Having taken some time to ruminate on our discussion over the past week I offer the following comments. Steve challenged me in a not so friendly way, but helpful nonetheless in steering me in a direction that would help me navigate thru some of the issues. I appreciated it and was even honored that he responded with some constructive input. The central point that I was trying to reconcile in my head regarded the central tenet of Systems Engineering (SE) that states that in a large and complex “system of systems” change(s) must be coordinated for the obvious reason that the subsystems are functionally integrated and depend on each other if the larger “system-of-systems” is to perform its function(s). I offered the fact that the International Council on Systems Engineering (INCOSE) now has a Complex Systems Working Group formed to enhance the ability of the systems engineering community to deal with complexity. The wording in their Mission and Objectives statement says the following which I believe can rightfully be applied to the cell:
“The Complex Systems Working Group focuses on the challenges and opportunities presented by systems with large numbers of components, with even greater numbers of interactions distributed in scope across multiple scales and/or across large areas. Systems of interest are characterized by rich interdependence among diverse components, non-linearity, open systems boundaries, networks of causality and influence (vice linear causal chains), emergence, varied and changing system goals, self-organization, and multi-level adaptation. These traits limit the utility of traditional systems engineering paradigms, which are generally centralized, goal oriented, requirements driven, and reductionist in approach. These traits, however, are increasingly the norm and not the exception. The Complex Systems Working Group collaborates with the Systems Sciences Working Group to define the scientific basis of these characteristics.
Further, complexity is a characteristic of more than just a technical system being developed. The socio-technical ecosystem in which a system under development will be employed exhibits these attributes, as does the environment that gave rise to the challenge or opportunity to which the system was developed in response. Further, the design and development of technical systems is a complex endeavor itself. It is critical for systems engineers to understand the nature of the systems with which they are working, and of which they are a part, to be effective.” (Complex Systems)
Sorry for the long quote, but the sentence “Systems of interest are characterized by rich interdependence among diverse components, non-linearity, open systems boundaries, networks of causality and influence (vice linear causal chains), emergence, varied and changing system goals, self-organization, and multi-level adaptation.” is not far from a summary description of the complexity of the cell.
My statement that the inherent interdependence of the subsystems in a cell makes random change of one part of a subsystem destructive to the cell unless accompanied by specific changes to all the other subsystems that are dependent on that one subsystem. How can a cell continue to function properly if the component subsystems no longer function as a coordinated “system-of-systems?” By the way, this is not a strawman. The cell absolutely is a complex “system-of-systems” that must obey the laws of nature.
Steven responded by saying “We know this to be false, because we know a fair amount about various sources of robustness in molecular biology (and at other levels).” He insists that because research has proven that cells have remarkable levels of robustness, flexibility, and redundancy, mutational (random) changes to any one subsystem can be accommodated to ensure the cell remains viable when faced with random mutational changes. His point was well taken. The research has indeed shown it to be so.
As I pondered his points, I wondered that given the large number of proteins in a cell, has the research community investigated all the proteins to ensure they all have these levels of robustness, flexibility, and redundancy? If not, then Steve, et al., are extrapolating the results from investigation of a few proteins to all. Is that legitimate? That implies that failure modes for all the proteins have been identified, analyzed, and engineered (by nature of course) so that they now have the requisite robustness, flexibility, and redundancy to accommodate a large number of changes that might occur. There are several problems with making such an extrapolation. Firstly, do we even know all the proteins in the cell along with their individual and coordinated function(s), failure modes and thresholds, and the solutions they employ to provide the requisite levels of robustness, flexibility and redundancy? (It should be noted that the number of failure modes is more than one might imagine. For each protein failure mode, all 999 (in my hypothetical example) remaining proteins must be able to adapt to that failure mode either directly or indirectly. Each must have solution that gives that subsystem increased robustness, flexibility and redundancy.) You can better answer that than I can. I’m guessing that the research community has a long way to go before that is true.
Considering these facts, is it appropriate to do the extrapolation advocates of evolution appear to be doing? If not, then doesn’t this challenge the conclusion that evolution accounts for the cell’s viability? One of the tenets of the ID movement is that of design inference. Looking at the complexity of the cell, and even more the complexity associated with the built-in robustness, flexibility and redundancy, I think that inferring design has merit. Comparing design to evolution, which do you think has the strongest abductive reasoning behind it? What’s even more challenging to believe is how certain molecular machines are produced. They are reproduced every time a cell divides so I wonder if we have a description of how, for instance, the ATP Synthase Enzyme protein machine is assembled. Some of my questions would be to identify: parts that are needed, where they come from, how they get to the assembly site, how the parts are assembled, the tools (proteins) required to do the assembly, the sequence of steps in the assembly work flow (where’s the command and control function is hosted, what communications mechanism is employed, etc), how each tool navigates to the proper position to do its job, WHAT initiates its function, what stops it, where it goes when it stops, etc. Do we know how that works? If not, how can you be sure it’s the result of random mutations and natural selection? Design seems like an attractive alternative to evolution.
Thoughts?