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 Upright BiPed, Ok then - I shall just call your bluff. I will debate whatever you'd like to say about semiotics, explain and argue and defend anything I've ever said about music boxes or anything else. At the same time, you will debate the points I've raised here - the ones gpuccio responded to. How about it? (Prediction: You're still too scared!) Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
Translation:
I didn't type those words. Those are not my words. I didn't bold them either. And that's exactly why you don't understand how wrong you are. And I admit that the word "intentionality" doesn't even appear on your site, but you got that thing all wrong. And those other words too. SO AGAIN! for like the fifth hundredth time already, I have NO PROBLEM with whatever. I also have no desire to argue your actual argument, but I'm gonna cut you some slack anyway, and just mosey on outta here.
Nice talking to you SkippyUpright BiPed
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
ALL: Gpuccio addressed my arguments @23, and I responded to him @48. I'd be very interested if anyone else would like to engage the points I've made in response to gpuccio.RDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT
Hi Upright BiPed,
This is, of course, a calculated deception...
Sad, so sad. Not even your cohorts here are so deluded and deranged. I just gave you a perfect example of how people who disagree can meaningfully discuss something - gpuccio addressed my points directly, and gave me the opportunity to explain why he was wrong. You however, do nothing of the sort - you refuse to engage the discussion at all. AGAIN: Gpuccio tried to save the day by answering the questions you couldn't.
This is your position...You believe...
One reason that you are unable to discuss things with anyone else is that rather than asking them what they think, you tell them what they think! That is why you are incapable of understanding why your views are incoherent - because you refuse to actually try and comprehend other people's ideas. So, rather than address my arguments, you pretend we are arguing about something else. You have no response to the issues I've raised regarding materialism, the false dichotomy of ID vs. Darwinism, and the lack of meaning for the term "design". Gpuccio had no trouble understanding my criticisms, and did his best to respond. You, as always, put your fingers in your ears and yelled. I have explained over and over to you, and to everyone else here, that I have no trouble with anyone in ID identifying any property of biological systems - including irreducible complexity, CSI, FSCI, DFSCI, semiosis, or anything else you'd like to describe - and claiming that no known evolutionary process could possibly account for it. Read that again, and again, and again, and again until you understand what I'm saying. I have been saying the same thing for a very, very, very long time. You keep screaming the same thing over and over, but I have never disagreed with any of it (whether fully or arguendo)!
You have argued against semiosis at every turn.
I have never argued against semiosis per se of course! I have argued against your hopelessly naive understanding of intentionality, your failure to articulate the various concepts you toss out regarding "discontinuities", and so on. You are the one who led us down this irrelevant path to the problem of intentionality (with which you are apparently unacquainted) - I have never been interested in discussing philosophical conundrums like that with you of course. So, as always I agree completely to accept any way you'd like to characterize properties of biological systems that cannot arise by means of any known physical process. I've never been interested in challenging the notion of CSI, or IC, even though there are plenty of problems with the formulation of those concepts. Likewise I have no interest in critiquing whatever your ideas are regarding semiosis - even though I have in the past pointed out that your articulation of your ideas reveal your philosophical unsophistication. The reason is because I already agree - as I always have - that no known physical process can account for what we observe in biology! AGAIN: What I have argued against you from the very beginning has nothing to do with any of your obsession with semiotics, IC, CSI, or anything like that. What I have argued against you from the very beginning has always been the same - the very same thing I argue against every ID opponent: That the concept of "design" is either too vague to serve as a scientific explanation, or if made specific, lacks empirical warrant and runs counter to our experience and observations. I'm going to let you off the hook here, UB. Obviously if you had any answers at all to my criticisms of ID, and the irrelevance of all your writing about semiosis and so on, then you would have at least alluded to them already. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to comment on my arguments, which (as everyone here knows) are exactly those that I have been making consistently for many years, reveals not only that you have no answers, but you actually realize that you have no answers. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT
You refuse to respond to a single point I’ve made.
This is, of course, a calculated deception, made obvious by the posts on this thread. I am responding to your words RD. I am responding directly to the words you typed into the combox on this site. Here they are again:
(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!
This is your position on semiosis. You believe there is no discontinuity in a semiotic system, and you believe that the operation of a semiotic system is ”reducible without remainder to physical cause and the effect”. You made these comments directly to me on these pages. You purposely bolded the text in order to demonstrate your emphatic belief in your counter-argument. I am responding by asking you to back up your words. You have thus far refused to do so.
You refuse to provide a single clarification of what you’ve claimed.
This is another calculated deception. You posted on this thread the ridiculous notion that you’ve never had any problem with semiosis in the cell. You specifically posted it on an article written by someone who has been beating the semiosis drum for quite some time. A comment search of your name on UD returns almost 200 pages of comments by and to you. You have argued against semiosis at every turn. And you’ve been an unnecessary ass about it. But now you want to ignore the positions you’ve taken and the words you’ve used, and you want to launch off into a new diatribe in their place. Your silly claim -- that I'm just flat refusing to follow along -- can be seen for what it really is. I have published my argument regarding semiosis on the website Biosemiosis.org. On that website I have presented a coherent model of a semiotic system. Feel free to cut and paste anything I’ve claimed in regard to that model, and I will be happy to respond to it. Doing so will give you a chance to demonstrate the claims you've argued for, and will give me a chance to defend my model. What more could you ask for? I look forward to it.Upright BiPed
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Mung @53, Both you and Michael Egnor are wrong about memory and the brain. This stuff by Egnor is total nonsense:
The materialist explanation for perception -- the explanation extant in most journals and textbooks of neuroscience -- is self-refuting gibberish. So where does perception occur, if not in your brain? The answer is simple. Perception is a wholly material thing -- it does have location. When you perceive a pinprick on your finger, your perception of the pinprick occurs on your finger where it is pricked. This understanding has remarkable, but undeniable, consequences. When you perceive music from your radio, your perception of the music occurs at your radio. When you perceive a tree in your yard, your perception of the tree occurs at the tree. When you perceive the moon, your perception of the moon occurs at the moon. Perceptions occur at the object perceived, regardless of distance, regardless of location. It seems bizarre, but it is logically sound and, when you think it out a bit, it is plainly true.
I am not a materialist by any meaning of the word but you guys are giving non-materialists a bad name with this nonsense. This is total crap, sorry.Mapou
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
RDFish can only play a music box. Beyond that he's tone deaf. Doesn't know what it means to specify something. Can't change his tune to save his life. No wonder Upright BiPed treats him with respect. I have a music box that plays four different melodies. It can do this because the different songs are specified. Oh No! Specification! Run for the hills!Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
RDFish:
And not only that, but you are apparently of the opinion that music boxes somehow require immaterial spirits in order to play! (Hint: They don’t. You just wind up the crank, and there they go, and you need nothing more than plain ol’ classical physics to explain how they work)!
Oh look. All of a sudden RDFish knows what materialism is.Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
RDFish seems to think that science requires absolute proof. And that just because ID is out in front of our current understanding, ie that we don't have any idea how consciousness arises, invalidates it as a science. Really. IOW just because ID is bold enough to state that consciousness is not reducible to and does not emerge from physicochemical processes, RDFish declares ID is not science. Really. The mere fact that if it is shown that consciousness can indeed arise via physicochemical processes falsifies ID, is lost on RDFish. The mere fact that ID doesn't say anything about the designer is also lost on RDFish. The fact that science says that without directly observing the designer or without having the designer tell us what transpired, the only way to say anything, scientifically, about the designer is by studying the design(s) and all relevant evidence. And that means we have already used our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to infer what we are investigating was intelligently designed. Meaning the who, how, why and when all come AFTER and only via rigorous investigation. RDFish is also upset that science is a step-by-step process involving proximate, rather than ultimate, causes. RDFish thinks that is somehow a strike against ID. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
RDFish:
I base this on insights from AI, where we see that learning algorithms based on biological evolution are limited in ways that suggest that our understanding of evolution is fundamentally incomplete.
You sound like Upright BiPed. Are you his sock puppet?Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
RDFish: You refuse to respond to a single point I’ve made. Good for him. Get back to us when you know how to specify middle C. Then perhaps there will be something worth discussing. I bet you don't know how to specify a song either. Heck, I bet music boxes are impossible! Silly Upright BiPed. See ya!Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
That returns us to the typical discussion as to whether non-conscious processes can result in complex functional information.
And that returns us to the glaring problem of how to objectively test such a claim.
Just to be clear, are you referring to the origin of life, or its myriad forms?
Both as neither has any evidentiary support.Virgil Cain
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Hi Zachriel, So refreshing! I've been posting on ID/Evo boards on and off for more than a decade, and this is the first time someone challenged my skepticism about evolutionary theory!
This seems like a case of the relativity of wrong. We often hear it said that the Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud, but it turns out that gravity alone is not sufficient to explain the form of the Solar System. Nonetheless, pointing to gravity is a reasonable first-order explanation, even if it is “fundamentally incomplete”.
I disagree: I think it would be like saying that Newtonian mechanics explained the precession of the perihelion of Mercury - which it doesn't at all, because it is fundamentally incomplete. I think that without some other sort of constraints on variation that we don't understand, no combination of selection, drift, transfer, or anything else anyone has thought of could find the sorts of intricate functional configurations we see biological systems in anywhere near the number of trials available on this planet over just billions of years. Not by a many-orders longshot. I could be wrong about this of course, but it's certainly not something that should be accepted on the basis of current evidence. Computer simulations should be able to provide evidence that mechanisms of complexity comparable to biological organisms could evolve with the time and populations available; they do not. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
We know perception is subject to error...
No, you don't. Do Perceptions Happen in Your Brain?Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
RDFish: I mean both. This seems like a case of the relativity of wrong. We often hear it said that the Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a molecular cloud, but it turns out that gravity alone is not sufficient to explain the form of the Solar System. Nonetheless, pointing to gravity is a reasonable first-order explanation, even if it is "fundamentally incomplete".Zachriel
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Hi Zachriel, I mean both. I do not believe that it has been satisfactorily demonstrated that known evolutionary mechanisms can produce the systems we observe in biology. I base this on insights from AI, where we see that learning algorithms based on biological evolution are limited in ways that suggest that our understanding of evolution is fundamentally incomplete. Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
RDFish: In that case, we all (you, me, and UB anyway) agree that reductionist naturalism, as you define it here, is incapable of explaining how biological systems came to exist ... Just to be clear, are you referring to the origin of life, or its myriad forms?Zachriel
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Hi Upright Biped, Well, now you have it. That is what it looks like for somebody (gpuccio) to have the integrity to say what they believe and enter into a debate. You, in contrast, are too fearful to even try. Read my post above and perhaps you might begin to dimly comprehend why your ramblings are just so much crackpottery. Good luck! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Hi Gpuccio, Thanks for addressing the topic here - something that UB has never done, and will never do! Read and learn, UB - this is what it means to engage in a discussion.
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 what “Physical” means, vs non physical.
See, we have made progress already. You and agree that this "materialism" that UB insists he is overturning (and Barry stupidly believes is still an active philosophical program) is poorly defined and anachronistic. Excellent!
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.
Very well. Thank you for a clear definition - something UB is never willing to provide. In that case, we all (you, me, and UB anyway) agree that reductionist naturalism, as you define it here, is incapable of explaining how biological systems came to exist, and also that reductionist naturalism is incapable of explaining how human beings learn, solve problems, and design complex machinery. Very good indeed!
Complex functional information, semiosis and irreducible complexity are 3 aspects of reality which are explained by design, and only by design.
Well, we obviously disagree here...
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.
1) Despite the fact that scientists do not understand the connection between conscious awareness and mental abilities such as perception, planning, learning, and problem solving, and despite the fact that all of these mental abilities are at least sometimes accomplished without accompanying conscious awareness, you simply declare that it is consciousness that enables these abilities in human beings. These are nothing but your own assumptions and personal beliefs, not facts that can be empirically demonstrated, and are certainly unsupported by experimental results in cognitive psychology, neurobiology, and other relevant disciplines. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you are wrong to present these as justified knowledge. 2) When you insist that design requires conscious awareness, you contradict William Dembski, who explicitly states that it is not empirically warranted to claim that the cause of biological complexity was conscious at all. The fact that Dembski (the creator of this blog and one of the few academics who has developed this so-called "ID Theory") doesn't agree with you ought to give you pause. 3) All of our experience-based knowledge confirms that consciousness requires particular neurological function. This is NOT to say that brain function is sufficient for consciousness, or somehow explains consciousness (it doesn't). However, it is the case that in all of our experienced-based knowledge brain function is necessary for conscious awareness. Since brains are the most complex, functional objects known, it becomes problematic to hypothesize that complex functional systems must have originally been produced by something conscious. This is one (of several) reasons that Dembski says ID does NOT claim that the cause of biological complexity was conscious.
IOWs, in design the form exists before in the consciousness of the designer, and is then outputted to the material object.
Another reason that Dembski denies your claim that the design of living things entails consciousness is because of this: If design requires that conscious representations temporally precede implementation, then something that exists outside of time and space (viz. a classical conception of God) could not be said to design anything. This is also part of the reason the Ed Feser, a well-known Christian philosopher, believes that ID is wrongheaded.
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.
This is a terribly naive false dichotomy. If there are no explanations that can be empirically tested, then we simply have no empirically justified answer! We do not accept a poorly articulated and untestable answer simply because we can't come up with another! Anyway, Gpuccio, I really do appreciate that you attempted to respond to my arguments. As you can see, you are wrong about all of them, but you did engage in good faith, and that is a rarity around here! Thank you! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Hi Upright Biped, You refuse to respond to a single point I've made. You refuse to provide a single clarification of what you've claimed. You are afraid to debate, afraid to answer my questions, afraid that all of the effort you have spent on your pretend science is nothing but crackpottery. But it is, UB - it's all just crackpottery. Instead you want to change the subject... to music boxes! And not only that, but you are apparently of the opinion that music boxes somehow require immaterial spirits in order to play! (Hint: They don't. You just wind up the crank, and there they go, and you need nothing more than plain ol' classical physics to explain how they work)! What a nutjob! Now, watch as one of your cohorts, Gpuccio, actually does try to engage the topic. He's wrong, of course, but at least he's not a coward! Cheers, RDFish/AIGuyRDFish
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
gpuccio: I have always thought that you are in some way a “reasonable” naturalist. We're not a naturalist. Our position is that there is no way to effectively argue the point. Both monist and dualist philosophies can be self-consistent. Our objection, then, is when someone claims they have "proved" one or the other. (These discussions were rather interesting a couple or three millennia ago, but they haven't progressed much since then.) gpuccio: It presupposes that, given this context, consciousness must be treated as an empirical reality for what it is as we perceive it (a subjective experience with its phenomena and rules), instead of assuming what cannot be assumed. We know perception is subject to error, so you can't simply assume that your experience of consciousness is without the possibility of error or omission. That doesn't mean we can't discuss consciousness, in particular, someone holding a view of the future in mind, then taking actions to bring that future about, a.k.a. planning or design. gpuccio: I am just saying that consciousness is different, and it must be treated for what it is: a different empirical reality, a different fact. Okay. Few would argue we can't treat consciousness as something subject to investigation or analysis either through science or introspection. That returns us to the typical discussion as to whether non-conscious processes can result in complex functional information. The philosophy is just a sideshow.Zachriel
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Of course, not all naturalists are reductionist, or even think that humans know much about the natural world.
If you are speaking of yourself, I have always thought that you are in some way a "reasonable" naturalist. That's why I like you. :)
You define design as the result of conscious planning.
Yes.
Then you claim that only design can empirically account for complex functional information.
Yes.
This presupposes that consciousness doesn’t have a material basis,
No. It only presupposes that consciousness is perceived in ourselves directly as a subjective experience, or inferred in others on the basis of our subjective experience and of obvious analogies between us and others. It presupposes that there is no known explanation of subjective consciousness in terms of objective entities (the hard problem according to Chalmers). It presupposes that, given this context, consciousness must be treated as an empirical reality for what it is as we perceive it (a subjective experience with its phenomena and rules), instead of assuming what cannot be assumed.
and that you are correct concerning your empirical claim.
I am correct about my empirical claim. Have you counter-examples? I am saying nothing about the "basis" of consciousness, either material or else. I am just saying that consciousness is different, and it must be treated for what it is: a different empirical reality, a different fact.gpuccio
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
RDFish:
I really don’t understand what it means to “specify middle C”.
I bet RDFish doesn't understand what it means for a sequence of amino acids to specify a protein either. Or for a sequence of nucleic acids to specify a sequence of amino acids. Fortunately for science, the people involved in working out the genetic code had no such issues. And if you own a piano, you don't pay the piano tuner to not know how to specify middle C. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Can_Tune_a_Piano,_but_You_Can't_Tuna_FishMung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
EugeneS: On the other hand, no evidence exists to support the contrary claim, i.e. that non-telic causality accounts for statistically significant levels of functional complexity. The vast majority of scientists working the field disagree, and we'd be happy to discuss the subject. However, it's a bit far from the matter, which is that pointing to consciousness doesn't refute physicalism, which asserts that consciousness supervenes on the physical. It's a consistent position, even if you happen to reject it.Zachriel
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Zachriel, Go look up non sequitur. And please stop trolling.Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
I look at it like this inanimate matter only encodes. Animated matter encodes and decodes.....Andre
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Zachriel, "As for the empirical aspects of life, the claim that it requires consciousness is contradicted by the evidence." Evidence exists to support the ID claim, namely that statistically significant levels of functional complexity invariably trace back to intelligent agency. On the other hand, no evidence exists to support the contrary claim, i.e. that non-telic causality accounts for statistically significant levels of functional complexity.EugeneS
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
RDFish makes me laugh. First he complains about the use of the term materialist/materialism, as if he doesn't know what it means. But when he needs to, he knows what it means:
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.
He also writes:
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?
So physicists believe in elfs and angels and fairies and such, and accept them as acceptable material causes?Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Mung: go look up “red herring.” red herring: something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting. Nope, it wasn't a red herring, but a counterexample to a vague claim about what "people" say. -- ETA: Fish are paraphyletic, if that is your objection.Zachriel
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT
Zachriel, go look up "red herring." And please stop trolling.Mung
December 1, 2015
December
12
Dec
1
01
2015
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
1 7 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply