Intelligent Design: Irreducible Complexity?

[Esquilax]

It does have bearing. The reason given is that the eyespots were beneficial in that they enhanced the functioning of photoperiodism and circadian rhythms. This begs the question of how those things developed without eyespots.

And if I don't know, does that somehow make the reason wrong? Why would you go with such an obvious argument from ignorance?

Besides, you understand that there are other methods of detecting the day/night cycle than light detection, right? Bloody fetuses have a circadian rhythm, you know. Ain't no light where they are. Circadian rhythms in particular are very easily obtained, even cyanobacteria can have them.

However, if you'd like to move forward in the timeline, that's fine:

These complex optical systems started out as the multicellular eyepatch gradually depressed into a cup, which first granted the ability to discriminate brightness in directions, then in finer and finer directions as the pit deepened. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle.

First question is why a multicellular eyepatch developed.

Because larger patches of light sensitive cells allow an organism to better detect things moving in front of light sources, like obstacles or predators. Danger. Hence, it's a survival enhancer. How did it initially develop? Mutation, like everything else.

Next is why did it gradually depress into a cup.

Again, it began as a mutation, but being able to monitor direction with greater specificity is an even better survival mechanism because now you have a better idea of where the danger is coming from.

Then, how did the organism know what to do with directional information.

That's already been explained to you: light sensitivity without a method of processing the input isn't a disadvantage, and so it persists in those that develop it. From there, all it takes is one mutation to give even a little processing ability to be a pretty nice survival advantage. See, mutations don't just vanish after one generation if there's no use or advantage to them.

My contention is that "somehow" isn't an adequate explanation.

Mutations happen randomly. Don't blame me, blame imperfect gene transcription. Oh, and "this isn't an adequate explanation of the evidence that shows that it did happen," is an argument from ignorance.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intr...ology.html

Mutation creates new alleles. Each new allele enters the gene pool as a single copy amongst many. Most are lost from the gene pool, ...

Most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear...

Most new mutants are lost, even beneficial ones.

"It's improbable, therefore it's impossible," really?

[ManMachine]

I have recently been wondering about Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design.

I think that Irreducible Complexity is just a reformed "God of the Gaps" argument. For example, my Religious Studies (yes, I had to take that class) teacher used the Human Eye as "evidence' for I.D.. It was along the lines of:

"Oh! Look at the human eye! It's so complex! It's retina, it's muscles connecting to it, the cornea, etc... It could have only be designed by an Intelligent Designer!"

I think it's just because humans previously did not understand how the eye works and how it was formed by evolutionary processes and therefore an Intelligent Designer was the reason. But now we DO understand the processes that created the eye and how it functions so therefore there was no reason anymore to wedge an Intelligent Designer in.

I think the same applies to the other "Irreducibly Complex" things out there.

I also think that Irreducible Complexity is self-refuting to Intelligent Design.

Why? If a Designer was omnipotent and omniscient, then why would s/he need to create something so complex? Couldn't they have created something simpler?

Please let me know what you guys think of this.

P.S. English isn't my first language I apologize in advance for any spelling and grammatical issues.

Intelligent design is just another way for Theists to express their lack of ability to comprehend how complexity evolves.

MM

[robvalue]

My favourite video on the discussion of intelligent design versus evolution:

here.

[John V]

And if I don't know, does that somehow make the reason wrong? Why would you go with such an obvious argument from ignorance?

I asked for step by step development. Why would you jump in and claim to know all the steps if you don't?

Besides, you understand that there are other methods of detecting the day/night cycle than light detection, right? Bloody fetuses have a circadian rhythm, you know. Ain't no light where they are. Circadian rhythms in particular are very easily obtained, even cyanobacteria can have them.

Then circadian rhythms aren't a reason that a light sensitive cell is advantageous.

Because larger patches of light sensitive cells allow an organism to better detect things moving in front of light sources, like obstacles or predators. Danger. Hence, it's a survival enhancer. How did it initially develop? Mutation, like everything else.

How does the organism know what to do with that information? Again, I could have a light sensitive cell on my elbow, but it's not doing me any good.

Again, it began as a mutation, but being able to monitor direction with greater specificity is an even better survival mechanism because now you have a better idea of where the danger is coming from.

How does the organism know that a signal from one cell indicates one direction, while a signal from another indicates another direction? How is the organism being signaled from those cells? How does the organism know that a signal from those cells indicates danger?

That's already been explained to you: light sensitivity without a method of processing the input isn't a disadvantage, and so it persists in those that develop it. From there, all it takes is one mutation to give even a little processing ability to be a pretty nice survival advantage. See, mutations don't just vanish after one generation if there's no use or advantage to them.

According to the TO link I provided, "most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear."

My contention is that "somehow" isn't an adequate explanation.

Mutations happen randomly. Don't blame me, blame imperfect gene transcription. Oh, and "this isn't an adequate explanation of the evidence that shows that it did happen," is an argument from ignorance. [/quote]
I asked for a step by step explanation. If you can't provide that, you shouldn't have butted in.

"It's improbable, therefore it's impossible," really?

Impossible? No, but every time you need to posit neutral mutations hanging around, you're unwittingly supporting irreducible complexity. You don't seem to know what the irreducible complexity argument is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.

So, when I ask for a step by step explanation in a thread on irreducible complexity, it's implied that each step is advantageous on its own.

It's trivial to say that anything that exists could possibly have evolved if you allow neutral mutations to build up until they're advantageous.

[popeyespappy]

You don't seem to know what the irreducible complexity argument is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.

In the very next paragraph the article you linked goes on to say:

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". [5] Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved,[6][7] and describe Behe's claim as an argument from incredulity.[8] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

In this thread the the idea of the human eye being irreducibly complex by Behe's own definition has been refuted. Any number of the components of the eye can be removed, and what remains is still capable of providing a function that can offer an evolutionary advantage.



As the article states Behe's claims of irreducible complexity have been refuted. We don't don't have to know every little detail to clearly demonstrate an evolutionary path for eyes, immune systems, clotting agents or even the bacterial flagellum. Nor does anything we have learned about evolution in the past 150 years preclude the possibility of the evolution of any know biological system.

[downbeatplumb]

Alpha male asks repeatedly for every step in the development of the eye, is shown examples for most steps but still insists on all, but he can't even supply the first step in proving a designer did something.
Showing that the "designer" exists at all.

Just pointing out the double standards on display.

No evidence will be good enough to prove evolution to him and yet no evidence is all he needs to believe in a designer.

[Esquilax]

I asked for step by step development. Why would you jump in and claim to know all the steps if you don't?

Except that you asked for a step by step process, got it, and then decided that it's not good enough because it doesn't describe things that happened before step one. How far back do you want to go, John? Are you going to be criticizing me because my step by step guide of the development of the eye doesn't tell you how life began?

Then circadian rhythms aren't a reason that a light sensitive cell is advantageous.

That's true, which is why I never claimed it was, and nor did the source you quoted. However, being able to more accurately set a circadian rhythm is an advantageous trait.

How does the organism know what to do with that information? Again, I could have a light sensitive cell on my elbow, but it's not doing me any good.

This question is almost madness. You do know what "light sensitive" entails, yes? It means the cells in question are... sensitive to, you know, light? If you have photoreceptive cells on your elbow that aren't connected to anything then how are they any different from regular cells? What you're saying is this: "I could have light sensitive cells that aren't light sensitive, but those wouldn't do me any good!" Being light sensitive requires that the organism have a sense for light.

As for why an organism might react to that? Well, for one, those that didn't would be weeded out of the gene pool, as light sensitivity wouldn't be conferring a survival advantage to that particular creature if it doesn't react to the data being fed to it, in an environment where the only possible things interacting with it would be via predation or obstruction. Secondly, we're talking about a very simple organism here; reacting to simple stimuli in rote ways is pretty much what it's built for.

How does the organism know that a signal from one cell indicates one direction, while a signal from another indicates another direction?

Do you understand just how fucking petty it is to ask questions about the thought processes of long dead animals?

As it stands, it's a simple matter of actually thinking about the mechanics of this: in a flat eyespot the only direction one can sense light is "forward" relative to you. With a cupped eyespot, light that would need to be directly ahead to register in a flat spot can now register earlier by hitting the edge of the cup, causing you to head toward a light that you might have missed entirely with the limited range of vision afforded by a flat eyespot. Even that limited scope is worth something.

How is the organism being signaled from those cells?

Same way as with flat spots, only now over a wider area. This is actually in the resource I linked you, so it's interesting that you spent time looking at nitpicks, but not actually absorbing the information therein.

How does the organism know that a signal from those cells indicates danger?

Let's be really clear, here: these organisms don't really "know" anything, they aren't that cognitively advanced. But in an environment like they were in, the organism that reacts by moving away from something blocking the light source avoids predators that others don't, and thus survives where they don't. Being careful is always an advantage, even if it's an autonomic, indiscriminate caution.

According to the TO link I provided, "most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear."

So?

I asked for a step by step explanation. If you can't provide that, you shouldn't have butted in.

Look, if the answer is "initially they developed through a random mutation via the imperfect replication of genomic data during reproduction," then that is the goddamn answer to the question. Don't then pretend that the answer hasn't been given because it's not guided and intentional enough for you. I'm expected to give the answer that's true, not the answer you'd like.

Impossible? No, but every time you need to posit neutral mutations hanging around, you're unwittingly supporting irreducible complexity. You don't seem to know what the irreducible complexity argument is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.

So, when I ask for a step by step explanation in a thread on irreducible complexity, it's implied that each step is advantageous on its own.

Sorry, the fact that you don't understand evolution and neither do the ID fucktards doesn't suddenly make my argument wrong. Advantageous mutations have never been the only mutations to persist via evolution, and so to pretend that they must be in order to kowtow to your officious harping on individual words would simply be wrong.

But if you really think that saying that neutral mutations had a hand in the evolution of something is tantamount to calling it irreducibly complex because we're not attributing it all to advantageous mutations only, then you are gravely misunderstanding what the aim of intelligent design and irreducible complexity is, or you're just attempting to score points.

It's trivial to say that anything that exists could possibly have evolved if you allow neutral mutations to build up until they're advantageous.

I'm sorry that the argument isn't conveniently assailable to your incorrect stance on the matter, but that's what happens when you're right. You've basically come out and said that evolution as it actually happens in biology can't be correct because it's harder to argue against than your strawman version.

Besides, unlike the ID people, real science doesn't work by just making things up that might have happened and stopping there. No, we actually have, like, data and observations that show how the eye evolved, not just a convenient story that's consistent.

It's so very telling that one of your contentions here is that my position is so general that if I were to just make things up it'd be easy, though. Emblematic of your approach to science, there.

[John V]

Except that you asked for a step by step process, got it, and then decided that it's not good enough because it doesn't describe things that happened before step one. How far back do you want to go, John? Are you going to be criticizing me because my step by step guide of the development of the eye doesn't tell you how life began?

This complaint was already addressed: "However, if you'd like to move forward in the timeline, that's fine."

That's true, which is why I never claimed it was, and nor did the source you quoted. However, being able to more accurately set a circadian rhythm is an advantageous trait.

You can't have it both ways. What did you mean when you said that circadian rhythms are very easily obtained? Are those rhyttms inaccurate? If so, why would you say they're easily obtained?

This question is almost madness. You do know what "light sensitive" entails, yes? It means the cells in question are... sensitive to, you know, light? If you have photoreceptive cells on your elbow that aren't connected to anything then how are they any different from regular cells? What you're saying is this: "I could have light sensitive cells that aren't light sensitive, but those wouldn't do me any good!" Being light sensitive requires that the organism have a sense for light.

No, I'm saying that I could have light sensitive cells on my elbow, but unless they're sending signals to my brain, and my brain can do something useful with that information, then those cells are of no advantage to me. You speak of predators - a predator could be coming at me from behind, and my elbow could detect its shadow. But, since my elbow isn't wired to vision centers of my brain, that does me no good.

As for why an organism might react to that? Well, for one, those that didn't would be weeded out of the gene pool, as light sensitivity wouldn't be conferring a survival advantage to that particular creature if it doesn't react to the data being fed to it, in an environment where the only possible things interacting with it would be via predation or obstruction.

This scenario is apparently inaccurate, as the organism has survived to this point without vision of any sort.

Secondly, we're talking about a very simple organism here; reacting to simple stimuli in rote ways is pretty much what it's built for.

Interesting choice of words.

Do you understand just how fucking petty it is to ask questions about the thought processes of long dead animals?

I understand that you get nasty and use the dodgy emoticon when you can't answer a question.

As it stands, it's a simple matter of actually thinking about the mechanics of this: in a flat eyespot the only direction one can sense light is "forward" relative to you. With a cupped eyespot, light that would need to be directly ahead to register in a flat spot can now register earlier by hitting the edge of the cup, causing you to head toward a light that you might have missed entirely with the limited range of vision afforded by a flat eyespot. Even that limited scope is worth something.

I understand the mechanics of the cup. The question is, how does the organism know what to do with that information? A cup on my elbow is no more useful that a patch or single cell on my elbow, because the cell/patch/cup isn't wired to a part of my brain which can interpret the information, then direct other parts of my body to react in a certain way to that information.

Same way as with flat spots, only now over a wider area. This is actually in the resource I linked you,

Then you won't mind quoting it.

so it's interesting that you spent time looking at nitpicks, but not actually absorbing the information therein.

It's interesting that you spend time bitching about my questions, rather than quoting the parts of the link that supposedly answers them.

Let's be really clear, here: these organisms don't really "know" anything, they aren't that cognitively advanced. But in an environment like they were in, the organism that reacts by moving away from something blocking the light source avoids predators that others don't, and thus survives where they don't. Being careful is always an advantage, even if it's an autonomic, indiscriminate caution.

First, as noted above, they already had ways of avoiding predators, or they wouldn't have been there to begin with. Second, the thing blocking the light could be a food source, and by avoiding it where others don't, they starve. IOW, your predator scenario is simplistic.

According to the TO link I provided, "most neutral alleles are lost soon after they appear."

So?

So, it refutes the remark it responded to, unless you're merely hanging your hat on "after one generation."

Look, if the answer is "initially they developed through a random mutation via the imperfect replication of genomic data during reproduction," then that is the goddamn answer to the question. Don't then pretend that the answer hasn't been given because it's not guided and intentional enough for you. I'm expected to give the answer that's true, not the answer you'd like.

If you're going to overcome the irreducible complexity argument, I expect you to show step by step, with each step being sufficiently advantageous to be selected by natural selection.

Sorry, the fact that you don't understand evolution and neither do the ID fucktards doesn't suddenly make my argument wrong. Advantageous mutations have never been the only mutations to persist via evolution, and so to pretend that they must be in order to kowtow to your officious harping on individual words would simply be wrong.

But if you really think that saying that neutral mutations had a hand in the evolution of something is tantamount to calling it irreducibly complex because we're not attributing it all to advantageous mutations only, then you are gravely misunderstanding what the aim of intelligent design and irreducible complexity is, or you're just attempting to score points.

I quoted the wikipedia definition, and wiki is no friend of creationism.

I'm sorry that the argument isn't conveniently assailable to your incorrect stance on the matter, but that's what happens when you're right. You've basically come out and said that evolution as it actually happens in biology can't be correct because it's harder to argue against than your strawman version.

I quoted TO, an evolutionist source, on the fate of neutral mutations. You're angry that that doesn't fit with your understanding, but that's not my problem.

Besides, unlike the ID people, real science doesn't work by just making things up that might have happened and stopping there.

I'm not debating with a real scientist.

No, we actually have, like, data and observations that show how the eye evolved, not just a convenient story that's consistent.

It's so very telling that one of your contentions here is that my position is so general that if I were to just make things up it'd be easy, though. Emblematic of your approach to science, there.

seems to be your way of saying, Oh crap, I'm trapped, better go on the offensive to hide it.

If you really read up on these things, you'd know that scientists have had differing views on the role of genetic drift over the years. They really don't know how much of a role it plays.

[The Grand Nudger]

How does the organism know that a signal from one cell indicates one direction, while a signal from another indicates another direction?

It doesn't have to know anything. Again, phototropism. All that matters is that some effect is achieved. This effect can be and often is, mechanical. Tumblers in a lock. Auxin is photophobic, it doesn't know which direction light comes from, it doesnt even "know" it -is-, or where it is, it simply doesn't function in the presence of light and so anything that utilizes auxin as a growth hormone is capable of tracking the sun. To -us-, it seems like comprehension - and maybe we ought to give some serious thought to -our- "knowing" of things in this regard, rather than insist that it would be impossible or improbable for a plant to be able to do -precisely what we observe them doing- just because we can't spot a mechanism for "knowing". Knowing.....is.....not.......required. Understand?

If a photoreceptor was hooked or placed on the mechanism that tells a flagellum to move, the organism would move towards (or away) from light. It doesn't know what direction it';s moving in. It doesn't know that there is such a thing as "light" -or direction. It's just a signal - connected to anything capable of accepting input. When light hits it, the motor starts. Yes, this can lead to tragedy, in the same way that we are - as a function of being able to "know" able to be tricked. It doesn't matter whether or not any individuals strategy fails them, what matters is whether or not the strategy plays out in the positive over the population (leveraging this strategy) as a whole.

(circadian rhythms are also easily obtained without any knowing involved. Try this, only those creatures whose randomly generated rhythms lined up with when energy was actually available persist in the population over time. The rest, randomly trying to synthesize when there is nothing there to synthesize....have died)

[Esquilax]

This complaint was already addressed: "However, if you'd like to move forward in the timeline, that's fine."

Yeah, that's cool and all, just don't pretend there's a problem with my answer because it doesn't address things that weren't present in the initial question.

You can't have it both ways. What did you mean when you said that circadian rhythms are very easily obtained? Are those rhyttms inaccurate? If so, why would you say they're easily obtained?

Circadian rhythms aren't necessarily exacting, 24 hour clocks. That varies depending on the complexity of the organism's sense organs. They don't require light and dark- again, fetuses have them- but the presence of a detectable light/dark cycle allows for a more accurate rhythm to emerge. Multiple sensory inputs lead to a rhythm more in tune with what's actually happening in the environment, but you don't need sight to be able to have one, which is the answer to your initial question. Heat and cold could also work, since it gets colder at night, heats up during the day, etc etc... It's not a very sophisticated process.

No, I'm saying that I could have light sensitive cells on my elbow, but unless they're sending signals to my brain, and my brain can do something useful with that information, then those cells are of no advantage to me. You speak of predators - a predator could be coming at me from behind, and my elbow could detect its shadow. But, since my elbow isn't wired to vision centers of my brain, that does me no good.

First of all, if you have cells that can detect light but aren't wired to your brain, it's a moot point. They aren't light sensitive without sensing light.

Second, you are now looking at this process exactly the wrong way, when you start talking about brains and vision centers. Remember, this isn't very complex life we're talking about here, they don't have brains, and visual cortices and neural connections are things that evolved in tandem with the eye.All it would need to start out with is a simple motion response to light. It's not nearly as complicated as you're trying to characterize it, and again, only those organisms that had that response would derive any benefit from that trait. The ones that didn't died off.

This scenario is apparently inaccurate, as the organism has survived to this point without vision of any sort.

Which would be just fine, were its descendants not living in an environment where every other organism is evolving new traits. Stasis only works if everything remains static, but that's not the case.

And it's not a matter of just surviving, either. The point is that those organisms that developed visual acuity survived more often than those that didn't. Getting along just fine without eyes doesn't mean there's no room for improvement.

Interesting choice of words.

Cheap shots are cheap.

I understand that you get nasty and use the dodgy emoticon when you can't answer a question.

It's very hard to answer a question about what an extinct animal without a brain or consciousness as we understand it was thinking. Don't try to blame your ill formed questions on me.

I understand the mechanics of the cup. The question is, how does the organism know what to do with that information?

Evolved response. Those that could use that information, that had the simple reflexive process attached to their light detection capabilities survived, and those that didn't... did not.

A cup on my elbow is no more useful that a patch or single cell on my elbow, because the cell/patch/cup isn't wired to a part of my brain which can interpret the information, then direct other parts of my body to react in a certain way to that information.

Still looking at it backwards.

Then you won't mind quoting it.

There's a whole section on it, called "early eyes," that deals with that.

First, as noted above, they already had ways of avoiding predators, or they wouldn't have been there to begin with. Second, the thing blocking the light could be a food source, and by avoiding it where others don't, they starve. IOW, your predator scenario is simplistic.

But they could avoid predators better with light detection. It's about increasing the odds. And if I'm being simplistic, it's because this is a simple process to begin with. Yes, it gets more complex, especially as things develop, but I'm not going to be able to cover every eventuality as a layman, especially not in single posts.

So, it refutes the remark it responded to, unless you're merely hanging your hat on "after one generation."

Are you aware that individual mutations can arise multiple times, across multiple generations and species?

If you're going to overcome the irreducible complexity argument, I expect you to show step by step, with each step being sufficiently advantageous to be selected by natural selection.

Again, the fact that the ID folks don't understand evolution isn't my problem. Neutral mutations get selected for too, lethality is the only criteria for being selected against.

Not to mention the shameless shifting of the burden of proof in "overcoming the irreducible complexity argument." I know that whole thing is just an argument from incredulity, but the fact that it's impossible to provide evidence for doesn't mean we should just presume that it's true until evolution proves it wrong. Quit it with the fallacies.

I quoted the wikipedia definition, and wiki is no friend of creationism.

So are you actually telling me that you think that irreducible complexity, the position that something could not have evolved because to reduce it renders it non-functional, means that this thing could have evolved with a few neutral steps? Is that actually what you're telling me, that you think "irreducible complexity," means "reducible complexity."?

I quoted TO, an evolutionist source, on the fate of neutral mutations. You're angry that that doesn't fit with your understanding, but that's not my problem.

And the fact that TO also accepts that the eye evolved doesn't hint to you that maybe you've misunderstood something along the way? I fully accept that many mutations wither and fade, but "many" is not "all," repetitions happen, and so on and so forth.

I'm not debating with a real scientist.

You're also not debating real science, if your every response is just going to be to poke holes, with no positive evidence for your position at all.

seems to be your way of saying, Oh crap, I'm trapped, better go on the offensive to hide it.

Not at all. It's a simple, accurate statement: I don't need to make things up to prove my point, and I find it interesting that your first response was to expect that this would be an obvious tactic.

If you really read up on these things, you'd know that scientists have had differing views on the role of genetic drift over the years. They really don't know how much of a role it plays.

Sure, and that's fine. But there's always data points behind those differing views, observations and tests that led the science on that. What data can you produce to support irreducible complexity that isn't some variation on "I don't see how evolution could produce this, therefore designer"?