- Evolution is purposeless
- All biological systems evolved
- Therefore, all biological systems are purposeless.
Go figure.
This is all we ask of ID proponents, but its been decades now and they made almost no effort to do so. All Behe does is churn books where he recycles already debunked arguments.
Indeed.
The comment in the (highly NSFW) comic linked in the PZ Myers post below could apply, not only to sex, but to all biological features:
“Sex exists by replicating itself, but not for anything.”
Teleology is very tempting, narratively… but as far as we can tell, not applicable to life. Except to the extent that we instill it ourselves. (That is to say, my life has only the purposefulness I put into it.)
Given Behe’s focus on irreducibly complex systems, I can only surmise that Behe thinks evolution could produce reducibly complex systems. After reading some of Behe’s more recent work, he apparently accepts the concept that evolution can remove superfluous genes. Given these two points, it would seem obvious that evolution can produce irreducibly complex systems since all it would require is removal of unneeded parts from a reducibly complex system.
I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Seems to me you are playing word games.
Surely an irreducibly complex system would arrive on the scene before a reducible complex one would in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
If for example, a wagon was irreducibly complex - are you proposing that an automobile would arrive by Darwinian processes and then parts would be removed until you were left with an irreducible wagon?
Surely it is more ‘miraculous’ for an automobile to be produced by any mechanism than for a wagon to be produced by the same method?
Why?
Wagon wheels and cars are not biological systems.
It would be miraculous if two automobiles had a child. This is why automobiles are not a good analogy for biological life.
I think what @T_aquaticus is suggesting is something like the following:
If some system has many parts that are contributing to the overall function, yet which are not strictly necessary because their individual contributions might be extremely weak, then in principle many of them can be lost with little to no apparent effect, but as you lose more and more eventually you narrow down to some core system of parts that can no longer tolerate additional losses. And then that core system would be irreducibly complex, but the mass of parts it was derived from was not as it could continue to function even with many parts removed.
This does depend, of course, on a specific definition of IC Behe suggested early on, which is a system from which no part can be removed without the system losing function. He later modified the concept to allow for these more robust systems with many redundancies, and restricted his definition of IC to the “core system” from which no additional parts could be removed.
Really? What am I not seeing here.
To not acknowledge that irreducible comes before reducible would allow that in one fell swoop species evolved from single cell to human and then back to chimps. At least that is what this layman gets from your ordering of reducible to irreducible.
Just a side note here but we did not evolve from chimps, we share a common ancestor.
Nevertheless, I have to say I share @T_aquaticus wondering here, as I don’t understand the argument you’re making either. Why must an IC system come before a reducible system?
Suppose you have system system A, which is aided by a gene-encoded new part B that dimerizes into B-B. B can function alone, but can also function in the B-B complex.
The gene for B is copied so we have B1 and B2, which to begin with are identical. They still dimerize into B-B (now derived from the B1 and B2 genes).
Genes B1 and B2 accumulate mutations that make them depend on each other for function. As long as they are together in the B1-B2 complex, they can remain functional and help A, but if B1 is lost or B2 is lost, neither of them can help A alone.
Since now B1 and B2 has to exist together to help A, the B1-B2 dimer has become irreducibly complex. Then we’ve evolved an irreducibly complex function from a reducibly complex function.
Did I say that we didn’t evolve from chimps?
I implied, but you’ll correct me if I’m wrong - chimps didn’t evolve from us.
Going from reducible to irreducible is devolving. Sounds like the title of a book.
Sorry, but I don’t know how to make it more clear. Are you guys actually saying that irreducibly complexity is a real thing?
What you said was “To not acknowledge that irreducible comes before reducible would allow that in one fell swoop species evolved from single cell to human and then back to chimps.” (my bold).
This implies you think humans evolved from chimps. And I’m just pointing out that this is not correct, and is in fact a common misconception. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor somewhere around 5-7 million years ago, which was neither a chimp nor human.
Something becoming less of something (be that less fit, less complex in terms of the number of parts, less active, or whatever) is still evolution. You can call it “devolving” if it makes you feel good, but what label you use to call it has no bearing on whether irreducible complexity is an evolvable attribute.
If I decide to call your car a “pile of junk” then me speaking those words does not somehow make your car stop functioning.
And irreducible complexity is not a barrier to evolution. Whether by adding or removing parts, irreducibly complex functions and systems can evolve. Call it whatever you want, it’s still evolution.
Yes. Irreducible complexity is a real thing, as I explained to you in this previous post of mine.
Yes, an irreducibly complex system can evolve. IC is a real thing and it can evolve. A system consisting of multiple interacting parts which all have to be present for the system to perform a specific function, is a real thing (and we know of examples from real biology), and such a system can evolve. I have described how.
Sure irreducible complexity is a real thing. We just now know how IC systems can evolve through indirect pathways involving co-option of function and scaffolding. That means IC isn’t a problem at all for evolutionary theory. And since IC structures can evolve from non-IC ancestral structures that means IC structures can evolve to be less complex through the same indirect means.
Sorry but Behe’s “IC makes evolution impossible” is as thoroughly discredited as any Creationist claim can be.
If that is how you choose to read, “one fell swoop species evolved from single cell to human and then back to chimps”, I guess you’ll accuse me (by the same reading) of thinking that humans evolved in one step from single-celled life. Mr and Mrs. amoeba were expecting offspring and it turned out to be human.
It wasn’t my intent to ‘load’ the word devolve. I merely meant to show the direction of movement. Will it please you more if I say that the species moves from complex to irreducibly complex is becoming ‘less’ complex? Ok. And if the offspring mutates too ‘badly’, it doesn’t live.
I don’t see how this is a positive portrayal of evolution? Isn’t what needs to be shown, the pathway to complexity. Does anyone deny that crap happens during reproduction with the result being less fitness? And less fit or no offspring?
What do you imagine Behe would say to this?
I certainly can’t speak for him. I’m a carpenter, not a biochemist. But it seems to me you are equivocating on what Behe means by irreducible complexity or at least it’s application. Do you really think that Behe would deny that some complex beings can through mutation become less complex or less fit?
If you are misrepresenting his position, do you have to do so?
If evolutionary biology is as silly as you claim it is, would it hurt you to describe it accurately, or would doing so improve your crusade against it?
Or maybe you are just unwilling to look at the evidence?
How have I claimed that evolutionary biology is silly?
Your misrepresentations of it are silly.
What misrepresentations are you referring to?
Maybe you haven’t got the patience to talk to a layman.
You seem extremely confused. Are you a native English speaker?
I’m not asking you to say moving from complex to irreducibly complex is becoming less complex. Your question simply does not make sense in context.
I don’t know what you mean by a “positive portrayal of evolution”, it seems to me you have to first define what you mean by that.
Sure if you can tell me what you mean by complexity. Apparently irreducible complexity isn’t what you mean. Yet you were very interested in arguing about the irreducibly complexity of the mousetrap as if this was a key concept to be explained. Now that I have explained how irreducibly complexity is not a barrier to evolution because individual parts can have alternative functions, you seem to want to talk about something else instead. A “pathway to complexity”. What do you mean by that?
You seemed to have no problem telling us about his mousetrap analogy, but now that you’re getting pushback you want him to tell you how to respond?
Why don’t we get him to come by and tell us? Does he need to hold your hand or can you think for yourself?
I am not equivocation on anything. Behe really does say that an irreducibly complex system or function is one where multiple parts have to work together to perform the function of interest, and where if you remove one or more of the parts necessary for that function, then the system would stop functioning and then it’s gradual evolution would be a challenge for evolution to explain.
And I am disputing the claim that this is a challenge for evolution to explain, because such a system would not be a barrier to evolution as simpler versions of the system can perform other functions. For example with respect to the flagellum, simpler versions of the system that lack the hook and filament can function as protein secretion systems.
I haven’t said he would deny that, and I am not describing something becoming less complex or less fit. You seem to have a very difficult time understanding things.
If. I am not.