Is complexity an argument against design?

andorg,I agree with you that Complexity is relative category.Complexity, in most general form, is a level of uncertainty in problem solving (task performing) by a particular intelligence. It is why Complexity cannot be separated from a specific intelligence that is solving a particular problem. In the same time, and for the same reason, we can’t define Intelligence without referring to a particular problem it is solving. Therefore the definitions of Complexity and Intelligence (and probably information also) are inseparable and all categories aren’t absolute, but are relative to each other.Complexity of a specific problem could be measured only in reference to a specific intelligence that attempts to solve this problem. For example, what is more complex: to build a house, surgically remove an appendix, or solve a linear differential equation? The answer depends on whom you ask- Carpenter, Surgeon, or Mathematician.The same way Intelligence is measured by interacting with a specific problem. It is why a result of the measuring depends upon the type of chosen problem. For example if the problem to perform a protein folding, then any cell (or even single molecule of protein) is much more intelligent that we are.Now, how does complexity relate to intelligent design?
Irreducible complexity is an argument, made by proponents of intelligent design, that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved by chance only. Scientific community at large rejected this argument, but I don’t belif that they have a good answear. The respond of scientific comumy was rather ideological than scientific.
I think, that Irreducible complexity is a real chalenge still awaiting an explanation.

Coyote,A few months ago, on Antievolution forum
Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism? ,
I asked to refer me to the statistical analysis that demonstrate random mutations are sufficient to cause adaptive changes in biological systems. In respond I was referred to the same site (Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe). I also was told that Genetic Algorithm is an answer to my question.
As I found, GA unable to demonstrate Evolutionary changes based on random mutations. Instead GA is just optimization tool that “brainstorms” a predefined SET OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS (see references below): The gradual, step-by-step changes are the most important concepts without each Darwinism wouldn’t be able to explain evolution. The main argument of Behe against gradualism is that it is impossible to define existence of the “appropriate fitness function” that would provide gradual evolution of the so called “Irreducible complex” systems. Dawkins’s counterargument is that regardless that we can’t reproduce these conditions now, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t exist millions or billions years ago. Dawkins expects that sooner or later the “appropriate fitness function” will be found and he has tried to demonstrate that this isn’t an impossible proposition.I don’t share Dawkins’ optimism, but I wouldn’t waste time attempting to prove the nonexistence of these conditions billions years ago. How one can prove a non-existence. We may prove a non-existence only in the absolutely defined area of knowledge. For example I may prove to my self the non-existence of a wallet in my empty packet, but only after thorough search and even then I may have some reservations.Therefore I wish Dr. Dawkins a lock in search of what may happen on Earth million a million years ago, but until these evidences are not discovered, the Neo-Darwinism, in its current form, isn’t proved Theory, but a Hypothesis instead.I am not proponent of ID, but I think that science doesn't have yet an answer to the Irreducible Complexity challenge.

Rahvin,I agree with you more than it seems from my previous post. That post was a bit provocative to emphasize my view on Modern Evolutionary Theory.I do not have problem with Darwin’s theory of evolution and with Darwin’s explanation of its mechanism in terms of gradual changes and selection - it was a very clever explanation given how little was known at that time. But I do have a problem with the current state of affairs where we are religiously repeating the mantra about random genetic mutation, as driving force, pretending that this is a sufficient explanation. The problem is that a basic statistical analysis doesn’t support this mechanism in term of how much time it would require.In the Antievolution forum I asked their participants, trained in genetics, to help me find the references demonstrating that probability of random genetic mutation in the process of gradual changes and adaptation don’t contradict with a statistical analysis. However I get no satisfactory answer, regardless the overwhelming confidence that there is abundance of appropriate data.I think that Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is fundamentally incomplete and that Irreducible Complexity question is a very good one, even I do not accept Behe’s and Dembski’s explanation.

Coyote ,I agree that mathematical modeling in biology is too often misleading, because we don’t know enough about subject of modeling. However when a Theory of Evolution based on randomness is proposed, as a minimum requirement, it must be demonstrated that proposed mechanism is at least passible. Indeed, it had been plenty of attempts to perform such analysis, but results were rather negative. Unfortunately, expert in this field can’t admit that, and instead widely popularize failed models (Weasel program, Genetic Algorithm and Artificial life systems). Evolutionary theory became too politicized for the open and honest scientific discussion. The irony is, that an OFFICIAL result of this mathematical analisys, per Neo-Darvinism comunity, is that there is no problem with a time and there is no problem with Irreducible Complexity. Check this
in Discovery magazine: and original article in Nature: Would be interesting to know your opinion about this article. Take a time; it took me a week to figure this out.

My first impression was that this article using rigorous scientific method addressed and solved the long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory, what Behe refers as Irreducible Complexity. But it was a wrong impression. Instead the article is flooded with phenomenological details.By using digital organisms of Avida program, the authors traced the genealogy from an ancestor that could replicate only to descendants able to perform multiple logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. To demonstrate that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors authors set up small rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones and this way provide an “incentive” to evolve through the gradual process. However when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, “digital organisms” never found a final solution.Another word, Avida program didn’t teach us anything new that we already knew from Weasel program and Genetic Algorithms. Neither models lead to evolution, unless the small changes are artificially rewarded, while in reality prohibited amount of simultaneous mutation must occur in order to produce a “jump” to a better solution. Weasel program demonstrate this with a grate transparency: if the small improvements in the “Hamlet line” wouldn’t be rewarded the final line from Hamlet wouldn’t evolve.Authors of this article understand that they didn’t disprove argument of Irreducible Complexity. They were careful enough to not mention Irreducible Complexity argument or Behe name. However in the article in Discovery magazine they were “loosen up” a bit and proclaim that “What we show is that there are irreducibly complex things and they can evolve . ”You may read these articles and may be you will be more successful reconciling authors statements in Nature No webpage found at provided URL: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20Nature,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf
and Discovery
No webpage found at provided URL: http://discovermagazine.com/2005....t:int=1.

As I pointed in my previous post, The Nature article didn’t show how "irreducibly complex" features are developed. Authors even didn’t mention “Irreducible complexity” (try to search the article’s content for word “Irreducible”). This article avoids discussing not Irreducible Complexity only, but any analysis of complexity at all. The authors, who pretende to explain the emergence of complexity, avoid defining, which of the dozens different and often mutually exclusive definitions of complexity authors have in mind. This is very unusual, especially for scientists from Department of Computer Science and Department of Philosophy where scientific concept of Complexity is the “bread and butter. However in Discovery magazine (new link)No webpage found at provided URL: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/cover/article_view?searchterm=Avida&b_start:int=0
the authors, don’t expecting much scrutiny claims that “ . What we show is that there are irreducibly complex things and they can evolve, says Adami“. I would agree that Behe’s examples aren’t exactl science, but it would not be difficult to translate it to the more vigorous scientific language, but sooner or later it happens and than Science will accept it as legitemal scientific argument. I don’t why it could be a problem. At least ID supporters wouldn’t accuse and ridicule Science in ignorance. Now it will be ID turn to explain this phenomenon using vigorous scientific method. Good lock to them.
I think that Irreducible Complexity phenomenon is nothing to do with God, but with our fundamentally incomplete knowledge about Nature. And honest scientific contest with ID scientists (some of them, in my opinion, are pretty bright) would accelerate solving this puzzle.You probably still disagree with my views and I probably couldn’t add much more to this discussion.Regards,Mark

When you read articles in Discovery and Nature you trust their content, but I have reason to believe that they are deceiving and therefore I read these articles in between lines. The authors can't claim that irreducibly complex things evolve, because “ . experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved when simpler functions were not rewarded” - but this is exactly what predicted per Irreducible Complexity argument. Irreducible Complexity means that complex system can’t evolve in a single jump from simplicity (because of extreme improbability), but gradually only. However science didn't explain yet how the gradual changes were rewarded.

That's right, and experiments showed that the complex feature never evolved.
Than you continue: Is it? I thought that this example shows, that if a simpler function (intermediate forms) isn’t recognized by environment, as adaptive, a complex system never evolve. I don’t understand your conlusion about “clear and direct refutation of irreducible Complexity”. My statement is about what IC means. It means, that Creationists will be refuted if science can demonstrate that environmental conditions could favor even smallest changes (so the probability of them would be realistic) and this way support small gradual changes, like Dawking attempted to demonstrate, or if science can demonstrate that complex function can indeed evolve in a jump as Avida program intended to shows. But let me remind you, that Dawking argument is just a scientific speculation and “Avida” article in Nature didn’t openly addtess IC argument (not even mentioned it). Therefore IC argument isn’t refuted yet. Sure.