Posted on 04/11/2006 5:11:24 PM PDT by 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."
Well, just show me macro-evolution in a lab and I'll sign right up...what's that? You can't? Oh...
*Note: feel free to attack me Darwin-bots, but I'm not buying (and the usual disclaimer: I am not pro-creationism.)
Ping.
Make sure you post this at least once a day for the next month I guess. We have feeble memories.
That is a pretty rude greeting to fellow freepers with whom you may simply disagree.
You want macro-evolution? Here are some examples. I assume you will reject them, but others may find them more acceptable.
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
|
This is a good example of the lack of objectivity of scientists who are predisposed to believe evolutionary theory. And creationists are also guilty of the same type of thinking at times. It is the human condition.
They "deduced" something that existed (supposedly) 450 million years ago using computers. They they whipped up some in the lab - "this ancient thing". Then they find that a modern day hormone complements it.
The level of presupposition is huge. The reliance on computers to make up something is staggering.
And voila! we've "proved" that there is no irreducible complexity is not a valid argument.
Believe it if you will. I find it unconvincing. We are now making up facts through "scientific method" and using made up facts to support a belief.
I know it will be accepted hook line and sinker around here by committed evolutionists, but I dont' find it convincing. I believe this is a human foible. It recurs over and over in these postings.
ampu
Mathematicians do proofs; experimentalists obtain observations or data.
An experiment can disprove a theory, or it can provide data that is consistent with a theory. But it cannot "prove" a theory to be true.
It's been about time to give it up since around 147 years ago.
placemarker
I'll be happy to educate you. Tuition is $20K a semester. I'll get back to you when your check clears.
I can make a computer say anything I want it to say.
"Computational methods". Programs don't write themselves. And this isn't the first time pro-evo's tried to foist computer "simulations" to "prove" evolution.
Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon. Or at least that's what I learned in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL science class.
Leave computer simulations to Michael Crichton when he writes his next novel.
" Science is the observation and measurement of phenomenon."
That automatically rules out ID.
You dare doubt the authority of a Computer?
I keep wondering how a single cell with three billion bites of information evloved so quickly. I mean at one mutation per year your looking at three biilon years. That sounds like a mighty fast rate of mutate.
And then you have that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. And then you have that lots of experiments are going on in parallel with the best out-competing the rest.
Your model doesn't look very realistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.