Preadaptation: A Blow to Irreducible Complexity?

ACTS & FACTS ^ | November 2009 | Brian Thomas, M.S.

[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...

[Ira_Louvin]

The fact that this is a repeatable testable experiment that shows that the basis for Behe’s irreducible complexity has been falsified since there is a natural explanation.

.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?

[Ira_Louvin]

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! You’re almost there!

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/12/microevolution/

[Ira_Louvin]

It is very clear that you do not understand random mutations.

When these mutations combined it did offer a reproductive advantage.

[Mudtiger]

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?

[Ira_Louvin]

Nice attempt at a straw man

[Cicero]

Well, no. Not really.

[Mudtiger]

“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.

[ColdWater]

It’s amazing that you follow/believe/worship a man that says God is most probably dead.

[ColdWater]

the more rational the argument from Creation/ID becomes!

Why do YECers like you push the anti-God ID movement?

[GodGunsGuts]

==The fact that this is a repeatable testable experiment that shows that the basis for Behe’s irreducible complexity has been falsified since there is a natural explanation.

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).

[ColdWater]

Posting the ID cartoon again!

[Cicero]

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.

[metmom]

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.

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.

[ColdWater]

[Mudtiger]

Sorry Cicero. I thought the sarcasm in my post to you would be self-evident. I agree with you.

[Natural Law]

"Darwin’s natural selection god"

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.

[Cicero]

OK, thanks for the heads up. There are lots of biology texts that say exactly that, so I didn’t click.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[GodGunsGuts]

I got it...pretty funny too :o)

[Natural Law]

"extrapolation is not science."

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.