Philosophy and Complexity of Rube Goldberg Machines

Michael Behe is best known for coining the phrase Irreducible Complexity, but I think his likening of biological systems to Rube Goldberg machines is a better way to frame the problem of evolving the black boxes and the other extravagances of the biological world.

But even before going to the question of ID in biology, I’d like to explore philosophical and complexity questions of man-made Rube Goldberg machines. I will, however, occasionally attempt to show the relevance of the questions I raised regarding man-made Rube Golberg machines to God-made Rube Goldberg machines in biology.

Analysis of man-made Rube Goldberg machines raises philosophical questions as to what may or may not constitute good or bad design and also how we make statements about the complexity of man-made systems. Consider this Rube Goldberg machine, one of my favourites:

Is the above Rube Goldberg machine a good or bad man-made design? How do we judge what is good? Does our philosophical valuation of the goodness or badness of a Rube Goldberg machine have much to say about the exceptional physical properties of the system relative to a random pile of parts?

Does it make sense to value the goodness or badness of the Rube Goldberg machine’s structure based on the “needs” and survivability of the Rube Goldberg machine? Does the question even make sense?

If living systems are God-made Rube Goldberg machines, then it would seem to be an inappropriate argument against the design of the system to say “its poor design for survivability, its fragility and almost self-destructive properties imply there is no designer of the system.”

The believability of biological design is subjective to some extent in as much as some would insist that in order to believe design, they must see the designer in action. I respect that, but for some of us, a system that is far from physical expectation, design is quite believable.

But since we cannot agree on the question of ID in biology, can we find any agreement about the level of specificity and complexity in man-made Rube Goldberg machines? I would hope so.

What can be said in certain circumstances, in terms of physics and mathematics, as far as man-made systems, is that certain systems are far from what would be expected of ordinary non-specific processes like random placement of parts. That is, the placement of parts to effect a given activity or structure is highly specific in such circumstances — it evidences high specificity.

My two favourite illustrations of high specificity situations are:

1. a domino standing on its edge on a table.

2. cards connected together to form a house of cards. The orientation and positioning of the cards is highly specific.

We have high specificity in certain engineering realms where the required tolerances of the parts is extremely narrow. In biology, there are high specificity parts (i.e. you can’t use a hemaglobin protein when an insulin protein is required to effect a chemical transaction). I think specificity of individual interacting parts can be occasionally estimated, but one has to be blessed enough to be dealing with a system that is tractable.

In addition to specificity of parts we have the issue of the complexity of the system made of such high specificity parts. I don’t think there is any general procedure, and in many cases it may not be possible to make a credible estimate of complexity.

A very superficial first-pass estimate of complexity would be simply tallying the number of parts that have the possibility of being or not being in the system. This is akin to the way the complexity of some software systems is estimated by counting the number of conditional decisions (if statements, while statements, for statements, case statemets, etc.)

In light of these considerations we might possibly then make statements about our estimate for how exceptional a system is in purely mathematical and physical and/or chemical terms — that is providing the system is tractable.

I must add, if one is able to make credible estimates of specificity and complexity, why would one need to do CSI calculations at all? CSI is doesn’t deal with the most important issues anyway! CSI just makes an incomprehensible mess of trying to analyze the system. CSI is superfluous, unnecessary, and confusing. This confusion has led some to relate the CSI of a cake to the CSI of a recipe like Joe G over at “Intelligent Reasoning”.

Finally, I’m not asserting there are necessarily right or wrong answers to the questions I raised. The questions I raise are intended to highlight something of the subjectivity of how we value good or bad in design as well as how we estimate specificity and complexity.

If people come to the table with differing measures of what constitutes good, bad, specified, complex and improbable, they will not agree about man-made designs, much less about God-made designs.

I’ve agreed with many of the TSZ regulars about dumping the idea of CSI. My position has ruffled many of my ID associates since I so enthusiastically agreed with Lizzie, Patrick (Mathgrrl), and probably others here. My negative view of CSI (among my other heresies) probably contributed to my expulsion from Arrington’s echo chamber.

On the other hand, with purely man-made designs, particularly Rube Goldberg machines, I think there is a legitimate place for questions about the specificity of system parts and the overall complexity of engineered systems. Whether such metrics are applicable to God-made designs in biology is a separate question.

230 thoughts on “Philosophy and Complexity of Rube Goldberg Machines

  1. Rube Goldberg machines are in important ways like games or art, matters of human play. They are not serious designs.

    Life is deadly serious, and quite un-Rube Goldberg-like. It is, however, quite limited in what information it is able to modify, with much life able only to utilize what is vertically transferred, with perhaps a few exceptions. What we don’t see in design, except for mimics of evolution like GAs and in culturally-limited changes, is any such type of restriction in thought processes to what has come before in a particular line.

    It isn’t a matter of “bad design,” it is a matter of design limited by evolutionary processes, that produces features in life that no good thinker could call intelligent design. No human would design rigid bird wings out of the many articulated bones of the dinosaur forelimb, but that is what unthinking evolution does. Because it doesn’t think, it just modifies what is available to its processes.

    Glen Davidson

  2. Life is deadly serious, and quite un-Rube Goldberg-like. I

    That is an anthropocentric viewpoint, not a mathematical valuation.

    Life is deadly serious to us and living things because it’s our life, but if God made them, they might not be much more to him than the toys characters in our video games or what Rube Goldberg machines are to us.

    So your philosophical valuation of “deadly serious” is a bit anthropocentric (or bio-creature centric), it is not an impartial mathematical evaluation of specificity nor complexity.

  3. stcordova: That is an anthropocentric viewpoint, not a mathematical valuation.

    No, it’s a biologic viewpoint. It rests on the fact that life often struggles to live, and in doing so it often causes death of other lives.

    Life is deadly serious to us and living things because it’s our life, but if God made them, they might not be much more to him than the toys characters in our video games or what Rube Goldberg machines are to us.

    I see, yours is the godly viewpoint.

    So your philosophical valuation of “deadly serious” is a bit anthropocentric (or bio-creature centric),

    It’s the experience of life in its varied processes, not some abstract BS.

    it is not an impartial mathematical evaluation of specificity nor complexity.

    Of course it isn’t anything that meaningless.

    Glen Davidson

  4. Glen,

    I forgot to thank you earlier for your first comment, so thank you.

    It highlights the resistance to applying mathematical metrics to biology that we might apply to man-made Rube Goldberg machines.

    Personally I don’t see why the issue of specificity and complexity that we apply to Rube Goldberg machines is automatically taboo to apply to biological systems.

    If one is a reductionist, should the questions of exceptional physical states be applicable to all systems?

    I provided the illustration of a domino standing on edge. Is that not a somewhat exceptional state? How about an RNA floating around in a pre-biotic warm pond. Given an RNA is such a fragile molecule, not exactly easy to synthesize and often has an associated half-life, wouldn’t it’s existence be exceptional. Is it taboo to estimate the odds of this happening?

    So we have 2 interacting RNA molecules. There has to be a specificity associated with the interaction. Is it taboo to make such estimates?

    There is a specificity associated with making a row of dominos standing on edge so that they create the “domino effect.” We can calculate that too.

    If one is a reductionist, I don’t see why we can’t calculate specificity of interacting parts whether they are part of living or non-living systems. It would seem the math and physics should transcend philosophical barriers of what is living and non-living.

  5. stcordova: Life is deadly serious to us and living things because it’s our life, but if God made them, they might not be much more to him than the toys characters in our video games or what Rube Goldberg machines are to us.

    Human suffering is just entertainment for this God of yours,Sal? Nice.

  6. While I disagree with you about the importance of CSI, I definitely agree that an overfocus on CSI as the be-all and end-all of design theory is hugely problematic. I very much appreciate the open discussion to new methods of design discussion.

    My own contribution (from a long time ago) is in the form of open-ended loops and recursive solutions in problem-solving. Negative feedback loops which contribute towards a solution of a problem I think are fairly dead ringers for design.

  7. Human suffering is just entertainment for this God of yours,Sal?

    Thank you for your comment. I don’t mean to be callous, there’s a lot of sadness in our extended family recently with 2 people suddenly dying the last few months. So, I empathize with your point.

    But just because we may not like how God may do business, it shouldn’t prejudice our mathematical inferences about specificity and complexity in Rube Goldberg machines.

    Darwin, imho, conflated the bad design anthropocentric arguments with questions of improbability. This was evident in his perplexity of the Rube Goldberg quality of a Peacock’s tail, which made him sick. It seemed to be such an anti-survival-of-the-fittest feature of life — something natural selection should actually prevent, not facilitate, from evolving.

    A peacock’s tail was bad design from Darwin’s own philosophy, but from a stand point of a designer trying to make a Rube Goldberg machine that is super fragile and on the edge of stability like on a tight rope, I’d say it’s good design!

    But the question of good or bad is not really mathematical. One thing Bill Dembski did right was to separate the question of good and bad from the design question and go to the question of probable or improbable.

    I’m pointing out, even though Rube Goldberg machines are hard to characterize as good or bad, but they are amenable to questions of probable or improbable, or shall I say, mathematically typical vs. exceptional.

    Life is the same way — we can argue whether it is good or bad design, but we surely can make mathematical estimates of whether it is consistent with a typical or exceptional processes.

  8. GlenDavidson:
    It isn’t a matter of “bad design,” it is a matter of design limited by evolutionary processes, that produces features in life that no good thinker could call intelligent design.No human would design rigid bird wings out of the many articulated bones of the dinosaur forelimb, but that is what unthinking evolution does.Because it doesn’t think, it just modifies what is available to its processes.

    Glen Davidson

    Does it not surprise you that rather than being limited, the pentadactyl limb has been put to so many varied uses? Bird wings built for flight have existed for over 150 million years with little need for change. Wings intelligently designed by humans cannot compare with this consistency of design. Look at the design of a bird’s wing, it is no Rube Goldberg machine. It is a wise design, satisfying the bird’s desire to fly, that has stood the test of time.

  9. The problem with ID advocates is that once they’ve made their case for design based on a superficial similarities they think their job is over. But for scientists who study legitimate examples of design, such as the scientists who study how the Pyramids, Easter Island Idols or Roman catapults were built that’s only the starting point. There are an endless series of questions that can be asked and answered and connections made to our understanding of design.
    If you’re going to claim that living things are Rube Goldberg machines ( I don’t think its a good analogy) then you begin by asking in detail why humans make these machines. You would also need to begin your analysis by assuming that God makes living things for the same reasons.

  10. CharlieM: Does it not surprise you that rather than being limited, the pentadactyl limb has been put to so many varied uses?

    It is limited, which is why it is modified into functionally monodactyl limbs, or into bird wings. Bats, by contrast, maintain pentadactyl functionality, but their flight is considerably different from that of birds.

    Bird wings built for flight have existed for over 150 million years with little need for change. Wings intelligently designed by humans cannot compare with this consistency of design.

    Humans aren’t nearly so limited in possibilities. That’s a function of design.

    Look at the design of a bird’s wing, it is no Rube Goldberg machine.

    Of course it isn’t. It’s still made from what were articulated bones in the dinosaurian forearm, fusing bones into a rigid structure. This is hardly a smart way to make a wing, it is merely an evolutionary adaptation.

    It is a wise design, satisfying the bird’s desire to fly, that has stood the test of time.

    It works. You haven’t explained why anyone would design rigid wing structures to develop from many separate bones. None of you does, you merely change the subject, or hit at strawmen like Rube Goldberg machines–which I explicitly denied life to be.

    Glen Davidson

  11. If you’re going to claim that living things are Rube Goldberg machines ( I don’t think its a good analogy) then you begin by asking in detail why humans make these machines.

    Humans make Rube Goldberg machines for their delight and glory, not the delight and glory of the Rube Goldberg machine.

    Judging human life by what we deems as good and bad is as pointless as a Rube Goldberg machine judging its own design as bad because it eventually dies.

    But these philosophical questions are irrelevant to the questions of mathematical specificity and complexity, which is the real issue in evolving black boxes. I’ve been carefully avoiding connecting the two words since when I do, I’d get the phrase “specified complexity” — YIKES.

    I avoided the phrase because there are Orgel, Davies, Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen and Dembski’s versions. I think Bill’s is the most confusing.

    My use of specificity and complexity I think are more consistent with Orgel and Davies, but I’ve tried to refrain from using the phrase “specified complexity” lest people start saying, “how much CSI in the Rube Goldberg machine made of dominos.” Yeesh!

  12. johnnyb:

    My own contribution (from a long time ago) is in the form of open-ended loops and recursive solutions in problem-solving. Negative feedback loops which contribute towards a solution of a problem I think are fairly dead ringers for design.

    Whoa! You gave the link before, but it’s only now I started to look a little deeper into your paper. I guess I glossed over it earlier because I didn’t like the idea of IC that much. I like Behe’s idea of Rube Goldberg much better.

    Your mention of Turing machines is great.

    What makes the replicators in biology special is that they replicate in a way that must resist the disorganizing physical and chemical tendencies — it is in a state of quasi-equilibrium like a domino standing on its edge or a house of cards. The configuration is physically possible, but not very probable since perturbations to the system cause it to collapse.

    I’ll have to look at that paper again in detail. Nice to see you!

  13. Hi, Sal.

    I confess I don’t really understand what (if anything) is supposed to follow from either the truth or the falsity the claim that (perhaps based on an analogy with Rube Goldberg machines) the generation of life as it is today results from a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ design–assuming we can give something like a definition of those in terms of “simplicity” or “number of steps” or whatever.

    However one lands on the question of whether the actual mechanisms to produce life as we know it are “efficient” or “silly” or whatever, the important question is whether any designer is NEEDED to effectuate that process, isn’t it? I take it that ID proponents say a designer IS needed and others say that there is no such necessity. I suppose a non-theist in this discussion might add the codicil that if a designer IS required, it couldn’t be God since the design is too nonsensical for anything worthy of that name. But I don’t think any such argument is likely to convince anybody of anything. That is, the main point remains whether an inference to any such entity is actually required. And, FWIW, that dispute doesn’t seem to me to be furthered by measuring silliness.

  14. CharlieM:

    Look at the design of a bird’s wing, it is no Rube Goldberg machine. It is a wise design, satisfying the bird’s desire to fly, that has stood the test of time.

    Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, CharlieM.

    I actually don’t look at Rube Goldberg machines as bad designs, but wise ones!

    The fact that something has to go through a lot of gyrations to live and reproduce, to me, is evidence of design.

    When Darwin looked at a Peacock’s tail, he wondered how something so inefficient could evolve via natural selection. It was too extravagant.

    Mating rituals among species are extravagant. They are like Rube Goldberg machines to me. To me this doesn’t make sense in terms of Darwinian selection:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7QZnwKqopo

    Darwin came up with another theory to explain called sexual selection, but that theory makes no sense either.

    The above ritual is Rube Goldberg x10.

  15. Walto,

    Thank you for visiting and your comment which actually encapsulates the issue:

    And, FWIW, that dispute doesn’t seem to me to be furthered by measuring silliness.

    Many view life as looking silly in the way it is constructed, just like a Rube Goldberg machines. It looks like foolishness to some biologists, especially of the evolutionary biology variety.

    But how much wisdom and genius can be displayed in something that superficially looks foolish like a Rube Goldberg machine? Some ID advocates (like me) see genius, the anti-IDists silliness, most ID advocates try argue life isn’t Rube Goldberg machine at all. I’m a bit in the minority.

    But this is exactly one of the core conflict in the ID debate — how much genius do we see in the construction of biology or how much “foolishness” or both?

    I looked at the above Rube Goldberg machine and thought I saw some ingenuity. Others silliness. How does that machine strike you. I’m an engineer by training, I see ingenuity. How about you? Speak freely if you think it’s stupid, that’s ok, that will also make my point about our perspectives.

    I’ve tried to argue mathematically that man-made Rube Goldberg machines suggest wisdom and intelligence and insight. The more elaborate ones, no matter how pointless the end result, supposing we can even say there is a real end result, still evidences ingenuity.

    Toys like rockets taking men on joy rides to the moon — Rube Goldberg machines that illustrate supreme genius.

    The “silliness” of a construction is not necessarily argument about the wisdom or knowledge evidenced in the design. “Silliness” is a luxury, an extravagance, much like a Peacock’s tail or the extravagant mating rituals in biology.

    As irrelevant as this discussion may seem, it is actually rather central in the ID debate, but people just don’t realize it.

    Many ID proponents argue the wisdom in design of living things is evidenced by survivability. I actually argue the opposite, that the wisdom in design of living things is that they are alive despite being right at the edge of being dead instead of being far from that edge.

    I argue complex life expends a lot of energy and food and time on extravagance that puts life at risk in the game of survival. Complex life, like a monarch butterfly, is therefore well-described as a Rube Goldberg machine.

  16. GlenDavidson: It is limited, which is why it is modified into functionally monodactyl limbs, or into bird wings.Bats, by contrast, maintain pentadactyl functionality, but their flight is considerably different from that of birds.

    Glen Davidson

    So it is not the general form of the pentadactyl limb that is limited but individual kinds of animal possess a limited version of the design which suits their particular needs.

    The human form of the limb which arrived much later on the scene is much less limited or specialised than that used by birds and bats. Would you agree that the amount of limitation is dependent on the kind of animal that it is part of?

  17. CharlieM: Does it not surprise you that rather than being limited, the pentadactyl limb has been put to so many varied uses? Bird wings built for flight have existed for over 150 million years with little need for change. Wings intelligently designed by humans cannot compare with this consistency of design. Look at the design of a bird’s wing, it is no Rube Goldberg machine. It is a wise design, satisfying the bird’s desire to fly, that has stood the test of time.

    ‘Tain’t so. The wings of birds have changed quite radically in the past 150 million years. There are huge differences between the wing of Archaeopteryx and the wing of any modern bird, and lesser but still large differences among the wings of modern birds. (Think of ostriches, hummingbirds, falcons, albatrosses, and vultures, for example.) Does an ostrich’s wing satisfy the bird’s desire to fly, by the way?

    Now, as for your other point, a bird’s wing is a radically simplified version of a tetrapod forelimb, plus feathers. As such, it does have a few odd features that we might attach that “Rube Goldberg” label to. For example, the main muscles that raise the wing are on the breast, requiring a tendon to pass through a hole formed by the intersection of three separate bones to insert into the top of the humerus. Nor is it clear that a tetrapod forelimb is the best possible starting point to begin constructing a wing.

  18. GlenDavidson:

    Of course it isn’t.It’s still made from what were articulated bones in the dinosaurian forearm, fusing bones into a rigid structure.This is hardly a smart way to make a wing, it is merely an evolutionary adaptation.

    Glen Davidson

    Do you know how many components are fused together in order to make a modern helicopter rotor blade? This is good design practice using the available modern technology.

  19. Sal, some advice: Make your paragraphs longer but fewer by trying to develop a coherent whole of your argument, in which each sentence follows from the last. What you have here seems a scattershot.

    If I can extract a nub, it’s that God can do whatever he wants, so anything we see should not be surprising and is evidence of creation. You both deny all ability to judge God’s motivations or works and infer various mutually contradictory motives for his works: to punish us for original sin, to demonstrate his power and glory, sheer amusement, etc.

    That said, the pointless complexity of Rube Goldberg machines and life arise from different sources. The machines are intended to amuse; the oddities of life arise from evolution working with whatever starting conditions it has and whatever modifications arise, as should be clear from, for example, your middle ear being composed of modified jaw bones.

  20. CharlieM: Do you know how many components are fused together in order to make a modern helicopter rotor blade?

    Are the components ancestral in form?

    If not, please pay attention to what the point is.

    This is good design practice using the available modern technology.

    No, it is really quite different, and you’re pretending they’re the same in order to shore up your preconceived notions.

    Glen Davidson

  21. GlenDavidson:You haven’t explained why anyone would design rigid wing structures to develop from many separate bones.None of you does, you merely change the subject, or hit at strawmen like Rube Goldberg machines–which I explicitly denied life to be.

    Glen Davidson

    Because the primal form is extremely plastic and each type of animal moulds this form to suit its own needs. I have no problem with common descent. I only have a problem with the belief that it is undirected.

  22. stcordova,

    Interesting post Sal. I agree with you opinion on CSI. The limits of ID are that it tries to describe a method and not a mechanism. When looking a human designs we look at such parameters like speed, cost, power consumption, repeatability and reliability. These parameters only partially compare to a living object because they cannot feel, self replicate, are not conscious and are not operating at the core form complex molecules. So our ability to judge living design is extremely limited at this point. How would we start from first principles to come up with the hemoglobin proteins DNA code? Trial and error will not work because of the massive size of the sequence so we then need to understand why carbon nitrogen hydrogen oxygen phosphorus and sulfur behave the way they do as components of amino acids. I am assuming we already have a ribosome to do translation. So what does it take to design something that can reproduce, feel, be self aware, obtain its own energy, perform abstract thought, walk, run, play sports, talk, sing etc. Personally, I don’t have a clue. Could this be designed by a process that is initiated by random change? I am very skeptical of this hypothesis.

  23. Mung: And there is no bird clade.

    I am unable to determine what you meant to convey by that, and the emoji is no help. Could you elaborate, if indeed you intended anything more than noise?

  24. stcordova: Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, CharlieM.

    I actually don’t look at Rube Goldberg machines as bad designs, but wise ones!

    The fact that something has to go through a lot of gyrations to live and reproduce,to me, is evidence of design.

    When Darwin looked at a Peacock’s tail, he wondered how something so inefficient could evolve via natural selection.It was too extravagant.

    Mating rituals among species are extravagant.They are like Rube Goldberg machines to me.To me this doesn’t make sense in terms of Darwinian selection:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7QZnwKqopo

    Darwin came up with another theory to explain called sexual selection, but that theory makes no sense either.

    The above ritual is Rube Goldberg x10.

    Hi stcordova
    I get your point about extravagance in some birds and Rube Goldberg machines. Although I would call Rube Goldberg machines very clever rather than wise.

    I love birds of paradise and would agree that they seem way over the top of what any selection pressure would deliver. But in general bird’s wings look like fit for purpose structures rather than Rube Goldberg machines. How the individual components combine to make the appendage.

    Anyone who has picked up the wing of a dead bird will see how beautifully it is constructed and attached. Just look at the foramen triosseum formed by the articulation of the humerus (forewing bone), the scapula (shoulder blade), and the coracoid (bone connecting the sternum itself to the humerus). Three seperate bones come together to form a perfect smooth canal for the passage of a tendon that is vital for flight. Look at the way that when the wing is extended it has the necessary rigidity for an aerofoil but when the elbow joint is retracted the wing has much more freedom of movement.

    I am sure we agree that some of nature’s designs seem to appear despite Darwinian forces and not because of them.

    Thanks for giving us something to think about.

  25. Interesting post Sal.

    Thank you.

    Personally, I don’t have a clue. Could this be designed by a process that is initiated by random change? I am very skeptical of this hypothesis.

    No one knows the mechanism, we can only guess. I’ve stated whatever the mechanism is, it is not something we see in operation today — a black swan of sorts…

    As far as chance, most people, including Darwin and Dawkins reject chance as a mechanism for creating complexity. They thing that the problem of chance can be circumvented by natural selection.

    I actually think the opposite, natural selection will prevent the evolution of complex Rube Goldberg forms that have extravagance (like the human mind) far above what is needed to metabolize and reproduce.

    Probably one of the most astonishing examples of excessive extravagance is the monarch butterfly. To me, natural selection should have destroyed something so extravagant rather than create it.

    I think “I don’t know” is a good answer. I don’t know, but I have my personal opinions. 🙂

  26. Hi CharlieM,

    A verse for you:

    1 Cor 1:25

    the foolishness of God is wiser than men

    When I look at certain things in biology, they almost do look like toys of amusement for the creator. They look silly and foolish, but to me they also evidence design.

    I believe God allows things to look foolish to the human mind at some level.

    The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing.

    1 Cor 1:18

    But if we think on it carefully, we see the genius behind it all.

  27. stcordova:
    Hi CharlieM,

    A verse for you:

    1 Cor 1:25

    When I look at certain things in biology, they almost do look like toys of amusement for the creator.They look silly and foolish, but to me they also evidence design.

    I believe God allows things to look foolish to the human mind at some level.

    But if we think on it carefully, we see the genius behind it all.

    Sal, you have just combined an argument about understanding the living world with context-free snippets of scripture, which makes it sounds like you are implying that only Christians (or at least those who are not “perishing”) are capable of actually understanding biology. If that’s your position, it’s a bit of conversation stopper.

  28. About all I can extract from this thread is that if some structure in life is simple and elegant, obviously goddidit. Conversely, if it’s unnecessarily complex and convoluted, obviously goddidit. If it’s somewhere in the middle, obviously goddidit.

    To me, this approach is quite an improvement on “junk DNA doesn’t exist because god wouldn’t have done things that way.” Much better to say if there is lots of junk, goddidit, if there isn’t any, goddidit, and if there’s a moderate amount, goddidit.

    That way, nobody is obliged to cast about with desperate dishonesty to justify what their god would or would not have done. Because apparently just ASKING their god if he diddit doesn’t produce any helpful responses.

  29. Flint,

    You wouldn’t have to worry about that if your position had a way to scientifically test its claims. Unfortunately your position is devoid of that and you have only yourselves to blame.

  30. John Harshman: ‘Tain’t so. The wings of birds have changed quite radically in the past 150 million years. There are huge differences between the wing of Archaeopteryx and the wing of any modern bird, and lesser but still large differences among the wings of modern birds. (Think of ostriches, hummingbirds, falcons, albatrosses, and vultures, for example.) Does an ostrich’s wing satisfy the bird’s desire to fly, by the way?

    I was exaggerating a bit when I said bird wings have had no need of change over this period, but I would not say that the form has changed radically. The structure has involved elongation, shortening and fusion of bones, but the primary feathers have remained attached to the hand and the secondaries to the arm bones. Archaeopteryx had assymetrical flight feathers very similar to mdern birds.

    And from encyclopedia.com we have:

    Noguerornis an enantiornithine bird from about 130 mya was the size of a finch and was the first bird to have a wing that was well developed, as indicated by the elongation of the distal portions of the fore limb and the rigid interlocking of the hand bones.

    The different wings of modern birds reflect their lifestyles. Ostriches lost their former desire to fly so now they have no need to be small and light and their wings are not required to produce lift.

    John Harshman:Now, as for your other point, a bird’s wing is a radically simplified version of a tetrapod forelimb, plus feathers. As such, it does have a few odd features that we might attach that “Rube Goldberg” label to. For example, the main muscles that raise the wing are on the breast, requiring a tendon to pass through a hole formed by the intersection of three separate bones to insert into the top of the humerus.

    And what is it that you find wrong with the positioning of the flight muscles? How do you think that the muscle should be positioned in relation to the raising of the wing. Engineers have made use of pulleys ever since there were objects to be lifted and this solution to lifting the wing has been used by birds long before humans thought of it. It is an ingenious design.

    John Harshman:Nor is it clear that a tetrapod forelimb is the best possible starting point to begin constructing a wing.

    It is the only design available if the animal has taken a human-like forelimb and adapted it to perform a very specialised function. The pentadactyl limb is put to its most creative, multi-functional use in the human forelimb. Because birds put their forelimbs to use as an instrument of flight then they have foregone the capability to use them in a more practically creative way.

  31. Flint: About all I can extract from this thread is that if some structure in life is simple and elegant, obviously goddidit.

    The OP seemed to me to be speaking of the complex and inelegant. Are we reading the same OP?

  32. Mung: The OP seemed to me to be speaking of the complex and inelegant. Are we reading the same OP?

    I suspect you aren’t reading much, as you seem to have read only the first sentence of Flint’s post.

  33. CharlieM: And what is it that you find wrong with the positioning of the flight muscles? How do you think that the muscle should be positioned in relation to the raising of the wing. Engineers have made use of pulleys ever since there were objects to be lifted and this solution to lifting the wing has been used by birds long before humans thought of it. It is an ingenious design.

    Simpler to put the muscles above the wing. This is a kludge.

    It is the only design available if the animal has taken a human-like forelimb and adapted it to perform a very specialised function. The pentadactyl limb is put to its most creative, multi-functional use in the human forelimb. Because birds put their forelimbs to use as an instrument of flight then they have foregone the capability to use them in a more practically creative way.

    Perhaps you should repair to the anthropocentrism thread, because you seem to think that Charlie is the measure of all things. The human forelimb is good for grasping objects. How exactly is that multifunctional? Now if you want multiple functions, try a cat: good for running, good for grabbing, good for killing. birds of course use their wings for both fight and display, and a few for various other purposes. None of this makes you the pinnacle of creation.

    Nor do your constant assertions that organisms direct their own evolution (apparently using Prof. Harold Hill’s “think” system) constitute any evidence for that claim.

  34. Frankie:
    John Harshman,
    And evolutionism explains the positioning of muscles, along with the nerves required to make them work, and wings, how, exactly?

    What do you mean by “evolutionism”?

  35. Re rotor blades:
    GlenDavidson: Are the components ancestral in form?

    If not, please pay attention to what the point is.

    The point is that a bird’s wing is a marvelous assemblage of various components which are fused, jointed and combined to form a very effective aerodynamic structure.

    *

    In reply to “This is good design practice using the available modern technology.”

    GlenDavidson:No, it is really quite different, and you’re pretending they’re the same in order to shore up your preconceived notions.

    Glen Davidson

    I am not saying they are the same. I am saying they are similar in that they both use components which are fused together to form an aerodynamic surface and thus provide lift.

  36. John Harshman: What do you mean by “evolutionism”?

    The claim that all biological diversity arose via stochastic processes like natural selection, drift and/ or neutral construction. Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution. Others mistakenly call it the theory of evolution.

  37. John Harshman: Simpler to put the muscles above the wing. This is a kludge.

    Perhaps you should repair to the anthropocentrism thread, because you seem to think that Charlie is the measure of all things.

    Man, I am still laughing. I love irony. Thank you!

  38. Was that hole there just waiting for the muscle to find it’s way through it? Even if that hole was there, the muscle certainly wasn’t obligated to use it. Even if that hole was there, the muscles could still have been routed differently.

    It just happened, that’s all.

  39. Mung:
    Was that hole there just waiting for the muscle to find it’s way through it?

    Do holes “wait”? What are you talking about?

    Even if that hole was there, the muscle certainly wasn’t obligated to use it.

    Muscles have “obligations”? Wow.

    Even if that hole was there, the muscles could still have been routed differently.

    Why do you think so?

    It just happened, that’s all.

    What made it happen?

  40. Mung: The OP seemed to me to be speaking of the complex and inelegant. Are we reading the same OP?

    If you get all the way to the second sentence, first paragraph, you will see this addressed. If you can only get through the first sentence, you will notice that it refers to the whole thread, not the OP.

    Sorry, your attempt to score a cheap point missed the target twice.

  41. CharlieM: The point is that a bird’s wing is a marvelous assemblage of various components which are fused, jointed and combined to form a very effective aerodynamic structure.

    No, that’s you ignoring the point, which is that life has to make do with limited sets of genetic material. So birds have to use the genes that made dinosaur forelimbs, which once made articulated bones. These bones are what evolution has to work with, so, rather than making a single fused wing, a bunch of what were articulated bones become fused into a rigid structure. Nothing like the manufacture of rotors from pieces fabricated for ease of manufacture.

    In reply to “This is good design practice using the available modern technology.”

    GlenDavidson:No, it is really quite different, and you’re pretending they’re the same in order to shore up your preconceived notions.

    Glen Davidson

    I am not saying they are the same. I am saying they are similar in that they both use components which are fused together to form an aerodynamic surface and thus provide lift.

    Yes, of course that’s what you’re saying, rather than actually dealing with the fact that bird wings are more like a human taking the struts, axles, and springs supporting wheels and turning these into wings. It’s a bizarre and unpromising starting point for making a wing, but it’s what your “designer” did, unless, and more likely, the bird wing evolved out of what was available, the forelimbs of terrestrial dinosaurs.

    That’s no exact analogy either, naturally, because for one thing, suspension and power systems of vehicles are hardly as limited as animal forelimbs are in the first place, but it’s a whole lot closer to being a good analogy than your suggestion that somehow using ancestral parts rather than starting anew is akin to using materials manufactured for simplified assembly because both involve fusion of some sort or other. They’re completely different in almost every way, but you throw it out there because it fits your preconceptions, and you’re not dealing with the limitations of evolution which affect life so dramatically.

    Glen Davidson

  42. stcordova:
    Hi CharlieM,

    A verse for you:

    1 Cor 1:25

    When I look at certain things in biology, they almost do look like toys of amusement for the creator.They look silly and foolish, but to me they also evidence design.

    I believe God allows things to look foolish to the human mind at some level.

    But if we think on it carefully, we see the genius behind it all.

    thanks Sal.

    I know what you mean:

    From Wikepedia:

  43. Flint: Sorry, your attempt to score a cheap point missed the target twice.

    If your post does not address anything in the OP then I guess I can take responsibility for assuming that it was intended to be responsive to the OP.

    Is that a third miss?

  44. Michael Behe is best known for coining the phrase Irreducible Complexity…

    According to Forrest and Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, law professor Phillip Johnson pitched irreducible complexity at the 1992 meeting of wedgies-to-be at SMU. I got the impression that the term was due to him. The notion comes from Paley’s Natural Theology (1802). Behe took on the mission of developing the idea. His first published writing on irreducible complexity was a chapter in the infamous “cdesign proponentsists” textbook, Of Pandas and People (1993 edition).

Leave a Reply