|
Author
|
Topic: Michael Behe's Mousetrap Revisited
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 12. December 2004 15:50
In his book "Darwin's Black Box", Michael Behe discusses what he refers to as "irreducible complexity". He defines IC as "a single system, 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". He goes on to say that "an irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly...by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional".
He should have seen it coming. The critics had a field day with this because he handed them on a silver platter the means to defeat his claim. All the detractors had to do was to show that even if a part is removed some function, perhaps a different function, still remains and that there can be a workable but simpler form of the system. One can readily see by the most cursory of examinations that you could easily remove certain parts and still have a device that would perform some function. Clearly Behe's mousetrap is not irreducibly complex when measured against the definition that he provided. Behe missed the boat by measuring irreducibly complexity against simpler, non-functional systems. He approached the problem backwards by saying that if any part was removed the system would become non-functional. He should have known better.
But Behe was right about one thing. The mousetrap is unevolvable by random, non-directed, accidental processes but not for the reason he provided. The reason for this is that a mousetrap has a quality called organization, which is much different from complexity or order. The difference between intelligently designed systems and those systems which are the result of random processes lies in the fact that randomly generated systems do not adapt means to ends, they do not adapt structure and process to function and they do not self-organize. And one must be careful not to confuse organization with order. There's a lot of talk about ordered systems in the non-living world, snowflakes, tornadoes, etc. but this is not the issue. Intelligently designed systems are beyond order, which is simply a condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group. Like putting files in alphabetical order or using a sieve to separate items by size. Or complexity, which is easily attainable by ordinary physical processes and can be generated with very little information. One of the most complex structures in mathematics, the Mandelbrot set, can be easily generated by iterating a simple equation.
Organization is a much different structure in which something is made up of elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions, such as exist in living organisms. Ordered systems can result from non-intelligent processes, as has been seen many times and cited by the examples given. But organized systems require intelligent guidance. They need to be put together with intent and their assembly requires insight. They need to be the product of intelligence because it is necessary to determine if they are functioning properly and that can only be achieved by insight. Since living systems display organization, they display means adapted to ends and structures and processes assembled to perform specific functions, it becomes self-evident that they are the product of a higher intelligence.
Each part of the mousetrap, the platform, the holding bar, the spring, the hammer and the catch each have specific functions. And each of these functions are organized in such a way that they support the functions of the other parts and the overall function of the mousetrap, which is to catch mice. The function of the platform is to hold the parts, but it's there ultimately to facilitate the process of mouse catching. The function of the spring is to exert a force on the hammer, but it's ultimate goal is to enable the process of mouse catching. All of the parts have functions that not only support the other functions, but ultimately support the overall function of the device. This type of organization is not obtainable without insight, and insight always requires intelligence. There is no way that these parts could be assembled in such a manner without insight. A mousetrap is a simple machine, made up of several structures and processes and exists for a purpose. The construction of the mousetrap was initiated with intent, and fashioned for a purpose.
Living organisms are similarly machines, with structures and processes that work together to create a function. In fact, all complex, highly organized machines in which means are adapted to ends are the product of intelligent design. The important point is that the adaptation of means to ends, the adaptation of structure and process to function requires insight. Behe's mousetrap is unevolvable, not because you can't take it apart without it losing it's function, it's unevolvable because you can't put it together in the first place using only random, non-directed, accidental occurrences. The selection of the parts, the configuration in which they're aligned, their function with respect to the functions of the other parts, the assembly into one unit, all require intelligent decisions at every step of the way.
Similarly, living organisms show the same characteristics. It's not that you can't remove parts and lose total function, it's that you can't explain how these particular parts emerged, how they were assembled from raw materials, why they were selected, how they were integrated together in just such a way that they successfully perform the function of maintaining the living state without invoking an intelligent agent.
Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com
http://www.charliewagner.com
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. December 2004 09:47
My own position is that Intelligent Design, like organic evolution is self-evident and, as such, not subject to debate. Of course many would not agree with my posture but it remains in accord with the Prescibed Evolutionary Hypothesis which Micah was kind enough to introduce here for discussion.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 13. December 2004 12:42
John,
Thanks for the reply. I looked at your web site and I read one of your papers. I plan to read the others as time permits. I was intrigued by your hypotheses, although I have not reached any conclusions. It appears that we have a lot in common with respect to our views.
I wrote the following a few years ago in talk.origins:
"...my belief is that the process we call evolution is the unfolding of a program that is already present in the genome and was present at the time it first arrived on the earth. Living systems are very close to being completely self-replicating automatons that have the ability to store and to duplicate (and possibly create)
information. The living organism is an automatic factory that is programmed from the stored information to construct all of the other components it needs as well as making more copies of itself. The information necessary to create every living thing that ever existed on the earth and to construct all of it's necessary components and then to duplicate itself is contained in less than 10^-13 gram of DNA, many degrees of magnitude smaller than any functional component ever built by humans. The presence of consciousness and the ability to reason and communicate extends these abilities to even greater potential. There is absolutely no way in the universe that these effects have as their cause, a mechanism as trivial as darwin proposed. To conclude that the biochemical machines that are living organisms are the result of coding errors and selection is simply...ridiculous."
[ 13. December 2004, 18:07: Message edited by: Charlie Wagner ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. December 2004 18:26
Well Charles
I sure have to agree with your appraisal of the Darwinian model. A major, but by no means the only, reason I proposed the PEH is because of the remarkable parallels that have existed between marsupial and placental forms. I feel that the simoplest explanation for this is that they were both reading the same preformed blueprints. That of course in not subject to formal proof as yet, but it may someday be. I find the idea of a creative intelligence, intrinsic in the living creature, a little difficult to accept, but I certainly would not rule it out. In any event I see no role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.
Thanks for the input.
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 15. December 2004 06:06
My view is that, while linear and statistical processes of the type proposed by Darwin cannot successfully explain evolution, further research into far-from-equilibrium self-organization processes (clearly evident, for example, in embryology and, indeed, in the facts of evolution itself) will provide increasing scientific understanding of evolution without having to introduce an Intelligent Designer as a scientific explanation. Nevertheless I also feel that the Intelligent Design hypothesis will prove vital in explaining the rich teleological ("bracket out the object") world that is closely analogical to the scientific ("bracket out the subject") world. (See, for example, my book FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM.)
IP: Logged
|
|
John Bracht
Member
Member # 5
|
posted 15. December 2004 15:45
Charlie,
Your post was interesting, and I'm wondering if you can formulate a better definition of irreducible complexity than Behe's based on you idea of insight. How do y ou quantify "insight" as such? Can you determine how much insight/foresight is required to generate a specific kind of machine?
As to your argument that machines require insight and simply must be the product of intelligence, I think the Darwinist has a decent response. Namely, that the overarching function/insight of biological machines is to enable survival and reproduction. This can be simple survival/reproduction (think bacteria) or complex (man) but survial/reproduction is a basic property of life itself. So to argue about the origin of the ability to survive and reproduce is to argue about the origin of life, which the Darwinist would say is a whole different topic than evolution, and I think most of them would agree that there's no unintelligent mechanism to explain life's origin. However, the argument would be that once life comes into existence (however that happens), it already has all the "insight" it needs in the form of the ability to survive and reproduce. Hence, all that's needed is to "tweak" it, step by step, into something that's a more complex version of the same thing (eg, bacterial life to complex human life). Essentially natural selection is a mechanism for maintaining the "insight" by weeding out the organisms that cannot survive any longer, while random mutation occasionally increments the complexity upward just a bit. It's all just about survival and reproduction, and that ability to survive and reproduce simply gets maintained as complexity increases.
So I think you have to make a critique specifically of the ability of the Darwinian mechanism to generate the kinds of complexity we see in biology. Otherwise I'm not so sure your ideas about "insight" as requiring intelligent causation will have much impact.
John
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. December 2004 18:19
There is simply no evidence that mutations have ever played a role in evolution except to result in extinction when the load of such deleterious genes becomes mnore than the organism can survive. The whole concept of mutation and Natural Selection as a creative element is without foundation. I realize this sounds radical but it is anything but that. What is radical is to continue to adhere to a random view of evolution when there is no evidence in favor of such. I refer to my PEH manuscript and the reasons I have abandoned the whole Darwinian model, in particular to Pierre Grasse's comments on the role of allelic mutation in evolutionary creativity.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 15. December 2004 19:29
John,
Thanks for the reply.
I don't think that insight can be quantified or measured. But it's presence can be demonstrated by inductive reasoning in much the same way we demonstrate the law of gravity, by analogy.
Here is my case:
I’ll try to summarize my data in such a way that it demonstrates the scientific processes that I used. As you probably know, empirical data can be either observational or experimental. Observations usually come first, and hypotheses are developed. When a sufficient number of observations are collected, a pattern emerges and a theory is formulated. Additional experiments are then performed in an attempt to falsify the theory. After numerous attempts to falsify the theory, it may be elevated to the status of Law. Of course, any theory or law is subject to new data which may or may not overturn it. I have proposed Nelson's Law and, so far as I can tell, it has not been falsified by any observational or experimental data.
1. Initial observations: Over the years I have had occasion to examine large numbers of structures, processes and systems that exist on the earth. Included among these entities I offer the following examples: A washing machine, a pear tree, a computer, a waterfall, a dog, a mountain, the Grand Canyon, my daughter, an airplane, a tornado and an ice crystal. Note that these are just a few representative examples, there are thousands of other such examples.
I then attempted to divide these examples (and all of the others collected) into two groups, those that are complex machines and those that are not. It became clear that it would be necessary to define complex machine, which I have done.
A complex machine was defined as one in which multiple structures have multiple functions and multiple processes have multiple functions and the structures and processes are integrated in such a way that they support each other and they also support multiple functions. In addition, these structures, functions and processes are integrated into a system in such a way so that they all work together to support the overall function of the system.
The mousetrap is an example of such a complex, organized machine. Each part of the mousetrap, the platform, the holding bar, the spring, the hammer and the catch each have specific functions. And each of these functions are organized in such a way that they support the functions of the other parts as well as the overall function of the mousetrap, which is to catch mice. The function of the platform is to hold the parts, but it’s there ultimately to facilitate the process of mouse catching. The function of the spring is to exert a force on the hammer, but it’s ultimate goal is to enable the process of mouse catching. All of the parts have functions that not only support the other functions, but ultimately support the overall function of the device.
The examined entities could then be easily divided into 2 groups:
1. Complex machines: washing machine, pear tree, computer, dog, my daughter and an airplane. Each was carefully examined to insure that it met the required criteria.
2. Not complex machines: a waterfall, a mountain, the Grand Canyon, a tornado and an ice crystal.
Again, each was carefully examined to insure that they were not complex machines, as per the definition.
I then tried to further subdivide these entities into three groups:
1. Those that are the product of intelligent design: washing machine, computer, an airplane.
2. Those that are not the product of intelligent design and can be explained by random processes or known laws of physics: a waterfall, a mountain, the Grand Canyon, a tornado and an ice crystal.
3. Those that cannot be determined as above: pear tree, dog and my daughter.
Initial hypothesis: It appears that all observed complex, highly organized machines whose origins can be determined with certainty are the product of intelligent design. In every single observed case this is true. It also appears that all items that are not complex machines can easily be explained by known, natural or random processes. Therefore, it is hypothesized that all complex machines, including those whose origins are unknown are the product of intelligent design. This hypothesis can be falsified by demonstrating the existence of a complex machine that was not the product of intelligent design.
Experimental protocol:
1. Since the hypothesis can be falsified by demonstrating a complex, highly organized machine that came into existence without intelligent input, a search was launched for such an entity. Thousands of machines of all types were examined and in every case where the origin could be established it was determined that intelligent input was required. No exception was found.
2. Attempts were made to encourage such machines to create themselves. Computer components were stored together in boxes but no assembled computers emerged. A bicycle that I bought for my granddaughter was stored in my shed, but no assembled bicycle emerged. Junkyards were observed before and after tornadoes, but no airplanes emerged from the experience.
Conclusions and discussion:
Every single complex, organized machine, meeting the definition above, whose origin could be determined, was seen to be the result of intelligent input. No complex, organized machine, meeting the definition above, whose origin could be determined was seen to assemble itself without the benefit of intelligent input. The conclusion is that all such machines, including those that have not been specifically examined are likely to be the result of intelligent design.
Living organisms are all found in the third category. They are biochemical machines that are complex and highly organized. Although their origin cannot be determined with certainty. It must be assumed that since all such known machines are the product of intelligent input, they too must have this as a requirement. Of course, this does not preclude the existence of a yet to be understood First Principle that might explain their origin. The nature of the mechanism and/or the intelligence involved remains undiscovered. All known mechanisms are incapable of generating this kind of organization, which requires insight to implement.
Nelson’s Law
Based on these observations and experiments, Nelson’s Law is proposed.
In its simplest form, Nelson’s Law states that “things do not organize* themselves without intelligent guidance”.
*(Organization is not the same as order. One must be careful not to confuse organization with order. There’s a lot of talk about ordered systems in the non-living world, snowflakes, tornadoes, etc. but this is not the issue. Order is simply a condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group. Like putting files in alphabetical order or using a sieve to separate items by size. Organization is a much different structure in which something is made up of elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole and to collective functions of the system. Ordered systems can result from non-intelligent processes, as has been seen many times and cited by numerous examples.)
Every experience in our lives supports Nelson’s law. The bicycle I bought will never assemble itself without human input. I have used Heathkit radio equipment for many years. Never once did a kit come to my house and assemble itself without my intervention. My house doesn’t paint itself, my flowers don’t plant themselves and my broken window doesn’t repair itself. Every increase in organization requires outside input. I have cars, televisions, dishwashers etc. in my house. Not one of these machines ever assembled itself from it’s parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Since living organisms are highly organized biochemical machines, why should I think differently about them?
The organization of inorganic chemicals into living cells and the organization of these cells into tissues, organs and organisms required intelligent guidance. This guidance comes from the set of instructions found in the genome. Where these instructions came from remains a daunting problem in biology.
As is always true in science, an analogy is only as good as its ability to persuade. Not many refuse to be persuaded by the law of gravity despite the fact that it is not proven. With respect to my analogy applied to the origin of living organisms, I feel that it is strong and persuasive. If you feel that there are any weaknesses, I encourage you to point them out.
Best regards, Charlie
http://www.charliewagner.com
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. December 2004 22:59
The only problem I have is with the notion that an intelligence is now in operation. I see no evidence for it. I regard Intelligent Design as a given and not subject to debate. We are observing the products of a past evolution and in no way are we observing "evolution in action" as the Darwinian model so obviously assumes. I have attempted to reconstruct that past evolution with my Semi-meiotic Hypothesis which to this day remains both unrecognized and untested. The Darwinian establishment doesn't test its own hypothesis anymore as it simply doesn't work, but, of course, it must be so nevertheless. The simple truth is that we haven't scratched the surface of the great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny.
Of one thing I am convinced. Neither ever involved chance.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. December 2004 23:11
I just realized that Charlie was responding to John Bracht not to John Davison. Sorry to have intruded. I recommend in future we be a lttle more specific.
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 16. December 2004 09:54
John D,
I welcome replies from anyone.
It's taking me a little longer to digest your material but I will have a number of comments in the near future. Feel free to step in anytime you want.
Regards, Charlie
http://www.charliewagner.com
http://enigma.charliewagner.com
[ 16. December 2004, 10:14: Message edited by: Charlie Wagner ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 16. December 2004 10:11
John D.
With respect to your comments above, I agree completely that we are observing the products of a past evolution. I also believe, as you, that none of this evolution occurred by random chance. I believe that all of the information necessary for the emergence of life was present in the DNA when it first arrived on earth.
However, the cell and it's genome give evidence of being responsive to information from the environment and the "intelligence' that may be operating today may be intelligence that was installed into the genome when it was created: the ability to change and be responsive to different environments and conditions.
I remember once taking a bottle of sulfuric acid from a shelf in the lab and seeing black spots on the inside of the bottle. I asked a colleague what he thought it was and he told me it was bacteria growing in the bottle, bacteria that flourished in that inhospitable environment. I thought about the fact that life can flourish anywhere, irrespective of the conditions, because the ability to adapt and change is built in to it's genetic and cellular machinery.
The genome has unlimited capacity to manufacture any biochemical machine and to make any protein, as long as it has the requisite raw materials. As Denton says, this gives it almost unlimited potential.
Regards, Charlie
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. December 2004 11:45
Charlie
I respect your view but bacteria or other prokaryotes are not models for diploid evolution. Furthermore, the examples you cite may well be preadaptations that had nothing to do with any kind of mutation, selection or "cellular intelligence." I repeat my claim that there is no tangible evidence for evolution today beyond the production of subspecies or varieties. If there is I welcome it's demonstration so I can recant my heresies. So far I have seen no reason to do so.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Charlie Wagner
Member
Member # 1496
|
posted 16. December 2004 18:10
John D.
I absolutely agree with you that bacteria and other prokaryotes are *not* models for diploid evolution. I also agree with you that there is no tangible evidence for evolution today beyond the production of subspecies or varieties. Maybe evolution is over.
But you cannot ignore the fact that some evidence is accumulating that suggests that the genome can be responsive to changes in it's external environment. You might say, as James Shapiro (Univ. of Chicago) has, that "cells engineer their own genomes". Some stretches of DNA are more likely to be duplicated or moved to another place than others, depending on the nature of their sequences. Enzymes that copy and maintain the DNA introduce changes in some parts of the genome and not others, creating hotspots of mutation that increase the efficiency of evolution. The most successful genomes are the ones that can adapt quickly to stress. Antibiotic resistance comes to mind. Barbara McClintock said in her 1983 Nobel lecture, the genome is "a highly sensitive organ of the cell, that in times of stress could initiate its own restructuring and renovation." If you're not satisfied with bacterial systems, Baldomero Olivera, a molecular biologist at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has been assessing the incredible variation that exists in the toxins of predatory Conus snails.
Transposons may also play important roles in the generation of antibodies in the immune system in response to antigen challenge.
In short, we have only scratched the surface in our understanding of the capabilities of the genome. We've only taken the first baby steps. The old view of the genome as a static entity, sitting there full of information, just waiting to be transcribed into proteins is fading. "Whether by radically rearranging themselves, making use of mobile elements to generate variation, or causing certain stretches of DNA to mutate at high rates, genomes are showing that they can help themselves cope with a changing environment." according to Elizabeth Pennisi. (Science 281, 5380 (21 Aug 1998): 1131-1134.)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. December 2004 03:02
I agree with most of what you present. My position, when I say that evolution is finished, is based on the fact that all we are witnessing is rampant extinction. There is not a single documented new species which we can claim has emerged in historical times. Evolution WAS the production not only of new species but of whole genera, families, orders, classes and phyla. Evolution has been a steadily declining phenomenon, which has lost all potency except that of the substitution of alleles, which never had anything to do with evolution anyway. I have rejected the mutation/selection, gradualist model in its entirety as having no foundation. There has never been a demonstrable role for the environment in the emergence of a new life form. I realize this sounds a little radical but it isn't. I have been forced, through the time honored method of the elimination of alternatives, to the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It follows from the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis which I first presented 20 years ago. The real tangible evidence favors the conclusion that everything we see in the living world is the expression of preformed and predestined mechanisms which have largely run their course. I find it especially interesting that Linnaeus and Cuvier both regarded contemporary species as immutable, a conviction I am happy to share with them. We witness the products of evolution not "evolution in action" as the Darwinians continue so blindly to assume. How this was all executed remains a mystery but that it occurred is a certainty.
John A.Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
