Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

The fact that an IC system was shown to evolve removes the use of IC as an argument that they can not evolve by Darwinian evolution. It only takes one counter example. It is done, finished, caput and a very dead parrot.

OK... I want you to show me where Behe states that an IC system can't evolve.

The very fact (THAT CERTAIN) IC systems could evolve from its intended design tells me that it is even more IC than I thought it was. It has the miraculous capacity to adapt.

I wrote (that certain) is because in this case, the bacteria was arguably presented with the challenge of hydrolyzing lactose. You might say that it had to adapt or die. The flagellum serves its purpose and doesn't have any forseeable challenges that it must adapt too. Therefore, it doesn't have to change.

I can also state that none of my arguments have been arguments from perfection for reasons why I won't go to in this particular thread.

Do you understand me?

We have complete storage systems that know what has to be there. Not because it has it's own intelligence but, because that's they way they were programmed. When you turn on your computer, how does it know what to do?

Yes...very good. Sometimes I feel alone or outnumbered in these debates. I just thought I would give you some support.

One of the many functions of so-called junk DNA is to mark genetic sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material. ("The Role of Translocation and Selection" by Green)

You see, ID can explain everything. When the Darwinists come along and cry foul, they tell us that Darwinism explained many things with natural processes.

It is called the "Darwin of the Gaps" argument. Then along comes ID again and explains how and where Darwinism had it wrong. Such was the case in the so-called junk DNA. Once ID explained it, the Darwinists had to fall back and another one of their gaps was proven simply not to be true. At the same time their gaps continue to become bigger and our gaps become smaller.

Sound familiar?

Ha Ha Ha... Just kidding for the most part. But you can see how their argument was put into a form that brainwashes.

Edited by traderdrew, : Just adding more "Intelligently Designed Complex Specified Information"

The very fact (THAT CERTAIN) IC systems could evolve from its intended design tells me that it is even more IC than I thought it was. It has the miraculous capacity to adapt.

Wow, you're either missing the point entirely or moving the goal posts out of the stadium, down the street, and into another city.

Argument: Organisms have IC functions. IC can't evolve because only part of an IC system is useless and wouldn't be selected for.

Counter-argument: We have shown an IC system, removed one part to make it not work, and shown a new, albeit similar, one evolve thus proving that an IC system can evolve.

Traderdrew's rebuttal: This just shows IC even more, adaptation itself is IC, and thus evolution is IC, therefore evolution disproves evolution.

phage0070 writes: When you turn on your computer it reads magnetic polarities off of a platter in your computer's hard drive. This storage system does not know what has to be there, rather it retrieves what we put there. Those polarities can and do become corrupted and that will cause the computer to function incorrectly.

Thanks Phagey. Smart aye? Intelligent design?

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal

Totally missed the point, it does not even relate to the topic at all.

traderdrew writes: One of the many functions of so-called junk DNA is to mark genetic sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material. ("The Role of Translocation and Selection" by Green)

Tradey, there is no such thing as junk DNA, there is no such thing as dark matter, and there is no such thing as dark energy.

Translocation and transcription are inherited intelligence.

There is nothing this lot can do to prove otherwise.
God's work is all around us.

Hmm, who are you replying to here? Yourself? Anyway, If ID explains so many things, perhaps you could say what it does to another thread because it would be off topic here. Maybe you could start by this thread: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=1441.

I know It's a thread that I've created but after many weeks without answers, I would like to have this basic question answered...

OK... I want you to show me where Behe states that an IC system can't evolve.

From:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

quote:

---

n The Origin of Species Darwin stated 6:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

A system which meets Darwin's criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional. Since natural selection requires a function to select, an irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would have to arise as an integrated unit for natural selection to have anything to act on. It is almost universally conceded that such a sudden event would be irreconcilable with the gradualism Darwin envisioned. At this point, however, 'irreducibly complex' is just a term, whose power resides mostly in its definition. We must now ask if any real thing is in fact irreducibly complex, and, if so, then are any irreducibly complex things also biological systems.

---

Do you agree that he is saying that an IC system can't evolve?

The rest of your post doesn't seem to make any sense. Perhaps you can reword it? In other words, No, I do not understand you.

there is no such thing as junk DNA, there is no such thing as dark matter, and there is no such thing as dark energy.

Evidence, please.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Hi Phage0070, I have trouble with your position, as it is not supported by the definition Behe gave when he first defined IC.

A system which was thought to be irreducibly complex had an element removed, and it did not cease functioning but rather mutated into a working arrangement. Thus, it was proven not to be irreducibly complex.

It did stop functioning. Generations of e.coli lived and died without metabolizing lactose.

The mutations did not repair the old system but developed a new system, with parts that did not exist before, and the method of metabolizing lactose is different from the previous method.

From the previous link on Ken Miller's website:

quote:

---

In my book I quoted evolutionary biologist Douglas Futuyma's description of these experiments:

"Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]

---

These changes\alterations\mutations are not repairs, but novel to the bacteria in the experiment.

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Trader writes: It is called the "Darwin of the Gaps" argument. Then along comes ID again and explains how and where Darwinism had it wrong. Such was the case in the so-called junk DNA.

It was practicing professional biological scientists not IDers and creationists who refined the definition of what "junk" DNA actually was.

The term "junk" DNA was collequiel term coined by a Japanese scientist in 1972 to describe portions of the genome which are not used to translate proteins. However even before this term was coined scientists suspected that some portions (though not all, some of it really is "junk" in that is left-over remnants of viral and other evolutionary mutations of the genome which are now useless) of the genome called "junk", which at one time was once unknown and mysterious in its purpose and function, had other functions besides protein translation. It was these same scientists themselves (not the creationists and IDers) using the scientific method who continued to correct this misunderstanding (or more accurately gap in knowledge) and revise these theories about what different portions of the genome actually do.

This is the problem with creationists and IDers. Instead of conducting there own scientific experiments, research, analysis, etc to explain natural phenomena; they capitilize on, misconstrue, distort, quote mine and flat out lie about the research conducted by hard work scientists who are putting thousands of hours into conducting real science using the tried and true scientific method.

Trader writes: Once ID explained it..

Bullshit. Show me. This is pinnacle of the deceitful nature of the ID and creationist movements. Not only are you claiming that biological evolution is wrong, now you are claiming the work done by scientists themselves was actually done by IDers. What a joke.

In academics we call this plagerism. That is exactly what you just did here. And you wonder why scientists get angry at ignorant people like you. I would be hopping mad if I was one of these scientists who conducted this research.

Trader writes: But you can see how their argument was put into a form that brainwashes.

It is you and your ilk who are doing the brainwashing of unsuspecting and ignorant people.

BTW here is some real scientific articles written by real scientists who have conducted research in this field:

DNA Study Forces Rethink of What It Means to Be a Gene

Junk DNA Yields New Kind of Gene (2004)

Parasite or partner? Study suggests new role for junk DNA

Hints of a language in junk DNA (1994)

Thus this bullshit argument creationists are dragging out about junk 'DNA' is actually quite old and has been know in the scientific community for 40 years. This is another case of a thoroughly debunked dog-eared PRATT.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Trader writes: One of the many functions of so-called junk DNA is to mark genetic sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material. ("The Role of Translocation and Selection" by Green)

And who conducted this research to determine what 'junk DNA' does? Not the IDers or creationists, rather the same scientists who coined this term in the first place. Science is self-revising and self-correcting. ID and creationism is not.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi again traderdrew, seems there is a lot of recent misinformation posted here: let's see if we can clear it up.

What kind of reply is that? You can't be thinking that I think my thoughts are going to influence the outcomes of experiments like that, which are experiments of natural laws. It is important to be in tune with reality.

Exactly, and we know we are in tune with reality when we are not contradicted by the facts.

For instance, Behe's "rebuttal" that you have quoted:

Look what Michael Behe wrote: Miller also writes, "the ebg gene is actually only 34% homologous to the gene whose activity it replaces (meaning that about 2/3 of the protein is quite different from the galactosidase gene whose function it replaces)". Yet he knows as well as I do that 34% general sequence homology makes it virtually certain that the three-dimensional structures of the two enzymes are essentially identical. And since the active sites (the business end) of the enzymes are much more similar (they are identical in 13 of 15 residues), the ebg enzyme is pretty much a spare copy of the lac enzyme. Thus it seems to me that the taking over of lac galactosidase function by ebg hardly even rises to the level of microevolution. Once again Miller shows his deceptiveness. Maybe you should be lecturing Miller (not me) on reality.

Fascinatingly, the one being deceptive is Behe: it is irrelevant how similar the genes are, similar is not identical. In fact, it is highly likely that a mutation that results in a similar feature would occur on a similar gene.

Note that if "(they are identical in 13 of 15 residues)" (= 87% identical) is sufficient similarity for one to be a "spare copy" for the other, then a chimpanzee is a "spare copy" of a human (DNA 95% identical).

Curiously, I don't consider 87% identical to be a working spare part - and that would only be the issue if it replaced the original function with a repaired version of the original function. This did not happen.

The fact is that this gene alone - without the mutation - is incapable of producing the necessary function. That means that it is not, cannot be, a "spare" copy. To call it such is to intentionally misrepresent reality.

Fact: if it was a "spare copy" then there would be no need for the mutation. It did not replace the function without the mutation, and even with the mutation it did not repair the function - it still needed the second part.

The other mutation, the second part, involves an even more dissimilar gene:

quote:

---

The repressor (control) gene is even more different, showing just 25% homology to the lac repressor.

---

Now you have two genes that are not the same, both being modified by subsequent mutations, and ending up producing a functional lactose metabolizing system.

Fact: these mutation modified genes do not exist in the previous e.coli population, they did not wait to be called upon when the original system blew a flat tire.

Natural selection only replaced one component with a 34% homogenous copy of the original component.

Natural selection did not replace anything. Natural selection does not make components nor cause functions to occur: it selects components and functions that exist in the organism by the increase in survival and reproduction the components or functions provide for the organism.

Mutations replaced two parts to achieve a functioning system, one with 34% homology and one with 25% homology. Don't creationists like to point out that the DNA of bananas is more similar to human DNA that that?

http://www.thingsyoudontneedtoknow.com/dnabananas.html

quote:

---

It's true. Humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas. Apparently Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London is credited with stating this information. Kind of freaky when you think about it. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is what makes us all different, but the difference between us and the next species or even a fruit isn't as significant as you would think.

---

So a little bit of difference in DNA can add up to a lot of difference in the organism.

I don't want to debate or argue about the subject any further. I think we have both stated what we could state.

In other words, you don't want to admit that an IC system was actually observed to evolve during the experiment.

This is, of course, the #1 ploy of creationism - avoid admitting when you are wrong.

However we are also a little off the original assertion you made on the other thread - see Message 229 - which we still need to address:

quote:

---

Also, science has never proven that complex specified information was created by any sort of random process or self-organization. Self-organization only gives us redundant information such as crystals.

---

and your response to my reply Message 240:

quote:

---

Actually, it has been done several times - see Thread Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall’s experiments and A True Acid Test. ...

No, that is incorrect. You don't know what I am talking about. I just read your first post on that other thread. I wasn't around to shed some light on it. :-)

---

This is, after all, what got us here.

Interestingly, this thread not only discusses the fact that an IC system has evolved, but that in the process, information must have been added. The reason is simple: after the lactose mechanism was disabled the organisms were unable to process lactose, even though it was readily available, then a couple of mutations occurred that enabled the bacteria to metabolize lactose - by a different mechanism. This is a novel mechanism utilized by the bacteria in the experiment, a mechanism that does not exist in the outside e.coli population, and thus the addition of ability to use lactose means that information was added.

Message 42

I disagree with you on two things. I believe it did cease functioning. It has to cease functioning for a least a brief amount of time since those biochemical repairs don't occur at the speed of light.

Nor do sequential mutations occur in the same generation. Once again, the system was not repaired, as the original system is still broken\disfunctional\disabled\not working.

1. As I had already stated, when you remove a part of any IC system it has to cease functioning. The questions are, How long did it cease to function? Did Barry Hall have to keep these strains of E. coli alive when the part was removed?

It took several generations, hence the substrate designed to allow the bacteria to exist, but not prosper, while also providing the lactose for the opportunity to evolve a system to increase metabolism, survival and reproduction. It did not need to be lactose, nor did the system evolved need to be an IC system.

Could this only be done using IPTG?

No. As Miller states:

quote:

---

However, when Hall grew the bacteria under selective conditions designed to favor re-evolved galactosidase activity, Behe cried foul. As he should know, and as Futuyma wrote, "... mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." All that Hall had done was to set up conditions where the bacteria would survive (although just barely), and would prosper only if they evolved a system to replace the one he had deleted.

---

All that IPTG provides is an environment where the bacteria could survive and where adaptation to metabolize lactose would result in increased survival and reproduction.

2. Was the system of the E. coli not irreducibly complex to begin with?

It is relatively unimportant to the end result, however the original system was an IC system. One part of a three part system was removed, and the system stopped working, and the bacteria never again used that system to metabolize lactose. This matches Behe's definition of IC.

Other than that, did the complexity increase?

Yes: a new system to metabolize lactose developed by mutation of existing parts, and the new system was selected by the increased survival and reproduction of the bacteria. It's this simple:

1. The bacteria before the experiment could metabolize lactose.
   
2. The bacteria with the disabled gene could not metabolize lactose.
   
3. The bacteria with the new mutations can metabolize lactose.

From (A) to (B) is a change in information, "X", where X=A-B, and ...

from (B) to (C) is a change in information, "Y", where Y=B-C, and ...

because (C) = (A) and both ≠ (B), Y = -X ... so either an increase in information occurred, or ...

the change in "information" is irrelevant to the evolution of new features and functions.

As I said above, this is the other issue that this thread addresses.

If it did increase by a little bit, then it was done with intervention.

Are you saying that Barry Hall personally made the mutations on the genes?

If the person who was conducting the experiment didn't intervene, then E. coli would not have been able to hydrolyze lactose.

Except that the two independent mutations occurred after the "intervention" where Hall disabled the gene and placed the bacteria on the culturing medium. Barry Hall did not cause the mutations to occur.

This, of course brings us back to the issue of being "in tune with reality:"

What kind of reply is that? You can't be thinking that I think my thoughts are going to influence the outcomes of experiments like that, which are experiments of natural laws. It is important to be in tune with reality.

Seems you have an issue there to resolve regarding reality.

Amazingly, it now seems my comment was predictive, based on experience, and justified.

At least it would have not been done without simultaneous multiple coherent mutations and that would arguably be entering into the realm of metaphysical miracles.

Which, incredibly, is not the way it happened, so pretending that it did is just another falsehood\lie\fabrication, that you seem to need to tell yourself to avoid dealing with reality. It's a perfect example of someone thinking their opinion alters the reality to suit their belief.

Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Please stick to the topic, and help traderdrew stick to the topic.