• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Darwin's Black Box

MDK

New Blood
M
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
7
I'm still new to these forums so appologies if this has been discussed before, but it's something I found interesting.

Thanks to my upbringing I've never looked on evolution as fact, and I've always found the fact that there is the so called missing-link, to be very convienient for evolutionists. So anyway, because I'm interested, I read a book recently entitled Darwin's Black Box (but sorry the book's packed away somewhere and I can't remember the author :o) and it put across what I saw as a very good argument against evolution being the mechanism for our 'creation'. Basically it was saying that certain systems (for example the coagulation cascade required for our blood to clot) could not have evolved because on the biochemical level it is 'irreducibly complex'.....I'll have to explain that :wink8:

If you take a mousetrap down to a very basic level as an example, you'll have a spring, some sort of device to trap the mouse, and the bait. The point is that that's the simpliest a mousetrap can be in order to work, and if you were missing one of those parts you would not have a useful trap. Right I hope that makes sense, because it's what I mean by irreducibly complex :) Anyway if we were to imagine a moustrap evolving by Darwins theories it would require all three parts to simultaneously come into existence. If only one or two of the parts came into existence, the moustrap would be useless so would not survive the moustrap equivalent of "survival of the fittest" ;)

Ok so if you then take that principle and apply it to a biological system, you'll find that many systems just could not have come into existence without entering the realm of mathematical impossibility. If I go back the example I gave of the coagulation system you'll find, on the biochemical level, loads of proteins each with a key role and controlling the whole process. Oh and please please forgive me for not being able to elaborate on the process itself but it is quite a large system to remember, and it would be boring anyway. The important part is that the very simpliest cascade system, that would be of some benefit to an organism, will always require more than one protein. Since each gene codes for a single protein that would mean several genes would be required to make up the system. Since evolution requires gene mutations, that would mean many mutations (and when you consider the complexity of a protein you're talking about a very large number here) would be required simultaneously for the system to be beneifical and therefore passed on. phew....

If you're still with me, how plausable does that now sound as a scientific theory? Consider also that biochemistry is a relatively new branch of science, and these facts are really only just being discovered. We haven't had time yet to fully integrate these new concepts into science as a whole, and that could be one reason why the theory of evolution hasn't been tossed out the window. Of course there could be something here that I'm missing, but that's why I'm posting here :) So has anyone read this book I'm talking about or at least can anyone see a flaw in the argument?

Oh and by the way, the author I think was Jewish, though I'm not sure, but he was arguing with science and no bible bashing, so it seemed very credible. Anyway what do you think?
 
MDK,

I have not read the book, but I am all too familiar with the "irreducible complexity" argument.

It is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. The person making the argument claims that he can not think of any way the biological system could have developed gradually, while at every step of the way still being a functional biological system.

Their lack of ability to imagine how the transition could be made does not constitute evidence that it can not be made. What's more, in many of the most popular examples (such as the eye), the process of development is actually pretty well understood. The people making the "irreducible complexity" argument just don't happen to know the explanation, so they assume there isn't one.

Your example of coagulation is such a case. Something to consider. Do you ever wonder why biologists don't consider this "irreducible complexity" issue to be a problem? Surely you must agree that they are far better qualified to evaluate whether a biological system is "irreducibly complex" than you are?

Consider also that biochemistry is a relatively new branch of science, and these facts are really only just being discovered. We haven't had time yet to fully integrate these new concepts into science as a whole, and that could be one reason why the theory of evolution hasn't been tossed out the window.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously suggesting that biochemists know that the coagulation system is irreducibly complex, and that it simply never occurred to any of them that this poses a problem for evolutionary theory? Are you seriously suggesting that biochemistry and evolutionary theory are completely separate fields of research?

The fact is that much of the advancement in evolutionary theory over the past several decades has come from biochemistry. The two fields are tightly connected. If there was any biochemical evidence against evolutionary theory, as you are suggesting, the evolutionary scientists would find out quite quickly.

You have been deceived. The people producing the vast majority of the anti-evolutionary propaganda, including the "irreducible complexity" argument, are frauds who deliberately misrepresent scientific facts in order to benefit their religious agenda. They know that the majority of people do not have the scientific background to see through their deception. Most people just see two groups of "scientists" disagreeing about something, and choose to believe whichever side is telling them what they want to hear.


Dr. Stupid
 
You might want to track down a copy of 'Behe's empty box' - I forget the author.
 
First of all thanks for the response, I wasn't expecting one so quick on a Sunday, and it's good to be able to discuss because it's been on my mind for a long time!

Anyway to answer some of your questions, yes I do often consider why biologists don't seem to take this seriously, but consider this (which I know you probably have already :)): have they so much faith in evolution that anything contrary to that belief is ignorance?

The people making the "irreducible complexity" argument just don't happen to know the explanation, so they assume there isn't one
Click to expand...

I take that point completely but the reverse can also be said, what makes us so sure there is an explanation? Has one been found, and if not has the irreducibly complex argument had any effect on the theory of evoltion?

Your example of coagulation is such a case. Something to consider. Do you ever wonder why biologists don't consider this "irreducible complexity" issue to be a problem? Surely you must agree that they are far better qualified to evaluate whether a biological system is "irreducibly complex" than you are?
Click to expand...

I actually consider myself to be suitably qualified, at least in human biology, to give this an objective look, and the book was more detailed about these systems than most text books I've seen even at university level. I'm also very careful about which facts I believe, but that must also include evolution. I've not let anything decieve me here, I'm looking for a a flaw in the argument, and can't see one yet.


What's more, in many of the most popular examples (such as the eye), the process of development is actually pretty well understood
Click to expand...

The development of the eye is understood yes, but the evolution of it is not because of this problem of irreducible complexity. Even the simpliest light sensitive spot will more than likely require several proteins to function, so the point made about the coagulation system applies to the eye as well.

The people producing the vast majority of the anti-evolutionary propaganda, including the "irreducible complexity" argument, are frauds who deliberately misrepresent scientific facts in order to benefit their religious agenda. They know that the majority of people do not have the scientific background to see through their deception
Click to expand...

There's a thread down a bit on this forum that illustrates the propaghanda nicely, and gave me a couple of laughs earlier on :) It's what prompted me to write this though because there did seem to be an atmosphere of "evolution is definately right" about it. That's also the reason I'm questioning the scientists involved in evoluntionary study, because I've found that attitude to prevail in many circles. Faith seems to be in our human nature, so we're just as prone to it as religious types, and I'm of the opinion, at the moment, that this is one case of faith in science.
 
MDK said:
First of all thanks for the response, I wasn't expecting one so quick on a Sunday, and it's good to be able to discuss because it's been on my mind for a long time!

Anyway to answer some of your questions, yes I do often consider why biologists don't seem to take this seriously, but consider this (which I know you probably have already :)): have they so much faith in evolution that anything contrary to that belief is ignorance?
Click to expand...
Biologists such as myself do not have "faith" in evolution. Faith is believe without evidence. There is a huge mountain of evidence for evolution, which is growing all the time.

Supposing you could shoot down evolution, what scientific hypothesis would you replace it with? (Hint: "Intelligent design" is not scientific).

There is plenty of evidence for the development of complex organs from simpler ones in the fossil record, for example the adaptation of the whale lineage to life in the ocean.

For biochemical processes, there are "molecular fossils" in the chromosomes of living things, showing how various genes shared ancestry.

An example: You, as a eukaryote ( Since you have familiarity with college level biology I'll assume you understand the terms I use) have two separate version of an enzyme named malate dehydrogenase, one resides inside your mitochondria and one out in the cytoplasm. They share the same function and the same overall structure, but their shared ancestry is so ancient that their sequence similarity has diverged to the point of randomness. And yet the two versions of the enzyme have noticable sequence similarity to bacterial versions of the enzyme. The mitchondrial version is related to malate dehydrogenase from one type of bacteria and the cytoplasmic version to another type of bacteria. The best way to explain this is that eukaryotes resulted from the merger of two different types of bacteria.
 
If someone were to accept this irreducible complexity idea and claims that it disproves evolution then it seems to me that it would also disprove the concept of God.

Wouldn't God also be irreducibly complex? God must have been created by another God who was also created by a previous God etc. etc.

Just my 2 cents worth
 
I've always liked this site. It gives a simple, clear explanation of how evolution can, in fact, produce what Behe defines as irreducibly complex.

Of course, the exact creationist definition of IC is just like the exact creationist definition of 'information', or 'kind' - there isn't one.
 
RoadToNoReturn said:
Wouldn't God also be irreducibly complex? God must have been created by another God who was also created by a previous God etc. etc
Click to expand...
You underestimate the creationist's capacity for special pleading when it comes to dicussing their choice of deity.
 
Biologists such as myself do not have "faith" in evolution. Faith is believe without evidence. There is a huge mountain of evidence for evolution, which is growing all the time.
Click to expand...

I'm glad there are some scientists who don't have faith but there is no definate evidence for evolution, only what has been interpretted as evidence for it. What I'm getting at is that yes there's a lot out there pointing to evolution but if something actually disproves evolution (such as this irreducibly complex argument ;) would do if it were true) then all that we thought was evidence would just be a load of misinterpretted facts.

Supposing you could shoot down evolution, what scientific hypothesis would you replace it with? (Hint: "Intelligent design" is not scientific).
Click to expand...

That's the thing isn't it, what would we replace it by, and is that the reason we don't want to debunk it? Evolution is our first scientific step away from the belief that a deity was responsable for our creation, but could we be mistaken? If you consider the history of medicine for example, our first step away from believing the gods caused all illness, was the theory of 4 humours. That theory was around for centuries until someone (was it Galen?) re-examined the 'evidence' and took us a step further along the way. That theory had a lot of intelligent people fooled for a very long time. So my point is that until there is definate evidence for evolution, and no missing link, we cannot use the mountain of evidence to debunk this irreducably complex idea.

Ok well thanks everyone who gave me links, I've not managed to get through them all yet, but what I have seen has certainly been food for thought. I've still not seen anything though that has actually shown Behe's (and I'm thinking now that it probably was his book that I was reading) examples to be wrong. I've was intrigued by this site but I read it very objectively and I have to say there's nothing there that disproves what Behe has suggested. I will elaborate on that later, after I've read it again as well, but I've got to go make the dinner so it'll have to wait :)
 
have they so much faith in evolution that anything contrary to that belief is ignorance?
Click to expand...
As pointed out earlier, faith has nothing to do with it. Belief has nothing to do with it. There is evidence of evolution.

Look at the evidence, examine it, think about it, try to come up with viable alternatives, examine them, dismiss them when and only when the evidence does not support them. Basic science.

I'm glad there are some scientists who don't have faith but there is no definate evidence for evolution, only what has been interpretted as evidence for it
Click to expand...
All we have to go on for any theory is our interpretation of evidence.
 
MDK,

Behe is not to be taken seriously because his ideas boil down to two well-worn and discredited ways of looking at the physical world.


1. Argument from ignorance - "I just can't see how .."

2. God-of-the-gaps - "Science can't explain how {insert favourite biochemical cascade} evolved therfore God did it"

Accept these arguments if you wish, but they explain nothing. How could any scientist be satisfied with them?
 
MDK said:

What I'm getting at is that yes there's a lot out there pointing to evolution but if something actually disproves evolution (such as this irreducibly complex argument ;) would do if it were true) then all that we thought was evidence would just be a load of misinterpretted facts.
Click to expand...

Irreducible complexity is not a scientific concept. There is no test for whether or not something is irreducibly complex - you can prove something isn't, but there is no possible proof that something IS irreducibly complex. You necessarily run into the problem that Stimpy mentioned, that you can't know if you're just unable to figure out the steps. Irreducible complexity is not a scientific concept. So you cannot look to irreducible complexity to disprove evolution, even if evolution is wrong.

I also think you're not really thinking about the development of science correctly. Consider, for example, Newtonian physics. It has mountains of supporting evidence, but it's wrong. But the thing is, it's not TOTALLY wrong. It works well in most cases, and it serves as an excellent approximation for physics on the human scale. The advent of quantum mechanics and relativity do not mean that Newtonian physics gets thrown out the window. If anything "disproves" darwinian evolution, it's likely to be a similar progression: darwinian evolution has a lot of evidence backing it up, and though it may be replaced by some refined theory, it is not likely to be thrown out completely. Those wishing to "disprove" evolution are on a misguided mission, and aren't likely to get anywhere.


That's the thing isn't it, what would we replace it by, and is that the reason we don't want to debunk it? Evolution is our first scientific step away from the belief that a deity was responsable for our creation, but could we be mistaken?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that darwinian evolution is not the only, or even the first, model for evolution. One of the prototypical examples of an earlier theory was that giraffes, for example, elongated their next by straining to reach high branches, and that this elongation would then be passed down to the next generation. We know this theory of evolution is wrong, because we now know how traits are passed from one generation to the next (genes). The thing to keep in mind, though is that this was a scientific theory, because it could be (and was) falsified. And although it was wrong, it did contain an idea that DID last, that we do have solid evidence for, namely that species have changed over time. Similarly, if we ever replace darwinian evolution, whatever succeeds it will probably still contain many of its elements.


So my point is that until there is definate evidence for evolution, and no missing link, we cannot use the mountain of evidence to debunk this irreducably complex idea.
Click to expand...

We don't need to debunk irreducible complexity, because it's not a scientific theory. There IS no possible test to disprove it, so it cannot be scientific. That's the whole point. There is evidence for evolution (never look for "proof" in science, you can only find disproof), but more importantly, there are tests which could disprove evolution.

Irreducible complexity is an interesting idea, but always keep in mind that that's all it is, it is NOT a scientific theory. You can never know the difference between something being truly irreducibly complex or just being too complex for you (or me, or whoever) to figure out how it could evolve.
 
MDK said:
I'm glad there are some scientists who don't have faith but there is no definate evidence for evolution, only what has been interpretted as evidence for it.
Click to expand...
I'm not a scientist, I am Philosophy teacher, I consider myself pretty good at finding a logical inconsistancy in any flawed arguement. I do have my training in biology so I'll add a bit of my input.

I'm not sure how you define "definate evidence".

What I'm getting at is that yes there's a lot out there pointing to evolution but if something actually disproves evolution (such as this irreducibly complex argument ;) would do if it were true) then all that we thought was evidence would just be a load of misinterpretted facts.
Click to expand...
There are also a lot of misinterpretted analogies. The Mouse Trap analogy is no exception.

I dont believe the Mouse Trap analogy and the "Missing Link" example you referenced above are analogous. If you were to take the Philosophical Transcendental approach, you could reasonably argue "A mouse trap at its simplest works because all the parts operate in harmony with one another, but if I am unaware of the spring in a mousetrap it will not work". You dont have to have Doctorate in Philosophy (or even mediocre understanding of Transcendental arguements) to see how both analogies are inherently flawed.

And remember, analogies are designed to clarify a point, they are not meant to be interpreted as "debunk".

The "irreducibly complex" arguement does not "prove evolution wrong". As mentioned many times before, it is the Arguement From Ignorance approach ("I dont know how it happens..."). It is also combined with God Of The Gaps ("Science can't explain how {insert favourite biochemical cascade} evolved therfore God did it"). Furthermore, most creationists try to use the "Too Cool To Be True" explanation (example: DNA forming by chance is such a remote impossibility, its stupid to assume it couldnt have happened without aid from a supreme being). Another popular "disproof" of evolution is Fideism, Reliance on faith alone rather than scientific reasoning or philosophy in questions of religion (or what I like to call the "stick your head in the sand and ignore all the evidence around you" arguement). All forms of those kinds of "reasoning" are invalid because they are not based on science, empirical data, or even logic.

Finally, if you can find something that disproves evolution, you cannot logically come to the conclusion that "creationism" is the answer.

That's the thing isn't it, what would we replace it by, and is that the reason we don't want to debunk it?
Click to expand...
That is irresponsible method of reasoning and it underminds the integrity of scientists.

Scientists want to prove their theories wrong (I dont have the time or patience right now to explain it, but there was an incident where Interesting Ian exercised a bit of naive thinking when he didnt understand why scientists want to try to prove their theories wrong).

Evolution is our first scientific step away from the belief that a deity was responsable for our creation, but could we be mistaken?
Click to expand...
Most intelligent atheists already realize the "what if we are wrong" scenario. But again, the "what if we are wrong" scenario is not a way to justify a belief.

Furthermore, if someone doesnt believe in God, the "what if we are wrong" scenario isnt going to make them believe.

If you consider the history of medicine for example, our first step away from believing the gods caused all illness, was the theory of 4 humours. That theory was around for centuries until someone (was it Galen?) re-examined the 'evidence' and took us a step further along the way. That theory had a lot of intelligent people fooled for a very long time. So my point is that until there is definate evidence for evolution, and no missing link, we cannot use the mountain of evidence to debunk this irreducably complex idea.
Click to expand...
I think your reasoning is flawed and presumptuous.
 
If you want to "prove evolution wrong", Its my opinion that you wont get very far. Perhaps you could consider this quote:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory [of natural selection] would absolutely break down. --Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Click to expand...
 
MDK said:

I'm glad there are some scientists who don't have faith but there is no definate evidence for evolution, only what has been interpretted as evidence for it.

There is a whole heaping load of evidence, waving your hand will not make it go away.

What I'm getting at is that yes there's a lot out there pointing to evolution but if something actually disproves evolution (such as this irreducibly complex argument ;) would do if it were true) then all that we thought was evidence would just be a load of misinterpretted facts.

As mentioned already by several people, the irreducable complexity argument is not evidence, it is an absence of evidence, i.e. an argument from ignorance. Perhaps if we find a creature with "not a product of evolution" stamped on its backside, is that what you are looking for?

That's the thing isn't it, what would we replace it by, and is that the reason we don't want to debunk it?

"Don't want to debunk it"? Ha, ha, ha! Scientists love shooting down existing theories, that's how they become famous. But it's so much harder if the theory you are trying to disprove is true. And if you don't have any evidence to back up your argument, the only responses you can expect are laughter or pity.

Evolution is our first scientific step away from the belief that a deity was responsable for our creation, but could we be mistaken?

Not by a long shot. The whole history of science shows a diminishment of the supernatural explanation. Examples: The Earth orbits the sun instead of vice versa, proving the Earth is not the center of the Universe. The Universe is really really big, lessening the chances that mankind is anything special. The Universe is a whole heckuva lot older than 6000 years, meaning that certain religious stories simply cannot be true. Biological organisms run on metabolism, there is no "life force". etc. etc. etc.

If you consider the history of medicine for example, our first step away from believing the gods caused all illness, was the theory of 4 humours. That theory was around for centuries until someone (was it Galen?) re-examined the 'evidence' and took us a step further along the way. That theory had a lot of intelligent people fooled for a very long time. So my point is that until there is definate evidence for evolution, and no missing link, we cannot use the mountain of evidence to debunk this irreducably complex idea.

As for debunking specific examples of the irreducible complexity argument, check out the Talk.origins site. If someone can come up with a plausible explanation for any of the posited complex mechanisms, they are debunked. Maybe their explanation will prove to be correct, maybe not, but any explanation is more productive than throwing up your hands and saying "God must have done it". What e3xperiment would that lead to? This has been done with a great many of the examples suggested by Creationists. Do some reading on bombadier beetles, for instance.

What do you mean "no missing link"? Plenty of "missing links have been found; get thee to a natural history museum. Of course, once a link has been found, it's not missing any more is it?


Ok well thanks everyone who gave me links, I've not managed to get through them all yet, but what I have seen has certainly been food for thought. I've still not seen anything though that has actually shown Behe's (and I'm thinking now that it probably was his book that I was reading) examples to be wrong. I've was intrigued by this site but I read it very objectively and I have to say there's nothing there that disproves what Behe has suggested. I will elaborate on that later, after I've read it again as well, but I've got to go make the dinner so it'll have to wait :)
Click to expand...
Declaring victory is shallow and pointless until you have won victory. You have not.
 
I think I'm reasonably justified in saying "Game, Set, Match, Penguin wins"...
 
arcticpenguin said:
Of course, once a link has been found, it's not missing any more is it?
Click to expand...
Worse than that: once a link is found, you've got two more missing links to look for, one on either side :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom