Irreducible Complexity is an Obstacle to Darwinism Even if Parts of a System have other Functions

Discovery Institute ^ | February 18, 2004 | Michael J. Behe

[VadeRetro]

Besides that, why would the posts of a few folks online with an axe to grind, change my mind?

Why should anyone listen to you? Behe's ideas are not holding up under detailed examination here, nor is this an isolated incident.

You want to denegrate a man and his work based upon ther blatherings of people on this thread?

You are slamming down the lid of your mind, cutting and running at the horror of contradictory data. That's Morton's Demon in action.

[realpatriot71]

Why should anyone listen to you? Behe's ideas are not holding up under detailed examination here, nor is this an isolated incident.

I cannot find any sort of compelling reason to "listen to me," especially considering the anonymity of the net. With that said - why listen to anyone, then? We could all be mad-men, no? Read the book. With your background - as I understand it - it shouldn't be tough.

You are slamming down the lid of your mind, cutting and running at the horror of contradictory data.

I'm not sure what contradictory data you are referring to. Perhaps I should go back and read the entire thread?

Irreducible complexity, like any idea, is not comepletely perfect, and can be picked at. I don't hold that IC is the Holy Grail, but it does give more then enough food for thought, particularly in regards to the development of the first cell from organic precursors. I know, I know - "but, but, but, that's NOT evolution" - well, if science can't even manage a cell without a miraculous event, then I'm not about to start eating the "evolution is the cornerstone to origins" bullsh!t and letting everyone know just how TASTY it is.

It's like I've said before, if none of this bothers you, then I'm not sure what good a discussion further on the subject will help.

[realpatriot71]

Better yet, how 'bout I debate Him now?

You'll get your chance . . .

[VadeRetro]

It's like I've said before, if none of this bothers you, then I'm not sure what good a discussion further on the subject will help.

Nothing about abiogenesis or the evolution of complex structures makes magical, supernatural intervention preferable as an explanation.

[realpatriot71]

Nothing about abiogenesis or the evolution of complex structures makes magical, supernatural intervention preferable as an explanation.

Like I said. I'm not sure further discussion will help. :-) Read the book and you'll understand, from a biochemical perspective, the points of IC as they apply to abiogenesis, and why this is a significant hurdle for evolution.

[whattajoke]

the points of IC as they apply to abiogenesis, and why this is a significant hurdle for evolution.

Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution and therefore presents no problem to it whatsoever. People like Behe are lying to you if that's what he says.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Unfortunately, Schützenberger gives no definition nor any inkling of what such a definition would look like; he is just tossing words around. Statements like: "Whatever it is, it lies beyond anything that our present knowledge of physics or chemistry might suggest; it is a property upon which formal logic sheds absolutely no light." need some substantiation, especially in the light of the rather large amount of published literature that contradicts him. Schützenberger seems here (and in other writings) to be unfamiliar with modern biology (he was a mathematician and a doctor, but not a geneticist.)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Unfortunately, Schützenberger gives no definition nor any inkling of what such a definition would look like; he is just tossing words around.

Indeed, he is describing functional complexity in a biological context, not defining it.

Of course, noone will take me seriously because I lack credentials - but this is how I would define "functional complexity":

Functional complexity is the property of the whole which exceeds the sum of the parts.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Functional complexity is the property of the whole which exceeds the sum of the parts.

There's nothing wrong with this definition. Of course, the definition does not preclude an object with "functional complexity" from evolving gradually (nor does Behe's definition of "irreducible complexity.")

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply and encouragement! Indeed, I was addressing the terminology used and not the evolution debate itself. If we can agree that "functional complexity" exists in a biological context, then we can discuss how that came to be.

If you want to "go there" with me, I'd assert that we need to look at "information" first because I believe that to be the property which separates the living from the non-living. (Pearson, Pattee, Rocha, Yockey)

[unspun]

Of course I'm sure you already know that, in truth, you turned this thread into an Animal-House-style "food fight" right at Reply #2. Or at least made a sincere attempt. I'm just catching up, and maybe never will. So don't know whether your wish came true or not.

So... did it turn into a mutual back-patting exercise on the part of those who wish to discredit the observations of God?

Or, were any people of faith baited into a rancor? A slap and tickle party, maybe?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping! A question, though ...

How is it possble that people of faith could ever be successfully baited into rancor?

[VadeRetro]

Read the book and you'll understand, from a biochemical perspective, the points of IC as they apply to abiogenesis, and why this is a significant hurdle for evolution.

Don't just keep chirping at everyone to read the dumb book. When real biologists read the book, they make criticisms like this one.

A broader, quicker summary of objections to Darwin's Black Box.

I suggest that, if you think any important arguments from DBB have been neglected on this thread, you try and run them up the flagpole here. I've seen them all and seen them all shot down.

[RightWingNilla]

[Applause resumes, increases in volume, rolls on and on ... ]

Bring it up to 11!

[betty boop]

So... did it turn into a mutual back-patting exercise on the part of those who wish to discredit the observations of God?

Dunno, Brother A -- I haven't gone back to that party yet. Been really busy today. Maybe tonight.

[longshadow]

Standing ovation placemarker

[unspun]

How is it possible that people of faith could ever be successfully baited into rancor?

Alas, how is it indeed? I guess a good answer to that is: with pain and before renewed repentance.

[Ahban]

I concede that I cannot match your multimedia skills, but I must still take issue with your interpretation of Behe's intent.

Here is the key paragraph we keep throwing around.

Claim A: "An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. ... Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on."


You are equating "parts" with "systems" while Behe considers them seperately. To wit....

"slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional" Note that he is not saying that the missing PART is nonfunctional, but that the irreducably complex SYSTEM is nonfunctional without the part. The part can have a function in another system.

Of course, it may need slight modifications to work in the new system, which makes the spontaneous coming together even less likey to happen - (though not impossible).

As for your presenting other kinds of mouse traps, it is not applicable to the analogy of how the standard spring loaded trap is irreducably complex. Your diagram might be, except I don't think you will catch any mice with something like that.

I must say you are more courteous in your arguments than the typical member of your "team". Thanks for that.

[realpatriot71]

Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution and therefore presents no problem to it whatsoever

No first cell, no biological evolution. That's about a simple as it gets. Evolution as a theory isn't terrible as secular theories go, but it can go comepletely nowhere without the first cell. If you have no problem with this, then we have nothing more to discuss, do we?

[realpatriot71]

I suggest that, if you think any important arguments from DBB have been neglected on this thread, you try and run them up the flagpole here. I've seen them all and seen them all shot down.

It looks like your mind has been "made up" then, hasn't it? Seriously, what more do you want from me, an exhaustive treatise explaining Behe's Irreducible Complexity as it applies to the biochemistry of the cell? If that's the case, then read the book - besides all the points have been "shot down," right? If that's so, why should I post? You've already established it won't matter.

:-)