Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Then a Miracle Happens

How can we detect design in nature? One idea, proposed by Michael Behe, is irreducible complexity. Behe explains that a machine is irreducibly complex if it has several different parts which all are necessary. Remove any one of those needed parts, and the machine doesn’t function. An internal combustion engine is irreducibly complexity, for instance. Take away the valve, or the piston, or the spark plug, or the wire, and it does not function.

Such machines are not likely to be created by blind natural laws--they require forward-looking thought. Assembly is required, and there is no payback until the final step. Evolution’s natural selection will not do the job because the machine does not help the organism until the machine is complete. Natural selection lacks the foresight required to construct such machines.

An unlikely way around this barrier is to have the different parts of the machine evolve independently, for their own purposes or perhaps for no purpose at all. Later, the parts come together to form a super machine. In other words, each part of the super machine evolves on its own, in a neutral fashion or to perform its own function. Then, serendipitously, the different machines just happen to fit together and perform a new function. Imagine a fuselage and a pair of wings uniting to form an aircraft.

This rather heroic explanation is called preadaptation, and evolutionists have relied heavily on it to explain biology's complexities. The latest example is a new paper that uses preadaptation to explain a machine that transports proteins across the mitochondria inner membrane. The evolutionists point out that two parts (proteins) have been found that are similar to two of the parts in the protein transporter super machine.

They argue that while these parts did not perform a protein transport function (and perhaps they did not perform any function at all), they indeed could perform the protein transporter job if they joined up along with another common part. The evolutionists triumphantly concluded:

These newly described proteins, TimA and TimB, function in distinct protein complexes in bacteria, yet evolved to serve as modules of a protein transport machine in mitochondria.

Here the evolutionists have over reached. There is no question that the evidence does not support anything close to this level of certainty. In fact their narrative for how this evolutionary move is supposed to have happened is firmly planted in the Darwinian just-add-water view of biology. But this should not detract from their strong points.

The paper does make reasonable arguments that the unrelated parts perhaps could work together, if configured properly and with a few modifications here and there, to perform protein transport. The argument and evidences are by no means conclusive, but they certainly are conceivable.

Scientists can debate the merits of their hypothesis. But even if correct, the hypothesis reveals a major problem with evolutionary theory. In answering the irreducible-complexity challenge, evolutionists have invoked preadaptation as their mechanism of choice, and this brings with it an enormous load of serendipity.

As indicated in the fuselage + wings = airplane analogy, the evolutionary preadaptation mechanism envisions an untold multitude of just-so stories to explain nature's incredible complexity. The protein transporter machine, and a great many others, were just fortunate accidents. Their parts just happened to be formed independently, perhaps for other purposes or perhaps for no purpose, and then happened to come together and, presto, a magnificent machine appeared. Here is how evolutionist Michael Gray credulously described it:

You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre. But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.

With evolution, life simply happens. What else could Gray say? He is trying to make evolution seem reasonable at a particularly difficult point in the narrative. Parts arise on their own, ready for the right time and place to work their magic. They are recruited, modified as needed, and configured with other such parts that have arisen via a similar process. To answer the mail on complexity, evolutionists have added unbelievable addendums to their theory. It is astonishing what evolutionists are willing to swallow. This is what happens when religion drives science.

14 comments:

  1. Hi Cornelius,

    I was in a debate with an ASA member. He said that you cannot argue from analogy to infer design. He said that arguing that a wing and body of a plane would not come together is a poor analogy because non-biological parts need a designer to come together and would never come together on their own. He said that organic parts do come together on their own and this is proven by science. He said that the laws of chemistry and physics make protiens fold, cells come together and change, ect. I thought this was an interesting argument. I am sure you have run into this. How would you respond?

    I have also thought long and hard about this...perhaps the physical and chemical laws of the universe are like God's fingers. Through these laws, God creates magnificently and for His purposes. It is a mistake to say that they are Natural as they are providentially mandated by the Lord.

    Blessings
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan:

    I agree with your interlocutor that non biological analogies are limited. My analogy here is simply meant to illustrate the point that under evolution, we must imagine that complex machines are comprised of parts which evolved independent of any selection for the complex machine.

    I also agree that natural law can do amazing things. Sure, proteins fold, cells come together, etc. But it would be naive to think this confirms evolutionary theory, case closed. For instance, while polypeptides do fold up to form useful proteins, this is not true for the vast majority of polypeptides.

    So even at the nano scale we run into contingency. It is not at all obvious that law alone does the job. Indeed the evidence (for those who care about evidence) strongly suggests that it doesn't do the job.

    Now imagine that we discover that the right polypeptide sequences are actually a consequence of law--they are built into the laws of nature. That would be a great discovery, but it would not resolve the question of the origin of complexity. It would just push the question onto the origin of the law.

    What evolutionists do not seem to grasp is that ascribing all this to law, or to the multiverse, or to luck, does not resolve the issue. One way or another the evolutionist must reckon with complexity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for your reply. I do agree with your thoughtful observations. I think that many folks do not understand the ontological argument pertaining to Law. I think a very basic problem is that we call these "Laws" "Natural Laws". Therefore, people get used to the idea that the laws have already been explained by science. You and I may be well educated in the field, but the vast majority of the culture is not. Therefore, I believe that we as creationists, get more caught up in wings and arms as opposed to educating folks in the culture about the splendor of Providential Law. I also do not believe this leads to Deism. Allowing the Laws to be "Natural" may lead to Deism, but a strong theistic viewpoint does not.

    Keep up the excellent work. Your books (especially your book which described how Darwinism is ultimately a theodicy) are outstanding.

    Blessings
    Dan - www.taggleinc.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not a biologist, so I'm trying to understand this. I've read the Wired article and the abstract for the paper. So the proteobacteria has the 2 protein parts and the LivH molecule. Which is to say there are genes in the proteobacteria which codes for the proteins. So a "simple mutation" in the genes would transform the parts into a simple transport machine. So this one mutation would build a protein complex that consists of the 2 proteins and the LivH molecule which then can be used to transport energy? Has this simple mutation been performed by the researchers of the paper in the lab, or is it still too difficult to do at this point?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Has this simple mutation been performed by the researchers of the paper in the lab, or is it still too difficult to do at this point?"

    The latter. The hypothesis that the evolutionists propose here is a bit speculative, but they do provide reasonable arguments for it. Also, I do not think a single mutation would do the job, even if the hypothesis is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Cornelius,

    I have built out a social network. I wonder if you might be interested in having your Blog posts RSS fed over to the site?

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps Dan. Please send a message to the Disc Inst.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Samuel Skinner

    "for their own purposes or perhaps for no purpose at all."

    Er, no. That would violate evolutionary theory. Completely useless parts would be selected against because they consume energy that could be better used for surviving. It is a little more complicated (small changes can creep in under the founder effect), but in general parasites show what happens to useless features over time- the atrophy.

    "Then, serendipitously, the different machines just happen to fit together and perform a new function."

    You have obviously never played with legos.

    "the evolutionary preadaptation mechanism envisions an untold multitude of just-so stories to explain nature's incredible complexity."

    How is it a just so story? We can point out the exact points that mutations occured for the change to happen!

    "and then happened to come together and, presto, a magnificent machine appeared."

    " Parts arise on their own, ready for the right time and place to work their magic. "

    Argument from incredulity is not a proper argument.

    Lets look at this a different way. In Crete they dug up evidence that indicates a printing press during the time of the Minoan culture. Yet it never took off. Why is that? Because they didn't have other things- like a simpler alphabet, better metal working, a literate populance- that would have enable a spread.

    Changes in the cell work the same way. They come into existance all the time. Most of them do nothing. It only looks like they are happening at the same time because we only look at the times they occur together.

    "For instance, while polypeptides do fold up to form useful proteins, this is not true for the vast majority of polypeptides."

    Don't leave him hanging. Some proteins need help folding, some need help being put in their proper position, some need help being assembled into a final form, etc. And this is done by... other proteins.

    What? You thought biologists were kidding when they complain about how complex life is?

    "It would just push the question onto the origin of the law."

    Biology =/ physics.

    " One way or another the evolutionist must reckon with complexity."

    Not really- all biologists care about is life.

    "I think that many folks do not understand the ontological argument pertaining to Law. I think a very basic problem is that we call these "Laws" "Natural Laws". "

    Blame the deists. Anyway the reason they are called natural laws is because they are laws of nature.

    As for ontological basis, why do they need any? When given a problem where we don't sufficient evidence, we admit ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Samuel:

    ---
    "Then, serendipitously, the different machines just happen to fit together and perform a new function."

    You have obviously never played with legos.
    ---

    True, I haven't, but I do understand the concept. What evolutionists so often fail to grasp is, ironically, evolution. Evolution is not comparable to legos because legos were designed for compatibility. They use standard fittings. Such teleology is not allowed in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Evolution is not comparable to legos because legos were designed for compatibility. They use standard fittings. Such teleology is not allowed in evolution."

    Animo acids are not standard fittings? Are they not shared between all proteins?

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is so illogical about a "progressive" fossil record supporting evolution. The trends of change throughout the fossil record are great evidence for evolution. That being said, it doesn't prove anything, but it does support the overall theory. Most individual evidences for evolution are weak; however there is an abundance of this evidence, and thats what makes the theory so strong.

    It is important to understand that evolution is a fact--we know it occurs. Where the gap in knowledge exists is in the mechanics of how evolution works.

    The rabbit in the cambrian was originally suggested as a way to disprove evolution (i.e. if a rabbit fossil was found in the cambrian strata evolution would be false). I think you are taking the example out of context.

    -Austin

    ReplyDelete
  12. "It is important to understand that evolution is a fact--we know it occurs."

    No, that is false.

    ReplyDelete
  13. While I find Dr. Hunter's positions on evolution (both the observed fact and the modern theory) unconvincing, he does deserve credit for being willing to allow discussion in this forum. The other responses to this paper, by Michael Behe and Casey Luskin, on Uncommon Descent and Evolution News and Views, have commenting disabled.

    Rather hypocritical for people complaining about being "expelled" from the scientific discourse. Kudos to you, Dr. Hunter (although you're still wrong).

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Kudos to you, Dr. Hunter (although you're still wrong)."

    Thanks, however, I think your assertion would be difficult to defend. There is a real problem there.

    ReplyDelete