Irreducible Complexity Defined
The following may have been updated:
Irreducible Complexity:
IC- A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily 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. Page 285 NFL
Numerous and Diverse Parts If the irreducible core of an IC system consists of one or only a few parts, there may be no insuperable obstacle to the Darwinian mechanism explaining how that system arose in one fell swoop. But as the number of indispensable well-fitted, mutually interacting,, non-arbitrarily individuated parts increases in number & diversity, there is no possibility of the Darwinian mechanism achieving that system in one fell swoop. Page 287
Minimal Complexity and Function Given an IC system with numerous & diverse parts in its core, the Darwinian mechanism must produce it gradually. But if the system needs to operate at a certain minimal level of function before it can be of any use to the organism & if to achieve that level of function it requires a certain minimal level of complexity already possessed by the irreducible core, the Darwinian mechanism has no functional intermediates to exploit. Page 287Dr Behe responds to IC criticisms:
One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
posted by Joe G @ 3:39 PM
25 Comments:
At 4:13 PM,
blipey said…
I notice that there is no rigorous definition of IC in your excerpts. They merely state that if something appears designed or complex it is designed or complex.
There is nothing to measure in those excerpts. Is design not measurable? If that is the case, how does one independently verify design? If it is not the case, what are we measuring?
At 4:15 PM,
blipey said…
For example, it is stated that "as the number of parts grow..."
To what number must they grow? 5? 10? 17? 3,000? At what point does the number of parts = IC?
At 4:24 PM,
Joe G said…
I notice that there is no rigorous definition of IC in your excerpts.-
Only because you wouldn't know a rigorous definition if it hit you in the face.
What I have provided is more rigorous than anything the theory of evolution has to offer.
They merely state that if something appears designed or complex it is designed or complex.-
If that is what you think it says then you are so fucked up there is nothing else to say to you.
There is nothing to measure in those excerpts.-
You mean except for the "minimal complexity" and those "numerous and diverse parts".
For example, it is stated that "as the number of parts grow..."
To what number must they grow? 5? 10? 17? 3,000? At what point does the number of parts = IC?-
Behe's mousetrap example has 5 parts.
So 5 would be a good start for the design inference- that is a 5 part system in which the removal of one shits down the function of that system.
So all you are saying is that because you are ignorant of ID's claims- your responses in this thread prove that- then ID's claims are bogus.
That seems to be your argument anyway...
At 4:26 PM,
blipey said…
Okay, so if something has 5 parts it is IC? If it has 4 parts, is it IC? Or is 5 the cutoff? That's what rigorous means, Joe. We need a definitive benchmark.
If there is one contained in your excerpts, perhaps you could highlight it or us?
At 4:34 PM,
Joe G said…
Okay, so if something has 5 parts it is IC?-
Only if it meets the criteria.
If it has 4 parts, is it IC? Or is 5 the cutoff? That's what rigorous means, Joe. We need a definitive benchmark.-
And where is the rigor in the theory of evolution?
It still hasn't evolved.
But anyways all you are doing is grasping at straws.
If you want to refute IC as evidence for ID then you start with the HIGHEST IC system- the most simple living organism.
Of course you could start at the bottom and see what exactly nature, operating freely can produce.
But until you reach the top- basically as Dr Behe said.
At 4:37 PM,
Joe G said…
You ignored this before but here it is again- From Dr Behe:
“Coyne’s conclusion that design is unfalsifiable, however, seems to be at odds with the arguments of other reviewers of my book. Clearly, Russell Doolittle (Doolittle 1997), Kenneth Miller (Miller 1999), and others have advanced scientific arguments aimed at falsifying ID. (See my articles on blood clotting and the “acid test” on this web site.) If the results with knock-out mice (Bugge et al. 1996) had been as Doolittle first thought, or if Barry Hall’s work (Hall 1999) had indeed shown what Miller implied, then they correctly believed my claims about irreducible complexity would have suffered quite a blow. And since my claim for intelligent design requires that no unintelligent process be sufficient to produce such irreducibly complex systems, then the plausibility of ID would suffer enormously. Other scientists, including those on the National Academy of Science’s Steering Committee on Science and Creationism, in commenting on my book have also pointed to physical evidence (such as the similar structures of hemoglobin and myoglobin) which they think shows that
irreducibly complex biochemical systems can be produced by natural selection: “However, structures and processes that are claimed to be ‘irreducibly’ complex typically are not on closer inspection.” (National Academy of Sciences 1999, p. 22)
Now, one can’t have it both ways. One can’t say both that ID is
unfalsifiable (or untestable) and that there is evidence against it. Either it is unfalsifiable and floats serenely beyond experimental reproach, or it can be criticized on the basis of our observations and is therefore testable. The fact that critical reviewers advance scientific arguments against ID (whether successfully or not) shows that intelligent design is indeed falsifiable.
In fact, my argument for intelligent design is open to direct
experimental rebuttal. Here is a thought experiment that makes the point clear. In Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) I claimed that the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex and so required deliberate intelligent design. The flip side of this claim is that the flagellum can’t be produced by natural selection acting on random mutation, or any other unintelligent process. To falsify such a claim, a scientist could go into the laboratory, place a bacterial species lacking a flagellum under some selective pressure (for mobility, say), grow it for ten thousand generations, and see if a flagellum--or any equally complex
system--was produced. If that happened, my claims would be neatly disproven.
How about Professor Coyne’s concern that, if one system were shown to be the result of natural selection, proponents of ID could just claim that some other system was designed? I think the objection has little force. If natural selection were shown to be capable of producing a system of a certain degree of complexity, then the assumption would be that it could produce any other system of an equal or lesser degree of complexity. If Coyne demonstrated that the flagellum (which requires approximately forty gene products) could be produced by selection, I would be rather foolish to then assert that the blood clotting system (which consists of about twenty proteins) required intelligent design.”-
IOW if it ever demonstrated that living organisms can arise from non-living matter without agency involvement, ID falls as living organisms are the ultimate in IC.
At 4:38 PM,
Joe G said…
IC can be measured by the number of components in the IC core.
At 4:41 PM,
blipey said…
So, all things with 5 parts are IC?
What other criteria must exist? Give us a list, Joe. Come on, an expert like you must be able to rattle of the things IC objects must contain.
If I'm in an ID lab examining a bunch of objects, what checklist do I use to determine IC?
Step One. I count the parts. If I count less than 4, I stop and say it is not IC. However, if I count 5 parts, I must go to step two.
Step Two. What do I look for?
At 4:50 PM,
Joe G said…
So, all things with 5 parts are IC?-
Nope.
What other criteria must exist?-
Just that in the OP.
The stuff you are too stupid to understand.
At 4:59 PM,
blipey said…
There's nothing but fuzzy thinking in the OP, Joe.
The phrases "numerous and diverse parts" and "certain minimal level of function" are in the OP, but neither is explained in enough etail to be able to determine what they are talking about.
How many "numerous and diverse" parts must exist? Or can the number be anything? If it can be anything, what then determines the IC, because it can't be the number of parts?
At 5:05 PM,
Joe G said…
There's nothing but fuzzy thinking in the OP, Joe.-
That is your opinion. And seeing that you don't know much of anything I wouldn't expect you to understand the OP.
Also you have demonstrated an inability to read a dictionary.
A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, non-arbitrarily 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.-
That is the criteria for IC.
At 5:43 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"One last charge must be met: Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He's wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997
"
of course, you can't falsify IC as a concept, just purported instances.
okay, that's not designed, but *this* is!
At 6:00 PM,
Joe G said…
of course, you can't falsify IC as a concept, just purported instances.-
I would say if you falsify all the proposed instances then the concept is moot.
Duh.
That is why starting with the highest known level of IC would squash ID if found to be reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.
Rich it has become painfully obvious that you cannot comprehend what you read.
Again your problems are not a refutation.
BTW how does one falsify universal common descent via an accumulation of genetic accidents, as a concept, or in particular instances?
At 6:22 PM,
blipey said…
Ah, Joe... Um, hmmmmm. Wouldn't you need to know exactly what every part of everything did at all times in the history of those things being around for you to conclude what necessary and original function is?
I mean, really, come on. That's not a criteria to be on a checklist. How could that possibly be useful to someone checking for the IC of a thing?
For example, please relate the IC parts of a softball. How many things go into a softball? What makes them necessary to the original function of a softball?
At 9:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Wouldn't you need to know exactly what every part of everything did at all times in the history of those things being around for you to conclude what necessary and original function is?-
Nope. The definition is of the SYSTEM, not the parts.
Again your ignorance is not a refutation.
At 10:51 AM,
Joe G said…
For example, please relate the IC parts of a softball.-
It's been done for a mousetrap.
One example is enough.
At 10:57 AM,
blipey said…
So you're saying you have no idea what the parts of a softball are or how they relate to the original function of the softball?
If this is a useful exercise, this CSI, it should be easily applied to all sorts of things: softballs, cakes, assholes, whatever....
At 10:29 AM,
Joe G said…
So you're saying you have no idea what the parts of a softball are or how they relate to the original function of the softball?-
Nope I am not saying that.
I am saying that one example- the mousetrap Dr Behe provided- is more than enough to satisfy your request.
If this is a useful exercise, this CSI,-
This is a thread for IC not CSI.
IOW once again you demonstrate ignorance.
At 1:26 AM,
blipey said…
Well, you said that 500 bits of information equals CSI and CSI can be used to determine IC. So, I'd say we're good.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Well, you said that 500 bits of information equals CSI=
5oo bits of SPECIFIED information.
and CSI can be used to determine IC. -
Nope that is false.
Ya see clownie your twisted mind took over and created a strawman- as usual.
At 9:28 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW blipey I am still waiting for the rigorously defined terms of the theory of evolution.
You know those terms that would allow the theory to be objectively tested.
What's that- you can't provide what doesn't exist?
So what you are saying is that you are one of the assholes who says "anything but design!"
At 10:17 AM,
blipey said…
Okay, so what do we determine with CSI again?
At 10:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Okay, so what do we determine with CSI again?-
So far we have determined that you are an ignorant piece of shit.
At 10:37 AM,
blipey said…
Right, so CSI can't be used to determine anything?
At 11:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Right, so CSI can't be used to determine anything?-
The concept of CSI has demonstrated that you are an ignorant fuck.
It did the same for Richie Hughes.
Post a Comment
<< Home