Can ID be disproven?

[Meadmaker]

Sorry, but this is too much repeat theatre. We've been through all the definitions already. They are contradictory. Saying that removing a part means the system can't perform any function is different from saying that it can't perform its original function.

Anyway, what difference does it make? Until IDers can point to an irreducibly complex system, we could have 40 different definitions.

~~ Paul

You have pointed to one and only one link. On it were two different defintions, which were in agreement. However, your post did make me realize I misunderstood Dembski's definition, and thought that the "and therefore original" was important. Now I realize that the "original" purpose is simply the one it performed with all of its parts.

Last week, I discovered that there was a hole in the pants that went with my best suit. The suit is ruined. As a suit, it was an irreducibly complex system. And that suit is no longer made. It was last year's model. I can still wear the jacket as a sportcoat, and I can still use the pants as a dust rag. The components still serve a function, but they cannot perform their original function, which was as a suit. The irreducibly complex system of a suit does not function without the missing pants. However, the component parts could perform functions before they were a suit, and after they ceased being a suit.

You might have better luck attacking the "function" aspect of the defintion as it applies to biological systems. Is the "function" of my liver really to remove toxins from my blood, or does the liver just sit there minding its own business, obeying the laws of physics? It doesn't have any real function. After I die, its "function" will be to decompose into some foul-smelling components. This whole idea of structure, function, and purpose, or even boundaries of biological systems is an illusion anyway. There is no "function" to a liver, or any coherent notion of a single organism anyway.

But if you say that sort of thing, everyone would be up in arms. "You can't teach Buddhism in schools!"

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You have pointed to one and only one link. On it were two different defintions, which were in agreement. However, your post did make me realize I misunderstood Dembski's definition, and thought that the "and therefore original" was important. Now I realize that the "original" purpose is simply the one it performed with all of its parts.

So you're okay with the definition that says that an IC system with a component removed doesn't perform its original function (as opposed to any function)? If you're okay with that, so am I. But it's a huge duh, no? Of course it doesn't perform its original function. Why is that interesting with respect to evolution?

Last week, I discovered that there was a hole in the pants that went with my best suit. The suit is ruined. As a suit, it was an irreducibly complex system. And that suit is no longer made. It was last year's model. I can still wear the jacket as a sportcoat, and I can still use the pants as a dust rag. The components still serve a function, but they cannot perform their original function, which was as a suit. The irreducibly complex system of a suit does not function without the missing pants. However, the component parts could perform functions before they were a suit, and after they ceased being a suit.

This is a pathetic example of an IC system. Is that the best you can do? You can use the pants as pants, my friend, as long as you don't worry about the hole. It serves its original function pretty well. Most animals don't care if their pants look perfect, except possibly for Spongebob.


~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

Hopeful monsters

Hi,
There seems to be some confusion about the use of the phrase "hopeful monsters".

To clarify
a) Large genetic changes aren't necessarily required to produce large phenotypic changes.
b) "hopeful" is a metaphorical term implying that there may be a fortuitous matching of the mutant with changing enviromental conditions, there is nothing 'anticipatory' about it either from the mutant's (or its parents') viewpoint or from an external directing 'force'.

This site might explain it better:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html

-----

Can someone go through Bronzedog's five potential falsifications of TOE and explain/ provide examples of why they would falsify TOE?

Cheers

 

[drkitten]

When I was in physics back in college, my physics prof discussed the michelson-morley experiment, and how Einstein formulated his theory of relativity starting from that experiment. The prof said that prior to the M-M experiment, the prevailing theory, and he used that word, was that there was something called ether through which light propogated.

Presumably my physics prof is an ignorant doofus who should be ignored. He doesn't even understand how to use the word "theory".

Actually, I'd suggest someone else is the ignorant doofus here. Someone who doesn't recognize the significance of the word "well-substantiated" in Mojo's definition:

A "theory," as far as the use of the word in science is concerned, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. Astrology is not substantiated by decent evidence, and never was.

The ether theory of light was well-substantiated during the late 1800s; there was a fairly large body of experimental evidence supporting it and a fairly large number of successful predictions made using it. New evidence was amassed (including the M-M experiment) that appeared to contradict the ether theory of light, and so it was no longer well-substantiated when the new information was taken into account.

At no point since the word "astrology" took on its present maning, has astrology been "well-substantiated."

Behe acknowledged this very fact in his testimony, but insisted that a theory need not be well-substantiated. This is, bluntly, the statement of an idiot, but absolutely necessary for the acceptance of his claims, because his claims have also never been well-substantiated since they were proposed.

Teaching ID in biology class, by Behe's own admission, is exactly as superficial, ill-thought-out, and contrary to good educational policy as teaching astrology in a cosmology class.

 

[Meadmaker]

So you're okay with the definition that says that an IC system with a component removed doesn't perform its original function (as opposed to any function)?

Yes.

But it's a huge duh, no? Of course it doesn't perform its original function. Why is that interesting with respect to evolution?

There are an awful lot of huge duhs in this conversation, and in the general discussion of evolution and ID. An awful lot of what the ID crowd is saying is quite simple, but it gets caught up in a lot of gobbledygook. Some of that gobbledygook comes from their own use of non-standard terms. Some of it comes from their allies, who cite their work to support stuff, like creationism, that isn't in their work. Some more of that gobbledygook comes about when their critics accuse them of saying things that they never said.

So, as free of gobbledygook as we can get, why is an IC system interesting to evolution?

An IC system can't be developed by natural selection, unless cooption occurs. Evolutionary biologists agree with that. Behe and Dembski say that as well, although they talk about "direct Darwinian pathways" and "indirect Darwinian pathways". A direct Darwinian pathway is one with no cooption. An indirect pathway has cooption.

As best I can tell, the whole of the ID argument is then about the probability that a system will arise by cooption. Dembski and Behe argue that this probability is incredibly small, unless divine intervention guides the process. Evolutionary biologists say the probability is very large, as evidenced by the fact that it has happened a whole lot, and they don't believe divine intervention is needed.

Can either side prove its case? No.


I've talked a lot about the compatibility of ID and theistic evolution, and how ID is not just creationism. Many of you just think that's ridiculous. My favorite quote was from someone, I can't remember who, who said something like, "No matter how often you say it, it won't be true." Well, how about if Dembski says it? If Dembski says they are compatible, would anyone acknowledge that they are compatible?

Here's a quote from Dembski I found interesting.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.11.Matzke_Response.htm

Notwithstanding, I'm happy to grant Matzke all the homologues he wants as well as the ancestral type III secretion system to start his model rolling. That's not where the problem lies for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum. Indeed, there are forms of intelligent design that require the same concession. Matzke at one point in his article refers to the "antievolutionary 'Intelligent Design' movement." Conjoining the term "antievolution" with the term "Intelligent Design" has become a useful rhetorical ploy by Darwinists for discrediting intelligent design but in fact is quite misleading. Michael Behe, the best known proponent of intelligent design, holds to universal common descent. He is as much an evolutionist as Matzke. Where they differ is on how evolution brought about biological complexity. For Matzke and the majority of biologists, the Darwinian mechanism is all that's required. For Behe, some form of intelligent guidance is additionally required. But clearly, if the bacterial flagellum is evolving under intelligent guidance, then existing designed structures are fair game for co-option into newly designed structures. Insofar as intelligent design is a theory of evolution, it is a theory of technological evolution, and technologies evolve by taking advantage of existing technologies. Thus co-option will play as important a role in any intelligent design models for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum as in Matzke's Darwinian model.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

An IC system can't be developed by natural selection, unless cooption occurs. Evolutionary biologists agree with that. Behe and Dembski say that as well, although they talk about "direct Darwinian pathways" and "indirect Darwinian pathways". A direct Darwinian pathway is one with no cooption. An indirect pathway has cooption.

Okay, we agree to this definition:

"A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system."

So we also agree that the human blood clotting system in not IC, right?

Do we also agree that the eye is not IC? Or is the addition of a pinhole over a light-sensitive patch a cooption event?

In other words, what is the definition of "original function"?

And I still don't understand why this requires intelligent intervention.

~~ Paul

 

[Mojo]

So you're okay with the definition that says that an IC system with a component removed doesn't perform its original function (as opposed to any function)?

I've been thinking about this apparent redefining of IC.

I thought that the IDers' original reason for invoking IC was that they claimed that IC structures cannot have evolved because if you remove bits, what you are left with doesn't have a function, and therefore could not have evolved by natural selection. If they've changed their definition of IC so that it now means structures that merely can't fulfil their current function if bits are removed, but the individual components of which can have other functions, this means that the components for the IC structure could have evolved, and the whole idea of IC becomes useless to the IDers' argument.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Seems that way to me, Mojo.

Even using the old definition, what's the problem? You have system X that performs some function. Then you add component y so the system performs its function better. Then you change the context in which the system operates so that the original X won't do anything at all. Then X+y is IC according to the original definition, but it evolved just fine.

I swear these guys have no imagination.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

It seems to me that the Behe etal argue more along the lines that IC systems are so complex that the chance of random mutations providing the genotype required is basically nil, while The Theory defenders state the probability must be significant, as a multitude of such genotypes and resulting phenotypes clearly exist now and in the past.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hammegk is exactly right.

So we also agree that the human blood clotting system in not IC, right?

Do we also agree that the eye is not IC? Or is the addition of a pinhole over a light-sensitive patch a cooption event?

In other words, what is the definition of "original function"?

We agree on the definition.

"Original function" means the function it performed as a system, before you took out its parts.

It really is a great big duh, as you said it. It's not some intensely profound discovery. An IC system is a system that won't work if you take out some of it.

"I used to surf the internet on the PC in the corner, but then the 80286 CPU failed. Now I stack books on it." That PC was irreducibly complex, despite a few things. If the floppy drive had failed, it would still be able to surf the net. It was originally manufactured to do something other than surf the net. After it could no longer surf the net, it could still do something else. It was possible to do other things with it than surf the net. However, for the user of the PC, its function was to surf the net, but when the CPU failed, it couldn't surf the net anymore.

There's nothing tricky about this. Don't read too much into the definition of IC. There's nothing there.

And the blood clotting system is IC. Take out some of its parts, and it won't clot blood. The only "revision" in the definition between Behe and Dembski that you linked to was because some moron tried to make it complicated. The process went something like this:

Behe: "A system is irreducibly complex if it needs all of its parts to work. A mousetrap is irreducibly complex because it consists of a spring, a platform, a base, and some cheese. If you remove any one component, it can't catch mice."

Moron: "Aha. However, my mousetrap is painted! But it can still catch mice without the paint! It can't be IC."

Behe: "Well, I suppose so, I just meant that there are pieces that are important. Take away one of the important parts and it can't function"

Moron: "But if the spring is removed, it makes an excellent cheese tray! In fact, it makes an even better cheese tray, because you don't have to worry about getting your fingers chopped off! It still functions fine. It can't be IC."

Dembski: "OK. Great. A system is IC if it contains some really important parts, and if you remove those really important parts, it stops working the way it did back when it had the important parts. We'll call the important parts the 'irreducible core'."

That's it, and I would be very surprised if you could find fourty different defintions, or if you find two that had any significant differences.

 

[Meadmaker]

If they've changed their definition of IC so that it now means structures that merely can't fulfil their current function if bits are removed, but the individual components of which can have other functions, this means that the components for the IC structure could have evolved, and the whole idea of IC becomes useless to the IDers' argument.

And Messrs Behe and Dembski agree with you, except for the useless part.

Then, their argument is that although they could have evolved, they probably didn't, without help.

Now, to decide who's right, compute the probability. Any takers?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

"Original function" means the function it performed as a system, before you took out its parts.

The generic function, the specific function, or the specific implementation of the function? Is the dolphin's blood clotting system performing the "original function" of the human blood clotting system?

You're convincing yourself that the definition of IC is crisp by ignoring the details.

"I used to surf the internet on the PC in the corner, but then the 80286 CPU failed. Now I stack books on it." That PC was irreducibly complex, despite a few things. If the floppy drive had failed, it would still be able to surf the net. It was originally manufactured to do something other than surf the net. After it could no longer surf the net, it could still do something else. It was possible to do other things with it than surf the net. However, for the user of the PC, its function was to surf the net, but when the CPU failed, it couldn't surf the net anymore.

Your examples have nothing to do with IC as Behe defined it. He was talking about molecular systems, not computers. It is patently obvious that if you remove a large enough component of anything, it won't work anymore.

And the blood clotting system is IC. Take out some of its parts, and it won't clot blood.

Sure it will. The dolphin manages to clot its blood.

We appear to agree that, whatever the definition of IC, it has nothing to do with evolution. I guess we can leave it at that.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now, to decide who's right, compute the probability. Any takers?

Apparently not even Dembski, since he's never done it.

Me: Have you ever computed the probability of the formation of the flagellum?

Dembski: No.

Me: Why?

Dembski: Hard.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

Apparently not even Dembski, since he's never done it.

Me: Have you ever computed the probability of the formation of the flagellum?

Dembski: No.

Me: Why?

Dembski: Hard.

~~ Paul

Exactly! That's it. The rest is highfallutin gobbledygook. Dembski and Behe basically say, "Hard, but we're certain it must be really, really, small."

 

[drkitten]

Behe: "Well, I suppose so, I just meant that there are pieces that are important. Take away one of the important parts and it can't function"

Moron: "But if the spring is removed, it makes an excellent cheese tray! In fact, it makes an even better cheese tray, because you don't have to worry about getting your fingers chopped off! It still functions fine. It can't be IC."

Dembski: "OK. Great. A system is IC if it contains some really important parts, and if you remove those really important parts, it stops working the way it did back when it had the important parts. We'll call the important parts the 'irreducible core'."

That's it.

And unfortunately, this simple example completely disproves ID as an alternative to evolution. Because if you accept that a mousetrap without a spring is a useful cheese tray, it follows immediately that I can build a moustrap out of an appropriate cheese tray and a spring, which provides an evolutionary path to construct a mousetrap via evolutionary natural selection.

Nothing in evolutionary theory prevents a structure evolved for one purpose from being coopted for another -- I've already given you the example of the swim bladder becoming a lung, which is no more radical than a cheese tray becoming a mousetrap. If you allow that subsets or modifications of the "irreducible core" are still useful, just in a different context, then ID has absolutely nothing to offer even as an argument against evolution.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Exactly! That's it. The rest is highfallutin gobbledygook. Dembski and Behe basically say, "Hard, but we're certain it must be really, really, small."

Notice how I didn't even have to mention irreducible complexity in my ingenious summary of the entire ID debate.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

And unfortunately, this simple example completely disproves ID as an alternative to evolution.

Did you read the Dembski quote talking about Behe? ID is not an alternative to evolution. At least according to Behe and Dembski.

 

[drkitten]

Did you read the Dembski quote talking about Behe? ID is not an alternative to evolution. At least according to Behe and Dembski.

To what, then, was Behe proposing ID as an "alternative" to in his paper entitled "Intelligent Design as an Alternative Explanation for the Existence of Biomolecular Machines"?

What was Behe testifying about when he said (Day 10, pm session, pp 102-3)

For the past number of, past hour or so we've been talking about the argument against Darwinian processes, but I want to re-emphasize to say that it is important to keep in mind that the positive inductive argument for design is in the purposeful arrangement of parts.

Irreducible complexity, on the other hand, is an argument to show that Darwinism, the presumptive alternative to design, is an unlikely explanation."

On the one hand, "Darwinism" (which is of course creationist-speak for "evolution"), and on the other hand, the "presumptive alternative" is design.

Similarly, Behe testifies (Day 11, pm, p. 82) that:

The idea of common descent does not go, in my view, so directly to the question of the purposeful arrangement of parts. But nonetheless, as a part of Darwinian theory, it is required much more for Darwinian theory.... Pandas is making a negative argument against common descent to show the plausbility to greater -- more greatly enhance the plausibility of the alternative of intelligent design.

Shall I keep digging out quotes? There's three days of Behe's testimony alone, plus all the other writings.

 

[sphenisc]

I think the confusion here is between ID as an alternative to evolution when explaining an individual observation, and ID as an alternative to evolution as a general explanation of the diversity of life.

[Analogy warning] I'm went home last night, one explanation of how I did it is "The theory of bus", an alternative theory is "The theory of car". This isn't meant to imply that everybody in the world went home last night according to only one of these theories (though in the ID/evolution case its probably true - guess which?).

 

[PatKelley]

I think the confusion here is between ID as an alternative to evolution when explaining an individual observation, and ID as an alternative to evolution as a general explanation of the diversity of life.

[Analogy warning] I'm went home last night, one explanation of how I did it is "The theory of bus", an alternative theory is "The theory of car". This isn't meant to imply that everybody in the world went home last night according to only one of these theories (though in the ID/evolution case its probably true - guess which?).

Ah, so you state that it --- wait, you didn't say anything.

How is it under that bridge, hmmm?