Where Did the Cell Come From?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Argon

The definitions of IC have undergone a number of revisions over time. Originally, it was defined as interacting parts, the removal or damage of any component leading to a loss or serve impairment of function. Mike Behe proposed that such systems were unevolvable, however the positive evidence for being unevolvable is difficult to assess and remains disputed. To assess the claim either way requires sufficient data about ancestral states which typically are collected from a deep search of related organisms with and without the system in question. As one might expect, the necessary data tends to be erased over time with older systems being harder to assess.

I’ve also noticed that the IC argument has shifted from a more general argument to only applying to molecular systems. This is probably in response to the observation of irreducibly complex systems in gross anatomy evolving over time in the fossil record, the mammalian middle ear being a perfect example.

Behe will also claim that it’s just difficult for IC systems to evolve, not impossible. That only leads us to the conclusion that they are just difficult to evolve. That’s a big nothing burger.

@Argon

Later, Behe revised the form to an IC system that had to go through numerous unselected steps to emerge (IC Mark-II). Unfortunately, this mixed the operational characteristics of a system with a mechanism of evolution, making the argument a form of ‘begging the question’, i.e. An IC Mark-II system being one which is mechanistically IC and could only arise through an improbable pathway. Later versions seem to further embed the assumption of unevolvability into the definition.

The interaction of neutral evolution and epistasis has been understood for quite some time. We would absolutely expect systems to evolve through unselected steps, and for interaction between those unselected steps to be a source of contingency that opens up new evolutionary pathways. It’s as if neutral evolution or even constructive neutral evolution is something the ID/creationist movement is unaware of. We could probably throw in neofunctionalization in there as well.

Neofunctionalization

@Argon

Today, it’s hard to know which IC version is refered to without explicitly describing the criteria. Among ID discussions, I’ve seen these incorrectly used interchangeably, and even with making IC synonymous with ‘unevolvable’. Note that the latter assertion is not commonly accepted by scientists familiar with the work – at least not for IC version 1.

The version we see used today on forums like these is “I read on a creationist website that IC systems can’t evolve, so take that evolutionists!!”.

Added in edit:

If anyone is curious about epistasis and evolution here are two recent(ish) papers:

Epistasis and evolution: recent advances and an outlook for prediction - BMC...

Epistasis Increases the Rate of Conditionally Neutral Substitution in an...

[Argon]

Yep, proving a negative can actually be very hard.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

@RichardG

If IC exists, Evolution fails, it iis as simple as that.

Why? Because you say so?

No, because it means that it cannot be made up piecemeal, or in small steps, so unless you are changing the parameters of evolution…

@T_aquaticus

I also stated that IC systems do exist. Did you miss that part?

Obviously you do not understand the significance of that.

Fair enough.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

No, because it means that it cannot be made uo piecemeal, or in small steps, so uness you are changing the parameters of evolution…

Why? Because you say so?

@RichardG

Obviously you do not understand the significance of that.

You haven’t shown how it is significant, other than “because I say so”.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

You haven’t shown how it is significant, other than “because I say so”

I shoud not have to

Wiki
Irreducible complexity (IC ) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems
Irreducibe Complexity

Try again

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

I shoud not have to

Wiki
Irreducible complexity (IC ) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems
Irreducibe Complexity

Try again

You do have to.

All your link says is that people argue IC systems can’t evolve. People also argue that the Earth is flat. The existence of an argument does not make it true.

If you want to convince us that IC systems can’t evolve we need more than “because I say so”.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

You do have to.

Brilliant.

I did not write the article in Wiki. Nor did I coin the prhrase.

The fact is that my statement is true, as the accepted understanding of IC and you refuse to accept it.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

The fact is that my statement is true, as the accepted understanding of IC and you refuse to accept it.

We all accept that some people claim IC systems can’t evolve. What we are saying is that we don’t believe them, and that they have no evidence to back their claim. All you have offered is “because I say so”. What is so hard to understand here?

[Argon]

Again, it’s not that IC systems exist (version 1). It’s what their existences imply and the strength of the case made about evolvability.

Oddly, the Wikipedia article (actual link here), discusses the responses from the scientific community which follows much of what you’ve said, . Richard, it looks like you’ve gotten the definition correct and assume the argument is valid. But the demonstration that IC systems are unevolvable cannot be taken as a given.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

We all accept that some people claim IC systems can’t evolve.

No evolutioist in their right minds would admit that they exist.

@T_aquaticus

I also stated that IC systems do exist

Get out of that one Houdini.

@T_aquaticus

We all accept that some people claim IC systems can’t evolve. What we are saying is that we don’t believe them, and that they have no evidence to back their claim.

So you are denying the definition of IC.

And you are claiming that anyting can be made up in small changes and still function throughout, not only function but compete to satisfy natural Selection.

Richard

[Argon]

Sorry Richard, I believe you’re missing the point almost entirely here. Perhaps take a day off to re-read and reflect deeper? Then come back to it. I know your past history with @t_Aquaticus can be triggering for you.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Argon

Sorry Richard, I believe you’re missing the point almost entirely here.

I think not. I have been arguing this for most of my life even before IC was coined. Unfortunately it was coined by Creationists so is considered invalid science. Whether you use that terminology or any other my fina statement is correct. This is the stance of evolutionists

@RichardG

anyting can be made up in small changes and still function throughout, not only function but compete to satisfy natural Selection.

It always has been. It always will be, beause if things cannot be built up step by step they will have to reinvnet or at least supplement ToE.

I get tired of being told I do not undrstand, just because i dare to challenge.

I have given the Wiki reference. I can do no more.

Richard

[EastwoodDC (Dan Eastwood)]

Late to this party, but I find that people who cannot imagine how something came be have not applied much imagination. The cell as a whole and in all its variety is vastly complex, but the parts are always simpler than the whole. Stone arch bridges are Irreducibly Complex, but we know how to build them. Sometimes a simple thing is made complex when a part is taken away.

[rsewell (All Truth is God's Truth)]

@RichardG

Irreducible complexity (IC ) is the argument that certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, so supposedly could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems
Irreducibe Complexity

You might note the word “supposedly”.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@EastwoodDC

Stone arch bridges are Irreducibly Complex, but we know how to build them.

Bridges do not have to compete in Natural Selection. This is the element no one wants to confront. You not only have to build it, but it has to live and survive and comete during the process. Furthermore, building implies direction and a goal. There has to be a reason for each separate part before as well as in the finished item. Each stage must be self contained, vaible and competetive. It is easy to dismiss IC. I have yet to see anyone effectively
confront or answer it.

@rsewell

You might note the word “supposedly”

Of course, dismiss it as fallacy. You do not have to confront it. Attack the proposer, ridicule the precept, anything except address it.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

No evolutioist in their right minds would admit that they exist.

Irreducibly Complex systems exist. There are people who claim they can’t evolve.

@RichardG

So you are denying the definition of IC.

I am denying the claim that IC systems can’t evolve. That’s not a definition. That’s a claim.

@RichardG

And you are claiming that anyting can be made up in small changes and still function throughout, not only function but compete to satisfy natural Selection.

No. I am saying I have never seen any compelling evidence that IC systems can’t evolve.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

No. I am saying I have never seen any compelling evidence that IC systems can’t evolve.

What proof would suffice?

You cannot even demonstrate that a mammal evolved from anything other than a mammal.

Richard

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

I think not. I have been arguing this for most of my life even before IC was coined.

YECs claim that the presence of sedimentary layers across the globe demonstrates that there was a recent global flood. If you disagree with YEC, do you also have to deny that sedimentary layers are present across the globe?

Flat Earthers claim that if the Earth were round and rotated once every 24 hours that it would hurl people off the face of the Earth due to centripetal forces. Do you deny that the Earth rotates about its axis because you believe in a round Earth? It sure seems that you would have to be out of your right mind to admit that the Earth rotates about its axis.

@RichardG

It always has been. It always will be, beause if things cannot be built up step by step they will have to reinvnet or at least supplement ToE.

No one has shown that IC systems can not evolve step by step.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@RichardG

What proof would suffice?

What evidence convinced you?

@RichardG

You cannot even demonstrate that a mammal evolved from anything other than a mammal.

I can not demonstrate anything to you because you refuse to accept any evidence.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

No one has shown that IC systems can not evolve step by step.

No one has shown that a bird evollved from a dinosausr. No one has seen it. No one can demonstrate it. Yet you are 100% certain that it happened.

I wonder why you refuse to beleive that anthing cannot be made piece by piece, step by step?

Richard