Time to Give It Up [Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity]

Seed Magazine ^ | 4/10/06 | Britt Peterson

[LibWhacker]

New research chips away at the "irreducible complexity" argument behind intelligent design.

Lehigh biochemistry professor Michael Behe and his cronies in the intelligent design community have attempted to poke holes in evolutionary theory using an idea dubbed "irreducible complexity"—the notion that complex systems with interdependent parts could not have evolved through Darwinian trial and error and must be the work of a creator, since the absence of any single part makes the whole system void. However, a paper published in the April 7th issue of Science provides the first experimental proof that "irreducible complexity" is a misnomer, and that even the most complex systems come into being through Darwinian natural selection.

"We weren't motivated by irreducible complexity," said Joe Thornton, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oregon and a co-author of the paper. "How complexity evolved is a longstanding issue in evolutionary biology per se, and it's once we saw our results that we realized the implications for the social debate."

Thornton's team has been studying one example of a complex system in which each part defines the function of the other: the partnerships between hormones and the proteins on cell walls, or receptors, that bind them. The researchers looked specifically at the hormone aldosterone, which controls behavior and kidney function, and its receptor.

"[This pairing] is a great model for the problem of the evolution of complexity," said Thornton. "How do these multi-part systems—where the function of one part depends on the other part—evolve?"

Thornton and his co-investigators used computational methods to deduce the gene structure of a long-gone ancestor of aldosterone's receptor. They then synthesized the receptor in the lab. After recovering the ancient receptor—which they estimate to be a 450-million-year-old receptor that would have been present in the ancestor of all jawed vertebrates—Thornton's team tested modern day hormones that would activate it. Although aldosterone did not evolve until many millions of years after the extinction of the ancient hormone receptor, Thornton found that it and the ancient receptor were compatible.

This cross-generational partnership is made possible, Thornton explained, by the similarity in form between aldosterone and the ancient hormone that once partnered with the receptor.

"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.

The principal at work in the evolution of complex systems is molecular exploitation: when an individual component casts around for other materials that might work together with it, even though those elements might have evolved as parts of other systems.

"Evolution assembles these complex systems by exploiting parts that are already present for other purposes, drawing them into new complexes and giving them new functions through very subtle changes in their sequences and in their structures," Thornton said.

While the mutually dependent parts do not evolve to be perfectly complementary to one another, after molecular exploitation, they cleave together and create an illusion of irreducible complexity.

"Such studies solidly refute all parts of the intelligent design argument," wrote Christoph Adami, of the Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, in an introduction to the Science paper. "Those 'alternate' ideas, unlike the hypotheses investigated in these papers, remain thoroughly untested. Consequently, whatever debate remains must be characterized as purely political."

[Old Professer]

The horrible truth is that the game must go on, even if it comes down to, "Hit the ball, drag God."

When the load becomes too much to bear, we'll finally either leave the load behind or give up the game altogether.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"Your answer still assumes, a priori, without any evidence, that everything we see in the natural world is there for US. It's a very arrogant position."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.......
Yep arrogant is my middle name. but then I do not claim to understand the origin of the species and the chemistry of life..I only understand the tools I use daily and the objective results of modern drugs..the fact that plants produce chemicals that have beneficial results in humans is a blessing and mystery to me. The a priori part is that I use them (plant alakloids) the question remains why does the poppy produce psychoactive compounds?

[Old Professer]

Darwin's vanity led him to trump Wallace and his credentials allowed it.

[ndt]

"So where did these self-programming programs come from? Outer space?"

That would be the equivalent of the question "what is origin of life". Evolution does not cover that.

Life works within it's framework and evolutionary algorithms work within theirs.

[GooberHead]

Bacteria was discovered in 1683. It divides every 20 to 30 minutes. In those millions of generations has it EVER been observed to mutate into another kind of bacteria, or a two celled creature?

E.coli may mutate but it stays E.coli, it doesn't change. Humans have several mutations (hair, skin, and eye color for example), but they remain human.

We didn't build the car out of dirt. We mined the ore, smelted it, refined it, manufactured it, shipped it, and assembled it with thousands of other pieces of metal, rubber, and glass. I don't think you could say that a car evolved simply because it stared from dirt and became more complex as time went on.

It would appear that there is more evidence for Intelligent Design than evolution.

[Old Professer]

To torture Carlin's humor, "Where did all the stuff come from?"

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Yep arrogant is my middle name."

OK.

" but then I do not claim to understand the origin of the species and the chemistry of life.."

Sure you do, though I don't know what *the species* is.

"I only understand the tools I use daily and the objective results of modern drugs..the fact that plants produce chemicals that have beneficial results in humans is a blessing and mystery to me."

No it isn't; you assume everything has some human benefit.

"The a priori part is that I use them (plant alakloids)"

No, that's the a posteriori part.

"the question remains why does the poppy produce psychoactive compounds?"

To think it is for us is the height of arrogance.

[manwiththehands]

"That would be the equivalent of the question "what is origin of life". Evolution does not cover that."

Huh?

I thought the Godfather of Evolution, Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled "The ORIGIN of the Species".

Are you pro-evos backtracking from that, too?

[Coyoteman]

come come my coyoteman, your namesake would never be caught in such a trap..as you know the extrapolation of skull morphology is subjective at it's root. with out vital DNA your use of jigsaw puzzle pieces resulted in fakes more times than not. Piltown man strike a bell..many of the skulls in the series were not even found on the same continent. may be of children or mutations of same species or adults vs children..too much we do not know about this attempt to use fossil records inappropriately.

Cranial morphology: I did quite a bit of that in grad school. Of course its subjective, but if you are suggesting that none of the observations are accurate or that anything subjective is automatically wrong, I would have to strongly disagree. I would request that you back up your conjecture.

DNA: Actually, DNA affirms common descent and a lot of the critical details of evolutionary theory. Darwin could have been proved wrong, but he was not.

"resulted in fakes more times than not:" Not a true statement.

"Piltown man strike a bell:" I am familiar with the Piltdown hoax. Most anthropologists dismissed it because it did not fit. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang. They were correct.

"many of the skulls in the series were not even found on the same continent:" So? Early man got around, just like we do. But most were found in Africa.

"may be of children or mutations of same species or adults vs children:" Or may not be. Study some of the fossils before you opine. Do you really think that we can't tell a child cranium from that of an adult? The Taung cranium was a child, Mrs. Ples was an adult (see the text which follows; I have actually studied casts of both specimens, so this is not all second-hand).

"too much we do not know about this attempt to use fossil records inappropriately:" Not a true statement.

I find your responses most unconvincing. You clearly have not studied evolution as much as you have opposed it.

In the specimens below, not the cranial morphology and the differences between a child and an adult.

If you have any questions, let me know.

---

Fossil: Taung Child

Site: Buxton Limeworks, Taung, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: M. de Bruyn, 1924 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.3 mya * determined by Faunal & geomorphological data (1, 4, 5)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 3, 7, 8)

Gender: Unknown (1)

Cranial Capacity: 405 (440 as adult) cc (1, 3)

Information: First early hominid fossil found in Africa (7, 8)

Interpretation:

• Juvenile (3 years old based on deciduous teeth, first permanent molars) (1, 3, 4, 7)
• Bipedal hominid (based on position of foramen magnum, brain endocast, small canines) (1, 3, 4, 7)
  
• Killed possibly by bird of prey (based on fractures and puncture marks on skull) (1, 10)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=27

---

Fossil: Sts 5 Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin's vanity led him to trump Wallace and his credentials allowed it."

It wasn't his vanity, it was the fact that he had formulated natural selection a few decades before Wallace, and the fact that his version was better than Wallace's. Wallace didn't consider competition among the individuals of a species; Darwin did.

[Coyoteman]

In those millions of generations has it EVER been observed to mutate into another kind of bacteria, or a two celled creature?

See the chart in post #5 and the photographs in post #39.

[Reily]

To all
I actually find stuff like this

"In their search for patterns, mathematicians have uncovered unlikely connections between prime numbers and quantum physics. Will the subatomic world help reveal the elusive nature of the primes?
"
to be a more plausible argument for ID then anything I have currently read written by Dembinski, Behe or others.
I admit its not really scientific evidence BUT its one of those things that makes one go 'what the...?'

Again I think ID should be discussed and debated. It should rise or fall on its own merits. I don't see anything yet that would make me call it science. (It doesn't belong in the average high school science class. Perhaps a high school philosophy of science class. ). It most certainly is metaphysics which is a perfectly legitimate field of human inquiry !

[Ken H]

I didn't think one was needed, but I guess on these threads.. sheesh ;)

If you leave off the < /s> on these threads, you should expect the Spanish Inquisition.

[wallcrawlr]

Sounds kinda bold to say it "solidly refutes" ID.

How are they certain they synthesized the receptor in the lab correctly?

What do they base this "synthesis" on?

"The story is basically that a new hormone evolved later and exploited a receptor that had a different function previously to take part in a new partnership," said Thornton.

"Evolution assembles these complex systems by exploiting parts that are already present for other purposes, drawing them into new complexes and giving them new functions through very subtle changes in their sequences and in their structures," Thornton said.

While the mutually dependent parts do not evolve to be perfectly complementary to one another, after molecular exploitation, they cleave together and create an illusion of irreducible complexity.

And this doesnt sound to "solid" to be considered undeniably reliable.
It sounds like they think they know what goes on and create the needed results filling the gaps with the supposed theory.

[ConsentofGoverned]

Nice reply, tuang child well how do we know it was a child? by teeth you say, how do we know it was bipedal by teeth you say, how do we know it's age by faunal and geo data we can guess its an estimate ..supposition built on more supposition..lets be honest..this specimen like most of the others is based on guesses and estimates do we know the life span of this subject? no it may well have been middle age for it's species. do we have dna from it? no
does it appear to be tool using?? we do not known..modern man appears in the late ice age, but how long before was he here?? let's just say we can deduce much from our data but proof of evolution from taung child to modern man well that takes a leap of faith not science.

[ndt]

"thought the Godfather of Evolution, Charles Darwin wrote a book entitled "The ORIGIN of the Species"

The Theory of Evolution covers how one species changes into another (origin of a new species from an existing one), not how life began.

" Are you pro-evos backtracking from that, too?"

It's not a backtrack, thats what the TOE has always covered.

There is obviously a point where the TOE would need to merge into some sort of a "theory of origin of life", but that is still a very open question.

[demoRat watcher]

Congratulations! Your request for a ping to this thread has been selected as pingworthy by Patrick Henry.

[webboy45]

The argument continues. And, the results indicated in the original article seem to be a bit shy of proving anything. It's like discovering that a 1 inch No. 8 bolt and a 2 inch No. 8 bolt both fit them same nut. The trouble with Darwin is that it requires magic to make things work. Life magically starts in some part of the world, and then certain changes magically take place to make it successively more complex until we have a specie that can contemplate and partially understand the process. How much more natural is it to believe that intelligence drove the process instead of magic. But (some) scientists proclaim that magic is more "scientific" than intelligence. The thing created decides that it has no use for the creator and proclaims that there is no creator. Yet the thing created still exists, and by that fact demonstrates the existence of the creator.

[demoRat watcher]

Patrick, One could almost think an evolutionist perpetrated the "irreducible complexity" idea, just so another could come along and declare it a myth.

[Coyoteman]

Nice reply, tuang child well how do we know it was a child? by teeth you say, how do we know it was bipedal by teeth you say, how do we know it's age by faunal and geo data we can guess its an estimate ..supposition built on more supposition..lets be honest..this specimen like most of the others is based on guesses and estimates do we know the life span of this subject? no it may well have been middle age for it's species. do we have dna from it?

no

does it appear to be tool using?? we do not known..modern man appears in the late ice age, but how long before was he here?? let's just say we can deduce much from our data but proof of evolution from taung child to modern man well that takes a leap of faith not science.

Please study some human anatomy, evolution, and related subjects and try again. There is simply too much wrong here to try to correct tonight.

Your zeal has far outstripped your knowledge of the subject.