Skip to comments.Preadaptation: A Blow to Irreducible Complexity?
Posted on 11/16/2009 6:19:30 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Molecular biologist Michael Behe described a system made of several interacting parts, whereby the removal of one part would disrupt the functioning of the whole, as irreducibly complex. Both creation scientists and intelligent design proponents highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies. The very structure of these systems--with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all--demands design, not chance.
Nevertheless, a team of evolutionary molecular biologists think they may have refuted irreducible complexity. They recently studied the parts of a particular cellular machine involved in protein transport, claiming that it was actually reducible to its component parts...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Is there an English translation?
More and more, evolution looks like the cartoon of the scientists at the blackboard, with a long equation which contains "a miracle occurs" as a step, and the older scientist says "I think you need more detail in Step Two".
Not IBT inane comment by an evo.
Do you actually have anything to say about the article?
Perhaps some comment as to why irreducible complexity isn’t a realistic scenario?
Maybe how all these unrelated parts with no use on their own, just happened to be floating around somewhere until they decided to get together and make something useful?
This is their religion. Your speech is hateful.
Irreducible complexity on the molecular level was, for me, the finishing blow for a general theory of evolution, when I read Michael Behe’s book.
I never had a religious problem with the General Theory, because it seemed to me that God could perfectly well have worked through evolution if He so chose. And the Catholic Church has gone out of its way to accommodate Evolution. But I have always had scientific problems with it.
Sure, there is intra species evolution. Darwin was quite right about that. Birds can develop longer beaks if they need them to pick insects out of the bark of trees or suck their food out of deeper flowers. Dogs can be bred to be faster, or larger, or whatever their owners find desirable, within reasonable limits. Deer can grow longer and faster legs at the same time that wolves do the same thing.
But how do you explain, using evolutionary theory, the development of the first eyeball, or the first wings. Because these excrescences would be counterproductive,a drag on the individual animals who developed them, UNTIL they finally became usable over a period of presumably thousands of years. How would an animal with half-developed wings slowing it down and holding it back and getting tangled in the grass beat out an animal who had the advantage of no burdensome half-wings? What advantage would there be in a half-developed eye that couldn’t yet see anything? Yes, lower order plants are phototropic, and respond to light, but there’s an unbridgeable gap between that and growing an eyeball.
That occurred to me as a teenager when I first studied biology. Of course, Behe’s cellular level complexity takes it to a whole new level of astronomical improbability.
Moreover, inter-species evolution has never been observed, only theorized about. And the general theory is no closer to being proved than it was when Darwin first proposed it.
Molecular “Machines” build themselves, when they have no point in even existing? How likely is that? This latest response to Behe sounds like a work of desperation.
Kind of like the infinite universe hypothesis, which was invented out of whole cloth to provide an unintelligent explanation (hehe) for our finely tuned Universe.
Hello, and welcome to secular humanism’s Handwaving 101.
You'll get ganged up on for that one. I asked a similar question about limbs that would be evolving to flippers for use in water and just got mocked for that one.
I never did get a decent explanation of how a limb that was halfway between leg and flipper could be of decent use as either.
A leg that was half flipper, wouldn't be good for running or climbing. A fin or flipper that was half leg wouldn't be as efficient for swimming.
In either case, it would slow down the creature to be caught in whatever medium it was in. The creature couldn't run fast enough to elude fully legged land creatures, and couldn't swim fast enough to escape fully finned and streamlined water creatures.
Excellent reply! I would only add that things have gotten far worse for Darwin’s ToE since he first unveiled it—especially re: molecular biology!
“Molecular biologist Michael Behe “ believes that God may be dead since we have no evidence of his existence in the last few hundred million years and believes that we should teach in public schools that God may be dead.
Intelligent design mavens once cited flagella as evidence of their theory. Scientific fact dispelled that illusion. The mitochondria study does the same for protein transport.
This analysis of protein transport provides a blueprint for the evolution of cellular machinery in general, write the researchers, led by molecular biologist Trevor Lithgow at Australias Monash University. The complexity of these machines is not irreducible.
When they analyzed the genomes of proteobacteria, the family that spawned the ancestors of mitochondria, Lithgows team found two of the protein parts used in mitochondria to make TIM23.
The parts are located on bacterial cell membranes, making them ideally positioned for TIM23s eventual protein-delivering role. Only one other part, a molecule called LivH, would make a rudimentary protein-transporting machine and LivH is commonly found in proteobacteria.
The process by which parts accumulate until theyre ready to snap together is called preadaptation. Its a form of neutral evolution, in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.
It hasnt been possible up until this point to trace any of those proteins back to a bacterial ancestor, said Dalhousie University cell biologist Michael Gray, one of the researchers who originally described the origins of mitochondria, but was not involved in the new study. These three proteins dont perform precisely the same function in proteobacteria, but with a simple mutation could be transformed into a simple protein transport machine that could start the whole thing off.
You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? Its too bizarre, he said. But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before theres a need for them, then it makes sense.
I think the quote mining was a nice touch, subtle and not too obvious
I saw the fallacy of their logic immediately. Why would these useless individual components “evolve” and then be kept around the cells for untold generations if they did not afford an advantage to the host?
What part of that confused mix of italics and underlines convinced you that mindless preadaption, invisible as it is to Darwin’s natural selection god, is somehow a better explanation for the existence of these supersophisticated bio-nano machines than Creation/ID?
However, there are quite a few unexplained areas of particle physics that defy explanation, but that only means we haven't found the cause yet. One by one, the holes get patched.
Some people start with the belief that an active, Creationist God is the fact, and that science then must conform. I absolutely believe in intelligent design and that God had intentions for the Universe and for each person in it, but that for God to interfere and direct things, He would have to interfere with laws of physics, laws that He wrote. Ah, but some say that quantum mechanics allows for such tinkering. Well, no. QM is governed by strict laws of probability, and tinkering would put those out of balance. A god that needs to interfere with his own laws doesn't say very much about his power.
Yet it should be obvious that the Universe is well designed and life is not a violation of the Third Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Clearly there is purpose and a design that we see all about us.
But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before theres a need for them, then it makes sense.
Why would machineries emerge (be selected for) if there is no need for them? If they offer no advantage why would they come to predominate in the population?
.No matter how many times you repeat it is too complicated for me to understand, so that proves that God did it is not and never will be science.
It seems that you failed to notice this little example of quote mining:
Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23.
Might I suggest that in addition to a much needed course in remedial science, you might want to include a class in reading comprehension?
When I was a creationist, eventually I admitted that microevolution could happen. I figured that changes could happen within species, but it could never turn into a new species.
The problem is, as Carl Zimmer once said, If you accept microevolution, you get macroevolution for free. Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Eventually, enough genetic and/or geographical drift occurs that they become new species organisms that no longer breed with one another.
So if you believe in microevolution: Congratulations! Youre almost there!
It is very clear that you do not understand random mutations.
When these mutations combined it did offer a reproductive advantage.
I thought that perhaps random mutations were mutations that occured randomly.
So a neutral mutation occured. But somehow, while offering no selective advantage, came to predominate in the offspring. Then other neutral mutations occured, each one individually offering no selective advantage, but also came to predominate in the DNA. But then the neutral mutations came together and built a better mousetrap. Is that it?
Nice attempt at a straw man
Well, no. Not really.
“But how do you explain, using evolutionary theory, the development of the first eyeball, “
Maybe I can help. It is explained by random mutation and natural selection. First, there was this creature that had no proteins sensitive to photons. But then a random mutation caused a protein to be light sensitive. The photon interacted with the protein and generated a chemical and/or electrical response. At this time there was no nerve over which the signal could propagate nor a bundle of brain-type cells to interpret the signal. But that would come later. What is important is that we now have a photon sensitive protein that gives the organism a selective advantage because...because...because...well, somehow it did. Then it goes on from there. Hope this helps.
It’s amazing that you follow/believe/worship a man that says God is most probably dead.
Why do YECers like you push the anti-God ID movement?
What repeatable, testable experiment would that be, Ira?
==It seems that you failed to notice this little example of quote mining
What quote mining would that be, Ira? The authors admit that neutral evolution falls outside of Darwinian selection, therefore there is absolutely nothing to guide it other than completely random mutations. It's the equivalent of saying that inanimate matter came together to create the first reproducing protocell. Such a process is equally outside the descriptions of Darwinian evolution (as you are so fond of reminding us).
Posting the ID cartoon again!
Oh, sure. I was taught that in high school back in the 1950s. But frankly, it doesn’t make sense. Grow an eyeball, with an iris and a lense and all the rest of it?
And when it came to growing wings, I remember our textbook cited flying squirrels as a kind of intermediary stage. Sorry, it still doesn’t compute. Changing your front legs into wings over the course of thousands of years would be incredibly disadvantageous to all those poor intermediary creatures. They never would have survived.
No. Macroevolution is just microevolution extrapolated and extrapolation is not science. It's a philosophical conclusion that has yet to be demonstrated in practice, and lining up a bunch of fossils is not actual observed, testable, repeatable lab work.
Sorry Cicero. I thought the sarcasm in my post to you would be self-evident. I agree with you.
Can't you just once make a statement or observation without including an inflammatory or insulting inclusion? Vilifying Charles Darwin, or any other person who see some validity in scientific investigation does not make you closer to the god you profess to defend.
For the record, nothing in the article refutes the concept of "irreducibly complex", it only seeks to shift the threshold.
OK, thanks for the heads up. There are lots of biology texts that say exactly that, so I didn’t click.
Thanks for the ping!
I got it...pretty funny too :o)
Sorry, but extrapolation is a process in mathematics used to find the value of a function outside its tabulated values. This is done as in interpolation by assuming that over a small range of x the function may be closely approximated by a polynomial or some other readily computed function. Any of the interpolation formulas can be used, therefore, and the desired value of x substituted in them.
I find it more than amusing that evos use math to support the ToE when it suits them and dismiss math when it indicates that the ToE is improbable simply from a statistical perspective.
Isn’t “intra species evolution” simply natural selection by another name?
> extrapolation is not science.<
“Spatial extrapolation: the science of predicting ecological patterns and processes.”
Fine. It's math. It still isn't science.
Haven't you heard that math and science aren't the same thing?
>Fine. It’s math. It still isn’t science.<
“Drug development can be a science of extrapolation...”
Only in K-12.
>Fine. It’s math. It still isn’t science.<
“Science for the Extrapolation of Pharmacokinetic Properties to Human in the New Millennium Entering the Paradigm Shift of Drug Discovery and Development.”
mouflon sheep, Ira, mouflon sheep.