Godspell Follies

Refuting the illogic of "intelligent design" and creationism. An illustrated guide to fallacies of logic.

Reducible complexity

The contribution of intelligent design advocate, biochemist Michael Behe consists solely of the scientifically refuted notion that a multicomponent functional system cannot have arisen by "Darwinian" evolution. In essence, Behe argues that because removal of any component will render the system non-functional, such a system could not be produced by continuously improving the initial function (which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system (p.39 of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution). Behe targetted several complex systems as purportedly providing support for this flawed proposal: evolution of the eye, clotting cascades and complement system, and the bacterial flagellum.

There are major problems with Michael Behe's contrived challenge of 'irreducible complexity'.
First, the implicit assumption that the components of currently functional system have 'always and only' performed the function that they currently display. The most obvious illustration of this flaw lies in an examination of Behe's for-the-scientifically-ignorant analogy of a spring-based mouse trap. All the components of a spring-based mouse trap can be found, in modified forms, functioning in a variety of settings. It is only the assemblage of these modified forms within a mouse trap that renders each a necessary component of the trap's function. (Intelligent design devotees seem incapable of grasping the point that analogies are useful in explanatory descriptions, but that fallacious arguments from analogy are rapidly invalidated as arguments aimed at attacking scientific facts.) Second, research in medical genetics has uncovered mechanisms that explain 'reducible' complexity. Third, research has demonstrated that assembly of pre-existing modifications operate in subsequently evolved features.

1.
Inherited epigenetic variation--revisiting soft inheritance..
Phenotypic variation is traditionally parsed into components that are directed by genetic and environmental variation. The line between these two components is blurred by inherited epigenetic variation, which is potentially sensitive to environmental inputs. Chromatin and DNA methylation-based mechanisms mediate a semi-independent epigenetic inheritance system at the interface between genetic control and the environment. Should the existence of inherited epigenetic variation alter our thinking about evolutionary change?
Richards EJ. Inherited epigenetic variation--revisiting soft inheritance. Nat Rev Genet. 2006 May;7(5):395-401.


Insights into the spliceosome suggest new explanations for generating biological complexity. modified, hyperlinks inserted:
While politicians debate whether evolution occurs, scientists are busy debating how it occurs. . . .there are more ways than previously thought to achieve the impressive complexity characteristic of humans. Many organisms — including humans — evolve in part by using a complex mechanism by which strands of RNA are spliced together in a two-step process, and delicate balancing of the way this process is executed can generate an enormous number of new gene products, providing a vast reservoir of material for selection during evolution. . . between the “important” coding sections of RNA lie non-coding patches — introns — and as RNA is made it’s the job of a cellular machine called the spliceosome to chop the introns out and splice the rest of the coding sections back together. . . the two steps in this process require the spliceosome to change its shape, flipping back and forth between two distinct conformations. . . Changes in the balance between these two states — referred to as equilibrium — will cause the spliceosome to dwell longer in one conformation at the cost of the other, improving one of the two steps of splicing, to the detriment of the other step. Mutations either in spliceosomal components or in the intron RNA strands can change how the RNA and the spliceosome interact with one another and thus affect the equilibrium. . . there are an abundance of mutated intron splice sites in human DNA, also called alternative splice sites. . . when the equilibrium of the spliceosome is changed — either because the mutated splice sites interact with it differently or because other accessory molecules bind to the spliceosome — they can be recognized and spliced. The utilization of alternative splice sites allows for different combinations of coding RNA sequences to be put together, so that one RNA transcript can make a variety of different products, each with a potentially different function. This explains why, when the human genome was first sequenced, relatively few genes were found. . . This has allowed our genome to develop in complexity.”
Molecular Cell 21(4): 543-553 (February 17, 2006)

2.
Lenski et al have demonstrated that complex features can evolve by expanding earlier, simpler functions, and that an intermediate stage is not necessary for this evolution. Thus, they have demonstrated how to reconstruct a complete evolutionary history of a complex genetically encoded function. Their computations vindicate Darwin's idea that the target of natural selection constantly changes, and that the complex feature of today may share very little with the original function. Darwin wrote, "if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct."

The work of Lenski et al and the experiments of Bridgham et al (below) demonstrate that Behe's contrived challenge to Darwinian evolution, namely "irreducible complexity", is not a valid criticism of the mechanisms of evolution. The two groups have demonstrated that complex systems can evolve and lend disproof to the claim that complex systems must have been designed.

The evolutionary origin of complex features.
A long-standing challenge to evolutionary theory has been whether it can explain the origin of complex organismal features. We examined this issue using digital organisms--computer programs that self-replicate, mutate, compete and evolve. Populations of digital organisms often evolved the ability to perform complex logic functions requiring the coordinated execution of many genomic instructions. Complex functions evolved by building on simpler functions that had evolved earlier, provided that these were also selectively favoured. However, no particular intermediate stage was essential for evolving complex functions. The first genotypes able to perform complex functions differed from their non-performing parents by only one or two mutations, but differed from the ancestor by many mutations that were also crucial to the new functions. In some cases, mutations that were deleterious when they appeared served as stepping-stones in the evolution of complex features. These findings show how complex functions can originate by random mutation and natural selection.
Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C. The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature. 2003 May 8;423(6936):139-44.


Lock before Key: Entrez PubMed: "According to Darwinian theory, complexity evolves by a stepwise process of elaboration and optimization under natural selection. Biological systems composed of tightly integrated parts seem to challenge this view, because it is not obvious how any element's function can be selected for unless the partners with which it interacts are already present. Here we demonstrate how an integrated molecular system-the specific functional interaction between the steroid hormone aldosterone and its partner the mineralocorticoid receptor-evolved by a stepwise Darwinian process. Using ancestral gene resurrection, we show that, long before the hormone evolved, the receptor's affinity for aldosterone was present as a structural by-product of its partnership with chemically similar, more ancient ligands. Introducing two amino acid changes into the ancestral sequence recapitulates the evolution of present-day receptor specificity. Our results indicate that tight interactions can evolve by molecular exploitation-recruitment of an older molecule, previously constrained for a different role, into a new functional complex."

Bridgham JT, Carroll SM, Thornton JW. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science. 2006 Apr 7;312(5770):97-101.
Comment in: Science. 2006 Apr 7;312(5770):61-3.


Index Refuting ID

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Scientists comments on "ID"

Happily scientists continue to conduct research related to biological evolution and are little distracted by the anti-science and pseudoscientific flights of fallacy of creationist (including idist) arguments. A search for biological evolution on Entrez PubMed yielded 110473 hits as of 8/15/06.

Creationism and intelligent design. modified:
Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.
Pennock RT. Creationism and intelligent design. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003;4:143-63.

FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design, creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs. [FASEB J. 2006] PMID: 16507756
Was Darwin a creationist? [Perspect Biol Med. 2005] PMID: 16085993
Perspective: evolution's struggle for existence in America's public schools. [Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2001] PMID: 11831654
Why we think it is important to discuss intelligent design. [J Clin Invest. 2006] PMID: 16670752
See all Related Articles...

Don't be stupid about intelligent design.
President George W. Bush and Senate majority leader Bill Frist have recently publicly advocated teaching intelligent design in science classes. Their endorsement of a discredited, nonscientific view could signal a huge step backward for scientific education. It is time for educated, motivated scientists to get involved and to educate others.
Neill US. Don't be stupid about intelligent design. (Free Full Text) J Clin Invest. 2005 Oct;115(10):2586.

Scientists attack Bush over intelligent design. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16094330
Keeping religion out of science class. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16094323
Science agencies get fresh paymasters in Republican revamp. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 15758963
Science and public policy. [Acad Med. 1989] PMID: 2712998
Creationism and evolution: it's the American way. [Cell. 2006] PMID: 16469687
See all Related Articles...

Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action.
We review here the current political landscape and our own efforts to address the attempts to undermine science education in Wisconsin. To mount an effective response, expertise in evolutionary biology and in the history of the public controversy is useful but not essential. However, entering the fray requires a minimal tool kit of information. Here, we summarize some of the scientific and legal history of this issue and list a series of actions that scientists can take to help facilitate good science education and an improved atmosphere for the scientific enterprise nationally. Finally, we provide some model legislation that has been introduced in Wisconsin to strengthen the teaching of science.
Attie AD, Sober E, Numbers RL, Amasino RM, Cox B, Berceau T, Powell T, Cox MM.
Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action. (Free Full Text Article) J Clin Invest. 2006 May;116(5):1134-8.

Expert witness: the scientists who testified against intelligent design. Interview by Geoff Brumfiel. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16267520
School board in court over bid to teach intelligent design. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16193010
Why we think it is important to discuss intelligent design. [J Clin Invest. 2006] PMID: 16670752
Misuses of biology in the context of the paranormal. [Experientia. 1988] PMID: 3282905
Day of judgement for intelligent design. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16292271
See all Related Articles...

The intelligent design of evolution.
Yoshikuni et al (2006) investigated whether catalytic functionality could be rationally engineered into a protein, without recourse to the high-throughput screening techniques necessary for directed evolution. . . they assumed that the mutations were additive—that the effect on selectivity of combining two mutations could be predicted by adding the effect of each mutation done singly. With this assumption, it was straightforward to predict combinations of single mutations identified as controlling selectivity without decreasing the total productivity.

The striking result of this design is that the simple additivity assumption was validated—the authors obtained several triple to quintuple mutants with nearly perfect selectivities for the product they targeted. Apparently, intelligent design does not need irreducible complexity after all. The success of this exercise is particularly relevant to the field of molecular evolution, where the degree to which mutations are nonadditive has been debated at length. Some believe that recent work in developing protein mutant libraries supports the hypothesis that nonadditivity is the rule rather than the exception, and occurs much more often than believed previously (Zaccolo and Gherardi, 1999). Others have put forth both theoretical and experimental evidence suggesting that, though frequent nonadditivity of mutations is still a possibility in these contexts, its existence is not yet supported well (Drummond et al, 2005).
Styczynski MP, Fischer CR, Stephanopoulos GN.
The intelligent design of evolution. (Free Full Text News and Views) Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2:2006.0020. Epub 2006 May 2.
Molecular Systems Biology 2 doi:10.1038/msb4100065Published online: 2 May 2006 Article number: 2006.0020

Directed evolution of enzymes and pathways for industrial biocatalysis. [Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2002] PMID: 11950559
Directed evolution of (betaalpha)(8)-barrel enzymes. [Biomol Eng. 2005] PMID: 15857781
Discovery of superior enzymes by directed molecular evolution. [Chembiochem. 2001] PMID: 11948874
Optimising enzyme function by directed evolution. [Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2003] PMID: 12948780
Novel methods for directed evolution of enzymes: quality, not quantity. [Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2004] PMID: 15296927
See all Related Articles...


Index Refuting ID

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

index

Index to Posts:

God by Any Name
¿ God by Any Other Name is still God
¿ Refusal vs Refutation
¿ Illogical Deceit Theory
¿ Logic & Science
¿ Biological evolution
¿ Creationism vs Evolution
¿ Recapitulating recapitulation
¿ Reducible complexity
¿ Radio Daze

Fallacies of Logic
¿ Fallacies of Logic
¿ over-extrapolating
¿ ad hominem
¿ ad nauseam
¿ association fallacies
¿ authority
¿ composing problems
¿ denial
¿ deliberate ambiguities
¿ fallatio
¿ Godwin's Law
¿ incredulity
¿ irrelevance
¿ proof-disproof muddles
¿ red herrings
¿ shifting the burden of proof
¿ huff & puff

key elements of fallacy:
A : accident : ad nauseam : appeal to authority : association : attack : authority
C : co-incidence : composition
D : denial : disbelief : distraction : doublespeak
E : equivocation
F : fallacy of four terms : false dichotomy : generalization : guilt by association :
G : Godwin's Law and association fallacies
H : honor by association : huff & puff
I : incredulity : ignorance - ignorantium : individuals to group : inappropriate authority : irrelevant authority
M : members to whole : misuse of authority : parts to whole : personal attack : proof-disproof : prove it!
Q : questionable authority
R : red herring
S : smoke screen : straw man
T : to the man
O : over-extrapolating, over-generalization
W : wild goose chase
Y: you also, you're another, you too :

common names of fallacy:
A : ad nauseam : "against" the man : appeal to authority : argument from ignorance : argument from incredulity : association fallacy :
C : composition
D : denial : disbelief : doublespeak
E : equivocation
F : fallacy of four terms : fallacious appeal to authority : fallacy of accident
G : Godwin's Law and association fallacies
I : inappropriate authority : incredulity : irrelevant authority
M : misuse of authority
Q : questionable authority
R : red herring
S : smoke screen : straw man : sweeping generalization
T : to the man
W : wild goose chase
Y : you also, you're another, you too

Latin names for fallacy:
Ad: ad hominem : ad nauseam : ad verecundiam : ad verecundiam fallacy
Argumentum : argumentum ad ignorantiam : argumentum ad verecundiam : argumentum ad nazium
Dicto : dicto simplicter
R : reductio ad Hitlerum
Tu : tu quoque
V : verecundiam :

Court, Articles, News
¿ Godwin's Law and Desperate Attacks on Darwinism
¿ The Wedge Document
¿ Keeping up with the Jones decision
¿ On the teaching of Pseudoscience
¿ Contradictions within idism
¿ Scripture vs Scholarship
¿ Answers to Creationist Nonsense
¿ Creationist and ID confusion about Entropy
¿ Ignorance in Kansas
¿ Ignorance in the White House
¿ Scientists comments on "ID"

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Google
WWW Godspell Follies
. . . since 10/06/06
Google