Chapter FourExamples of Design
Human artifacts (man-made objects), such as the mousetrap, exhibit irreducible complexity; therefore, we know intelligent action caused them to come into existence. Dembski concludes, “Therefore, biological systems that exhibit irreducible complexity are likely to be designed” (Dembski 2003a, p 1).
The cell exhibits the same irreducible complexity as the mousetrap. How do evolutionists explain its existence? Cell biologists Franklin Harold and James Shapiro state, “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations” (Dembski 2004a, p 16).
The Cell
Cells are the basic units of life. Our bodies are made up of many different kinds of cells. Each cell is composed of a variety of parts that function in various ways. Figure 4.1 on page 11 is a diagram of an animal cell. In Darwin’s Black Box, Behe (1996) lists the parts of the cell and their functions as follows:
Ø Nucleus: holds DNA
Ø Mitochondria: produces cell’s energy
Ø Endoplasmic reticulum: processes proteins
Ø Golgi apparatus (or complex): stores proteins that are being transported
Ø Lysosome: contains enzymes that help the cell digest various materials (Carpi 1999).
Ø Secretory vesicles: stores secretions such as hormones before they are sent from the cell (Cells Alive 2004)
Ø Peroxisome: helps body digest foods, such as fats
Because each part of the cell is sealed off from other parts by a membrane, the question arises: how do materials the cell needs get past the membrane barriers and into their special compartments?
The cell moves proteins into various compartments using three methods (Behe 1996).
I. Gated Transport - Gate opens and closes to allow or block proteins from passing through membranes.
II. Transmembrane transport - A single protein is guided through a protein channel through the cell membrane
III. Vescular transport - Protein is transported by “containers”
Gated transport and transmembrane transport are essentially the same. The only difference between the two is the size of the channel the proteins pass through: gated transport uses a large channel; transmembrane transport uses a small channel (Behe 1996).
In order for gated transport to work, several components must be in place:
Ø Proteins must send out signals in order for the “gate” to recognize the proteins and allow them to pass from one place to another.
Ø On the other side of the gate, enzymes must have receptors in order to recognize the proteins’ signals. Once the enzymes recognize the signals, the gate is opened.
Ø Proteins must have a channel to pass through. However, if a channel allows all proteins to pass through, then all compartments would contain the same materials (Behe 1996).
All components that allow these processes to take place must exist at the same time, not gradually. Therefore, this system is irreducibly complex; and Darwinian evolution cannot explain how this system came into existence.
According to Behe (1996), vesicular transport is more complex than gated transport and requires six components in order to function. If all six parts are not in place, the system either fails to function or the proteins fail to reach their proper destination.
This is a brief explanation of gated and vesicular transport. However, even this simple description shows the system’s irreducibly complex nature (Behe 1996).
Bacterial Flagellum
A motorboat uses a rotary propeller or motor to move the boat through water. Similarly, bacterial cells use a “rotary motor” called a flagellum to move the cells through liquid (Behe 1996). Figure 4.2 on page 13 is a picture of the bacterial flagellum, showing its parts that are similar to that of a man-made rotary motor.
This whip-like tail is made of a protein called flagellin. The flagellum is lodged in the cell membrane and attached to the rotor drive near the surface of the cell. The material that attaches the flagellum to the drive shaft is called hook protein. This protein works like a universal joint, which allows the flagellum and drive shaft to rotate. The motor that rotates the flagellum is located at the base of the flagellum where several rings are located (Behe 1996; Strobel 2004; undated University of California in Santa Barbara).
************************************************************************************
Take Note
The flagellum requires the coordination of 40 proteins. If one protein is missing, the flagellum will not function (Dembski 2003a).
************************************************************************************
How did the bacterial flagellum come into existence? While evolutionists claim evolutionary processes are responsible for the flagellum’s existence, no scientist has ever presented an evolutionary model of the bacterial flagellum (Strobel 2004).
Evolutionists’ Arguments
While scientists have failed to explain how evolution produced the flagellum, they have criticized Behe’s argument that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex.
Ken Miller argues that the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex for two reasons. Within the flagellum is a subsystem called Type III secretory system (TTSS). This system acts as a pump to move proteins to the outside of the cell. The function of TTSS is separate from the rotary propeller function of the flagellum. Evolutionists argue that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it evolved from TTSS. Remember, for an object to be irreducibly complex, it cannot have any precursors, i.e., any previous form of the object from which the more complex evolved (Dembski 2003b).
However, the existence of a subsystem within a functioning system is a poor argument for evolution. Dembski points out, “One might just as well say that because the motor of a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the motor evolved into the motorcycle” (2003b, p 2).
Miller also claims that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because TTSS can still transport proteins even if some proteins are missing. However, transporting proteins by the subsystem has little to do with the rotary propeller function of the flagellum. These are two separate functions. Moreover, if parts of the rotary system are missing, the propeller cannot function – regardless of whether or not proteins are missing. Therefore, the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex (Dembski 2003a).
Why does it matter whether or not an object or system is functional during its development? Evolutionists want us to believe that natural selection is how life began. However, if a system is not functioning, natural selection will not work. Since all parts must be in place at the same time in order for the bacterial flagellum to function, the flagellum could not have developed gradually over time (Behe 1996).
DNA
DNA is located in the nucleus of the cell and contains the information – the instructions - needed to make all the proteins that build our bodies. We depend on an alphabet that consists of 26 letters to form words that convey messages (Strobel 2004). Likewise, DNA’s instructions or messages are written with a special “alphabet” that consists of only four letters. Scientists have named these letters after the acids that form the DNA bases: A (adenine), G (guanine), T (thymine), and C (cytosine).
Each “letter” alone is meaningless, just as a single letter in the alphabet is meaningless. DNA’s letters must be in a specific order (called a sequence) in order to create instructions, just as the letters in this sentence must be in a specific arrangement in order to create a coherent message (Harris and Calvert 2003).
Therefore, DNA exhibits specified complexity because
Ø It is complex (made up of many components – letters)
Ø It is contingent (More than one combination of letters is possible.)
Ø It is specified (Follows a pattern called a sequence.).
Problem for Evolution
DNA and the information it contains must be present in order for life to begin (Strobel 2004). But how did DNA come into existence? Natural selection cannot explain the existence of DNA. Natural selection only works if organisms can duplicate themselves. In order to duplicate, organisms must have DNA. Therefore, if DNA is absent, natural selection cannot work. You have heard the question asked: “Which came first: the chicken or the egg?” Obviously, the chicken must exist first in order to reproduce to get the egg. In the same way, DNA must exist first in order for organisms to reproduce (Intelligent Design Basics undated).
Furthermore, the probability that DNA assembled itself in the first cell is 1 x 10 –190, which essentially equals zero (Harris and Calvert 2003).
12 comments:
Sadly, while re-hashing the arguments of Behe, Dembski, et al., you miss the main point. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that "something could not have evolved under any circumstances". Therefore the Irreducible Complexity argument is a non starter. Just because mainstream evolutionary science cannot (yet)show evolutionary precursors for every step of the development of the flagellum, or whatever system you choose, does not mean that such precursors did not exist at some point.
Miller and others have shown precursors to the flagellum and
possible evolutionary pathways, to it - and that is enough to render the inference of a designers interference invalid.
Note the asymmetry of standards here: Evolution needs to prove every last detailed step of the flagellum’s development in order to be accepted. ID theory, on the other hand, doesn’t need to prove anything!
ID requires no evidence whatsoever as to how or when or why the flagellum was designed. Nothing at all. Just assume the answer. Now that doesn’t sound much like science, does it?
"A motorboat uses a rotary propeller or motor to move the boat through water. Similarly, bacterial cells use a 'rotary motor' called a flagellum to move the cells through liquid (Behe 1996)."
An undergraduate physics major could tell you that bacterial flagella do not work anything like propellers on motorboats. If you made the boat the size of the bacteria, the propellor would not move at all. If you made the bacteria the size of the boat, it would thrash about a lot, but it wouldn’t move anywhere. Prof. Behe is apparently not acquainted with the concept of "Reynolds number."
By the way, there are many different kinds of bacterial flagella, some having more, fewer, and/or different components. Many bacteria use cilia for propulsion; these are simpler than flagella. And some single-cell eukaryotes have flagella; these again differ from bacterial flagella. Exactly which of these forms is supposed to be irreducibly complex?
Malcolm says:
"You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that 'something could not have evolved under any circumstances'."
Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Apparently Darwin understood that "a negative" could be proven...and it has been proven. The concept of irreducible complexity demonstrates that Darwin was wrong.
Malcolm wrote:
" Just because mainstream evolutionary science cannot (yet)show evolutionary precursors for every step of the development of the flagellum, or whatever system you choose, does not mean that such precursors did not exist at some point."
I don't know if you believe as most evolutionists do - that evolution is a fact rather than a theory - but I find it interesting that you are comfortable excepting evolution as "fact" when there are huge gaps in your evidence. The necessary steps are missing, but you go ahead and pretend that they exist in order to make your theory complete.
Malcolm - "Miller and others" have not, and I already addressed that in my booklet.
Kim writes: “The concept of irreducible complexity demonstrates that Darwin was wrong.”
That’s incorrect. The concept itself demonstrates nothing. Evidence of irreducible complexity in a particular organism might be evidence that neo-Darwinian evolution[1] is incorrect.. The stronger the evidence for IC, the stronger the evidence against the theory.[2]. You should really learn a little about how science operates before you make such statements.[3]
Michael Behe has never come up with more than three examples of IC: the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the mammalian immune system. He put all three of them on the table in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in 2005. All three were demolished during cross examination. In fact, the weakness of Behe’s arguments was what prompted the judge to call intelligent design “utter inanity.”
But you will undoubtedly believe what the Discovery Institute feeds to you anyway. They have been trying to get out from under the Kitzmiller decision for three years without success.[4] .
============
[1] Darwin was wrong about many things. You should move out of the 1860s.
[2] Contrary to popular opinion, there are very few absolute make-or-break tests in science.
[3] Your comment that “evolution is a fact rather than a theory” demonstrates how little you understand about science.
[4] Recently their “evidence” has become so risible that scientists have come to call it “lying for Jesus.” They seem to have abandoned all efforts to convince scientists, and now promote their wares entirely to laymen who understand very little about biology—or about science in general.
Malcolm said...
"Sadly, while re-hashing the arguments of Behe, Dembski, et al., you miss the main point. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that "something could not have evolved under any circumstances"."
The current ID synthesis (neoID?) doesn’t' question evolution within species, so let's narrow the issue of 'evolving' to the macro- level. Regarding macroevolution v. design (or genetic interventions over time), neither can be proven, so it's the preponderance of evidence for design that compels further investigation. The 'design inference(s)', of which there are many, are compelling, whereas empirical verifications of true speciation are non-existent at this time.
Speciation has been defined by Mayr and Dobzhansky et al as occurring allopatically (after isolation), to the point of becoming "reproductively isolated" (drosophila in ongoing lab studies). Jerry Coyne and H. Allen Orr have furthered that concept. I and many others feel that that level of speciation does not necessarily lead to morphological novelty, or macroevolutionary change, and therefore does not constitute verification of morphological speciation, which is the actual case regarding a new species.
Reproductive isolation is a far cry from feathers emerging from scales, regardless of the time involved, or of a complex eye (~40 isolated emergences, some nearly identical), evolving stepwise from light sensitive patches. Higher taxonomic forms have complex eyes that act in concert with a cerebral cortexual processing center which process and interpret the data on the fly, and embody parallel systems to nurish, maintain and even repair their components. The organization of that system is incredibly complex, and to say that it designed itself (40 or so times) is patently absurd.
So yes, a negative cannot be proven, but neither have macroevolutionary evolved processes been verified. Mayr-Dobzhansky effectively moved the goal posts by declaring alotropatic speciation as empirical verification of the evolutionary process. It is not.
oops, (2) typos:
Speciation has been defined by Mayr and Dobzhansky et al as occurring allopatrically (after isolation)
Mayr-Dobzhansky effectively moved the goal posts by declaring allopatric speciation as empirical verification of the evolutionary process.
Olorin,
Darwin's theory of evolution hinged on his statement that I quoted. And his thesis for his theory has been disproven.
As for the examples of IC being "demolished during cross examination," of course those who believe in the theory of evolution will see it that way. Each side views their evidence as the stronger case. The judge in the trial expressed his opinion about ID. That's all.
You said: "[3] Your comment that “evolution is a fact rather than a theory” demonstrates how little you understand about science."
I'm not sure what you mean by this. There are those who promote macroevolution as fact rather than a theory.
And why should I be surprised (or impressed) that scientists call the evidence for ID "lying for Jesus"?
Kim said: “Darwin's theory of evolution hinged on his statement that I quoted. And his thesis for his theory has been disproven.”
Darwin’s theory does hinge on his statement. But I’d like to know why you think it has been disproven. Irreducible Complexity does not disprove it. First, Behe’s examples of IC have all been refuted. Second, even if anyone could find a valid example of IC, it would not contravene Darwin’s test. The definition of IC allows for the possibility of evolution by exaptation, which is, as it turns out, a rather common phenomenon.
Kim said: “Each side views their evidence as the stronger case. The judge in the trial expressed his opinion about ID. That's all”
No that’s not all. The judge specifically ruled that the evidence did not support any of Behe’s three examples of IC.[1] He gave Behe, Minnich, Fuller, and the others all the time they wanted to present their claim that ID was science, not religion, and that this justified teaching it as science. The judge’s “opinion” as to this matter was a legal determination based upon the preponderance of evidence, and has the force of law.[2]
Kim said: “Your comment that ‘evolution is a fact rather than a theory’ demonstrates how little you understand about science.’ I'm not sure what you mean by this. There are those who promote macroevolution as fact rather than a theory.”
What I meant was that anyone who attempts to dispute a scientific theory should first inform herself as to what science means by the word “theory.” One source that is available to even the most ill-informed is Wikipedia. You might start there, rather than with the Discovery Institute. Westfall, “The Construction of Modern Science” (Cambridge University 1971) proceeds from a historical viewpoint. Dear, “The Intelligibility of Nature” {University of Chicago Press 2008) has a more philosophical perspective.[3]
“Macroevolution” is another example of its use of the logical fallacy of equivocation, by the way. If you are referring to macroevolution as the evolution of one species from another, it is indeed a fact. You don’t even have to go back in time to find speciation. You can see it happen right now in dozens of “ring species.” You can see bacteria evolving new species in the past few decades.[4]
Kim said: “And why should I be surprised (or impressed) that scientists call the evidence for ID ‘lying for Jesus’?”
You should not be surprised. While the Discovery Institute would prefer to employ misdirection, evasion, and logical fallacy, they do frequently descend to outright falsehoods. For example, in a recent DI article on Tiktaalik, Casy Luskin denied that this fossil has wrist bones, even after they were specifically pointed out to him in a photo in Shubin’s journal article. He continues to argue that apes and humans could not have common ancestors because of the different number of chromosomes, despite the discovery two years ago that human chromosome 2 is a fused version of two ape chromosomes, complete with double centromeres. ID continually refers to evolution as a “random” process, when hundreds of sources all the way back to Darwin proclaim that it is not.
The institutionalized dishonesty with which ID is promoted to gullible laymen is the one characteristic that raises scientists’ ire. The practice of science depends upon intellectual honesty. Remember what happened to the Korean researcher last year who doctored some photos in his paper on cloning? He will never work again, even though many of his results were later corroborated by others. Even Nobel prizewinner David Baltimore almost lost his job and his reputation when it was suspected—suspected!—that one of his junior coauthors on a paper might have misrepresented some data. Scientific theories can be wrong, and evidence can be misinterpreted—cold fusion and N-rays come to mind—but the record of pervasive intentional deceit of ID is beyond the pale. Too bad that much of it is detectable only by trained biologists. But then, ID has long ago given up trying to appeal to them, so they don’t really care.
If you are not completely afraid that reading about evolution may challenge your beliefs, pick up Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish” (Pantheon, 2008). Shubin headed the team that discovered the Tiktaalik fossil, and his writing is accessible even to a rank amateur. He writes chapters on the evolution of arms, eyes, ears, jaws, skulls, and other modern features from primitive organisms. He clearly divides what is beyond dispute from what is a consensus from what some think the evidence shows from what is unknown.[5] Shubin starts from the fossil record. To enter from the other end, molecular biology, read Sean B. Carroll’s “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” (W.W. Norton 2006), a summary of the “evo-devo” area of evolutionary research that did not even exist 20 years ago.[6]
The thing about scientific sources is that they are continually discussing new findings, and have interesting things to say about how evolution occurred in specific situations.[7] ID sources, on the other hand, present no new results, no new findings of design, no new evidence; they confine themselves to denying the findings in the 1,570 papers per year on evolution. ID can’t even find anything worth publishing in their own captive journal, “Progress in Complexity, Information & Design” (William Dembski, editor) during the past three years.
Which theory would you say is crumbling?.
=====================
.
[1] It’s true that reading a 139-page decision takes some time. But one who is so sure of her position should not confine her reading to third-hand sources such as the Discovery Institute.
[2] Apparently you have quite a way to go in understanding law, as well as science.
[3] For an understanding of how ID deliberately conflates “theory” and “fact,” see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
[4] Bacteria that can digest modern man-made chemicals such as nylon and PCBs. The evolution of SIV into HIV in the 1930s. If you disnmiss those as “micro” chsnges, remeber that there are bacteria that differ from each other more than humans differe from mushrooms..
[5] Certainly a refreshing change from ID’s absolutes. You might even absorb some clues as to how science progresses and how it treats evidence.
[6] For all their touting of “new scientific results,” ID cites many times more “old” (>20years) scientific articles than “new (<7 years) papers. The ration of old/new is twice as high as it is in popular science books, and is no higher than in biblical creationist works. Detailed documentation of this is found in Forrest, “Creationism’s Trojan Horse” (Oxford University Press 2d Ed. 2007), Chapter 3..
[7] Just last week, for instance: Vonk FJ, etal., “Evolutionary origin and development of snake fangs,” Nature 454:630-633 (2008). Since you obviously don’t read first-hand sources such as Nature, Science, Cell, PloS One, etc, you can find a description of this paper on Panda’s Thumb, at http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/evolving-snake.html#more. Note especially the presentation of actual evidence, rather than the arm-waving you get from ID.
Olorin wrote: "...in a recent DI article on Tiktaalik, Casey Luskin denied that this fossil has wrist bones, even after they were specifically pointed out to him."
This incident was hilarious enough that it was reported at a number of sites, such as http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/01/they-call-me-mister-zimmer/
Another thing the Dover judge stated quite eloquently--and correctly--is that the irreducible complexity argument (leaving aside for a moment its many flaws) is "merely...a test of evolution, not design." And, "even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design." And finally, "ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the
natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces
exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory."
The fact remains that there is a great deal of evidence for evolution. But evidence for a supernatural creator of "complex systems" remains utterly and completely non-existent.
You believe. But you do not, and cannot, prove your hypothesis.
(And by the way, why bother? Isn't that the point of faith? Isn't that what your jesus wants you to have, child-like faith that doesn't require proof? That's OK for some. But thankfully many members of the human race have outgrown such things.)
Post a Comment