# Design and Nested Hierarchies

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/design-and-nested-hierarchies/8066>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [October 10, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/design-and-nested-hierarchies/8066 "2019-10-10T17:08:14Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 427

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chris\_Falter](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/chris_falter/32/3811_2.png) [@Chris\_Falter](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Chris_Falter)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 2019, 6:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/design-and-nested-hierarchies/8066/427 "2019-10-22T18:29:21Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Accusation of lying involves intent which is very hard to know. The article mis represented Behe’s argument.

Hi Bill,

Let’s try again. The article put the following words inside quotation marks

> “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.”

I found what I believe to be [Behe’s original article](http://arn.org/docs/behe/mb_indefenseofbloodclottingcascade.htm) written in 2000, containing only Behe’s words. Here is an extended quotation from that article:

> Envisioning IC in terms of selected or unselected steps thus puts the focus on the process of trying to build the system. A big advantage, I think, is that it encourages people to pay attention to details; hopefully it would encourage really detailed scenarios by proponents of Darwinism (ones that might be checked experimentally) and discourage just-so stories that leap over many steps without comment. So with those thoughts in mind, I offer the following tentative “evolutionary” definition of irreducible complexity:  
> An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.  
> That definition has the advantage of promoting research: to state clear, detailed evolutionary pathways; to measure probabilistic resources; to estimate mutation rates; to determine if a given step is selected or not. It allows for the proposal of any evolutionary scenario a Darwinist (or others) may wish to submit, asking only that it be detailed enough so that relevant parameters might be estimated.

To me, it seems obvious that the original article I cited and I are both representing Behe’s _genetic_ definition of irreducible complexity correctly. The fact that you disagree with some other aspect of my original citation seems quite irrelevant to the discussion we are having here.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The transition to the eukaryotic cell requires more functional information then the origin of life.

1. That’s a remarkable assertion to make without any documentation.

2. While the origin of eukaryotes has not been entirely settled, biologists have identified several plausible mechanisms. [This 2009 review article](https://carlzimmer.com/on-the-origin-of-eukaryotes-363/), though it suffers from aging, is a good popular description of where the question stood at the time.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Science requires you show they can do what you claim. First a model and a test of that model.

You have just identified the off-ramp for ID as a scientific theory. ID provides no model with mechanisms that can explain the origins of species. We have already discussed this at length, and you said you would like some time to think about my argument that ID has no models. If indeed you have reached some conclusions since then, feel free to take up the issue. What you have done here, though–simply re-asserting the same things without taking into account the discussion we had–does not seem like a good strategy for convincing your critics.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> If we start at the prokaryotic to eukaryotic transition and try to account for all the new large macro machines I think you will realize the limitations of the proposed Darwinian and non Darwinian mechanisms.

Once you read Carl Zimmer’s article I think you will realize why I do not subscribe to the notion that evolutionary mechanisms have insurmountable limitations that can only be explained by ID.

Best,  
Chris

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/design-and-nested-hierarchies/8066)._