how could it design things when humans need a working brain in order to design things? Wouldn't that mean that it would be something very different from human intelligence, which relies on brain function? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
the indication of an intelligence is affirmed by the methodology.
Nonsense.
Straight up denial of measurable evidence. So much for empiricism.Upright BiPed
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
RDFish:
You have no idea what produced these mechanisms, and calling it “intelligent” tells you precisely nothing.
Nonsense. For one it tells us there was/ is a purpose, ie a plan. A plan that most likely includes us. It also tells us that there is more to living organisms than physics and chemistry. Those two alone would be ground-breaking and paradigm changing for science. RDFish has absolutely no scientific sense at all. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
RDFish, "All your work says nothing about whatever caused the existence of living things." In all honesty, that is not the case. We infer that intelligence was required for the origin of life. The merit of the biosemiosis argument is that it by far is the most powerful. However, there are also information, probabilistic, chemical arguments, all pointing to intelligence at the onset of terrestrial life. What kind of intelligence it was it is hard to say just yet. The only thing is that it must have been hugely superior to human.EugeneS
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Zachriel, mike1962: To what degree is natural selection known to increase this information? Zachriel: Because selection reduces entropy. Wrong. If you reduce entropy, you will reduce the amount of information you get with every realization of the random variable. The max amount of Shannon information corresponds to max uncertainty (max entropy). This corresponds to equal probabilities p = 1/N of N outcomes. In the case of a fair coin (one random variable, two possible values {0,1} with equal probabilities of 1/2 each), it is 1 bit exactly: H = - sum_i {p_i * log p_i} = - 1/2 * log(1/2) - 1/2 * log(1/2)= 1. However, if your coin is "perfectly unfair", with each outcome you will get 0 bits of information because in no outcome will you get anything else but the head (supposing the tail greatly outweighs the head), or the tail (otherwise). This is why I think that selection reduces information.EugeneS
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
You can’t refute the observations;
No need to, as I've been explaining to you since the beginning.
the indication of an intelligence is affirmed by the methodology.
Nonsense. You have no idea what produced these mechanisms, and calling it "intelligent" tells you precisely nothing. Absolutely nothing - not one single thing - follows from assigning that label to the cause of living things. It's a completely vacuous statement.
In your famous last words, you’re down to insisting there’s no reason to believe that the indicated intelligence could do anything more than produce the kinds of systems found in biology.
Hahahahahahahaha - those were my first words, of course, and I'm still saying it, because you haven't even made an effort to address it. All your work says nothing about whatever caused the existence of living things. Ouch indeed! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
mike1962: To what degree is natural selection known to increase this information? Zächrielein: Because selection reduces entropy. Sorry, that answer makes no sense to me. Did you misread? In digital organisms, we can directly measure their informational entropy. Please elaborate.mike1962
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Because selection reduces entropy.
Or because Tuesday is the square root of blue. :roll:Virgil Cain
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
mike1962: How is this information quantified and measured? In digital organisms, we can directly measure their informational entropy. mike1962: To what degree is natural selection known to increase this information? Because selection reduces entropy.Zachriel
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Zächrielein: Because natural selection increases this information, it increases complexity by the definition. How is this information quantified and measured? To what degree is natural selection known to increase this information?mike1962
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Hi RDFish:
Semiotics says nothing about the “intelligence” (whatever you might mean by that) of the origin of signs, period.
Intelligent Design is about the DESIGN not the intelligence. Semiotic systems can only arise via planning and intentional agency intervention. So semiotics says that an intelligence was required for its existence. It is as uniform an experience as that of gravity. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
However, evolutionary search...
"evolutionary search" is an oxymoron unless you are talking about intelligent design evolution.
Because natural selection increases this information,...
Evidence please. Your bald assertions do not count as evidence. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
mike1962: Then how do you know that evolutionary theory can account for the complexity we find in biological objects? We point out that complexity doesn't have a single unambiguous measure, then you ask a question without saying what you mean by complexity. mike1962: What is an example with regards to the most complex instance of known biological complexity? In ecology, we might measure complexity by the number and degree of interaction between species in an ecosystem. In genomics, we might define complexity as the amount of information about the environment stored in a genome. Because natural selection increases this information, it increases complexity by the definition.Zachriel
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
mike1962: That can include computer simulations. Computer simulations are very limited in their capabilities, and are only capable of simulating abstractions of the evolutionary process, not biological evolution. For instance, protein folding is still a very hard problem for computers, and that's just to test a single sequence, not a population of evolving sequences. However, evolutionary search can be shown capable of exploring complex landscapes, such as the traveling salesman problem, or to discover novel solutions to practical problems, such as antenna design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna Just for fun, try out Darwin's Pond. It has fourteen parameters that interact in a complex fashion. http://www.ventrella.com/darwin/darwin.htmlZachriel
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
Zächrielein: Evolutionary biologists study biological evolution but generally don’t produce organisms, analogous to how astronomers study stars but generally don’t produce stars. While evolutionary biologists might directly experiment with some aspects of evolution, just like astronomers might directly experiment with some aspect of the physics of stars, most of evolution and stars can only be studied indirectly. I'm not limiting the scope to biological complexity, hence the "otherwise." That can include computer simulations. Astrophysics use computer simulations in their research in order to test their models. To what degree have evolutionary biologists done this? There is no unambiguous measure of complexity, or even function. Then how do you know that evolutionary theory can account for the complexity we find in biological objects? When a quantitative measure is required, then a definition suitable to the study is provided. What is an example with regards to the most complex instance of known biological complexity?mike1962
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
mike1962: Using techniques and methods described by evolutionary theory, that allegedly explain, or account for, biologically complexity, what level of functional complexity of any sort, biological or otherwise, has been produced by evolutionary biologists? The same answer. Evolutionary biologists study biological evolution but generally don't produce organisms, analogous to how astronomers study stars but generally don't produce stars. While evolutionary biologists might directly experiment with some aspects of evolution, just like astronomers might directly experiment with some aspect of the physics of stars, most of evolution and stars can only be studied indirectly. RDFish: I’ve lost the first reference to the “protein evolution” Directed evolution of proteins is now commonplace, but a seminal experiment is Keefe & Szostak, Functional proteins from a random-sequence library, Nature 2001. Selection is for function. Another is Hayashi et al., Can an Arbitrary Sequence Evolve Towards Acquiring a Biological Function?, Journal of Molecular Evolution 2003. Selection is for reproductive potential. -- OFF-TOPIC RDFish: Is “Zachriel” akin to Nicolas Bourbaki? It's already on the list, suggested by olegt.
A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion,
ultimate expression of internet group think group of poseurs hive commune of pedants committee weird cult collective pseudonym like Bourbaki five guys collective tri-unity e pluribus unum imaginary playmates being of more than one mind royalty, pluralis majestatis the Z-team, a team of Zachriels schizophrenic cojoined twins because it annoys you editorial, pluralis modestiae someone with a tapeworm best friend is a pooka dissociative identity disorder a bizzare pseudo-world affectation gaggle of grad students Jovian clique nervous tick possessed by demons a group of concerned citizens Got a mouse in your pocket? fellow at a Darwin institute gang of Z elaborate avatar created by a theist to explore the worldview of materialism possessed by a demon with many heads a bot that some programmers designed for random argument 5-member purple-horned leprechaun gang that escaped from the cosmic zoo
Zachriel
December 7, 2015
December
12
Dec
7
07
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
RD, You can’t refute the observations; the indication of an intelligence is affirmed by the methodology. In your famous last words, you're down to insisting there's no reason to believe that the indicated intelligence could do anything more than produce the kinds of systems found in biology. Ouch.Upright BiPed
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT
Hi Zachriel, Sorry but in the long thread I've lost the first reference to the "protein evolution" example you mention in @152. Could you post that again please? Cheers, RDFish/AIGuy (p.s. You refer to yourself in first person plural @46. Is "Zachriel" akin to Nicolas Bourbaki?)RDFish
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
RD today: First, get your facts straight: I would never include “intentionality” or “purpose” as candidates for empirically testable characteristics of so-called “intelligent agency”. [Oh of course not RD, you’d just throw them up as meaningless rhetoric].
Uh, what? I've told you (1) "purpose" was not something we can investigate scientifically, and (2) "intentionality" is never something I would suggest as an empirically accessible attribute. How does one observe it?
RD earlier today:Your work is entirely worthless – all you’ve done is to describe protein synthesis in terms of semiotics. What is the point? Semiotics does not encompass intentionality. Apparently the empirically testable characteristics of semiotics is insufficient in identifying intelligent action because it “does not encompass intentionality”. Cue the splitting of hairs.
Splitting of hairs??? I'm saying that semiotics simply has nothing to say about the causes of signs! That means it doesn't matter if you cast protein synthesis in terms of semiotics - it still has nothing to do with the cause of those mechanisms.
RDF: If anyone would like crystal-clear evidence that you are as confused as person could be, here it is: Those terms are precisely the opposite of what you say. Rather than being ambiguous and non-measurable, those things are in fact concrete and measureable! That is the whole point! UB: When you figure out how to test the “lunar eclipse predicting” ability of the designing intelligence of life 3.5 billion years ago — let us know. Until then, we all have to live in the real world.
Unbelievably, you make my point once again! In the real world, we cannot test the mental abilities of the cause of living things!!! You have no basis, then, for imagining that this cause is conscious, or can do anything at all that human beings can do except for producing systems such as we see in biology.
It is no secret why you haven’t attacked any of the actual observations made on the site.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaha. CORRECT! I've told you over and over again why I haven't!!! None of it matters one iota to "Intelligent Design Theory"! It is all utterly irrelevant! Semiotics says nothing about the "intelligence" (whatever you might mean by that) of the origin of signs, period. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
Zächrielein: Evolutionary biologists study biology. They generally don’t produce it. My apologies. What I intended is: Using techniques and methods described by evolutionary theory, that allegedly explain, or account for, biologically complexity, what level of functional complexity of any sort, biological or otherwise, has been produced by evolutionary biologists?mike1962
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
mike1962: How is functional complexity measured and quantified by evolutionary biologists? The term is usually used qualitatively. There is no unambiguous measure of complexity, or even function. When a quantitative measure is required, then a definition suitable to the study is provided. mike1962: Using techniques and methods described by evolutionary theory, that allegedly explain, or account for, biologically complexity, what level of functional complexity has been produced by evolutionary biologists? Evolutionary biologists study biology. They generally don't produce it.Zachriel
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Zächrielein, How is functional complexity measured and quantified by evolutionary biologists? Using techniques and methods described by evolutionary theory, that allegedly explain, or account for, biologically complexity, what level of functional complexity has been produced by evolutionary biologists?mike1962
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
mike1962: Do you claim that evolutionary theory explains everything the followed? Not every detail, of course. Keep in mind that evolutionary biology includes historical events. We have a good idea of the history of the Roman Empire, but there are undoubtedly many details which are less well-known, or not known at all. mike1962: By “explain” what precisely do you mean? An explanation is a reason provided for something. A scientific explanation should be consistent with observations, and be able to make predictions of new observations. mike1962: What biological features have verified gap-free evolutionary accounts? There's always gaps. That's the nature of the scientific endeavor. It turns out we can reach reasonable, albeit tentative, findings about the universe even if most of it remains shrouded in mystery. This is accomplished with hypothetico-deduction.Zachriel
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Zächrielein: The origin of life is not explainable with evolutionary theory. Do you claim that evolutionary theory explains everything the followed? By "explain" what precisely do you mean? What biological features have verified gap-free evolutionary accounts? What biological features have verified gap-free evolutionary accounts that were predicted by evolutionary theory? What biological features do not have verified gap-free evolutionary accounts?mike1962
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
All that strutting and preening and crowing. What species is it?Mung
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
mike1962: What is the greatest level of intricacy in biological systems that current evolutionary theory can account for? The origin of life is not explainable with evolutionary theory. mike1962: What testable and falsifiable predictions does current evolutionary theory make with respect to undiscovered intricacy in biological systems? While evolutionary theory sheds light on the origin of life, it doesn't have direct entailments. We know that life began when the Earth was young, billions of years ago. There is evidence that life has a common ancestry. One hypothesis is that life and evolution began as a molecular replicator in a simple lipid membrane, but this is uncertain.Zachriel
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Zächrielein: Evidence supporting evolution of intricacy exists, and to refute that evidence will require significant positive support. What is the greatest level of intricacy in biological systems that current evolutionary theory can account for? What testable and falsifiable predictions does current evolutionary theory make with respect to undiscovered intricacy in biological systems?mike1962
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Mung: Good one Zachriel. That one’s a keeper. Perhaps. It depends on whether we are reading RDFish's argument correctly. It reads like this: Z: Lots of evidence for evolution of intricacy. R: Evolutionary algorithms aren't able to evolve intricacy. Until it is shown that evolutionary algorithms are able to evolve some unstated level of intricacy, then there is "no evidence" that known evolutionary mechanisms have the ability to produce any of the complex mechanisms we observe in biology. RDFish has a hammer. It's a very nice hammer, and he knows how to use it. Now he just needs a nail. Evidence supporting evolution of intricacy exists, and to refute that evidence will require significant positive support. Evolutionary algorithms can evolve some levels of intricacy, but are very limited in their computational resources when compared to biology. Examples from protein evolution, and Muller's statement above should be sufficient to show how the process should generally work, and there is evidence of intricate, multi-step processes that evolved in this fashion.Zachriel
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Mung,
Actually he ignored it as being irrelevant to the OP, and rightly so, imo.
Correct. I ignored RD's determination to add irrelevant concepts to my argument. We can physically detect an entirely unambiguous correlate of intelligent action in the organization of genetic translation. Oh, but wait. Before we can acknowledge this empirical fact, we must have an essay from the designing intelligence where it explains itself, and does some math, and predicts an eclipse, and programs a DVR. What a ridiculous standard of evidence. If RD has intellectual interests outside of the ID project - that's great - but those interest do not impact the ID project, and he cannot hold it hostage to his outdated objections.Upright BiPed
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
RD today: First, get your facts straight: I would never include “intentionality” or “purpose” as candidates for empirically testable characteristics of so-called “intelligent agency”. [Oh of course not RD, you’d just throw them up as meaningless rhetoric]. RD earlier today: Your work is entirely worthless – all you’ve done is to describe protein synthesis in terms of semiotics. What is the point? Semiotics does not encompass intentionality.
Apparently the empirically testable characteristics of semiosis is insufficient in identifying intelligent action because it "does not encompass intentionality". Cue the splitting of hairs.
If anyone would like crystal-clear evidence that you are as confused as person could be, here it is: Those terms are precisely the opposite of what you say. Rather than being ambiguous and non-measurable, those things are in fact concrete and measureable! That is the whole point!
When you figure out how to test the "lunar eclipse predicting" ability of the designing intelligence of life 3.5 billion years ago -- let us know. Until then, we all have to live in the real world.
It is you who hide behind ambiguous and empirically undefined terms, and run for cover when I point out that to make scientific claims, you must actually describe your claims in empirically accessible terms.
Biosemiosis.org It is no secret why you haven't attacked any of the actual observations made on the site.Upright BiPed
December 6, 2015
December
12
Dec
6
06
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 11

Leave a Reply