Irreducible complexity- the challenges have been rebutted (if not refuted)

To the sophist, irreducible complexity is post hoc gibberish. However, it is no more post hoc than any ToE. Or was the ToE formulated by the first population(s) of single-celled organisms? And for something sophists consider 'gibberish' it sure garners much attention.In the following article Behe shows how weak the arguments against IR really are:Behe answers his criticsHowever to keep the discussion simple we can discuss Behe's mousetrap and how it applies to IR (and minimal functionality). Behe's mousetrap consists of 5 parts:
1- a flat wooden platform to act as its base
2- a metal hammer which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse
3- a spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged (set)
4- a sensitive catch that releases when slight pressure is applied
5- a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back when the trap is charged
(there are also assorted staples to hold the system together)According to Behe, the first step to determine if a system is IR is to ask if all the components are required for function. Not only are all the pieces of the aforementioned musetrap required, they have to be the correct size.So what would a physical precursor to that mousetrap be? What would be its function?Obviously there exist other types of mousetraps. That is not the point unless you can take one, and using Darwinian step-by-step processes, 'evolve' the 5 part mousetrap mentioned above, all the while maintaining minimal functionality.Anyone?------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-04-2002]

Larry:
John Paul, I hate to tell you this but no one says a mousetrap evolved.John Paul:
Aren't you the observant one. The point was if one could evolve, how would it in Darwinian step-by-step fashion?Larry:
Perhaps you could discuss an actual biological system.John Paul:
If you can't tackle something as basic as a 5 part (with staples) mousetrap what makes you think you can handle something as complex as a biological system?Larry:
The problem is that Behe uses the gaps of our knowledge (and sometimes he doens't even realize there isn't much of a gap) to claim goddidit.John Paul:
I don't think Behe cares whodonedidit. He just knows all materialistic naturalism scenarios have been found wanting. As a matter of fact he discusses them in the article I linked to. Do you think you can do what others have tried and failed to do? I'm listening.Larry:
That is nice, but it isn't science skippy.John Paul:
But declaring something did evolve via Darwinian step-by-step fashion, without substantiating evidence, is scientific- princess? Nice typical double standard.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
I think there is some room for John Paul here. If he could show that Behe is correct in terms of evolution not being able to provide IC systems, this would be a falsification of evolution. Not necessarily support for ID, but a falsification of the current theory at least.John Paul:
Behe is doing fine on his own. Further I don't care what anyone "accepts". I care what is the evidence. For all I know Behe "accepts" common descent because he wants to keep his job.Larry:
The point is that since it didn't evolve it wouldn't need to be able to occur through evolution. You see, the point was that you are comparing a complex object that is clearly not the result of evolution to complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution.John Paul:
We could simulate evolution with our imagination, that is one thing evolutionists have plenty of so I don't understand the difficulty. Also I you assertion that "...complex biological systems that are capable of being produced by evolution", is what is under debate and far from a foregone conclusion.Larry:
Because the mouse trap isn't a biological organism and most importantly because it can't reproduce. You might think about such questions before asking.John Paul:
Maybe they don't reproduce themselves but on an assembly line they are reproduced. Add a little imagination, ie a variation due to mechanical wear of the assembly mechanisms (similar to what was presented in Darwin's Ghost) a 'mutated' version of the original was produced. Then you take it from there.Larry:
No, I claim that these systems could evolve, we just don't fully understand them.John Paul:
And others, including myself, claim they cannot and did not. Furtermore there is no evidence that shows they can never mind did. If you want to believe they can and did, fine. But understand it is a belief and therefore just as religious as the Creation PoV.------------------
John Paul

Larry:
Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.John Paul:
Hypotheticals are not a substitute for real empirical evidence.Larry:
Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.John Paul:
Behe's paper, which I linked to in my thread opening post, discusses Doolittle's work. Why should I re-do what has been done?------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-07-2002]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
Larry:
Hypothetical pathways are quite easy to think of and indeed, you haven't bothered to address the Doolittle work unless you did it while I was away. It has direct bearing on the subject and blood clotting.John Paul:
Hypotheticals are not a substitute for real empirical evidence.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
ROTFL--consistency isn't a strong point of yours. The "power" of Behe's argument rests upon the supposed impossibility of such systems evolving. If a plausible pathway is found that is consistent with evolution, Behe doesn't have an argument. IOW, his argument rests upon the claim of impossibility. Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument.John Paul:
What is a 'plausible pathway'? One someone can think of? Or once it is thought of, also demonstrated to be so? As an engineer I can testify that what works on paper does not always work in real life. Also you are correct by stating "Once impossibility is shown not to exist, so does any validity of the argument." That of course is how to falsify ID. Show that one isn't needed.Larry:
And indeed, Doolittle has done specific work to support this in the Sea Cucumber, vertebrates and lobsters with perfectly consistent results to there is real work supporting the argument.John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Larry:
Actually there is a great deal of evidence given Doolittle's work that traces the path of blood clotting. You've argued yourself into a perfect circle. Now, either you can explain why Doolittle's ideas are wrong from the paper or you really don't have an argument.John Paul:
Behe's paper, which I linked to in my thread opening post, discusses Doolittle's work. Why should I re-do what has been done?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Because it wasn't in response to what I referred you to? How is that?Behe's response consists of:
1)_Evidence of common descent is not evidence of natural selection.Meaning that in your twisted defense you claim that a defense by Behe that accepts the work by Doolittle as evidence of common descent is an argument against common descent. You are contradicting yourself. I suggest you read what you cite from now on.John Paul:
That is not my defense. Thanks for twisting what I am saying to suit your needs. All I am saying is there appears to be systems that upon inspection, exhibit IR. I also understand what minimal functionality is. That is something often over-looked by evolutionists.Larry:
2) that it is a just so story. Of course, this isn't an argument, but a complaint that Behe is wrong. A just so story that is consistent with the evidence and with the theory is what we should find.Above all, you haven't been reading anything cited to you or by you. The evidence of this is in claiming that Behe answers Doolittle's work you cite the rebuttal to a specific article by Doolittle that I didn't cite. You might notice that what I did cite was an article by Miller that expands on Doolittle's larger work and Behe has not answered:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/clot/Clotting.htmlPerhaps you would like to address this article that Behe hasn't addressed that goes into more detail.John Paul:
Behe has kicked butt so far. Seeing that this is his field, I will wait to see what he says. You are correct though, I didn't read Doolittle's new stuff. After being body slammed I thought he would just stay down and just rolled my eyes when I saw your link. And know that Miller has added his 2 cents worth I am sure it is even more exciting.BTW, Behe did read Miller & Doolittle:E. A Modest Conclusion

​

I would like to pause here for a moment to point out that all three scientists who tried to meet the
challenge to Darwinian evolution of blood clotting?Russell Doolittle, Kenneth Miller, and
Keith Robison?foundered on exactly the same point, the point of irreducible complexity. Yet
they foundered in three different ways. Doolittle mistakenly thought that even the current cascade might not be irreducibly complex, but experimental results showed him to be wrong. Miller either proposed unregulated steps or just waved his hands and shouted ?gene duplication?, avoiding the problem by obfuscation. Robison directly attacked a piece of the problem, but failed to see he was intelligently guiding events in a distinctly non-Darwinian scenario. Perhaps we may be allowed to conclude that when three scientists, highly intelligent and strongly motivated to discredit it, all come up empty, that irreducible complexity is indeed a big hurdle for Darwinism.However much you complain irreducibly complex systems remain so and minimal functionality is the thorn in the ToE's side.------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-07-2002]

Larry:
One that is consistent with the mechanisms of evolution and fits the available evidence. Either you can show that the pathway Miller presents or Doolittle in his original work wouldn’t work, or Behe doesn’t have an argument. You don’t seem to grasp Behe’s argument at all. His argument is based on it being impossible. If it isn’t impossible he doesn’t have an argument. Understand?John Paul:
How can I show wouldn't work when they haven't shown it would? In order to show something is possible it must be demonstrated, not talked about and not just put down on paper. Understand?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
What are his results consitent with? Common Creator or common descent from some unknown population of single-celled organisms which just happened to have the ability to reproduce. And not only could they reproduce, they could do so in just an imperfect way as to lead from that population to all the diversity of life. How can you tell which his results support?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
For one there is no theory regarding a common creator so it is impossible to tell what would be consistent. Your position seems to be that anything is consistent with a common creator. Perhaps you could identify some clear falsifications of such a theory if it were to exist so that one could tell what is consistent and what is not? It should be a breeze if such a theory exists.John Paul:
There is a theory regarding Creation- you just choose to ignore it. Huge difference. The link to the true origins provided falsifications for it.------------------
John Paul

To put the topic in a nutshell:
Essentially, isn't the ID concept the theory of evolution, with God's guidance added in?MooseJohn Paul:
No, ID says nothing about God. Sure you can infer that God is the IDer, but that is another matter. Creation is a subset of ID that does just that.Moose, some argue that ID is synonomous to theistic evolution but I see theistic evolutionists argue against ID all the time. So I don't know what to make of that comparison.------------------
John Paul

From Larry's link to the Miller article:"Can we know for sure that this is how blood clotting (or any other biochemical system) evolved? The strict answer, of course, is we cannot. The best we can hope from our vertebrate ancestors are fossils that preserve bits and pieces of their form and structure, and it might seem that their biochemistry would be lost forever. But that's not quite true. Today's organisms are the descendents of that biological (and biochemical) past, and they provide a perfect opportunity to test these ideas."John Paul:
Miller assumes the ToE is indicative of reality in order to reach his conclusions. Hardly objective.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John Paul:
before[/b] I don't care what Behe accepts. He has shown there isn't any substantiating evidence for the step-by-step Darwinian process and that is the point.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------There is a theory regarding Creation- you just choose to ignore it. Huge difference. The link to the true origins provided falsifications for it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Identify it.John Paul:
Been there, done that. All you are going to do & continue to do is to handwave it away.Let's see we have Variation under Domestication; Variation under Nature; Struggle for Existence; Natural Selection; etc. Sound familiar? It should. The Creation model of biological evolution is very similar to what Darwin wrote without his faulty conclusion based on un-substatiated extrapolation.Here's a prediction- without intelligent intervention a procaryotic organism will always remain a procaryotic organism; a virus will always remain a virus. Guess what? All experiments to date have fulfilled those predictions. Go figure...------------------
John Paul

​

[This message has been edited by John Paul, 01-09-2002]

Percy:
I think I see what Larry is getting at. If I can explain by analogy, you can repair a Dodge with parts from a Chevy, but you'll run into lots of problems with parts that don't fit, and those require some extra work.John Paul:
You know how I would repair a dodge or a chevy? I would go out and buy a Buick! Percy:
You can borrow from Behe, but some parts don't fit with your views, and you need to address those issues.John Paul:
Why is that? Why do I have to address what Behe believes? What he accepts or believes flies in the face of what he presents. Why shouldn't Behe be the one to address those issues?Percy:
Is that it, Larry?John Paul:
To me, both of you are 'barking up the wrong tree'...------------------
John Paul

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------John Paul:
You are repeating yourself. I read Behe and I read your link. Nothing has been demonstrated. No amount of shouting will change that. Sure a hypothetical has been presented and that is a start- but that is all it is.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry:
Yes, but a possibly pathway is all that is required to falsify Behe’s inference.John Paul:
Just because something looks 'possible' on paper doesn't make it so.Larry:
Do you understand this?John Paul:
Yes. Do you understand what I just said?Larry:
His argument is based upon the impossibility of such an occurrence. If it isn’t impossible, Behe doesn’t have an argument anymore.John Paul:
True. So all that is needed is to take the idea off of the paper and into the lab where it can be demonstrated. Lacking that element (demonstration- as in observe, test, repeat & verify), all are left with are 'cuddas'. As in "It cudda happened this way". To me that is not very scientific.The problem, as I see it, is not only was the blood cascade changing, so was the organism. Where is the evidence that mutations can occur in such a way to accomplish this? (we can save that for another thread, which would be best. Just something for you to keep in the back of your mind)------------------
John Paul

edge:
True. However, when you compare something that is possible on paper with something that is impossible on paper, which do you run with?John Paul:
You take the one that you think is possible on paper and see if it is possible in reality. Until that happens no one can make the determination of 'possibility'. Thinking something is possible (just because it may 'work' on paper) is very different from showing it to be possible.------------------
John Paul