August 27, 2011
-
Irreducible Complexity
I received a message from a fellow Xangan who wrote to ask me about the arguments from scientists who deny evolutionary theory to be scientific. To be blunt, there really aren’t that many. The best place to find them, to the best of my knowledge, is the Discovery Institute, which is a creationist organization that tries its very best to portray itself as scientific. You can find them online at www.discovery.org. They do actually have a few scientists in their ranks, but only a couple with the necessary biological credentials to speak authoritatively about evolution from a scientific standpoint. Their shining star, so to speak, is a man named Michael Behe, although most of the other well-known names in the Intelligent Design movement, such as William Dembski and Jonathan Wells, are also affiliated with this group. Behe is a legitimate scientist, a biochemist actually, and a professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania (which makes a statement on its site that the faculty "are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."). If you know Behe at all, you know him primarily as the author of the book, “Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.” It’s the book that has the old man and the chimpanzee sitting next to each other, facing in different directions. It’s in this book that Behe first put forth the idea of “irreducible complexity,” which my critique of was pushed forward by this post by Xanga's favorite troll.
Irreducible complexity was an incredible success for the Intelligent Design movement, because at its core it’s very intuitive- unfortunately, however, it’s also unscientific. But since the scientific theory of evolution is counter-intuitive, it was widely accepted by the public, while scientists who knew better were grinding their teeth in frustration.
Irreducible complexity works like this: Suppose that you have a mechanism of some sort, perhaps a mousetrap. This mousetrap is composed of several different parts, each of which is essential to the operation of the mousetrap. You’ve got the flat wooden base, the spring, the horizontal bar, the catch bar, the catch, and the staples that keep all the metal parts attached to the wood base. Now, if you have all the parts together and assembled properly, the mousetrap works like it’s supposed to- pulling back on the horizontal bar causes the spring to wind back, and the catch bar holds the horizontal bar in place as long as it’s jammed in place by the catch. Once the catch is disturbed, the catch bar is free to swing out of the way, and the spring winds shut slamming the horizontal bar down hard on whatever disturbed the catch. Makes sense. But let’s say that you remove one part of the mousetrap- the catch. Well, in that case, you can never set the trap because you can’t keep the catch bar still. Or let’s say that you remove the spring. Well, in that case, the trap will never close because there’s no force to move the horizontal bar. Or if you remove the horizontal bar itself, there’s nothing for the spring to move. You get the idea, I’m sure- if you remove one part of the mechanism, the whole thing can’t work. Thus, the design of the mousetrap is described by Behe to be irreducibly complex - in other words, the complexity of the design requires that it can’t be reduced any farther without losing functionality.Now, you’re thinking, “So what’s the problem with irreducible complexity? Obviously a mousetrap won’t work if you remove the spring, that’s just common sense.” And so it is. And I don’t think there’d be any problem if Behe had stuck to talking about mousetraps. But he doesn’t - he’s a biochemist, and so he applies this concept of irreducible complexity to something much smaller than a mousetrap, something so small it’s invisible to the naked eye - a bacterial flagellum. A flagellum is a long, whip like structure that is used by cells to move around. Think of the tail on a sperm cell, and you’re basically there. Bacteria use flagella too, and the structure is of a long, hollow cord attached to the wall of the bacterium where it hooks into a molecular rotor that spins in response to an ion gradient, as much as 1000 rpm. When the rotor spins, the flagellum spins, and the bacterium moves forward. It’s a little bit like an outboard motor on a boat, and like a motor, it’s composed of a lot of different parts, in this case proteins, each of which is essential for the proper functioning on the flagellum. Well, you can probably see where I’m going with this: if the mousetrap is irreducibly complex since removing one part means that the whole thing doesn’t work, then a flagellum is irreducibly complex for the same reason, right?
Wrong. And hopefully once I explain why, you’ll understand that it’s necessary to assume design in order to come up with a concept like irreducible complexity in the first place. Let’s go back to the mousetrap. Let’s say that I remove the catch - mousetrap doesn’t work, right? Well, not exactly. It may not work the way that the manufacturer intended for it to work, that’s true, but is it absolutely good for nothing? I would say no - I can set the trap by pulling the horizontal bar into place, setting the catch bar over it, and then carefully laying the trap upside down so that its own weight holds the catch bar in place. I can still bait the trap, and the jostling of the upside-down trap by an eager mouse can still move the catch bar out of position and cause the trap to release. It’s not the best way for the trap to function, of course. But even though it’s not as effective, it still does function to some extent. And even if you removed the spring, you could still use it as a paperweight - it’s still good for something.
Likewise, the incomplete flagellum is also good for something. Recent research on bacterial flagella have shown that very similar proteins functioning in a very similar way, but without the flagellar whip structure, have another kind of function in bacteria - they form the basis of a secretory apparatus - a mechanism that allows bacteria to inject toxins into other cells. So half a flagellum is still useful to the bacteria, even if it’s not functioning in the same way that the full flagellum does. Thus, the flagellum is not irreducibly complex. You see, evolutionary theory doesn’t have a particular goal in mind - that’s why Behe’s analogy of the mousetrap doesn’t make any sense. Someone who sets out to build a mousetrap has an idea in mind of what he wants that trap to be capable of, but this is not the case for evolution. Structures and systems are only useful to an organism if they confer some kind of selective advantage - it doesn’t matter how that advantage operates.
Think of a fighter jet - that’s a pretty complex system, right? Every component in that fighter jet is absolutely essential for its operation, otherwise it wouldn’t be built into it. If you were looking at the jet from Behe’s point of view, you would say, wow, this jet is incredibly complex. This must have been engineered from a blank diagram specifically to work this way. But we know better. Airplanes themselves have been constantly evolving, since even before the Wright brothers flew their machine in North Carolina. Before that, there were all sorts of variations on gliders. Each component was added gradually, but each airplane that was built started with the blueprint of the one that went before it, and then added new things. If those additions made a better airplane, then everyone copied it. If those additions made it worse, then it was scrapped. This is how evolution works - variations are made on existing organisms, and if they confer an advantage, they are selected for. Just as we know that an airplane motor evolved from a more simple model, we can also show that a bacterial motor, a flagellum, evolved from a more simple structure.
And in fact, after looking at it in both simple mechanical and biomechanical examples, what does the concept of irreducible complexity really give us? Not really anything useful at all. Because the critical component here is complexity - this is something which is dependent on the proposed function. A mousetrap is a reasonably complex way to kill a mouse, but it’s a simple enough paperweight at the same time. And a bacterial flagellum is a reasonably complex way to move a cell around in a fluid medium, but it’s also a reasonably good way to inject proteins into other cells, if you take a few parts away. And complexity is also dependent on the point in time which you examine a system. If you look at a stone arch, it seems irreducibly complex - if you remove a single stone from the archway the whole thing comes tumbling down. But we know that a common architectural technique is called scaffolding - that is, the archway is built under support from a wooden scaffold that allows the stones to be put in place without falling apart - and it’s only after all the stones are secure that the scaffold isn’t needed anymore. Biological systems can evolve using scaffolds also - with less selective pressure, new proteins and enzymes can evolve unique functions which may become essential if other scaffolding enzymes are lost to the dustbin of evolutionary change.
So, in the end, we’ve seen that irreducible complexity is neither - biological structures are, in fact, reducible to states which give rise to other functions, and these functions are only as complex as their context requires of them. It’s an attractive concept to people that aren’t familiar with evolutionary theory, but it’s just not born out by science.
Comments (84)
Irreducible Complexity challenges shallow versions of Darwinism, which is great, as it compels us to evolutionary theory that takes into account things other than simple natural selection. Evolution is a complex and at times transcendent process, and I appreciate writers like Behe who try to point that out, though I disagree with their anti-evolutionary conclusions.
What are your thoughts on Behe in general? Who are the best and worst creationists or ID proponents you've read?
Good post, but it won't change their minds. Pretty soon lobo will come on and fuck up the whole post, it will be all about Curtis the Catholic. What a fuckhead.
@Da__Vinci - I think you jumped the gun on that one.
it's a good argument good post. But, I don't think that people people will ever be convinced of something they have so much faith believing and you know that already. People ask to see what you have to say or what some atheists believe yet they ask thinking you might change you answer or they can understand but they wont. I guess like many have stated and it's true is that creationism isn't about prove but about faith and hope for something more. Some of us need it more than others. I guess that's as simple as I can say. Some don't need it because logically it doesn't make sense but logic isn't always what keeps us going in life. Always enjoy your posts. =D
@SirNickDon - Just wait.
I actually kind of find it interesting that LoBorn wrote that post. Catholics have accepted that the bible isn't always a literal account of the making of the world since at least Saint Aquinas. Plus I've seen LoBorn defend evolution in comments, as in accordance with Catholic teaching.
Every time what he does starts to seem coherent in a larger sense, he throws some crazy argument out or does something utterly out of character. Troll, indeed.
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,"this is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn'tit? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" Douglas Adams
Behe indulges in retroactive reasoning and the common conceit of humanity that a result requires a conscious intent. It's more or less the Fine Tuned Universe applied to biology.
I've always found beauty in evolution. The ability to go backwards and to determine how things used to work and how they could produce new systems is fascinating. It's especially fascinating when you get down to such a small scale.
I agree with @Da__Vinci on this one!
Your blogs always amaze me, them immediately intimidate me. I feel like a dumb fuck.
@Da__Vinci - I don't know if it's possible for blogs on Xanga to truly CHANGE minds. It just all seems like an exercise in futility that only serves to alienate the moderates on either side.
@Garistotle - I see you're familiar with the NEW way to blog then. We should coin the term BLEG instead of blog.
@Da__Vinci - Probably so. Still, it's worth arguing since having someone disagree with you is one of the better ways to get them to evaluate themselves outside of a purely academic setting. I work in an environment that has some hyper conservative pockets in it. Nevertheless, we talk and disagree and at the end of it says "Hm, I've never considered it that way before." It's all very civil.
Doesn't make your point any less true though, haha.
@SirNickDon - @Pink_TeaCups - @Garistotle - @Babylons_Crowing - I give most everyone on Xanga my thoughtful comments, but that's not an option anymore where Curtis/lobo is concerned. He is a traitor to the truth, a liar, a female impersonator, and not deserving in anyway respect from me or IMO anyone else. I respect that others don't feel the same about it as me, but I'm sure they feel something to one degree or another. He hurts Xanga with his trolling, he hijacks good posts and pisses people off just for the fun of it. Why do I feel so strongly about this? Because he has the intelligence to change, but won't.
I'm sorry Krisko, but I finally had to say something on this post. I'd understand if you deleted my comments.
@Da__Vinci - Nah, this is me giving Lobo one more chance to try and present actual arguments to his side of the debate. If he trolls again, it's back to blocksville.
When I was learning about dna structure, I remember being surprised to learn how 1 extra or missing chromosome can cause such severe birth defects & fatalities. But having a trisomy doesn't render the person unfunctionable, however it does give way to variations in funactionability & lifespan.
@moss_icon - Funny you mention Douglas Adams. I think he was rather accurate with the whole "God's final message to his creation"-bit.
@Da__Vinci - Oh, I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that Lobo has no power except the power that individuals give him by caring what he says. No thread can be about Curtis the Catholic unless others make it that way.
I actually have a lot to say on this subject......but I really don't want to get into too much of a discussion on it. Pretty much every comment I make on your site follows the exact same sequence. I make a comment...the a series of Utrow comments telling me I'm wrong, and dumb, and intellectually dishonest, and providing no evidence to my claims, and if I do so, will undergo the delusion of intellectual superiority because I did not cite my source correctly (..just a fancier version of "you misspelled that word and thus I am smarter than you" argument).
But, I feel like I need to make a few quick points regardless...
- Irreducible complexity is an important concept. I find people's need to mock it puzzling and unscientific.
- Irreducibly complex systems are not limited to just the flagellum, but the flagellum being the most popularized. However I have yet to see evidence refuting Behe's claims. Ken Miller's argument against IC completely misses the point and is NOT irrefutable evidence against IC that many claim. (So Utrow and friends....no need to send me the link to Miller's response as I've already read it many times.) The problem with Miller's claim (and even moreso with that video) is that it is 1) based on many assumptions, and 2) fails to show a proper mechanism of the evolution of the IC system. In that sense, the video shown is EXTREMELY far-fetched and I know you don't want to get too technical....however, I feel you have to in this case (down to each individual set of proteins) in order to properly address this issue. Any biochemist that is being objective would not think very highly of that video. If Behe is trying to argue that a particular IC system could NOT have evolved.......the only proper way to argue against his claim is to show EXACTLY how it COULD have evolved. (Beyond the cartoonish drawings and assumptions made in the video of course.) All I want is the exact mechanism of how the system could have evolved....that's it. (Miller fails to provide such a mechanism and for some odd reason feels its not necessary.) The mechanism is not too much to ask for really....as all I want to know is if it is remotely possible in any universe. Of course, an actual scientist should also require that the step-wise sequence is not only shown to be possible, but that each evolutionary step represents an increase in fitness (or at least "hitch-hiking" along with another gain in fitness) and that the plausibility of the scenario is likely to have occurred beyond its mathematical barriers.
- What Behe claims to be IC systems do not disprove evolution. But again, I find the unscientific dismissal of Behe's claims odd. All evolutionists and scientists should welcome Behe's criticisms of evolution rather than attempting to simply "sweep them under the rug". Instead of dismissal and even mockery....why not simply prove him wrong? I find Behe's arguments compelling....but that doesn't mean he is right ....or wrong for that matter.
- Lastly, you can go ahead and tell Utrow that I posted.......since he loves to stalk my comments and goes so far as to Google me in order to prove his claim that I am a Christian-Creationist in disguise. He also accuses me of cowardly "fake tagging" him in my replies.....since I desperately want to avoid him crushing my arguments to little pieces. Well, unfortunately, I'm not that skilled. I don't know how to "fake tag" anyone....and further, I don't know how to tag him in this post without him replying in the thread already.
@wizexel22 - IC is basically saying "we don't know how it happened, so therefore it couldn't have happened." It's an argument from ignorance. It has no predictive properties whatsoever. And once one supposedly "irreducibly complex" item has been shown to be reducible, then they just move on to the next one like the first one never existed.
Behe has contributed to science in forcing scientists to explore the evidence of supposedly IC systems, which they've done quite well. The human blood clotting system, the bacterial flagellum, the woodpecker's tongue, etc.
I'm curious, did you ever write that post on what you believe in regards to evolution? I'm quite confused.
@wizexel22 - provide two posts you have made on this site that I have responded to where you have made critical claims about evolution, I have asked you for evidence, and you have provided that evidence. You never cite valid evidence that supports any of your claims. And the one time you did, you not only cited it improperly, the article didn't sufficiently support you claimed it did.
I know that honesty and argumentation aren't your strong suit, but this is just ridiculous. This isn't "write your own narrative" land. There is a historical record of what you say, and that record does not support what you are alleging. What actually happens is this: you make unsubstantiated, fallacious claims about evolution. I ask you for evidence that supports those claims. You provide no evidence. I call you a charlatan. You leave. That's accurate.
And to prove that history repeats itself, provide specific examples of "unscientific dismissal of Behe's claims" where the scientific community has merely swept "them under the rug."
@GodlessLiberal - Wizexel has his own theory about what IC means (which he won't explain) that is drastically different than what it means to the vast majority of ID proponents, as well as ID institutions like the Discovery Institute. It makes having an intelligible conversation with him pretty much impossible because he just bitches about how you are misrepresenting ID, even when you are quoting verbatim major ID proponents or ID organizations. It allows him to dance around not discussing the substantive evidence he refuses to understand well.
Also, he will never post precisely what he believes with any detail, because 1.) he can't without opening his beliefs up to ridicule (he wants to focus negative attacks on evolution instead of drawing attention to the horrible weaknesses of the competing theories); and 2.) his entire schtick is pretending that he is some third party to this whole "debate", giving his opinions merit. Obviously he's not, as 100% of his posts are stock, debunked creationist/ID talking points. I mean, nobody that isn't a complete anti-evolution shill would possibly argue that evolutionists have merely ignored Behe et al's IC argument (or "swept them under the rug"). Kenneth Miller alone has completely demolished all of Behe's most popular IC arguments, as Behe defines IC (e.g., bacterial flagellum, and Miller isn't the only one).
I am aware that you know the later information, I am just posting it to provide context for others to illustrate how patently dishonest Wizexel's claims are.
This isn't exactly a response to your post (I tend to agree with most everything you write for evolution posts and spare you the tedium of writing "Great post, completely agree" every time), but I came across this quote I had saved and thought you might appreciate it:
"Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's worth of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's ‘just’ a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That’s what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits evidence.”
-David Quammen, page two of National Geographic, title: "Was Darwin Wrong?"
@Da__Vinci - Krisko invited here.
This is a refutation of creationism not a viable defense of Darwinian evolution.
Further, it is mathematically impossible for 200 separate parts of a working system to randomly evolve simultaneously. It has nothing to do with the inability to imagine anything.
And that is just the cillium of a single cell organism!
All the other systems in a living cell make evolution that much more preposterous.
What you are preaching is religious doctrine, not science.
@Da__Vinci - Consider only the cilium which needs 200 individual parts to randomly evolve at the same in a particular order.
Here's some simple Alegra II math.
If you had a deck of cards numbered 1 to 200 what are the odds of randomly picking the cards in the precise order 1 to 200?
The math is 1/200 x 1/199 x 1/198 ...and so on.
In other words 1/200!. Where 200! means 200 factorial. Do the math. The odds are astronomical. 200! is so large my spreadsheet program goes bust. (100 factorial is 9.33 x 10^157). And that is just for the cilium.
Consequently, the odds of even a single cell life form evolving randomly are mathematically impossible.
In science, we do the math.
To believe evolution you have to have faith in the impossible.
200! is approximately 7.8865786736479050355236321393 x 10^374 LINK
Oh, I forgot to add that Curtis is compulsive.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - what biological system requires 200 parts (or even 5 parts) to evolve "at the same time"? As has been written about exhaustively by actual scientists, all the common ID examples of IC (e.g., flagellum) are composed of molecular components that have pre-cursor functions. Virtually none of them were required to "evolve at the same time", and the final evolutionary form (e.g., flagellum) doesn't require the individual components to evolve. Either way, you math is wrong.
I wish I knew as much about biology as you do.
I've heard another phrase being tossed around; Is specified complexity a similar(ly woeful) concept?
Ha, I was waiting for that. LoBorn didn't read the article. Still thinks we are talking about things evolving simultaneously.
@GodlessLiberal - "IC is basically saying "we don't know how it happened, so therefore it couldn't have happened."
Not necessarily....since the starting point is really "it couldn't have happened". so it's really "it couldn't have happened, therefore it didn't happen." There is a difference in arguing we don't know how something happened and arguing it could not have happened. You can apply similar reasoning to a computer program or anything with complex design. Should a tribal villager from deep in the jungle stumble upon a F-22 fighter jet, he can assert that such an object can not come about without design.
"And once one supposedly "irreducibly complex"
item has been shown to be reducible, then they just move on to the next
one..."
Wouldn't that be considered scientific?
"Behe has contributed to science in forcing
scientists to explore the evidence of supposedly IC systems, which
they've done quite well."
I disagree. I don't think they've addressed those issues well at all......concerning the flagellum, cilium, or blood clotting system. The explanations of how these systems evolved are riddled with assumptions......huge assumptions that I (as should any scientist) am not ready to just blindly accept.
"I'm curious, did you ever write that post on what you believe in regards to evolution? I'm quite confused."
You actually asked me the same question last time, which I answered. In short, no I didn't write it. I simply didn't think it was worth the effort really....since everything I write on the subject will be considered disingenuous (at best), and intellectually dishonest by the evolutionists here anyways. It seems irrational to engage in a discussion with anyone that gives you zero credibility.Why would I or anyone do that?
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - I see you didn't bother reading the post. That, I think we can all agree, IS trolling. And an easy way for me to reblock you. I'll give you one last chance.
@GodlessLiberal - You posted a video did you not? And I did read your post.
On my post, you asked me for the math. Well, here it is. How can you accuse me of trolling when I simply responded to your request.
How do you respond to the fact that evolution is mathematically impossible?
You said on my post that you would refute refute it with a post of your own.
In my post I proved that evolution was a mathematical impossibility.
All you did here was assume that evolution was true (like all you guys do) and then do a compare and contrast to creationism.
I never mentioned creation in my post. How can you refute something that was not mentioned?
Wow, I seriously cannot fathom how either twisted or stupid Lobo is, because either he is too stupid to learn something new by, I don't know, reading the actual fucking content of this thread which explains how evolution does not depend on vast simultaneous random events, or he is purposely coming off like that sort of blazing moron. I seriously could only think the latter were serious, because people cannot be that fucking stupid. Then again, it is Curtis, so ...
@Da__Vinci - Right. I show the math that makes you suck wind. And you call me crazy.
Why don't you try refuting my claim instead.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - How do you respond to the fact that evolution is mathematically impossible?
You say you read the post and saw the video. Therefore, we should conclude you are incapable of reading comprehension and understanding the simple slides and single sentence explanations of the video? Those were examples of how evolution works. Your "mathematically impossible" situation has nothing to do with evolution. You're trying to say something evolving is the product of a simultaneous random event of several things. As has been painfully pointed out to your stupid ass a few times already, each step in the development of these products is individual. The end product was the result of a sequence of much more likely events that had more than enough time to occur. The math on that is actually quite simple, but I wouldn't waste my time trying to write it in plain text to someone too stupid to understand it. The basic idea is straight-forward: What is the probability that out of every generation a mutation that alters a structure occurs? How frequent do generations occur? Repeat this numerous times for millions of years. The end product that is a change to a new structure is additive, not simultaneous. Since your argument of "impossible mathematics" is effectively a bastardization of evolution and entirely contrary to everything said in this blog, we can only conclude you, Curtis, are too stupid to understand it or did not actually read or view any of it. You should just disappear.
@bryangoodrich - You have played poker have you not?
What are the odds of getting a royal straight flush? (1/649,740)
Cards, like molecules being picked out of a solution, are picked out of a deck of cards.
The problem is a combinatorial problem because order does not matter. In the case of the cilium 200 parts or cards, if we stick to the analogy, must be picked in a strick order.
So that boils down to a simple factorial.
200 factorial is a number so large that it defines IMPOSSIBLE.
Responding to mathematical proof with insults is lame.
@bryangoodrich - You are responding with dogma. For evolution to work certain things must happen all at once. That introduces probability. That's math. And math says that life is not a result of evolution.
If something is physically impossible then you can't talk your way out of it.
You guys are like the Bible thumper trying to convince everyone that the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so.
I also destroyed the video in my first comment. It is based on a false premise.
@The_Aftershock_3650 - Specified Complexity is a concept that can't be specified, and is thus is even less scientific than IC. In fact, it's creator, William Dembski, can't even define what exactly it is. Just basically if something "looks too complex" then it must have been designed. No standard for what is "too complex to be natural."
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You're asking me if I played poker? I'm a statistician you moron.
Let us suppose there are a billion bacteria making up our population. For ease, let us suppose that 1 in a billion have a mutated structure each generation. Then with a relatively stable population (the rate is constant). Let us further suppose the reproduction rate is once a day. Then we have 365 mutations a year in this population. In a million years, that's 365,000,000 chances for a SINGLE mutation to occur that fits the given structure of interest. The odds of that one tweak to a single protein are far more likely than 1/200!. Repeat this very likely event, say, 40 some ought times and a flagellum becomes far more likely than you can conceive, precisely because its production is the result of this repeated sequence of likely events that result in each step to serve a function with advantage to the organism. And this would be within one population. There would be many, many, many such populations for this nonlinear sequence of events to occur within.
@bryangoodrich - Your insults are intolerable and your comments are pure gibberish. In your comment you started off assuming bacteria exist. How did the bacteria appear in the first place? 1 to 7.88 x 10 ^374 odds is so large that it defines impossible.
A billion billion sun "only" weighs 2 x 10^42 tons. That is how ridiculous it is to believe that even a simple cilium with 200 parts could have evolved at random.
For living things to come into being, certain things and combinations of things must happen.
The mathematics of probability, combinations and permutations, prove conclusively that it is impossible for your bacteria to have evolved in the first place.
Unless you can prove that live arose from evolution, the theory of evolution is not a viable generalization and the math which is the language of science says conclusively that the evolution of life is impossible.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You're right. You got me. Life is too complex in general to have the chance to even come to existence without God playing poker apparently. God can make astronomically impossible events possible, but observing a process that could do it with far more reasonable odds is just blasphemy. Bullet proof reasoning by Curtis again. And when his argument for the "too improbable" of one event gets shown moronic, he shifts to "well, what makes the flagellum impossible by evolution is that the bacteria itself is impossible!"
Do the world a favor Curtis. Go play in traffic.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - You've ignored the content of the post (which, as bryangoodrich pointed out, shows that evolution is a cumulative process, thus making your math incorrect at best and intentionally misleading at worst), you completely changed the subject ("you assume bacteria exist"), then you shift the goal posts while simultaneously showing you know nothing about the scope of the theory of evolution ("prove that live arose from evolution") (note: evolution is only what happens after we already have life... abiogenesis is a separate science).... all while going off-topic and monopolizing a thread of what could have been perfectly reasonable debate.
You've thus proven that you can't hold an informed, civilized debate. And thus I think I'm probably going to block you again, much to the joy of the people who frequent my site.
All I had asked was for you to address the actual posts I write, yet you ignore them and go on spouting math and arguments that are not only off-topic to the post, but misinformation and off-topic to evolution in general. No wonder I had such a groundswell of support asking to block you the first time, then reblock you the second time.
@bryangoodrich - I didn't say anything about God. And the numbers don't lie.
All I have done here is prove that the evolution of life is impossible MATEMATICALLY.
Without mathematics there is no way to construct science.
If you folks ignore the math you're no better than Bible thumpers peddling superstition.
@GodlessLiberal - Evolution may be cumulative but what accumulates must yield some sort of advantage. How can a cilium whose purpose is propulsion be the end product of a process that is mathematically proven to be hopelessly random.
Since the math shows that the accumulations necessary for even one cilium are impossible the notion of accumulation is rendered moot and likewise, evolution as the cause of life.
Great post.
@brokenleaf - I didn't say things don't have to evolve simultaneously, they have to "work" simultaneously. Just as the cards dealt in hand of poker are delt sequentially and not simultaneously the 200 parts needed for a cilium can evolve over time.
It's just that over time all 200 parts must be ordered correctly.
The odds of that happening are 1 in 7.88 x 10^374 which is mathematics for IMPOSSIBLE.
You folks are arguing religious dogma. Math means nothing to you. It does to me because I was educated as an electrical engineer.
And if the math doesn't work out you have to change your game plan.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - But it's been shown that PART of a cilium is useful, just for a different function. Therefore, it has just been reduced, and is no longer irreducible. And right there it takes your math and blows it to pieces.
@GodlessLiberal - That's fine. I have no problem with that. It's just that the odds of the entire cilium evolving are impossible.
And the cilium is just one little thing in a single celled organism.
@Garistotle - Discussion is one of the most effective ways of learning. If you look at the comments, the insults are almost exclusively from the atheist side of the issue.
Da Vinci intentionally poisoned the well with regard to my comments, for example.
This has the effect of scaring people away. There are tons of people who can take part in the discussion but they probably don't want to have to endure the abuse or get caught dead agreeing with me. Agreeing with me makes one subject to troll annihilation.
Bryangoodrich just called me dirty names and told me to go kill myself, for example.
Krisko would ban me if I said to others, the things like Da Vinci and Bryangoodrich said to me.
But atheist can't argue cases effectively so brutal intimidation is part of their discussion tool bag.
That's a shame since these issues are insanely interesting.
@LoBornlytesThoughtPalace - And you stereotyping all atheists at once is SO much better than personal insults? I'd care a lot more if you hadn't done the exact same thing to me and my friends before.
@GodlessLiberal - Just look around. It's the atheists doing the insulting.
And you let people who agree with you insult and intimate to their heart's content and say nothing. Yet you nit pick me for making a generalization that is 100% true.
Go after Da Vinci and Bryangoodrich and the others. Then you'll have a little credibility.
I don't need the ass ache, Krisko.
You invited me here. And you and your buddies have done nothing but give me a hard time.
I try so hard not to bother discussing things with Loborn. But sometimes the knowledge that there are people out there who buy the kind of bullshit he/she/it posts and the hope of at least counteracting it, for some of them, with a logical, intelligent response overwhelms the obvious futility of trying to force any sense into the hollow rock that is Loborn's skull. I'm inclined to believe that he/she/it just likes to hear HeShIt's self talk. At any rate, excellent explanation, and that empty cage pic rules!
@wizexel22 - [You actually asked me the same question last time, which I answered. In short, no I didn't write it. I simply didn't think it was worth the effort really....since everything I write on the subject will be considered disingenuous (at best), and intellectually dishonest by the evolutionists here anyways. It seems irrational to engage in a discussion with anyone that gives you zero credibility.Why would I or anyone do that?]
Because one of the reasons why "evolutionists" give you 0 credibility (apart from being demonstrably wrong all the time) is your refusal to state what precisely you believe in, and open that subject up for critique? Essentially, you are dedicated to making a joke out of yourself. "Oh, the people that demonstrate time and time again that I don't know what I am talking about have expressly conditioned their faith in my good faith, in part, on me honestly explaining my pet alternative theory?....Well, I am never explaining my own beliefs on the subject, despite the obvious necessity and fairness of the request. [Proceed to bitch about not being taken seriously]."
Also, discuss specifically the specific "huge assumptions" that you refer to regarding the evolution of the cilia, flagellum, and blood clotting cascade. Provide scientific references for each assertion you make, please.
Lastly, I am still waiting for the evidence I asked you for last post.
Keep up the good work, champ.
@GodlessLiberal - Block this retard again already. No sane person has the time or energy to counter this bullshit. Giving these people (or this caricature) a forum to speak does nobody any good.
Do what I do. Delete the worthless comments, too!
@UTRow1 - "Lastly, I am still waiting for the evidence I asked you for last post. " "Block this retard again already. No sane person has the time or energy to counter this bullshit."
Hahaha. Classic! "I demand you post evidence." "Do not let him speak!!!" Haha, I know its not easy for you to reason things out well....but you at least have to try.
And I don't see anything in my post that is bitching about being taken seriously. GL asked me a question...and I answered. Unlike you, I don't derive my self-worth from Xanga.....so I don't need your approval, or even for you to take me seriously. I have quite a number of friends far smarter than you that I can discuss things with so. (Considering you always talk like you have your e-panties in a bunch.....I suggest you get out more and socialize with other real life people. Though I can't imagine how awful that would be for the real life people....considering how lame and not fun you are. Oh, and trust me, I can tell, as can others, by the few attempts at humor I've seen you try and fail very very miserably.)
Further, you want me blocked....and say "no sane person has the time or energy to counter [my] bullshit" and yet you seem to put a great amount of time and energy in replying to all of my posts here....DESPITE me asking you not to (because believe me, lengthy discussions with you actually would actually drive the sane mad). So since you put an inordinate amount of time and energy replying to my posts....I guess by your own words, you are one crazy idiot. (And I'm not even going to go into your stalker-like research trying to prove your ridiculous claims about me. Talk about mentally unstable!)
Plus I find it quite hilarious that if no one counters these posts.....you all seem to e-gather together and sing the atheistic equivalent of "kumbaya", and giving yourselves big pats on the back since no one dare oppose the posts. Of course, when someone does write a comment opposing the view..... you resort to name calling, mockery, and want them blocked. Haha, hilarious.
@UTRow1 - Oh, and I'm tagging you twice....just in case you make up more lies like the one about me "fake-tagging" you. And I must say, normally your banal posts (as well as your poor reasoning skills and reading comprehension) are pretty frustrating....but your last comment was quite hilarious in its awfulness. So congratulations. Ok, I'm off to hang out with some humans....I suggest you try the same once in a while. =)
@wizexel22 - He wanted me to block LoBo, not you.
@wizexel22 - 1.) There is nothing inconsistent with demanding someone provide evidence for the claims they make and asking a moderator to block a confirmed troll (Loborn). Are you really this daft? It's entirely logical, because in both cases, I am valuing honest discussion. Both of you are arguing illogically and in bad faith. Moreover, I can't recall a single post that either of you have made that is supported or has merit. You're both a waste of space.
More importantly, do you think this will trick me into not realizing that you aren't providing the evidence I have asked for?
2.) How smart you think your friends are, or how dumb I am, or whether I hinge my self worth from demolishing dolts is absolutely irrelevant. Provide the evidence that your claims demand. Failing to do so while continuously making those claims is dishonest.
Apart from that, our track record of your intellectual dishonesty and utter inability to argue speak for themselves.
3.) I never said I want you blocked (though I do, because you are completely disingenuous shill that is incapable of arguing). I was referring to Loborn. Hence the "again". For someone that alleges I have poor reading comprehension skills (a claim you have never supported when asked to specifically explain), you sure don't read well.
4.) The atheists on this site don't do that. I can say, unequivocally, that we win the vast majority of arguments on this site and address virtually every argument.
You are aware that Loborn (and you too) isn't making serious arguments, correct? It's a confirmed troll. The fact that you think my unwillingness to address purposefully stupid arguments somehow reflects poorly on me, or the atheist community here in general, is fucking ridiculous.
Lastly, we am the ones that are absolutely willing to have logical discussions about these topics, remember? You are the one who scurries away like a fucking coward every time I ask you to provide evidence that supports your bullshit views. How absurd. I am not afraid of having discussions with you. You do a better job of demonstrating that neo-Darwinian evolution is correct and ID proponents are complete rubes than I ever could do. You are our golden egg.
5.) Seriously, kid. Don't fucking respond if you aren't going to argue in an intellectually honest manner. I am sorry if making statements tethered to reality is "banal" to you, but that's your problem. Not all of us can commit ourselves to non-medical mental retardation.
"Each component was added gradually, but each airplane that was built
started with the blueprint of the one that went before it, and then
added new things. If those additions made a better airplane, then
everyone copied it."
That sounds like an argument for Biblical "kinds." I thought analogies could not adequately describe evolution.
" I would say no - I can set the trap by pulling the horizontal bar into
place, setting the catch bar over it, and then carefully laying the trap
upside down so that its own weight holds the catch bar in place. I can
still bait the trap, and the jostling of the upside-down trap by an
eager mouse can still move the catch bar out of position and cause the
trap to release."
This sounds like pseudo-engineering to me. Has it ever been documented that a mouse has been caught by a mousetrap set like this? Or in any of the ways shown in the diagram?
@l_ORE - 1.) Why does this concept give you so much trouble? Scientific theories are not built on analogies. Period. Show me a single scientific theory or even a single article in a peer-reviewed evolutionary biology journal that says (paraphrase) "This is a novel theory/mechanism. It is appears to be valid because we thought of [nift analgoy]." Scientific theories are based on facts and logical interpretation of facts. They are not built on descriptive literary mechanisms.
The author here isn't building a scientific consensus or attempting to falsify a theory or testing a scientific hypothesis; he is trying to explain a single facet of evolution with an analogy to a lay person. His analogy isn't intended to be scientific.
Moreover, who claimed that this analogy adequately explains evolution? It doesn't. It's not intended to. It's insufficient because it doesn't go into the volumes and volumes of molecular evidence, fossil evidence, dating evidence, etc. What it does, obviously, is address a specific misconcpetion about evolution (inadequately on scientific grounds; adequately on non-scientific grounds). The only reason we are forced to discuss these concepts in terms of analogies is that there are certain people on tihs site that are dedicated to not learning the science, facts, and experiments we would like to discuss. Instead of directly addressing the truth, we are forced to adopt the conventions of the opposition (which are logically inferior). Pointing out that these analogies are incorrect with mroe appropriate analogies is just one way we can prove, on their terms, that they aren't thinking carefully about the issues.
Lastly, how is this like the argument for Biblical kinds (which is entirely unsupported by scientific evidence)? One underlying theory is supported by evidence and virtually uniformly adopted by experts; the other has 0 evidence and is adopted by virtually no experts.
2.) Google. It's been done.
And this is really besides the point, isn't it? There are links in this very site that disprove the IC of every common example given by Behe. It's irrelevant whether non-biological organisms can't do this; we know as a demonstrable fact that biological systems like blood clotting, flagellum, etc. do. Mouse traps, air planes, etc. are not biological systems. They do not evolve, and we wouldn't expect them to. That's one of the fundamental absurdities with all analogies saying things like "WELL PLANE PARTS CAN'T COLLIDE AND FORM A JET BY CHANCE!" These are the kinds of idiocies and logical distractions that science obviates by being experimentation and fact-based instead of making analogies based on a lack of information.
Despite the fact that LoBorn turns all reasonable debate into a face-palming clusterfuck, I think it was very just of you to let LoBorn in on the conversation, seeing as you directly referenced him/her. Just sayin. Now that it's done you can go back to blocking and ignoring with a clear conscience.
@UTRow1 - 1.) "The author here isn't building a scientific
consensus or attempting to falsify a theory or testing a scientific
hypothesis; he is trying to explain a single facet of evolution with an
analogy to a lay person. His analogy isn't intended to be scientific."
I think this statement applies to most all analogies given on Xanga. Last time we communicated on this topic (I think I remember giving you a peer-reviewed thesis as an example by the way, granted it was not biological), you were elevating a lay person's analogy to peer review scrutiny, which was clearly not the intention. Here, you are keeping it at the lay level it was intend and using that as an excuse not to elevate it to scrutiny. Why does one skate and not the other?
It seems to me, the analogy of the airplane evolving remains in its "kind" as would be described by creationists. In GL's analogy, it did not start as a car and turn into a plane, and then go from a plane to a submarine over a succession of many generations of design. It stayed a plane, but got better and better at what it did (via outside intelligence I might observe). I am not arguing kinds specifically, but to help you make your point that analogies are inadequate to describe scientific principles.
2.) What Google search would you recommend? Besides the point of irreducible complexity, which I am clearly not commenting on, what I am pointing out is that making up things that sound reasonable but are not scientifically proven is something that is attacked in regards to, for example, a world wide flood, but gets a pass when speculating about how to make a better mouse trap. I would really be interested in seeing a mouse trap that caught mice without all its parts.
@l_ORE - 1.) I don't believe you linked to a peer-reviewed article, and if you did, and it wasn't a scientific journal, it's irrelevant. Even if it was a scientific journal, I highly doubt that they would have used an analogy to, in and of itself, support a scientific theory because, again, that's not how science is done. That's not how scientists discuss science, and hasn't been acceptable or the method used to promote any scientific theories since the modern age began.
Besides that, there is no double standard. You are ignoring the context that this comment was made in. There's an entire post and site here that is explaining the scientific concepts and evidence (briefly) that this analogy is attempting to discuss. The analogy is further explaining a single aspect that GL touches upon. Regardless, asking us to provide evidence for evidence of gradualism, or scientific discussions on it, as if we haven't is ignorant or disingenuous. There are at least a dozen posts on this site, and even more comments, authored by GL and myself that delve deeply into gradualism. That is the different because us and anti-evolutionsts like Wizexel. We actually do discuss these issues on scientific grounds because that is what we have been trained to do, and what all credible experts do. No ID proponents do this. Not the Discovery Institute, not Behe, and certainly not Wizexel.
2.) It's only like the kinds argument in the loosest of ways; so loose that the analogy becomes meaningless. The intended purpose and context and difference in scientific support for the "kinds" argument, compared to the incredible amount of support for gradualism, make the analogies very dissimilar in a substantive sense. It's like saying that the theory of geocentrisim is like the theory of relatively because both were written on paper.
3.) No Google search is needed, but Ken Miller has written about it. It's common sense, and you can perform this yourself. You can make a mouse trap (assuming it's like the ones I have purchased) in your home by disassembling all the components, removing the wooden base, and then "fixing" the reassembled components to a floor, desk, or other flat surface. It would still function as rat trap, paper clamp, etc. IC, as Behe defines it, is wrong even if we accept the parallelism of this analogy.
Again, this is all irrelevant. Biological systems are not rat traps or other inorganic, non-biological devices. We know and have proven that none of the examples Behe gives of IC are IC as a matter of scientific fact. Flagellum, immune clotting cascades, etc. are not irreducibly complex.
@UTRow1 - 1.) You are right, I did not link to a peer-reviewed article, I linked to a doctoral thesis ( was pretty sure I said thesis and not article). The bottom line is that GL used an analogy; your green-beard acceptance of its use should qualify the use of analogies in like manner in the future by any party. I am trying to find where I asked for evidence of gradualism.
2.) "It's like saying that the theory of geocentrisim is like the theory of relatively because both were written on paper." That analogy sounds like an argument against common ancestry.
3.) A creationist could just as easily direct you to a picture of an artist's rendition of a vapor canopy and say it is true. I cannot confirm that your Miller link is peer reviewed. Changing the function to a paper clamp or tie clip is a different argument than is presented here, and I agree that it would work like that as I have seen proof of that. But can you point me to proof (picture, peer
reviewed article, doctoral thesis) that a mouse trap has successfully
caught a mouse missing one of its crucial parts?
Have you ever read Stephen C. Meyers, "Signature in the Cell"? I'm sure you're aware of the Sternberg (non)controversy. But I'm just curious if you've read Dr. Meyer's book?
I agree with wizexel22: "Irreducibly complex systems are not limited to just the flagellum, but the flagellum being the most popularized. However I have yet to see evidence refuting Behe's claims."
Im not an expert. I don't claim to be, but I've read many of the rebuttal's to Behe's book and I find them caricaturized and superficial.
@wizexel22 - I see the same problems. I have discussions about these things at the dinner table with several of my kids who are at varying levels of their Pre-Med degrees. I'm just a layman. But honestly I'm just curious. My kids see both sides of the debate as having some holes. In fact, we talked about I.C. this evening... strange.
If you ever decide to write that post... and I know that sort of thing is difficult; I'd be interested.
@GodlessLiberal - With the eye, often times the mechanisms they point to in simpler organism aren't related to the parts of the whole we see present now in more advanced organisms. This is the problem I see with the overall dismissal of I.C. No one is arguing that there are simpler mechanisms out there.
Mind you... I am not the expert and don't claim to be. I also don't have a dog in this fight in as much as I believe God can use whatever means to create life.
@bakersdozen2 - Yeah, I'm aware of the Sternberg controversy. In my view the controversy was not surprising at all, but still disappointing. (Why do you ask?)
I actually haven't read Meyer's book yet. (Haha again, I'm curious why you're curious). Have you read it? What did you think? I was actually planning on reading it at some point....but whenever I have time to read, I tend to be pretty fickle in terms of subject matter. I haven't considered reading it for a long time now but after spending some time on Xanga (with evolution and religion being common points of discussion) I may have to move Meyer's book up my "Bookflix" queue. (But also in my attempt to retain as much objectivity as I can, I also try to read literature on both sides of the issue. The same with religion and atheism....though I almost regret reading Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and Harris' "The End of Faith".)
"I don't claim to be, but I've read many of the rebuttal's to Behe's book and I find them caricaturized and superficial."
I agree. Frankly, I'm actually really surprised by the support for many of these rebuttals. I'm currently in a discussion with an evolutionist who will send me some scientific literature on the subject of IC and refutations of various IC systems. However, I've seen quite a number already and again, I have a hard time comprehending that actual scientists get on board with the "rebuttals" that I've seen so far. They are often as you said "caricatured and superficial"......being scientifically vague (when it comes to mechanism), riddled with assumptions and ad hoc arguments, and altogether insufficient.
Wow, what interesting family dinner conversations you have! Pretty cool. =) (The extent of my family dinner conversations growing up were "How are your grades?" "Good." "That's good.")
@wizexel22 - Wow, as I reread my first comment I see that it's unclear. The question about "Signature in the Cell" was meant for GL. The reference to Sternberg was meant to forstall any rabbit trails. I've noticed people tend to go in that direction when Meyers name is mentioned. I was curious to see if he read it and what he thought because much is addressed in it (including the Sternberg controversy.
Yes, I read it when it came out. Since he got his doctorate in the philosophy of science, he approacheds D.E. From several angles having talked to those most knowledgable in their field. The main point is the complexity of DNA and ultimately the cell itself.
It's written so folks, like myself, can appreciate the material. He also discusses the Cambrian explosion and I.C. Anyway, I see evolutionists bringing up Darwins Black Box a lot but rarely have seen Meyers book mentioned. Behe's book came out like a decade ago if I'm not mistaken.
@l_ORE - 1.) My "green beard" acceptance of it? You are just ignoring what I am saying. GL's analogy is demonstrably more appropriate than the other and it adequately proves the point he was trying to make, as illustrated by your inability to actually tackle the substantive differences between the analogies. It is perfectly logical given the context and its limited intent. The other analogies are not. Regardless, I have said, again and again, that discussion about these issues begin and end with discussions about the scientific evidence. I don't want to discuss these issues in terms of analogies, but I am forced too because some people aren't honest, aren't interested, or aren't willing to put the work in that is necessary to have scientific discussions.
Look, if you want to continue slamming your head against this brick wall, be my guest. I can't continue stating again and again something that I have painstakingly explained before. Your attempts to cast me as unreasonable, or not even handed, are themselves unreasonable.
2.) "That analogy sounds like an argument against common ancestry." No, it's an argument explaining why arguments by analogy are weak, a point I have made approximately half a dozen times now. Anti-evolutionist analogies are not tethered to factual reality; my analogies (which I only make when scientific discussions are impossible) are substantiated by empirical evidence. Whether they "sound" alike is irrelevant; they are substantive different. One set of analogies is logically better than the other.
3.) Take a mouse trap and do it yourself, or just think about it. It's something that has been done by many people in academic positions (for example, which was the first result that popped up when I Googled) who take oaths of honesty, are professional accountable for their academic writings, and have ever incentive to be honest (please note that there is a link to a peer reviewed article embedded in that link that more than satisfies any reasonable doubt). As the article points out, mouse traps used to be simpler than they currently are, and they caught mice fine.
4.) Regardless of how Behe defines IC, if we can prove that biological systems can lose components and still perform there old specified function, or SOME advantageous function, it supports evolution. This has been done over and over and over again. There are many discussions on this subject matter on GL's site that went completely untouched by anti-evolutionists.
5.) Clearly a drawing of something, which is only bounded by one's imagination, is not equivalent to a claim within a respected scientist's field of expertise, a claim which he has made and verified in dozens of publications and conferences, a claim which has gone unrebutted by opponents, a claim that has been verified and widely accepted by a number of other scientists, a claim that is obviously correct to anyone that has a mousetrap and is willing to spend time verifying it themselves (it takes 15 minutes). Is this a serious argument?
I am not going to dedicate any more time arguing about this subterfuge. Behe's argument is wrong on its own premises, and its own premises do not reflect the real world. It's a terrible argument that has no merit and no bearing on the veracity of evolution.
Every jet and every mouse trap required a mind to come to be. The more experimentation done in the lab to find the origins of life and how it became so complex from the very beginning just confirms the need for a mind to be able to do it. I believe that one day scientists will create life in the lab... However behind the results will be the evidence that it took thousands of the most brilliant minds and countless experiments to be able to do what is claimed to have happened naturally and by accident.
@UTRow1 - Do you have any links to sketches of perpetual machines or cold fusion reactors? I prefer color animated cartoons the best.
@l_ORE - neither of those are analogous to the subject we are discussing (mouse traps), and the point you are trying to make is moot given the information I have already provided (including a link which linked to a peer-reviewed educational journal showing that functional mouse traps were historically sold and can be made with less components than the mouse traps Behe discusses - which you indicated was sufficient). I can only assume that you didn't actually read what I provided because, well, you are dead set determined that Behe argument isn't bullshit. Sorry bro, it is. The fact that you are still trying to defend it is beyond peculiar, particularly since the argument is meaningless in the context of biological systems to begin with (and it has been disproved on its own terms).
Are you going to put an actual argument forward, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
@UTRow1 - My points are specifically about 1.) use of analogies and 2.) use of speculative "science" and abstract sketches to back it up. Why? If analogies are ok to use, in this way, and if use of speculative "science" and abstract sketches are ok to use in this way, then I would expect your future arguments to be more focused on the actual subject matter and not the other side's debate style. I do not care to defend Behe, he is more then qualified to deliver his own arguments.
I did not read your peer-reviewed educational journal because I do not believe truth should be hidden behind a fee wall. It will likely not address my points unless it contains some proof that the mouse trap sketches shown on this blog and the description of the single spring that GL presented here has indeed caught a mouse. I did however read the sample page which happens to make the following statement "These traps cannot catch mice with any one missing part." A lawyer may be able to twist the statement to mean that it was solely Behe's take, but the punctuation does not support that and the next sentence calls it a "simple fact." It may be more specific later in the article, but I am not going to buy an article on mouse traps.
@l_ORE - 1.) We aren't discussing a scientific issue in the context of evolution; we are discussing a poor anti-evolutionist argument that is really based on the author's limited understanding of mouse trap design history and engineering.
2.) We didn't argue by analogy and abstract sketches, though. We argued through scientific evidence, which we supplemented with illustrations and analogies. We provided links to scientific journals, painful and elaborate deconstructions of his arguments based (some of which allow a person to reproduce), specific examples of why a particular "IC example" (flagellum) are not irreducibly complex (GL's video, which is just an amalgam of available peer-reviewed literature and readily available information in most molecular biology textbooks). All of these are based on scientific literature that we have linked to in this post, in this comment section, or in previous discussions on this site. This information is all readily available online (you seem unwilling to do ANY Googling on this matter) or through simple intuition.
Again, the fundamental difference is that our arguments don't begin and end with imaginative analogies and sketches; our analogies and sketches are illustrative of available scientific evidence, intuitively correct, and not demonstrably wrong, as we have clearly demonstrated. ID and YEC arguments are not. Their arguments and analogies either misrepresent science or are not supported by scientific findings, and are based ENTIRELY on imagination.
3.) How are we not focused on the subject matter? We have, conceptually, historically, and scientifically destroyed Behe's argument. Because, in addition to showing the hard evidence that he is wrong, used analogies and sketches so that non-scientists could understand our points? How silly. Nobody has ever said that you can't use analogies or sketches to drive home a point; what we have said is that it is a poor argument to to rely solely on analogies and imaginative sketches that are not supported by evidence.
Also, simply because Behe has responded doesn't mean that this issue is up in the air. He's clearly wrong. We've proven that. If you disagree, you need to explain why, not just cop out and post a Behe response that doesn't even address half the evidence we have provided.
4.) Nothing we have provided or argued is speculative. Demanding that it is speculative at this point in time reveals that you are not reading the links provided, being irrational, and not being intellectually honest and Googling this information.
5.) The truth isn't "hidden behind a fee wall." You can access academic journals at most public libraries and every college, all of which have public access terminals. Furthermore, the synopsis adequately addresses your contentions and what you initially asked for. The same information is available if you do 2 minutes of Googling. You can employ the methods illustrated by the sketches on your own and prove their veracity. You can attend or view one of the many conferences where Ken Miller has discussed this issue. Or, you can think about it. There is a mouse in your kitchen living behind your fridge. Taking the components of the mouse trap and reassembling them to where the base is the floor of your kitchen, where the parts are "anchored" to the ground using the same adhesives that the manufacturers use. There would be no different than having placed the commercially available mouse trap in that same spot.
Whether journals require to you pay fees, and your feelings about that, are irrelevant to this discussion anyways. The truth is the truth. Mouse traps aren't irreducibly complex, according to Behe's own definition. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting aren't going to change this fact. This argument has no merit, and it is clear for anyone to see that isn't dedicated to a contrary conclusion.
6.) Why did you close your old site, Interstellar? Nobody could be this willfully obtuse on these particularly stupid points of contention as you.
@l_ORE - [I did not read your peer-reviewed educational journal because I do not believe truth should be hidden behind a fee wall.]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you earlier link me to two separate articles that cost money to get past the abstract?
@GodlessLiberal - he likely only asked for the peer-reviewed article in the first place because he was aiming to make some meta-comment on naturalists relying on peer-reviewed literature. When it blew up in his face, he was left scrambling and shifting goal posts for some other inane, irrelevant reason.
Seriously, this has to be IM. I have never met anybody that would argue so doggedly while so demonstrably wrong on an issue that is so irrelevant/inconsequential for, seemingly, the sake of "scoring one for anti-evolutionists." Didn't he begin popping up shortly after IM disappeared? Looking back on the stuff he has posted recently, it all smacks of IM-isms (Science isn't sure about X, therefore it's can't be sure about Y; faulty equivocations between evolutionists and anti-evolutionists; terrible "gotcha" comments; disregarding peer-review articles because they are fee-based; frequent goal post shifting; etc.).
@UTRow1 - 1.) So, are you saying his argument is poor because the mousetrap was a bad analogy and unsuitable for use in scientific discussions?
2.) I am still not convinced that any of the traps shown on this post will serve the purpose of catching a mouse. I have Googled it and have unsuccessfully found a video or picture that shows a mouse caught in a mouse trap simplified in ways shown in the abstract sketches on this blog post. This is why I asked you for your Google search criteria. I will be convinced by a live action video or picture.
3.) As I said, I am not interested in defending Behe.
4.) Whether the request from point 2.) pans out or not will convince me of whether it is speculative or not.
5.) I do not have access to a public library or college campus at this time. Do you think you could invoke fair use and paste here the most significant paragraph or sentence from the paper which would most support your position? Do you take issue with the statement from the abstract of the article you linked to where it says "These traps cannot catch mice with any one missing part."? Does the article elaborate on this statement?
6.) Message me and I will give you all the gory details.
@GodlessLiberal - I was very careful in my comment to state what the abstract said and not the paper. I was also very careful to present it neutrally, because I did not know what it contained, yet it appeared to be relevant to the topic. I am glad someone did have access to it and was able to summarize it and tie it together with the topic it was posted under. I must say, one side handled the links much better than the other. I might note, that misconceptions can arise when information is held for ransom.
@GodlessLiberal - called it.
@l_ORE - 1.) I am saying that mousetrap is a poor analogy for many reasons, including: a.) a mouse trap is not a biological system; regardless of whether or not you can remove a component of a mouse trap and have it retain beneficial functions (you can, as I have and many others have proven beyond a reasonable doubt), we know that you can remove components of all the major IC examples (e.g., flagellum) and have it retain biological functions; b.) as a matter of historical fact and engineering fact, you can remove/alter several (not just a single) component of a mousetrap and have it catch mice, or clamp, or function as a paperweight, all of which are beneficial functions, adn thus, Behe's poor analogy is ; c.) the analogies and drawings that evolutionists use are supported by scientific evidence, and thus, meritous; those used by ID proponents and creationists like Behe are not, and thus, do not have scientific merit (whatever rhetorical merit or literary merit they have is only meritous in that it effectively deceives or confuses).
This is the fourth or fifth time I have restated these critiques in a very clear fashion.
2.) You are being pretty desperate then and, as I pointed out, avoiding looking at the journal I published as well as the information I have provided (and the hypo I provided in my previous comment) in an honest light. If your doubts were reasonable, you would be able to support them beyond saying "nuh-uh" or "I dunnnooooo bout dat." The hypo I provided, Miller's demonstrations, historical development of current mousetraps from simpler models, etc. all prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Behe is wrong.
3.) And yet that is what you have been attempting to do for several days now. I think that qualifies as "interested."
4.) Again, whether you are willing to recognize it, read the links I provided, etc. doesn't change the fact that Behe's argument is wrong and that mousetraps are not irreducibly complex.
Explain why my hypothesis, where you remove the base but otherwise assemble the mousetrap precisely as before where you would have otherwise laid the moues trap would not work. If you can't think of a reason why this wouldnt' catch mice, then there is no reason for you to continue with this argument.
5.) a.) No, because that is copyright infringement. Fair use doesn't mean "use however you want as long as there is some educational purpose." It has a very specific legal meaning that is likely not met here.
b.) Come on man. The abstract says, "Since intelligent design (ID) advocates claimed the ubiquitous mouse trap as an example of systems that cannot have evolved, mouse trap history is doubly relevant to studying material culture. On the one hand, debunking ID claims about mouse traps and, by implication, also about other irreducibly complex systems has a high educational value. On the other hand, a case study of mouse trap history may contribute insights to the academic discussion about material culture evolution. Michael Behe argued that mouse traps cannot trap mice with any part missing; therefore, they cannot have a precursor with one part less, therefore, cannot have a continuous history, and therefore, cannot have evolved. The patented and seminal precursor of current flat snap traps, however, had one part less, because spring and striker were formed of one wire. Secondly, historical records that reach back into the Bronze Age suggest that its history continued for a very long time. Thirdly, all prerequisites for evolution (variation, transmission, and selection) abound in mouse trap populations. Hence, Behe’s triple-jump conclusion about mouse traps is false each step..."
If you are so determined to reach the conclusions that you are going to glean the opposite of what very concise, clear prose says, there's not much of a discussion that can be had.
6.) a.) The abstracts didn't say what you claimed they did. It appears that you merely read the title of the paper and reflexively posted it think that they would support the contention that C-14 dating isn't reliable.
b.) I Googled around and found the information from the articles you provided through Google, as I was waiting in an air port lobby. However, most of that additional information was unnecessary. A careful reading of the article revealed that even posting those articles was a mistake. That is, you didn't interpret them incorrectly because there was an information barrier; you interpreted them incorrectly because you didn't do due diligence or read the papers critically. You thought that they would support anti-evolutionist arguments, jumped the gun, and posted them.
@UTRow1 -
1.) The problem I see with the analogy is that Behe is assuming that a mouse trap with fewer parts needs to be necessarily used as a mouse trap. What Miller does is show that a system, whether flagellum or mouse trap, with parts "missing" can be used for other functions (a tie clip, for example). A good argument in my opinion. My problem with this post is that it attempts to use a mouse trap as a mouse trap with missing parts. The key here is that other parts of the mouse trap are altered to accomplish this purpose, which I think is not in the spirit of Behe's analogy, limited in scope as it is.
2.)
You can hardly say I am avoiding looking at the journal. It is not like I see a public library or college campus and take a detour and go five miles out of the way to avoid the journal. Something I have learned from this site is that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. The positive assertion here is that the mouse traps in these drawings will work. I am not convinced. Why have you not provided a google search criteria which led you to the definitive proof? See 5.) for why the article does not convince me that the mouse traps shown in the sketches in the post will work.
3.) I have no interest in defending the analogy, as it has the problems I discussed above in 1.).
4.) I would be happy to run the numbers on your solution to see if it is feasible, but I will let you provide the givens to avert claims of bias. I will require the torsional spring rate, max bench press strength of a mouse, spring wire gauge, yield stress of the adhesive you intend to use. In this picture of a common mouse trap, I do not see any use of adhesive, so you might have a hard time finding a baseline spec for the adhesive. The problem I see with your solution is the high stress on the adhesive between a rounded wire and flat surface which would have a theoretical infinite stress. Also, as far as the analogy goes, by gluing it to the floor, you are using the floor as the backboard, hence you are essentially using the same components, but we can ignore that for the purposes of illustration.
5.) a.) OK, have it your way. b.) I made a grave mistake here. In my last comment I said "abstract" where I should have said "introduction." I am not sure why, but you have changed the link to the abstract from the first one you posted. One notable difference is that the second link you provided is to the same article, but the sample page is not accessible. The first link it is. On the sample page, in the introduction, third sentence, it does indeed say, "These traps cannot catch mice with any one missing part." Again, because I am are not talking about historical mouse traps, but the mouse trap shown in the drawings in the body of this post, I find the article otherwise irrelevant.
6.) a.) On the dating post, I purposely posted a very neutral comment with no intent but to add to the conversation. b.) I made no interpretation of the article, I merely posted a link to the abstract.
@GodlessLiberal - GL says, "And complexity is also dependent on the point in time which you examine a system. If you look at a stone arch, it seems irreducibly complex - if you remove a single stone from the archway the whole thing comes tumbling down. But we know that a common architectural technique is called scaffolding - that is, the archway is built under support from a wooden scaffold that allows the stones to be put in place without falling apart - and it’s only after all the stones are secure that the scaffold isn’t needed anymore. Biological systems can evolve using scaffolds also - with less selective pressure, new proteins and enzymes can evolve unique functions which may become essential if other scaffolding enzymes are lost to the dustbin of evolutionary change." I understand that you are basically saying we are looking at the cell AFTER it has [supposedly] evolved to this level of complexity. And you are saying that it 'probably' did not begin this complex. (These things ARE assumptions on YOUR part, you know.) My question to you is, what is the known mechanism for a living cell to function properly and reproduce with less complexity?
@wizexel22 - this is the exact kind of thing we were discussing, and UTrow is a prime example of the weary part.
[And you are saying that it 'probably' did not begin this complex. (These things ARE assumptions on YOUR part, you know.)]
A bit disingenuous. The difference is that our assumptions are backed by molecular evidence and thousands of peer-reviewed journals painfully detailing the evidence supporting our assumption that complex cells evolved from cells of lesser complexity (e.g., this article). There is absolutely no evidence supporting the assumptions you make. Our assumptions are scientific and plausible; yours aren't. There is literally no sound scientific evidence supporting ID or creationism where it diverges with Neo-Darwinian evolution. None. And thus, your "assumptions" aren't as good as our "assumptions", which are supported by the evidence according to nearly 100% of academic and professional natural scientists.
[My question to you is, what is the known mechanism for a living cell to function properly and reproduce with less complexity? ]
This question is not only poorly written to the point of being unanswerable, but it's also irrelevant to the discussion. What makes you believe that cells must lose complexity/have less complexity in order to "reproduce"? Are you trying to ask how we know that the ancient, less complex cells can replicate? Cells don't technically "reproduce." Regardless, cellular replication is something biochemists largely figured out nearly 40 years ago. Replication occurs all the time in the simplest of primitive cells. Hell, even non-cellular organisms like vesicles can replicate. Replication is a very simple process driven by very simple mechanisms that have been largely understood for several decades.
[UTrow is a prime example of the weary part]
Perhaps, but this doesn't change the fact that you and your...colleagues...are woefully and willfully ignorant about these issues, and lack even a rudimentary understanding of evolutionary biology. It's not the fact you don't know these things that irritating, it's the fact you lack the humility and intellectual curiosity required to learn that you are wrong. If you have questions, do some good faith due diligence and research the answer from reputable scientific resources. The answers to the arguments/questions you raised can be found in less than 3 minutes of searching Google Scholar. They're things I learned in middle school.