Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments

First, it is IC that is falsified, not ID - they are not the same thing.Second, we can compare this to how theories are used\handled in science:

• A scientific theory is a tested hypothesis, tested against objective empirical evidence and deductions of what should be seen and not seen if true, and what should be seen and not seen if false:
  ​
  ​
  ​

  	if true	if false
  should see	a	b
  should NOT see	c	d

  ​
  ​
  where 'a' or 'd' would be confirming evidence if found, and 'b' and 'c' are invalidating evidence if found,
  ​
• Falsified theories are discarded or modified to account for information that invalidates the original formulation,
  ​
• No amount of validating\conforming evidence can prove that a theory is true,
  ​
• Tested but not invalidated theories are regarded as tentative explanations of the known evidence, and
  ​
• An hypothesis is regarded as having the potential to explain the evidence, but is (or should be) regarded with skepticism and doubt.

So we can say that a PRATT is an invalidated concept, one where there is evidence that falls into the 'b' and 'c' categories. In science this type of concept would be discarded or modified to account for the 'b and 'c' evidence. That they (and others) have not discarded IC demonstrates that they are NOT behaving in a manner appropriate for science.There may be some tacit recognition that IC is falsified as evidence of design (because it can and has evolved), but I don't know of anyone that has come out and said that it is a failed concept and should be discarded.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)

dan4reason Message 9 on his proposed Examples of new information thread: See below:

quote:

---

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.

---

Information was either added or the concept of information is irrelevant to what can or cannot evolve.The proteins that were available once the beta-galactosidase gene was deleted were modified to permit the new galactose metabolism - it was not there before - and the rapid growth of the bacteria with this modification show selection.Enjoy.