A lot has been argued about Irreducible Complexity. Here is a proposed solution to the conundrum.
- Darwin’s call to challengers is absurd. In The Origin of Species (1859), he wrote, “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. But I can find out no such case.” This is NOT how science works! You do not get to formulate whatever fantastic theory you please that then stands until someone disproves it in the exact manner you specify. Instead, it is your duty to prove your claims. This case shows that, when the foregone conclusions fit the religious views of its proponents, the scientific rigor is often cast aside.
- Ignorance cuts both ways. Irreducible Complexity was called the “argument from personal incredulity” or “argument from ignorance”. This is indeed correct. And because of this, Irreducible Complexity is flawed… as are all arguments for “evolution”… given an argument from ignorance asserts that “a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false [“evolution”] or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true [irreducible complexity]”. Evolutionists (Darwin’s quote in particular) err by claiming the unknown supports “evolution”. We certainly do not know the origin of the eye, much less have seen any eye “evolve”. Yet a just-so story of eye “evolution” has been put together by imaginarily linking disparate optical sensors designs. Therefore, if Irreducible Complexity is a bad argument, so is “evolution” itself.
- Michael Behe engages in a game rigged against him. There are many and much better ways to show “evolution” impossible. Irreducible complexity is an argument against imagination. And imagination always wins because it is infinite. But the game is further rigged. When Michael Behe used the mousetrap as an illustrative example of this concept, Kenneth R. Miller challenged him by observing he can use the mousetrap components to make a spitball launcher (catapult), a tie clip, key chain, clipboard, tooth pick. Yet, by “nonfunctional”, Behe does not mean that the precursor cannot serve any function – a mousetrap missing its spring can still act as a paperweight. It just cannot serve the specific function (catching mice) by means of the same mechanism (a spring-loaded hammer slamming down upon the mouse). A function is obviously not the same as a specific
- Asymmetry improves Behe’s argument. Degradation to new function is much easier done than buildup to new function. If you have an optimized mousetrap and need an ad-hoc catapult / tie clip / key chain / clipboard / tooth pick, all you need is to remove some parts. That’s almost instantaneous and effortlessly. But if you have an optimized catapult / tie clip / key chain / clipboard / tooth pick, you need a lot of engineering to make an ad-hoc mouse trap out of those. Even if you have them all at once which is impossible in real life. Why optimized? Because that’s what “natural selection” creates… presumably. This doesn’t prove Irreducible Complexity, however. Because, as shown, the argument is flawed and the game is rigged.
- The impossible changeover further improves Behe’s argument. The “evolution” model demands continuous improvement every generation and a slow, multigenerational incremental process. Or as Darwin put it: “numerous, successive, slight modifications “. However, this cannot be done when changing function as the old function must degrade well before the new function is developed. Manufacturing changeover works because it is done within a fraction of a generation. Still, the process is interrupted and the system goes through a loss of function during the changeover. Generally, an inventory is built up in anticipation while extra resources are thrown in long before and after the actual changeover to limit the impact. If extra resources were not available, or an inventory buildup were not possible, or organizational capability were lost in a long process (who would stick around for decades even paid for idleness?), then the enterprise would not survive (extinction event in biology). The mousetrap example fits perfectly. Once it starts to be dismantled and before the catapult / tie clip / key chain / clipboard / tooth pick becomes functional, for a while, the system has no function whatsoever. This time would actually be multigenerational in real life biologic systems that, being functionless, would go extinct and thus never get to the other side (the new function). Now take the bacterial flagellar motor, and the bacterial injectisome. If either one “evolved” into the other, at some point one function would be lost before the other would become available, thus leaving the bacteria without either function, and thus at a competitive disadvantage to the original. The “innovator” would go extinct before having a chance to compete. And having both systems functional at the same time before renouncing the old one wouldn’t work because real life resources are limited as opposed to infinite when imagined. And how would – whichever came first – have happened from scratch is, once again, left to imagination.
- Are “phlogiston” and “ether” teaching us anything? Let’s compare and contrast. “Phlogiston” and “ether” were bad theories like “evolution” that were eventually abandoned. Which is exactly what will happen to “evolution” too. They were disproved by whatever means possible, not by a prescribed method proposed by their proponents as Darwin’s. They were tested against the claims and implication of those theories and were found lacking. In the case of ether, by their own supporters, Michelson and Morley. In the same manner, we can test the positive claims of “evolution” from “gradualism” to “fitness”, “divergence of character”, “natural selection”, etc. And all fail. So there is no need to follow Darwin’s guidance on how to disprove his theory especially when febrile imagination is the only support offered in a rigged game.
Links:
https://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MillerID-Collapse.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
https://www.gotquestions.org/irreducible-complexity.html
Gene duplication says you are wrong. The original gene continues to express the original functionality while the duplicate is free to change.
How exactly did you say that humans came to be?
Neither the bacterial flagellar motor, nor the injectisome are the products of a single gene. Aside from the fact that even one gene duplication story is itself a very big and unsupported stretch:
“Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution”
Belief without proof takes you only so far (not far at all) in science.
I didn’t. What I said for sure – with proofs – is that they are not the product of “evolution”. Remember that?
So?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication#Identifying_duplications_in_sequenced_genomes
You can find the evidence yourself, should you be so inclined. But you won’t, will you?
Never eaten an onion? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s001220050708
In short, you don’t know as much as you think you know and everything that flows from that position of ignorance is shaky as fuck.
Nonlin.org,
I think you main idea is right the Darwin’s theory of universal common descent was built on rhetoric instead of testable science. Behe understood this and claimed that irreducible complexity provided a “powerful challenge” to Darwins mechanism thus escaping Darwins rhetoric.
Behe’s idea of a purposeful arrangement of parts as a criteria of detecting design is actually quite interesting.
Taking a quote out of context only proves that you didn’t bother, or were unable, to read beyond that sentence and/or forgot there was a lot of data behind it. Not unexpected given your profound problems with reading for comprehension.
I remember you posting lots of OPs, mostly copies of the bullshit in your own blog, that prove that you have no idea, that you have problems with abstractions, problems distinguishing concepts from their referents, problems keeping the idea of a sentence when you go for the next, mistaking your mere claims from evidence, inability to understand simple explanations, etc, etc, etc. But proof that humans aren’t the product of evolution? Nope. None whatsoever.
Well, I remember that not so long ago you claimed to be cooked up by the Intelligent Designer. What I do not remember is you “doing your duty to prove your claims”. Hence, when you accuse others of failing to back up their claims, you appear to seriously lack in self awareness.
Futher, suggesting a possible way to disprove your hypothesis is a perfectly acceptable custom in science. The fact that ID creationists cannot provide any suggestions to do so is one of the reasons ID is disqualified from being a scientific theory. You are, as usual, turning things on their head again.
The OP is not about common descent.
Nonlin argues that irreducible complexity, as it was originally presented, is a WEAK argument. It says so in the title!
Perhaps you posted under the wrong OP?
That is the evidence you need to produce…
…not that gene duplication happens in general.
Not in the comment you link to. Perhaps this one troubles you?
“I’m puzzled because if you make ghee, a 777, or whatever, you will agree with me that it is not possible to do it… from a parts list. And without a “cook” no less. True? So the only possible conclusion is that Lander is clueless. Yes?”
We can discuss once you can actually produce the “offensive” comment.
I do that. Only because they’re so crooked. Anyway, the explanations are clear. Do you have specifics or, as usual, are just expressing general displeasure?
Behold:
Encore:
Your #1 is false.
Dude. Those are ALL questions. So funny.
You mean paragraph 1? Are you disagreeing with one of these following critical statements?
“You do not get to formulate whatever fantastic theory you please that then stands until someone disproves it in the exact manner you specify. Instead, it is your duty to prove your claims. “
But which one an why would you do so?
Or are you saying (very contorted), that this is what ID proponents do? And that therefore is my fault?
If so, please note – if you have missed it over the years – that I am focused on tearing down “evolution” which is demonstrably false. I am not saying ID should stand until you disprove it. Each one of these stands or fails independently. And I offered proof-positive for ID on just a few occasions. And if you want to tear into it, I’m not telling you how to do it. That would indeed be ABSURD.
“Are you really that dumb?”
Just a question. Totally not suggesting anything by it, of course.
This is a very tiresome game, Nonlin. The friggin’ title of the paragraph is “Darwin’s call to challengers is absurd.”.
Which is utter nonsense. It is good practice to suggest some ways to falsify your hypothesis. Those are not meant to dissuade anyone from seeking alternative counterarguments either. You just made that up.
Oh, but I am suggesting something. Still, those were very good questions. And were left unanswered because his story made no sense. Let’s not start with “proving suggestions”? But you can start by proving your crazy claims. Like the parts list and recipe to nowhere and no one.
Not your (his) job, qualifications, or motivation. Absurd it is.
John 1:23
So defend it instead of pretending you didn’t make any claim.
The genome is not a parts list, nor an instruction manual, nor an ingredients list, nor a recipe, nor a program, nor a mechanical part of a watch.
Hope that makes my position clear.
The genome used to be called a blueprint. Is it not that either? What is it then?
If it is not anything, how is anyone entitled to draw any conclusions from it?
The “blueprint” idea suggests a one-to-one relationship between genome and phenotype. But there are no structural plans stored in the genome. Organisms grow and develop from an embryo and the pattern of growth and development produces the result. I find it amazing that, at all stages, from single cell, to, say, adult blue whale, every stage is a self-contained (even within the womb) viable entity. You can’t do that with blueprints.
Corneel will speak for himself, I’m sure, but it seems to me that there are plenty of bad analogies for how the genome connects to the phenotype and no good ones. We could order them as some being better than others. Recipe is definitely better than blueprint, in my view.
Ah, thanks. I missed that one. No, the genome is not a blueprint either.
The genome is something; It is the complete set of chromosomes of an organism.
I am sorry to hear that you are incapable of drawing conclusions from something without comparing it to a manmade object. Sounds like a big handicap.
Sounds like a big handicap if you declare it to be incomparable to anything else people know about. You know, exactly the accusation presented to theists when they talk about God.
No, I didn’t know that accusation. Is God incomparable to anything else people know about, though? Created in His image, are we not?
Getting back to the original discussion: you seem to have an awful lot of trouble with the difference between “is comparable to” and just “is”. “My car steers like a cow” does not mean my car is a cow.
Probably not a wedding cake either. Don’t tell me what it isn’t. Tell me what it is. And why you disagree with everyone, your partners included.
Very smart. Of course. Do you understand the implications for “evolution”? Hint: not good.
And the cook is… ?!?
People (you included) do comparisons, analogies, metaphors… Why now your sudden shyness?
I agree with Corneel. Unlike yourself, I am able to differentiate between attempts at explaining by metaphors or analogies, and the things that these metaphors and analogies are being used to try and explain. You’re embarrassing yourself by claiming that Corneel disagrees with all of us, because I’ve told you this a million times already. Truly: reading for comprehension Nonlin. Learn that. Also learn to deal with abstractions and figures of speech, such as similes, metaphors, and analogies.
Smart? Not to store structural plans in the genome? And that has negative implications for evolution? I suspect, Nonlin, that you neither know how to read, nor how to reason.
Nonlin, really: “recipe is better” doesn’t mean “the genome is definitely a recipe”, it just means that Alan thinks that recipe works better as a metaphor. That’s all it means.
Why would it be shyness to try and explain that metaphors aren’t meant to be taken literally? I know that’s kindergarten understanding, but you fail at it miserably. Explaining something this obvious seems rather necessary given your astounding confusion.
The fact remains that here are no plans in genomes. There’s not much mileage in denying reality but carry on crying like a lone voice in the wilderness. Is anyone paying attention?
The niche.
I fully agree with that. The question was: “Do you understand the implications for “evolution”?” Apparently not.
He French?
Ball is in your court. What implications?
Nope. It’s why there are no great white sharks in the Namib desert and no golden moles in the Atlantic Ocean.
I did so in my comment to Erik. You need to read again and ask when you don’t understand.
This question right below the following exchange:
You can’t handle analogies, Nonlin. Best to keep them away from you.
By being human. Duh.
The cook is the niche, and the niche is the cook.
Nothing is not the niche.
Therefore the change is allele frequencies is the niche. Therefore the niche is both the result and the cause. Sounds omnipotent!
The ball you dropped? Yes, I have it. The point is that the “the genome is not all it’s cracked up to be“. Namely that genetic drift, allele frequency, molecular (gene) clock, “human 99% monkey”, “shell-fish gene”, and all other sand castles built on “the genome” will now come crumbling down. But you already know all this…
The only problem is that random things cannot be “The Cook”. When you’re hungry, you can’t hire the spoon or the pantry (looks like a niche) or something stupid like that. The Cook must have specific properties. Such as intelligence.
I need to read your comment to Erik? Again?!? Why be so specific when you can point to ALL your comments or even to the internet?
I thought recipes go together with cooks. Is that wrong?
These guys have devolved into animism. They worship the spoon.
🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣🤣😂🤣🤣
When will this happen?
This year?
Next year?
In the next 5 years?
In the next 50 years?
If it does not happen in the next, say, decade, what makes you think it’ll happen at all?
You registered your domain on 2015-08-12. If it’s not happened in the last 5 years what makes you think it’ll happen in the next 5 years?
OMagain,
I suspect that you missed the argument: since the genome doesn’t thoroughly fit, absolutely literally, with each-and-every metaphors, similes, or analogies used to try and describe it, then all of that stuff “crumbles down”. That means it’s a done deal. I mean, who wouldn’t be convinced by that devastating “logic”?
🤣
Soon enough. How long did it take Darwin to concoct his stupidity? As they say: “a fool can throw a stone in a pond that 100 wise men struggle to get out.”
It doesn’t fit at all. Let alone “thoroughly”.
The amount of fitting you’re willing to accept doesn’t matter, your “logic” remains just as astonishingly convincing. “If metaphors/similes/analogies don’t fit the phenomena, then the phenomena don’t happen!” I’m so impressed! I’m running to the nearest church right now to sign in. Of course, because the reason I didn’t believe in a magical being in the sky, sorry, Magical Being In The Sky, is not the absurdity and lack of evidence, but my evil acceptance of genetics and evolution.
A lot of people are missing the point. As weak as it is for Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity is utterly devastating for “evolution”. Not only because the argument is equally weak for both, but also because “asymmetry” and “the impossible changeover” only work against “evolution”.
Sorry Nonlin, what your “point” would actually be, doesn’t matter. Your start reveals that you can neither reason, nor read for comprehension:
Call for challengers? Darwin? Hum. Interesting, let’s check that:
You think that was a call for challengers? I remember it as an introductory sentence before further discussion of the issue.
Really? You take a single sentence from “On the Origin,” and you think all the pages and pages of text before and after it were empty? If anything, this shows an isolated sentence whose strength or lack thereof cannot be judged without the proper context. It also demonstrates that logic and reading for comprehension are not precisely among your strengths.
I suppose you wouldn’t understand why this should be nominated for the Irony or The Year award.
See? With that kind of beginning, can anybody expect the rest of your “points” to be reasonable?
P.S. Darwin Online shows that you missed close to 189 pages of text before the quote, with the book ending at page 490. That you missed that much doesn’t precisely inspire me to trust you.
News to me and I suspect the scientific community who are carrying on regardless. This devastation of which you speak, you’ve imagined it.
It’s your analysis that’s weak. Science doesn’t care. It will pursue ideas that show promise.
Well, yes, if we want to extend the analogy. The niche creates the bias on selection that results in changes in allele frequency and adaptation.
That’s because no scientist in his right mind pays any attention to the Darwinist nonsense in the first place.
Le chien aboie mais la caravane passe.
Le chien Darwin. It’s a known fact [and a good thing] that who does real science pays no attention to “evolution” and who does “evolution” doesn’t do real science.
Nonlin.org,
You, Nonlin, are confusing “fact” with “perception”. My advice; find a more rewarding hobby.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/evo.13697#:~:text=The%202018%20Nobel%20Prize%20in,Winter%20and%20George%20P.
OMagain,
I predict that even Nonlin can easily spot a loophole in a prize for the “directed evolution of enzymes”, don’t you think?
The is the niche.
Niche is the niche.
Creates is the niche.
The is the niche.
Bias is the niche..
On is the niche.
Selection is the niche.
That is the niche.
Results is the niche.
In is the niche.
Allele is the niche.
Frequency is the niche.
And is the niche.
Adaptation is the niche.