# Brian Miller: Complexity in Biology as Incremental Addition

**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-complexity-in-biology-as-incremental-addition/1931
**Category:** Conversation
**Tags:** Design
**Created:** [September 29, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-complexity-in-biology-as-incremental-addition/1931 "2018-09-29T22:05:00Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)
#### Post date: [September 29, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-complexity-in-biology-as-incremental-addition/1931/1 "2018-09-29T22:05:00Z")

</div>

Continuing the discussion from [Brian Miller: Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-thermodynamics-and-the-origin-of-life/1616/68):

> [@Brian Miller: Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-thermodynamics-and-the-origin-of-life/1616/67):
>
> Obviously, many differences exist between human engineering and biological systems, but the nature of those differences demonstrates that biological systems are the product of a much higher intelligence.

> [@Brian Miller: Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-thermodynamics-and-the-origin-of-life/1616/68):
>
> I understand you have to think this way, but this is a very selective reading. There is an exchange between engineering and biology, but a large amount of the complexity in biology is best explained by incremental addition of parts, more like a goldberg machine than a fresh de novo design. This is an immensely difficult way to design things for human designers, which is why we have such difficulty engineering biological systems. This complexity, however, actually _improves_ the odds of biological evolution. What biology shows us is that life is not designed at all how a human designer would design it, and it cannot be understood with out engaging its deep history.
> 
> I know you are not talking about common descent here, but it is worth asking. Do you affirm common descent? If not, why did not God make it more clear that common descent is false?

> [@Brian Miller: Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-thermodynamics-and-the-origin-of-life/1616/70):
>
> Seriously?
> 
> If one is going to use this sort of logic, then I believe the reasoning is more like:
> 
> Human engineering (intelligent design) cannot come close to accomplishing what we see in living systems. It thus stands to reason that life is beyond the capabilities of intelligent design.
> 
> (If one is going to use the logic that Brian is deploying here …)

> [@Brian Miller: Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-thermodynamics-and-the-origin-of-life/1616/72):
>
> No it doesn’t. It merely shows humans in **a few hundred years** of engineering design haven’t achieved the results natural processes working **over 3.5 billion years** have achieved.

* * *

> [@Brian Miller: Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/brian-miller-thermodynamics-and-the-origin-of-life/1616/71):
>
> > but a large amount of the complexity in biology is best explained by incremental addition of parts, more like a goldberg machine than a fresh de novo design.
> 
> What would be the best examples and related research articles which demonstrate your point? You might desire to add some additional commentary to emphasize the salient points.

@bjmiller when you are ready to engage this question, let me know. I’m happy to expand. I didn’t respond right away to let that conversation run its course. You might find this helpful too: [Which Irreducible Complexity? - #7 by swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/which-irreducible-complexity-argument/662/7)