Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolution of an Irreducibly Complex System – Lenski’s E. Coli

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

On another thread we have been discussing abiogenesis in particular, but there was also some discussion about the evolution of an irreducibly complex system. Commenter CHartsil indicated that “we actually watched an IC system evolve” in reference to Lenski’s E. coli research. At my request, he has posted a brief summary of the research and his take, which I am now elevating to a new thread on this important topic.

For those who disagree with CHartsil’s take, strong objections on substantive grounds are of course welcome, whether relating to Lenski’s research or CHartsil’s interpretation of it, but not irrelevant personal attacks. Thank you.

—–

Guest Post by CHartsil:

This is a pro-ID board so I doubt I need to explain irreducible complexity. When arguing against it, most will bring up Ken Miller or Nick Matzke. They have great points but theirs are indirect and theoretical pathways for systems considered IC. That’s why I’m fond of Lenski’s cit* E. coli.

This particular strain of E. coli evolved the ability to metabolize citrate aerobically. While most E. coli can do this anaerobically, part of the definition of wild-type E. coli is actually the inablity to use citrate as a substrate aerobically. This may not have been a terribly fascinating addition of function if not for the frozen fossil records kept by Lenski et al.

These frozen generations allowed Lenski to determine that this trait was not acquired via a single mutation as it could only be repeated after generation 20,000. Given the distinct cladistic division amongst the populations at the border generation, it was determined that there were at least two potentiating mutations prior to the cit* event.

In this third clade a tandem duplication resulting in a novel regulatory module leading to the aerobic cit* could be repeated and verified. It has been noted since that the fitness of the population has been improving without notable upper limit, increasing based on the number of copies of the new regulatory module.

I find this to be sufficient in warranting the dismissal of the concept irreducible complexity. In Lenski’s E. coli, we observe the rise of a new function resulting from a new gene and new gene regulation. This function is comprised of now interdependent components which demonstrably did not exist in parent generations. It is by definition irreducibly complex and it was observed to evolve.

—–

Nota bene: for purposes of the above discussion, CHartsil is using the following definition of irreducible complexity: “a system comprised of interdependent parts, the removal of any of which will cause the system to cease functioning.”

Comments
Read any paper on ATP synthase- or any bacterial flagellum- or any blood clotting system- asexual reproduction- sexual reproduction- the list is long.Joe
March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Peer-reviewed papers are a reputable source and they demonstrate there are many IC systems and subsystems.
I think you pressed 'send' before your post was complete. Generally, following such a claim, there would be a citation of such a peer-reviewed paper in support of it. The claim that 'true' IC has been demonstrated, that is (rather than the well-known fact that organisms have bits you just can't chop out nonfatally).Hangonasec
March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Peer-reviewed papers are a reputable source and they demonstrate there are many IC systems and subsystems. Also there are plenty of evos trying to refute the premise. Why would they be doing that if IC didn't exist? As for my devastating critique- well look at what I was responding to- your evidence-free drivel.Joe
March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Joe,
True IC has been demonstrated. That is a fact of science.
If it were a fact of science, you would be able to point to a reputable source. So far, we only have 'apparent IC' - no more convincing than "the heart needs blood and blood needs the heart - IC!". :D
Me: There are rational paths by which incremental change can produce apparent IC Joe: That is only an opinion.
A devastating critique, Professor!Hangonasec
March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Evolutionary theory claims that complex structures evolve incrementally.
That is not a complete statement Evolutionism claims those steps are via blind and undirected chemical processes.
The ID claim is that there are no such pathways,
That is also incorrect.Joe
March 4, 2015
March
03
Mar
4
04
2015
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Hey Eric, Thank you in advance for the upcoming post. The failure of the critics to address the actual IC argument is frustrating to me. They seem instead to be content to continually battle straw-men. It's as if we are talking past each other. As witnessed by the OP. I hope you will be able to break through the communication barrier where others have failed. peacefifthmonarchyman
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: No-one, certainly not Behe, claims that a complex functional structure cannot evolve if: (i) each step of the process is functional, (ii) there is an adequate population, and (iii) there is adequate time. Evolutionary theory claims that complex structures evolve incrementally. The ID claim is that there are no such pathways, so they throw a bunch of exponents around as if saying unlikely events are unlikely is an argument.Zachriel
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
The ID claim is that irreducible structures . . . can’t assemble through incremental change where each step of the process is functional.
No. You are still misstating it. This is a critical nuance. Read carefully what I wrote and the difference with what you are writing. I'll try to put up a post on this later this week if I get a chance, as this may be an issue that a number of people are confused about.Eric Anderson
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
True IC has been demonstrated. That is a fact of science.
There are rational paths by which incremental change can produce apparent IC
That is only an opinion.Joe
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
No it hasn't. It has been asserted. There are rational paths by which incremental change can produce apparent IC (that is, a structure that cannot now be subject to subunit knockouts non-fatally). Unless these paths are eliminated, you cannot distinguish 'true' IC from 'apparent' IC.Hangonasec
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
True IC has been demonstrated.Joe
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
fmm @257,
Ive already pointed out that in another thread on this website your fellow traveler is claiming that the theory of “evolution” would be falsified if a large change in the genome was directly observed and in this very thread the OP is pointing to the “evolution” of an an IC structure as a falsification of Behe’s IC argument.
There is absolutely no conflict between the definition of evolution as 'descent with modification' and the mechanistic restriction on the possible modifications available to a process of descent. Local leaps are more likely to succeed than larger ones, whose probability of success declines towards a limit. One-step recapitulation of a form that has independently arisen stepwise would be even less likely. It would be entirely outside the expectations of evolutionary biology (more specifically, genetics), even if, technically, a 'descent with modification'. I think you are confusing definition with the predictions available to a framework. Definitions can't be falsified; expectations can. A cat giving birth to a dog, or the yet-to-be-demonstrated 'true' IC would not falsify the definition of evolution, but it would falsify current theory.
According to the definition you are using both of these posters are to use WD400?s phase “not even wrong”.
I hope the above helps to address why that is not the case.
Apparently it’s your side that you need to educate.
No ... no, I'm pretty sure they get it.
That is if you really want clarity.
You seem genuinely to doubt that. I'm wounded!Hangonasec
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
The ID claim is that irreducible structures can’t {plausibly} evolve,...
That is incorrect. The ID claim is that blind and undirected chemical processes cannot produce IC. And Muller did not even address IC at the molecular level. Zachriel is just confused, as usual. ID is OK with IC evolving by design. Your position has an issue if it requires more than two specific genetic changes.Joe
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: However, when we see a complex functional structure, if we are to be objective, we must ask: (i) is it realistic to believe (indeed, do we have any observational evidence for the claim) that each step of the process would have been functional, (ii) was there an adequate population, and (iii) has there been adequate time. Sigh. The ID claim is that irreducible structures can’t {plausibly} evolve, that is, they can’t assemble through incremental change where each step of the process is functional. In other words, all the components have to be in place before there is any function. However, irreducible structures can evolve, a process for which we have provided two plausible scenarios, one of which was proposed by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller in 1918.Zachriel
March 3, 2015
March
03
Mar
3
03
2015
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Zachriel, that is an incorrect understanding of irreducible complexity:
The ID claim is that irreducible structures can’t evolve, that is, they can’t assemble through incremental change where each step of the process is functional.
No-one, certainly not Behe, claims that a complex functional structure cannot evolve if: (i) each step of the process is functional, (ii) there is an adequate population, and (iii) there is adequate time. However, when we see a complex functional structure, if we are to be objective, we must ask: (i) is it realistic to believe (indeed, do we have any observational evidence for the claim) that each step of the process would have been functional, (ii) was there an adequate population, and (iii) has there been adequate time.Eric Anderson
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: I’m not making any argument I’m only pointing out the obvious equivocation of terms. There is natural and incremental change in the heritable composition of populations, a process called evolution. However, short definitions are necessarily incomplete, so if you have a question, feel free to ask, but don't then pretend you haven't been provided answers. fifthmonarchyman (quote): "It is by definition irreducibly complex and it was observed to evolve. " The statement is not hard to parse. The ID claim is that irreducible structures can't evolve, that is, they can't assemble through incremental change where each step of the process is functional. In other words, all the components have to be in place before there is any function. However, irreducible structures can evolve, a process for which we have provided two plausible scenarios, one of which was proposed by the Nobel prize-winning geneticist H. J. Muller in 1918.Zachriel
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
ZAc says, You are making a semantic argument rather than a substantive one. I say, Why is it always about debate with you Zac? I'm not making any argument I'm only pointing out the obvious equivocation of terms. It's not necessary to make an argument in this case. The claim made in the OP fails simply on definitional grounds. as has been repeatedly demonstrated by yourself and others. quote: It is by definition irreducibly complex and it was observed to evolve. end quote: I just wish I did not have to be the one to point out the vacuousness of this statement. peacefifthmonarchyman
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Hangonasec says That’s why I’ve spent considerable time attempting to clarify, and explain why I think the Webster definition is inadequate I say, I do appreciate the clarification but it's pointed in entirely the wrong direction. Ive already pointed out that in another thread on this website your fellow traveler is claiming that the theory of "evolution" would be falsified if a large change in the genome was directly observed and in this very thread the OP is pointing to the "evolution" of an an IC structure as a falsification of Behe's IC argument. According to the definition you are using both of these posters are to use WD400's phase "not even wrong". Apparently it's your side that you need to educate. That is if you really want clarity. peacefifthmonarchyman
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: I’m confused No, you're not. A simple definition of biological evolution will always be incomplete. You are making a semantic argument rather than a substantive one.Zachriel
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
But in public conversations it is important to be clear so you are not misunderstood.
] And so I type many words in clarification, specifically to avoid being misunderstood ... and what comes back?
It’s obvious that when nonspecialists hear the term “Evolution” they picture something radically different than what you apparently mean by the term. This should not even be controversial.
It's not controversial. It's what 'evolution' means within the field of evolutionary biology. If the public thinks it means something different, surely they are capable of learning? If this hypothetical member of the public were new to the discussion, it would be more understandable, but you have had it explained, yet still you cling to Webster over a textbook of evolutionary biology. Nonspecialists who attempt to critique a field should perhaps understand the terms as the field uses them, not waft dictionaries in their faces and tell them they are wrong, wrong, wrong! They can learn. If someone thinks that evolution is the same as Natural Selection and the same as 'Darwinism', I simply can't adopt that teeth-gratingly incorrect and simplistic viewpoint, just to patronise 'the public'. How would you go about talking to someone who insisted that and 'fruit' and 'banana' were synonyms? Simply adopt their usage?
If you want to continue to use a term in public discourse in a way contrary to it’s accepted standard definition you will continue to be misunderstood and honest level headed discussion with the public will continue to elude you.
The accepted standard definition is the scientific one, for the purpose of science. If a member of the public has a different understanding, the kinds of clarification we have been giving should suffice to address that matter. The member of the public continuing to insist "No, it means X!! It really does!!" eventually comes across as a bit obtuse.
It’s what happens when you equivocate. Maybe that is what you want
Yes, of course that's what I want! That's why I've spent considerable time attempting to clarify, and explain why I think the Webster definition is inadequate. [Rolls eyes].Hangonasec
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
Hey Hangonasac, you say Let’s get Webster to define Quantum Field Theory for us! We’re just humble speakers of English an’ all. I say, In internal conversations of our respective fields we often use specialized definitions and short hand. It's the same for every field. But in public conversations it is important to be clear so you are not misunderstood. It's obvious that when nonspecialists hear the term "Evolution" they picture something radically different than what you apparently mean by the term. This should not even be controversial. If you want to continue to use a term in public discourse in a way contrary to it's accepted standard definition you will continue to be misunderstood and honest level headed discussion with the public will continue to elude you. It's what happens when you equivocate. Maybe that is what you want peacefifthmonarchyman
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
Mung - if a retrovirus inserts its RNA into a genome, how does that avoid being inherited (ie 'passed on')?Hangonasec
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
fmm
Did you catch the term “gradual” in the second definition and “Darwinism” as a synonym. Surely the addition of those terms would exclude the processes we are now discussing. Don’t you agree?
Heh heh. I love all this argumentum ad Websterium! Let's get Webster to define Quantum Field Theory for us! We're just humble speakers of English an' all. If it's not in Webster, it's not science! But you can't dismantle a theory by defining it badly. Here we go: "1.the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth. 2.the gradual development of something. 3.the giving off of a gaseous product, or of heat. 4.a pattern of movements or manoeuvres. 5.the extraction of a root from a given quantity. You'll note that the word 'gradual' appears in the second definition, not the first. So do we add gas from the 3rd as well? Movements and manoeuvres? You can't create an amalgamated definition of a multiple-meaning word. Gradualism aside, the first definition is poor. It might pass muster with 'the public', but it is hopelessly inaccurate. It includes ultra-rapid post-ark modifications. In the form you quoted it synonymises evolution with Natural Selection - no Drift, no mechanisms of variation - and with 'Darwinism' - no evolutionary processes other than those described by his Bearded Saintliness, and therefore again no Drift or genetic mutation, and nothing but minor change, given that he favoured strict gradualism. But it's not 1859. The mechanisms occur, and they change genomes heritably, and so within the actual academic definition of evolution, rendered briefly as "descent with modification", they are evolutionary. Whether a change of a given size or complexity can non-fatally occur or not is entirely a different point. If it does, within a background dominated by inheritance, it’s evolution. The natural change processes tend to cluster at the ‘minor’ end of the change scale, but are not definitionally disbarred from doing more, just mechanistically limited. Still, there comes a point, well beyond that accessible to generational mechanisms, where the very word ‘change’ becomes a misnomer. “I’ve changed your program”. “But it’s entirely different”. “I kept the title!”.Hangonasec
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
WD400 says, Have you read the Webster’s definition you keep referring to? I say, Indeed I have, All of it, Apparently you have not got past the first sentence. you say, That’s just change. I say, Definition 2 uses the term "gradual" and "Darwinism" is listed as a synonym. When I go here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution I see phrases like "over a very long time" and "a process of slow change and development" HGC is none of these things. to recap: When the average Joe reads a OP that claims that an Irreducibly Complex System in Lenski’s E. Coli is the result of evolution he thinks it arrived via slow gradual Darwinian means. But all the OP is really claiming is that an IC system exists in a state that it did not always exist in. The proper response to such a claim is "Well Duh change happens" Don't you see how equivocation is a discussion killer? peacefifthmonarchyman
March 2, 2015
March
03
Mar
2
02
2015
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
wd400:
Genes are inherited. HGT can only change a population over time if those genes are passed on.
So there is no such thing as HGT. Got it!
Genes are inherited. HGT can only change a population over time if those genes are passed on.
Don't be silly. If they are not passed on they are not genes.Mung
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Have you read the Webster's definition you keep referring to?
Tthe process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
That's just change. Indeed, to take HGT as an example, horizontal transfer of gene is absolutely part of the mainstream theory ofhow organisms "are thought to have developed and diversified".wd400
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Mung, DO you seriously not know what "heritable" means? Measuring the heritability of traits has a long history in evolutionary genetics. Let’s pretend that the ‘G’ in HGT stands for “gene.” Let’s call it a “non-inherited property” H'uh? Genes are inherited. HGT can only change a population over time if those genes are passed on. As I said, changes wrought through HGT are evolution.wd400
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
wd400:
Biological evolution has a simple definition. It’s change in hertible properties of populations over generations. That’s just what evolution means in biology.
And the heritable property of populations over generations is what, exactly? How is it identified? How is it quantified? What is it named? wd400:
Perhaps you think HGT is not compatabile with our theory of evolution. If so, I think you are wrong, but when claim changes wrought by HGT are not evolution you are not even wrong.
Let's pretend that the 'G' in HGT stands for "gene." Let's call it a "non-inherited property" Let's pretend that your "heritable property" of your population is also called a "gene." So "genes" may be both inherited and not inherited (acquired by non inheritance methods - HGT). HGT is not evolution unless the "gene" so acquired is heritable. So your own claim is not even wrong. What a waste or words indeed.Mung
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
wd400 says, Biological evolution has a simple definition I say, Apparently it's not simple enough to be included in the dictionary. You say. It’s change in hertible properties of populations over generations. I say, According to that definition Biological ID and even Creationism is evolution. It's fine if you want to go with that but you need to realize you have destroyed language the only means we have for communication. If the very same word can describe the sudden purposeful addition of entirely new features and gradual random point mutations words really have no meaning. You say, If you want to argue about specific kinds of evolution go for it, but you can’t invent your own meanings of words. I say Once again I'm simply using Webster's definition. It's not my own definition it's the standard English definition. English is my point of contact. If you choose to deviate from that standard in a way that makes a term mean the opposite of the dictionary definition I'm just not sure how productive discussion is possible. Oh well in the end it's up to you guys. peacefifthmonarchyman
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
What a waste or words. Biological evolution has a simple definition. It's change in hertible properties of populations over generations. That's just what evolution means in biology. If you want to argue about specific kinds of evolution go for it, but you can't invent your own meanings of words. The modern theory of evolutionary biology (as opposed to the fact that evolution has happened) is the explanatory framework we have developed to explain how life has evolved. There used to be others, but they didn't work as well (and of course the modern theory of evolution has kept pace with new findings, so is quite different from the "Darwinism" of the turn of the 20th Century). Perhaps you think HGT is not compatabile with our theory of evolution. If so, I think you are wrong, but when claim changes wrought by HGT are not evolution you are not even wrong.wd400
March 1, 2015
March
03
Mar
1
01
2015
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 11

Leave a Reply