News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

irreducible complexity

Started by yepimonfire, December 28, 2011, 08:02:54 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

hackenslash

#60
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on January 18, 2012, 09:53:59 PMBasically what you're saying is that *you THINK the design flawed, but cannot come up with a better one.

Of course I realize how complex such a schematic would be...A Schematic!  That's the whole point.

Tell you what, how about you draw us a schematic of the human eye as it is, just so that we can see a) what sort of schematic you'd like to see and b) whether you can live up to your own expectations of others.

This sounds an awful lot like argument from incredulity to me. In reality, the whole irreducible complexity charade is precisely that. Irreducible complexity isn't, as some think, a problem for evolutionary theory, it's a natural corollary of evolutionary theory, demonstrated by Hermann Joseph Müller some 30 years or so before Behe was even born, in a process that has since come to be known as the Müllerian two-step. It works like this:

Step 1: Add a part
Step 2: Make it necessary

Further, irreducible complexity can arise in other ways. The classic analogy to employ here is the arch, which is an irreducibly complex structure. The methodology for building an arch is well-understood, and has been for well over 1,000 years. It involves using a 'centring', upon which the arch is constructed until the keystone goes in so that it can support its own weight, after which the centring is removed. This can actually be observed to occur in a more direct way during many stages of embryology now. Nothing mysterious or magical about it.

Another way that irreducible complexity can arise is through the co-opting of existing structures that previously had other functions. This is, of course, the example that nails Behe's guff to the wall, especially with regard to the bacterial flagellum, about which I'll say more in a moment. The flagellar motor has co-opted a previously existing system, known as the Type III secretory system (T3SS), which is employed by pathogenic bacteria as a kind of syringe for injecting infection-aiding proteins into eukaryotic cells.

As it happens, though, the bacterial flagellum has been categorically demonstrated not to be irreducibly complex. In recent experiments, the flagellum was subjected to deconstruction, including the axle, and it still worked![1] Further, there has been work done on the actual genes that code for the requisite proteins in flagellar synthesis, namely FliL and FliH. It appears that knocking out the FliL gene buggers up the flagellar synthesis. But, and you'll love this, because it shoots the irreducible complexity bollocks in the foot, if you knock out the FliL and the FliH at the same time, the flagellum works again! [2]

Refs:

[1] Axle-Less F1-ATPase Rotates In The Correct Direction by Shou Furuike, Mohammad Delawar Hossain, Yasushi Maki, Kengo Adachi, Toshiharu Suzuki, Ayako Kohori, Hiroyasu Itoh, Masasuke Yoshida and Kazuhiko Kinosita, Jr., Science, 319: 955-958 (No. 5865, 15 February 2008)

[2] Distinct roles of the FliI ATPase and proton motive force in bacterial flagellar protein export by Minamino & Namba Nature 451, 485-488 (24 January 2008)

Science 1,000,000 - cretinism 0

Edits: Minor corrections.
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

Asmodean

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

The Magic Pudding

Who's the really ugly christian in a Dawkins doco who lectures him about being arrogant?
The guy seems to have a jaw locked in anger that makes it hard for him to speak.
RD seems to quail a bit in the face of the freaky psycho.
That guys picture needs clever things written on it to dispel the scary.

hackenslash

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 28, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
Who's the really ugly christian in a Dawkins doco who lectures him about being arrogant?
The guy seems to have a jaw locked in anger that makes it hard for him to speak.
RD seems to quail a bit in the face of the freaky psycho.
That guys picture needs clever things written on it to dispel the scary.

You mean Ted Haggard? He of the 'homosexuality is a sin' trope, subsequently caught snorting methamphetamine off the belly of a male prostitute?
There is no more formidable or insuperable barrier to knowledge than the certainty you already possess it.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: hackenslash on January 28, 2012, 11:46:44 AM
You mean Ted Haggard? He of the 'homosexuality is a sin' trope, subsequently caught snorting methamphetamine off the belly of a male prostitute?

Yes I think so.
I wonder if he had to pay extra.
I'd have charged him extra.
You'd need to charge such a one more so you could pay a large person to watch and ensure you didn't end up in his car boot/trunk.
These guys are such colourful characters.

Reprobate

The whole irreducible complexity argument seems a lot like just another "god of the gaps" attempt at grasping at whatever theists presume to be inexplecible as proof of their deity of choice. However, in this case it's also a variation of the argument from ignorance. "I don't understand how the eye could have evolved; so it's proof that god exists."

The eye is designed to interpret electromagnetic waves to produce images. The human eye sees only a very limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Half of the time we spend on earth is spent in the dark and our vision is significantly impaired during the hours of darkness. Our pre-human ancestors and early humans were most vulnerable to predators in the dark primarily because of this handicap. That doesn't seem like intelligent design at all. Many nocturnal animals see at least as well as humans in the daytime and a lot better at night. There are better systems that already exist, aside from octopi.

EDIT: To correct a typo.