1. Irreducible Complexity
Ken Miller on his website
”A True Acid Test"Talks about the evolution of an “Irreducibly Complex” mechanism that fits the definition Michael Behe used when he made the term up (
"Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." - p 39):
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.
The conclusion made by Behe and others is that
IF evolution cannot produce them,
THEN they must have been made, designed, created.
Let’s review the logic of this argument:
- (P1) complex systems exist in biological organisms where there are multiple parts involved in a process, feature or function, and where the removal of any part of the system renders the whole process non-functional.
- (P2) if NO such system can evolve then it must be developed by some other process, and then, AND ONLY THEN, the existence of any “IC” system is evidence that “some other process” MUST have occurred.
- (C1) Therefore such a system MUST be made, designed, created by some other process.
Leaving aside for now the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy (and the fact that precept (P2) of this argument is basically based on ignorance or denial of how such systems could have formed), we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that
ONE such “IC” system
HAS evolved: if
ONE such “IC” system evolves then it invalidates the “then
AND ONLY THEN” condition that is necessary in order that “some other process”
MUST be involved.
Without the "then
AND ONLY THEN” condition, the argument is reduced to it
MAY have happened on any system where we just don't know whether it evolved or not (thus depending on ignorance of any mechanism to even be considered), and the specific conclusion is invalid (as several other conclusions can be made with equal validity, one of which is "we don't know") ... or at this point it becomes a non-falsifiable concept, a god-of-the-gaps, a moving-goal-post concept that avoids scientific pursuit of answers at all costs. Without the above condition the conclusion becomes
(C1b) Therefore such a system MAY or MAY NOT have evolved OR it MAY or MAY NOT have been made, designed, created by some other process, OR the universe may have sprung into existence last thursday fully formed, OR some other answer: we don't know.
This is not a testable conclusion and does not add any intellectual advantage to investigating the biology of the system with only science - the pursuit of knowledge based on what we DO know.
This is why the principle of falsification is used by science.
On to the experiments in question:
As noted in Ken Miller’s website, just such an "IC" system was seen, observed, and documented as evolving in a couple of experiments run by Barry Hall:
quote:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose. What happened next? Under appropriate selection conditions Hall found that the bacteria evolved not only the gene for a new beta-galactosidase enzyme (called the evolved beta-galactosidase gene, or ebg), but also a control sequence that switched the new gene on when glucose was present. Finally, a new chemical reaction evolved as well, producing allolactose, the chemical signal that normally switches on the lac permease gene, allowing lactose to flow into the cell.
Does Barry Hall's ebg system fit the definition of irreducible complexity? Absolutely. The three parts of the evolved system are:
(1) A lactose-sensitive ebg repressor protein that controls expression of the galactosidase enzyme
(2) The ebg galactosidase enzyme
(3) The enzyme reaction that induces the lac permease
Unless all three are in place, the system does not function, which is, of course, the key element of an irreducibly complex system.
It’s “irreducible” and it evolved. Thus precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted, and ALL conclusions based on it are invalidate. Q.E.D.
Denial of falsification is not faith, it is delusion: something believed in spite of evidence to the contrary.
2. Information Loss
Another argument common to creationism and IDology is that mutations only result in the loss of “information”, and that without a mechanism to gain “information” new systems, functions or features cannot evolve.
Let’s review the logic of this argument:- (P1) mutations cannot cause an increase in “information.”
- (P2) an increase in “information” is necessary for new mechanisms or functions to evolve.
- (C1) Therefore new mechanisms or functions cannot evolve.
Leaving aside the fact that “information” is not defined in any way to measure whether or not there is an increase or a decrease in any evolved changes in species over time, we can still show that the concept is falsified if we can show that ONE such mechanism or function has evolved that would require such an increase. In other words, if we can show that either (P1) or (P2) must be invalid then we have shown that the conclusion is invalid.
Now let’s look at Barry Hall’s experiments again in light of this concept:
An existing “irreducibly complex” system is intentionally disrupted and ceases to function.
According to the equation of new information with the evolution of new functions or mechanisms by precept (2), the intentional loss of a function or mechanism must then also involve the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for that function or mechanism:
quote:
In 1982, Barry Hall of the University of Rochester began a series of experiments in which he deleted the bacterial gene for the enzyme beta-galactosidase. The loss of this gene makes it impossible for the bacteria to metabolize the sugar lactose.
Thus the deletion of the beta-galactosidase gene MUST have involved the loss of AT LEAST SOME information for the function or mechanism of that gene.
Next what we see is that a DIFFERENT “IC” system evolves to replace the original -- the original “IC” system is not repaired or recovered, but a new and different “IC” system evolved.
Ergo new “information” MUST have evolved that was not in the original organism, the “information” for that organism MUST have been increased. Again, this is the principle of falsification used by science - it invalidates either precept (P1) or precept (P2), and therefore invalidates ALL conclusions based on their combination.
We started with a system with some quantity of “information” that -- according to precept (2) -- must have been lost to render it dysfunctional, and then a replacement system evolved.
Either “information” was added (invalidates precept (P1)) OR added “information” was not necessary for the evolution of a feature, function or system (invalidates precept (P2)).
Thus either precept (P1) OR precept (P2) is invalidated, falsified, refuted and ALL conclusions based on their combination are invalidate. Q.E.D.
Denial of falsification is not faith, it is delusion: something believed in spite of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
These two experiments by Barry Hall invalidate two pet concepts of creationism and IDology.
This was not the intent of the experiments -- they were done in 1982 and 1983 and well before Behe's book (hardcover published by Free Press August 2, 1996; first paperback edition published by Free Press March 20, 1998) -- the intent was to do science and find answers to questions via the scientific method.
That these experiments invalidate these concepts shows if anything, a lack of intellectual rigor on the part of creationism and IDology, and not any further need for science to investigate either concept.
Enjoy.
Hall's experimental results are available in two papers:
(1) - BG Hall (1982) Evolution on a Petri Dish. The evolved b-galactosidase system as a model for studying acquisitive evolution in the laboratory. Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150.
(2) - BG Hall (1983) Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms, in Evolution of Genes and Proteins, M Nei and RK Koehn (eds.), Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
Is It Science Forum please.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2